Child Poverty in
Britain
Headline findings from NatCen’s
latest research
Authors: Matt Barnes (matt.barnes@natcen.ac.uk) and Hannah Silvester (hannah.silvester@natcen.ac.uk)
Last update: May 2013
Executive summary
There are over 3.5 million children living in
income poverty in the UK today, a figure that
indicates how much work remains to be done
to meet the target of eradicating child poverty
enshrined in The Child Poverty Act 2010.
In order to develop policies to tackle child
poverty, government needs to understand
the causes and consequences of living in a
low-income household. This paper, which
summarises NatCen’s recent research into
child poverty, examines the characteristics of
child poverty; how people perceive child
poverty; how growing up in poverty affects
children; and some of the underlying causes
of child poverty.
Our research underlines the general
agreement that worklessness is the main
driver of child poverty; highlights how the
availability of suitable early-years education
and childcare is one of the key factors that
enables families to secure and sustain work;
and reveals the ways in which poverty is
multi-dimensional, and not simply restricted
to living on low income.
Characteristics of poverty
In conjunction with Demos, NatCen created a
model by which poverty can be understood in
a multi-dimensional way. A set of 20
indicators were applied to those with incomes
below 70 per cent of the median in
Understanding Society: The UK Household
Longitudinal Survey.
What are peoples’ perceptions of
poverty?
Over the past three decades, views and
expectations for levels of poverty have
become more negative in periods of
recession, with the view that poverty results
from societal, rather than individual factors,
increasing in these circumstances.
People have a low general awareness and
knowledge of relative poverty for children,
according to the British Social Attitudes
(BSA) survey conducted in 2010. This was
also found in BSA 2007.
People disagreed about the extent of child
poverty. While six in ten (58 per cent) people
thought there was quite a lot of child poverty
in Britain today, just under four in ten (39 per
cent) thought there was very little. This has
changed from 53 per cent and 41 per cent
respectively in 2007.
Approximately one in five children are in
poverty, according to the official measure:
living in households whose income is less
than 60 per cent of the median national
income. But NatCen’s longitudinal research
of the Families and Children Study (FACS)
shows that more children experience poverty
over a longer period than standard point-intime estimates may suggest.
Figure 1. Families’ longitudinal poverty
status (2001-2004)
12%
Fifteen different cohorts of poverty were
described as a result, five of which contained
families with children. Single parents –usually
young mothers -without work were found to
be most deprived. Sustainable employment
and appropriate childcare are needed by this
group to improve the outcomes their children
are likely to experience should they become
persistently poor.
ScotCen, using data from the Scottish
Household Survey, also used a range of
indicators (including worklessness and
overcrowding) to establish that 24,000
families across Scotland are experiencing
severe, multiple disadvantage (whereby they
had 4 or more of the seven indicators).
Child poverty in Britain
Persistently
poor
26%
Temporarily
poor
Not
poor
62%
Base: Families with children (excludes self-employed)
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
Although our FACS research suggests that
children move in and out of poverty over
time, it also reveals that there is a group of
children who are persistently poor year on
year. In fact, looking over a four-year period,
12 per cent of children were persistently poor
(that is poor for three or four years), while 38
1
per cent experienced poverty at least once
(Figure 1).
Some beliefs about child poverty are not
reflected in the research evidence. The three
most frequently cited causes of child poverty
were parental alcohol/drug addiction, parents
not wanting to work and family breakdown.
But in fact very few parents are dependent
on alcohol or drugs and family breakdown by
itself does not directly cause child poverty.
However, high levels of worklessness among
lone parents do increase the risk of poverty
for children in lone-parent families.
What is it like for children living in
poverty?
NatCen’s research has shown how growing
up in poverty is a risk factor for a wide range
of other negative outcomes, and can exclude
children living in low-income families from
normal, active participation in society.
In families where parents experience
worklessness, children have poorer
academic attainment at GCSE and
developmental problems at primary school
level. Children from workless households are
also more likely to become NEET (Not in
Education, Employment or Training) when
they leave school.
However, NatCen’s ‘Intergenerational
transmission of worklessness’ suggests that
a positive primary school experience reduces
or removes the associations of parental
worklessness. This ‘protective’ experience
could begin earlier but unfortunately, the
children of lone parents are far less likely to
receive early years education –as are
children in large and/ or lower-income
families.
Being in income poverty is highly associated
with families experiencing: parental
separation; moving house often; joblessness
and; the onset of maternal health problems.
Significant changes, such as these, can have
an impact of the outcomes of children.
Multiple disadvantage among young adults
and late teens was explored in NatCen’s
Understanding Vulnerable Young People.
Forty-five per cent of young people were
found to be experiencing at least one of six
forms of disadvantage: ranging from poor
education attainment to criminal activity.
Child poverty in Britain
Persistently poor children are more likely
than temporarily poor children to face other
disadvantages – including living in bad
housing; having been in trouble with the
police; and having been expelled or
suspended from school (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Selected outcomes for children
by their longitudinal poverty status
% who spent less than an
hour on physical activity in
the last week (5-16 year
olds)
Not poor
7
Temporarily poor
8
12
Persistently poor
12
13
14
% who have been offered
illegal drugs (11-15 year
olds)
3
% who were expelled or
suspended from secondary
school (11-15 year olds)
6
13
1
% who have been in trouble
with the police (8-18 year
olds)
3
5
14
% living in overcrowded or
poor quality housing
33
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent
Base: Children in Britain (excludes those in selfemployed families)
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
NatCen’s research on persistently poor
children in Scotland, which focuses on young
children, found that persistently poor children
disproportionately had development and
language problems, as well as social,
emotional and behavioural difficulties (Figure
3).
Figure 3. Selected outcomes for children
by their longitudinal poverty status
Not poor
% overweight
Temporary
Persistently
poor
poor
19
20
23
12
16
21
9
13
17
7
12
23
13
19
28
% with language development
concerns
% with general development
concerns
% with social, emotional, behavioural
difficulties
% with multiple problems
Base: 3-4 year old children in Scotland
Source: Growing Up in Scotland (GUS)
However, one interesting aspect of the
Scottish research was that poverty was not
associated with these outcomes when other
factors were taken into account. This
suggests that, for young children at least, it
may not be low income per se that drives
other disadvantages, but a range of other
2
factors, such as family size and a mother’s
health and educational background.
These findings add further weight to the
proposition that poverty is multi-dimensional
– it involves more than just living on low
income. NatCen explored this issue in more
detail by looking at families with multiple
disadvantages – including income poverty.
This study revealed that multiple
disadvantage can be transmitted from one
generation to the next, as children from
multiply-disadvantaged families were also
likely to have several problems themselves
(Figure 4).
Figure 4. Relationship between number of
parent- and child-based disadvantages
100%
example, our research shows that not all
working families avoid persistent poverty,
particularly couple families where just one
parent is in work.
Worklessness among lone parents is
particularly common, with around two in five
not in work, and consequently rates of
poverty for children in lone-parent families
are high. Moving into work can make a
dramatic difference in these circumstances.
NatCen’s research on work transitions
showed how three-quarters of lone-parent
families escaped poverty two years after
finding work (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Changes in lone parents’
poverty rates following a move into work
90%
100
70%
Number of child
disadvantages
60%
3 or more
2
50%
1
40%
0
30%
20%
10%
Per cent who escaped income poverty
80%
90
80
70
77
73
Moved into work and stayed in work
60
50
All lone-parent families
40
30
38
31
25
29
Out of work in both years
20
10
0%
0
1
2
3-5
6 or more
Number of parent/family disadvantages
Base: Secondary school children
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
Unfit
accommodation
Inadequately
heated
accommodation
10
6
None
Short term (1-2 years)
Overcrowded
accommodation
Number of previous five years (2001-05)
child has lived in…
Figure 5. Selected outcomes for children
by duration of living in bad housing
Persistent (3-5 years)
Short term (1-2 years)
Child does not have a quiet place
at home to do homework1
2
Persistent (3-5 years)
25
19
None
Child has a long-standing
illness or disability2
15
Persistent (3-5 years)
5
None
2
0
Not in poverty two
years later
Poverty dynamics
Income-poor children were particularly likely
to live in housing in a poor state of repair,
and the evidence suggests that these
children were also likely to have a longstanding health problem, disability or
infirmity; to be bullied; worry about being
robbed or mugged; and to feel unhappy
about their family (Figure 5).
Short term (1-2 years)
0
Initial circumstances: Not in poverty one year
All families out of work
later
and in poverty
12 Child has four or more of ten disadvantages,
including a long-standing illness or disability, no
regular exercise, bullied in or out of school, not
seeing friends and being below average in key
academic subjects3
Base: Lone parents initially out of work and in poverty
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
How workless parents make the transition
into work is clearly of vital importance.
Longitudinal research by NatCen found little
evidence of transitional ‘mini jobs’ (1-15
hours per week) helping mothers move from
not working to working for 16 or more hours
per week – a pattern identified by previous
research. Instead mini jobs were found to be
a more stable form of work among older
mothers.
By exploring the large gap in employment
rates between couple and lone mothers, this
research also found that there was a high
proportion of workless lone mothers in socialrented housing (Figure 7).
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percentage of children with negative outcomes (in 2005)
Base: 1Secondary school children, 2Dependent children,
3
Secondary school children
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
What are the causes of child poverty?
NatCen’s work on persistent poverty shows
that worklessness is the key factor leading to
child poverty, in line with the existing
literature on the subject. However, it is clear
that the causes of poverty are complex. For
Child poverty in Britain
3
Figure 7. Employment rate by tenure for
couple mothers and lone mothers
58
Total
72
47
Private Renters
Lone Parent
Couple
53
Figure 9. Drivers associated with
escaping multiple disadvantage
38
Social Renters
included lone parents, parents with poor
educational outcomes and social tenants.
These families also included lone parents
who partnered and families that already had
some connection to the labour market
(Figure 9).
40
91
'Owners'
79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In paid work 1+ hours per week
Base: Families with children
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
It is the complex combinations of poverty and
worklessness with a number of other
disadvantages that can explain why people
become and remain poor. NatCen’s research
on multiple disadvantage, which grouped
families according to the combination of
disadvantages they face, revealed nine
groups of multiply-disadvantaged families,
including a small group of families that
experienced nine disadvantages on average.
Other groups of multiply-disadvantaged
families that experienced high rates of
income poverty included families with poor
paternal health, material deprivation,
worklessness, low education and low social
participation; families with no private
transport, low education, worklessness, and
debts; and families with poor paternal health,
low social participation and living in
overcrowded accommodation (Figure 8).
Finding work, or increasing hours worked, is
clearly not a straightforward option for all
families, especially those with very young
children. Parents with young children are
likely to face various decisions on how to
balance work with caring responsibilities,
and, if looking to work, how to find suitable
and sustainable jobs and childcare services.
NatCen’s research shows that disadvantaged
families had too little information about
childcare. In particular they wanted more
information on the cost of childcare and
availability during school holidays (Figure
10).
Figure 10. Parents saying they had too
little information on childcare
Deprivation area
Annual household income
Family
type
Figure 8. Combinations of problems
experienced by multiply-disadvantaged
families
Base: Families with children
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
Two parent family
Lone parent family
Under £10,000
£10,000-£19,999
£20,000-£29,999
£30,000-£44,999
£45,000+
Least deprived area
2nd
3rd
4th
Most deprived area
0%
Base: Families with children
Source: Families and Children Study (FACS)
Using longitudinal data to identify families
that made a transition out of multiple
disadvantage, NatCen’s research was able to
identify those families that remained at risk of
severe forms of multiple disadvantage, which
Child poverty in Britain
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Base: Families with children
Source: Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents
What are the key implications for policy?
Poverty remains one of our society’s ‘social
evils’ and continues to have a debilitating
effect on many families and their children.
NatCen’s recent research into child poverty
4
shows that many children experience poverty
at some stage during childhood. It has also
shown that there is a significant proportion of
children who are persistently poor.
Exclusion survey – all of which provide a rich
source of data that can be used to explore
the causes and consequences of child
poverty in more depth.
Being without work, particularly regular work,
is a key driver of poverty. This is not
surprising given that living on a low income is
our main indicator of poverty, and paid work
is one of the main ways that families acquire
financial resources. NatCen’s research has
also shown that the affordability of childcare
remains a major barrier to enabling more
disadvantaged children to benefit from early
years provision and supporting more mothers
to take up employment. This suggests we
need more active targeting of childcare and
early years education to disadvantaged
families as well as a greater supply of high
quality providers to improve the quality of the
early years workforce.
NatCen also has a number of experienced
researchers able to analyse and interpret
these data to ensure that these surveys are
used to their full potential.
NatCen’s research has also shown that
poverty is multi-dimensional; it is about more
than being financially poor, and has serious
consequences for parents and for children.
Poor families that face a range of other
disadvantages are likely to be accessing a
variety of public services, which research has
shown to be expensive for the state and
complicated for the families and service
providers involved. NatCen’s research on
multiple disadvantage can help identify the
range and complexity of need among poor
families, and it suggests that a ‘one size fits
all’ approach to helping these families
escape poverty is unlikely to be successful.
How is NatCen continuing its research
on child poverty?
NatCen continues to research issues
relevant to child poverty. Currently we are
beginning the Evaluation of Early Education
in England, which will finish in 2016.
Disadvantaged children attending early years
education will be followed to assess the
impact of early education on their outcomes.
NatCen also runs a number of surveys that
routinely collect data on families’ incomes,
employment, parenting and a range of wellbeing measures for parents and children.
These include the Family Resources Survey,
Understanding Society, the Millennium
Cohort Study and the Poverty and Social
Child poverty in Britain
5
Project Summaries
Poverty in Perspective .............................................................................. 7
Multiple disadvantage in Scotland ........................................................... 8
Public attitudes to poverty and welfare 1983-2011 ................................. 9
British Social Attitudes 28 ...................................................................... 10
Living with social evils ............................................................................ 11
Attitudes to poverty ................................................................................. 12
Childcare in disadvantaged areas .......................................................... 13
Intergenerational transmission of worklessness.................................. 14
Thrive at Five............................................................................................ 15
Impact of significant events in early childhood .................................... 16
Understanding vulnerable young people .............................................. 17
Toward universal early years provision ................................................ 18
The circumstances of children in persistent poverty ........................... 19
Outcomes for persistently poor children in Scotland .......................... 20
Understanding multiple disadvantage among families with children . 21
Impacts on children living in bad housing ............................................ 22
Employment transitions and changes in economic circumstances of
families with children .......................................................................... 23
Mothers’ participation in paid work and the role of ‘mini-jobs’ ........... 24
Multiply-disadvantaged families’ use and views of childcare provision25
Assessing a pilot educational scheme for disadvantaged young children
.............................................................................................................. 26
Projects in progress ................................................................................ 27
Ongoing surveys ..................................................................................... 28
Child poverty in Britain
6
Characteristics of poverty
Poverty in Perspective
November 2012
Recommendations: improve provision of
appropriate and affordable housing and
childcare.
Background
NatCen, led by Demos and supported by the
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, created a new
model by which poverty could be understood
in a multi-dimensional way.
A set of 20 indicators were applied to those
with incomes below 70 per cent of the
median in a large household panel study
(Understanding Society: The UK Household
Longitudinal Study). The combinations of
indicators that clustered most frequently
together were identified and labelled.
Headline findings
Three cohorts of the low income population,
constructed of five types of poverty each,
were described:
 child poverty types (qualitative research
was carried within this cohort)
 ‘working age, no children’ and
 ‘pensioner types’
In detail
The ‘child poverty types’ cohort contained
the following families living in poverty:
 Grafters
Made up the largest proportion of lowincome households with children. Likely to
only recently have been made unemployed
or be self-employed and struggling
financially.
Recommendations: ensure work pays and
only direct to lighter touch welfare-to-work
programs.
 Pressured parents
Living predominantly in rented properties,
are extremely deprived in terms of lifestyle
as well as material measures.
Recommendations: make social housing
providers key partners in supporting health
needs, improving employment outcomes
and tackling material deprivation.
 Vulnerable mothers
Consisting of single parents families and,
most usually, young single mothers, they are
the most deprived group.
Recommendations: make a simultaneous
and co-ordinated delivery on all fronts –
health, education, housing, childcare and
debt advice, either by a combined system or
better co-ordinated existing services.
 Managing mothers
Again consisting of single parent families,
they tend to be slightly older mums with
older children. Most feel they are ‘getting
by’.
Recommendations: make improvements to
childcare for older children and ensure work
pays.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/poverty-inperspective
 Full-house families
Tend to be very large households,
containing multiple adults and young
children.
Methods: Secondary analysis and depth interviews
References: C. Wood et al. Poverty in Perspective. London: Demos.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team matt.barnes@natcen.ac.uk
0207 549 5135
Child poverty in Britain
7
Characteristics of poverty
Multiple disadvantage in
Scotland
October 2012
Background
Taking just an income-based approach to
understanding poverty has come under
increasing criticism, with multidimensional
measures deemed to provide a fuller picture
of disadvantage. By analysing data from the
Scottish Household Survey (SHS), NatCen
aimed to highlight the nature of
disadvantage in Scotland.
The SHS is a large-scale survey of the
characteristics, attitudes and behaviour of
Scottish households and individuals on a
range of issues, including social justice,
housing and transport.
--Single person households and large
households
--Lone parents
--Separated/divorced households
--Rented households
In detail
Seven indicators of disadvantage were used
in this research:
 Low income
 Worklessness
 No educational qualifications
 Overcrowding
 Ill health
 Mental health problems
 Poor neighbourhood
A family was considered as multiply
disadvantaged if they experienced 4 or more
of these indicators.
Research questions
The key research questions were:
 How many households in Scotland
experience multiple disadvantage?
 Does the prevalence of multiple
disadvantage vary by local area?
 Which types of household are most at
risk of multiple disadvantage?
It is important to remember however that
simply counting the number of
disadvantages does not convey the types of
disadvantages that households experience.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/multipledisadvantage-in-scotland
Headline findings
 24,000 families experience severe,
multiple disadvantage, including
overcrowding, worklessness and poor
health
 Glasgow is the worst affected area with
1 in 10 families severely disadvantaged
 Certain characteristics were linked to
multiple disadvantage, such as:
Methods: Secondary analysis.
References: Barnes, M. and Lord, C. Multiple Disadvantage in Scotland: Secondary Analysis of Scottish
Household Survey dataset. London: NatCen Social Research.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team matt.barnes@natcen.ac.uk
0207 549 5135
Child poverty in Britain
8
Perceptions of poverty
Public attitudes to poverty
and welfare 1983-2011
May 2013
Background
We wanted to explore how far patterns of
change in public attitudes to poverty and
welfare relate to, and can be explained by,
political and economic developments and
experiences both at the individual and
societal level over the past three decades.
This research involved secondary analysis
of British Social Attitudes survey data. Longstanding measures of public attitudes to
poverty and welfare were mapped against
both the political parties in power and UK
experience of recession. Analysis was
undertaken for the public as a whole, in
addition to sub groups defined by age,
political party identity and social class.
view significant levels of poverty in
Britain and have been more likely to
offer an individual, rather than a societal,
explanation for the poverty that does
exist.
 On other issues, different age groups
have become much more similar.
Because of this, and the convergence of
the views of different political party
supporters, the British public appears
more united in its attitudes to poverty
and welfare compared to three decades
ago.
Reports:
Public attitudes to poverty and welfare,
1983-2011:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1106142/pov
erty%20and%20welfare.pdf
Headline findings
 Over the past three decades, views and
expectations for levels of poverty have
become more negative in periods of
recession, with the view that poverty
results from societal, rather than
individual factors, increasing in these
circumstances.
 However, with the exception of attitudes
to recipients of unemployment benefits,
the relationship between economic
circumstances and attitudes to welfare
appears to have weakened over time.
 In most cases, these trends cut across
society - rather than being confined to
those groups most affected by poverty
or most likely to require welfare.
 Attitudes to both poverty and welfare
changed in the period before and during
Labour's term in office, with these
changes being concentrated among,
though not exclusive to, Labour Party
supporters.
 And the views of the oldest age group,
those aged 65+, also stand out. Over
the past three decades, this age group
have been consistently less likely to
Methods: Secondary analysis of the British Social Attitudes survey
References: E. Clery, L, Lee and S. Kunz (2013) Public attitudes to poverty and welfare, 1983-2011.
London: NatCen Social Research.
Key contact: Liz Clery, Research Director, Society and Social Change team liz.clery@natcen.ac.uk
0207 749 7071
Child poverty in Britain
9
Perceptions of poverty
British Social Attitudes 28
September 2012
Background
NatCen has conducted the British Social
Attitudes survey annually since 1983,
completing 3,000+ interviews a year. It aims
to lift the lid on how people's lives are
changing and their views on how Britain is
run.
The British Social Attitudes survey has
regularly measured attitudes to poverty, but
specific questions on child poverty were
included for the first time in 2010.
The Department for Work and Pensions in
2009 commissioned cognitive testing of the
questions asking about child poverty, which
preceded their use in 2010 during the
mainstage research.
BSA 28: headline findings
 Six in ten (58 per cent) think there is
‘quite a lot’ of child poverty in Britain:
just under four in ten (39 per cent) think
there is ‘very little’.





and relatives (32%), should be
responsible.
Cognitive testing: findings
Respondents’ conceptions of poverty varied
between:
 Poverty as absolute (lacking essentials
or being able to meet basic needs)
 Poverty as relative (lacking things that
others take for granted)
 If people lack items through choice
(prioritising) or through mismanagement
of income, then this was not considered
to be ‘poverty’.
Reports:
BSA 28:
http://ir2.flife.de/data/natcen-socialresearch/igb_html/index.php?bericht_id=100
0001&index=&lang=ENG
Cognitive testing:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2
009-2010/rrep574.pdf
The most frequently cited reasons for
child poverty were:
Parents having drug and alcohol
problems (75%);
Parents not wanting to work (63%);
Family breakdown (56%);
Lack of education among parents (51%)
and;
Parents being out of work for a long time
(50%).
 Fifty-one per cent think child poverty will
increase in the next ten years.
 Eight in ten (79%) say central
government should be responsible for
reducing child poverty but large
minorities say people living in poverty:
including parents (46%), or their friends
Methods: Secondary analysis of the British Social Attitudes survey
References: E. Clery, L, Lee and S. Kunz (2013) Public attitudes to poverty and welfare, 1983-2011.
London: NatCen Social Research.
Key contact: Liz Clery, Research Director, Society and Social Change team liz.clery@natcen.ac.uk
0207 749 7071
Child poverty in Britain
10
Perceptions of poverty
Living with social evils
Background
NatCen carried out qualitative research as
part of a programme of work to explore what
people in Britain see as being the ‘social
evils’ facing society today. During the first
phase of the programme a web-based
consultation asked the general public to list
their top three social evils. NatCen
complemented this with workshops with
hard-to-reach groups, to explore their views
on the main social problems facing British
society today and their personal experiences
of living with social evils.
Headline findings
 People highlighted the following
concerns about how we seem to live our
lives: a decline of community,
individualism, a decline of values, and,
consumerism and greed.
 Against this backdrop people identified
some more concrete social evils,
including poverty and inequality, a
decline of the family, and young people
as victims or perpetrators.
 Poverty was described as a social evil
because of its debilitating effects on
people’s lives. This was reflected in the
testimonies of the unheard groups,
where poverty was described as a trap –
a constraining force that prevents
people from achieving their aspirations.
 The widening gap between rich and
poor was also described, with those at
the lower end feeling trapped there.
 Young people talked of struggling to
achieve their goals of education, training
and employment in the face of pinching
financial constraints.
 Family breakdown and poor parenting
were said to underlie many other social
problems and to leave young people
without sufficient guidance or support.
 Personal experience of family
breakdown was widespread, with many
negative consequences described. For
example, people discussed feeling
unloved or ending up in care.
 Family life was seen to have changed,
with more lone parents and working
parents meaning less time for family.
 Having a strong family was seen to be
very important for children, but people
disagreed about the importance of a
traditional family structure. Some felt
that having a cohesive family of any
form was enough, whereas others
highlighted the importance of having a
mother and a father.
 Some people criticised youth culture and
blamed young people for anti-social
behaviour, binge drinking, violence, and
gun and knife crime. Others focused on
how young people are failed by their
families and the school system, and are
misrepresented in the media.
 There was a perceived growing gulf
between the old and the young and the
negative attitudes this can encourage
between generations.
 Young people themselves talked about
how their place in wider society felt
uncomfortable. There were concerns
that young people lack good role models
and that some face limited opportunities
and job prospects.
 The decline of community was seen
as being closely linked with poverty,
crime and violence. A change in society
was perceived, with people nowadays
looking out for themselves and no longer
caring about their neighbours.
 People also spoke of a decline of
community in a more abstract sense, in
terms of a lack of public spiritedness or
social responsibility.
Report:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/socialevils-natcen-report.pdf
Methods: This study used discussions groups and workshops attended by single parents, unemployed
people, cares, and people with experience of homelessness
References: Mowlam, A. and Creegan, C. (2008) Modern day social evils: The voices of unheard groups,
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Key contact: Sam Clemens, Head of Health and Well-being Team sam.clemens@natcen.ac.uk
0207 549 7055
Child poverty in Britain
11
Perceptions of poverty
Attitudes to poverty
Background
Every year the British Social Attitudes
survey asks over 3,000 people what it’s like
to live in Britain and how they think Britain is
run. The survey tracks people’s changing
social, political and moral attitudes and
informs the development of public policy. In
2007 NatCen produced a report
summarising the public’s views on the
meaning of poverty, its prevalence and its
causes. In that same year NatCen also
included a module of questions specifically
on child poverty on its quarterly omnibus
survey.
Headline findings
 The public adopt a fairly strict view of
the meaning of poverty: A half of
people (50 per cent) think that a person
is in poverty if they have enough to eat
and live, but not enough for other things
they need.
 Nine in ten people (89 per cent) think
that a person is in poverty if they have
not got enough to eat and live without
getting into debt.
 People’s views differed on how much
child poverty there is. Two in five (41
per cent) thought there was very little
real child poverty in Britain today,
whereas over half (53 per cent) thought
there was quite a lot.
 Most people thought that child poverty
has increased or stayed the same over
the last decade, and most thought it
would increase of stay the same over
the next ten years.
 The most widely and consistently held
view as to why some people live in
need, held by a third (34 per cent), is
that ‘it’s an inevitable part of modern
life’. But the proportion thinking poverty
is due to laziness or lack of willpower





has risen – from 19 per cent in 1986 to
27 per cent now.
People’s views on why child poverty
exists also included 25 per cent saying it
was ‘because of injustice in our society’
and 10 per cent saying it was ‘because
they have been unlucky’.
The three most frequently cited causes
of child poverty were “their parents
suffer from alcoholism, drug abuse or
other addictions”, “there has been a
family break up or loss of a family
member” and “their parents’ work
doesn’t pay enough”
General awareness and knowledge of
relative poverty for children was low. For
example, there are in fact very few
parents dependent on alcohol or drugs.
Likewise, family breakdown by itself
does not directly cause child poverty;
instead it is the high level of
worklessness among lone parents that
increase the risk of poverty for children
in lone-parent families.
Most people (80 per cent) thought that
central government had responsibility
for addressing child poverty. A
relatively small proportion (35 per cent)
thought that local authorities and
individuals or families had responsibility,
and even fewer (6 per cent) chose
charities.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/series/british-socialattitudes
Methods: This study used data from the British Social Attitudes survey
References: Park, A. Phillips, M. and Robinson C. (2007) Attitudes to poverty. Findings from the British
Social Attitudes Survey. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
And, Kelly, M. (2008) Public attitudes to child poverty, Department for Work and Pensions Research
Summary
Key contact: Alison Park, Team Leader, Society and Social Change Team Alison.Park@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 7029
Child poverty in Britain
12
Consequences for children
Childcare in disadvantaged
areas
June 2012
Background
Childcare providers in disadvantaged areas
are more susceptible to financial difficulties,
because of fewer parents using childcare.
As a result they are more financially
vulnerable than providers in other, more
affluent areas. As part of the Fairness
Premium announced by the coalition
government the least advantaged two-yearolds will, from September 2013, be entitled
to 15 hours of free early education.
NatCen used a case study approach
across ten local authorities (LAs) to:
 Explore how successful local authorities
feel they have been in securing the
sustainability of childcare places in
disadvantaged areas;
 Examine the challenges local authorities
and providers face in providing
sustainable childcare and;
 Explore if more support is needed for
local authorities to ensure there are
enough free places available.
 Parents in disadvantaged areas were
more likely to: say they didn’t have
sufficient information about childcare
options and were more concerned about
the quality of the childcare being
provided.
 Quality of childcare provision was higher
in disadvantaged areas where the local
authority subsidised and directed the
shape of provision
Potential policy impact
 Childcare provision in disadvantaged
areas needs to be publicly funded in one
form or another, as the market alone will
struggle to deliver and cannot provide
sufficient numbers of quality
placements.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/childcaresufficiency-and-sustainability-indisadvantaged-areas
Headline finding
 Whilst providers and LA strategists were
generally very supportive of the
program, they did not feel that it would
be achievable without additional funding
to create the requisite extra places and
to raise quality standards.
In detail
 There was enthusiasm for the program:
it was thought children’s outcomes
would be improved and help parents
back into employment. However, there
was immediate capacity in order to
handle the roll out and several support
needs were identified to counter this.
Methods: Case study approach using literature review, secondary analysis and face-to-face interviews
References: S. Dickens, I. Wollny and E. Ireland. Childcare Sufficiency and Sustainability in Disadvantaged
Areas. London: Department for Education.
Key contact: Ivonne Wollny, Senior Researcher, Children and Young People team.
Ivonne.wollny@natcen.ac.uk 0207 749 5020
Child poverty in Britain
13
Consequences for children
Intergenerational
transmission of
worklessness
February 2012
Background
NatCen carried out secondary analysis of
two large-scale longitudinal, national
datasets. Data produced by the Millennium
Cohort Study (MCS) and the Longitudinal
Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)
were used to: map worklessness; determine
how parental worklessness impacts on
children and; to assess the potential role of
‘protective factors’ that might enable children
to overcome the effects of parental
worklessness.
Headline findings
Across the MCS and LSYPE data, 1 in 10
households experienced persistent parental
worklessness. Rates were highest among
single parent families and in London.
Parental worklessness is significantly
associated with:
 poorer academic attainment and
behavioural adjustment of young
children
 attainment at GCSE level
 with being not in education, employment
or training (NEET)
In detail
 Children growing up in workless
households had poorer key stage (KS) 1
writing, reading, mathematics and
science attainment. They also had lower
cognitive ability.
 Children in workless families were more
likely to be bullied, to bully others and to
be unhappy at school but this was not
due to the worklessness itself but rather
attributable to other characteristics of
the household, such as lone parenthood
or parental health.
 There exists a negative relationship
between persistent parental
worklessness and total GCSE point
score.
 Young people whose parents had two or
three years of worklessness had an
increased risk of being NEET at age 18
and more months of being NEET from
age 15-18.
Protective factors
 In early primary school, a positive
experience (child likes school, has
friends at school) and various school
characteristics (a lower proportion of
children in the school registered as
having Special Education Needs or
eligible for Free School Meals), reduces
or removes the association between
parental worklessness.
 In later secondary school, parents’
engagement in their child’s schooling
reduced or removed the association
between parental worklessness and
poor academic outcomes.
Potential policy impact
 The evidence suggests the need to
tackle the wider range of risks that
workless families face, not just getting
parents back into work.
 In terms of timing of any policy
intervention, the study does not find that
parental worklessness impacted on
children’s academic achievement more
strongly when they were young (at age
7), compared to at KS4.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/intergeneratio
nal-transmission-of-joblessness
Methods: Secondary analysis.
References: Barnes, M. et al. Intergenerational Transmission of Worklessness: Evidence from the
Millennium Cohort and the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England. London: Department for
Education.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team matt.barnes@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 5135
Child poverty in Britain
14
Consequences for children
Thrive at Five
2012
 Social skills
Children from deprived areas experienced
75% more peer problems (ability to get
along with others) than other children.
Background
There is a direct link between the
development gap that emerges in the preschool years and the later
underachievement at school of pupils who
grow up in poverty.
Save the Children commissioned ScotCen
Social Research to analyse data from the
Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study in
order to compare the developmental health
of children at school-entry age from different
backgrounds.
Headline findings
 Children born into poverty are TWICE as
likely as other children to face
developmental difficulties when they
enter formal schooling.
 Children living in poverty are FOUR
times as likely as children from the most
affluent backgrounds to have
developmental difficulties.
In detail
Children from deprived backgrounds are
more likely to do significantly worse than
other children across a number of key
developmental indicators:
 Physical well-being
Children from deprived areas miss 60%
more school days than other children due to
ill health (24 days a year compared to 15
days a year).
 Emotional health
35% of children from the lowest income
group had conduct problems, twice that of
those in the highest income group.
 Cognitive ability
In all, just under HALF of children growing
up in poverty were found to have lower than
average cognitive development at the time
they enter primary school.
 Communication skills
More than HALF of children whose parents
have no qualifications face communication
difficulties when they start primary school.
This is more than TWICE the rate of other
children and THREE times the rate of
children whose parents are degree
educated.
Recommendations
 Tackle child poverty by maximising and
protecting family incomes
 Extend the entitlement to free early
education and care to all two-year-olds
living in poverty
 Create an entitlement to parenting and
support for all families in deprived areas
 Develop a single, comprehensive
measure of child well-being.
Report:
http://www.scotcen.org.uk/study/thrive-atfive
Children from deprived areas are THREE
TIMES more likely to be absent from school
than children from the most affluent areas
(24 days a year compared to eight days a
year).
Methods: Secondary analysis.
References: Bradshaw, P. et al. Thrive at Five: Comparative child development at school-entry age.
Edinburgh: Save the Children.
Key contact: Paul Bradshaw, Senior Research Director, ScotCen. paul.bradshaw@natcen.ac.uk
0207 549 5135
Child poverty in Britain
15
Consequences for children
Impact of significant events
in early childhood
Families most likely to experience moving,
and moving more frequently, include those
with a younger mother and private renters.
June 2011
Background
NatCen analysed data from the Growing Up
in Scotland (GUS) study –which ScotCen
have conducted since its inception – to
investigate the impact of change in early
childhood.
It focused on four significant events:
 Parental separation
 Moving house
 Parental unemployment
 The onset of maternal health problems
The research questions were:
 How prevalent are the events in the first
five years of children’s lives?
 Which families are most likely to
experience these events?
 How are these events associated with
known drivers of poor child outcomes?
Mothers most likely to experience onset of
persistent maternal health problems include
those living in workless households and
mothers with previous poor mental or
physical health.
 Association with poor child outcomes
All four of the significant events investigated
were associated with income poverty.
For example, compared with 31% of study
families overall, low income was
experienced by:
 55% of separated families;
 47% of families who moved twice or
more;
 47% of couple families, and 81% of lone
parent families, that experienced job
loss; and
 55% of families experiencing the onset
of maternal health problems.
Potential policy impact
Findings
 Prevalence of change
Approximately one in ten children (11%)
experienced parental separation in the first
five years of their lives.
Forty per cent of children experienced at
least one move in the first five years of their
lives.
The majority of couple families (82%)
experienced a high level of employment
throughout the five-year period but just
twenty per cent of lone parents were in
stable employment throughout.
 Events that happen to parents (e.g. job
loss) can have implications for the whole
family, including young children. Truly
holistic, well-funded support services are
needed at the time of change.
 Support at the time of change is not
however sufficient and early intervention
is needed to ensure a crisis does not
deepen.
Report:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/3
50054/0117151.pdf
 Which families?
Families most likely to experience parental
separation include those with cohabiting
rather than married parents, families living in
income poverty and families where the birth
of the child was unplanned.
Methods: Secondary analysis.
References: Barnes, M., Chanfreau, J., Tomaszewski, T., Philo, D., Hall, J. and Tipping, S. Growing Up in
Scotland: change in early childhood and the impact of significant events. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team matt.barnes@natcen.ac.uk
0207 549 5135
Child poverty in Britain
16
Consequences for children
Understanding vulnerable
young people
In detail
May 2011
Background
Investigating multiple disadvantage is
important in understanding the experiences
of vulnerable young people. Whilst the
experience of a single disadvantage can
create difficulties for young people, multiple
disadvantages can interact and exacerbate
one another, leading to more harmful and
costly outcomes for both the young person
and society as a whole.
NatCen analysed data from the Longitudinal
Study of Young People in England (LSYPE),
to address:
 How many young people face multiple
disadvantages at age 16/17?
 What types of disadvantages do young
people experience?
 What level of contact do vulnerable
young people have with services?
 What school-age factors increase the
risk that young people end up
disadvantaged (i.e. at age 14)?
 What are vulnerable young people’s
’outcomes’ at age 18/19?
Six distinct groups of disadvantaged young
people were identified:
 The non-vulnerable group (55% of
young people), who had no
disadvantages.
 Emotional health concerns group (16%),
who had only emotional health
concerns.
 Substance misuse group (8%), who had
substance misuse problems and a
tendency to have low attainment and
emotional health concerns.
 Low attainment only group (8%), who
had only low attainment.
 Risky behaviours group (8%), who took
part in criminal activity and had a
tendency for substance misuse, low
attainment and emotional health
concerns.
 Socially excluded group (6%), who were
NEET and tended to have low
attainment, emotional health concerns
and substance misuse.
Young people in the last two groups are
most disadvantaged and recorded the
poorest outcomes at age 18 -19.
Headline findings
Potential policy impact
Six forms of disadvantage were identified in
the LSYPE data:
1. Low attainment (19% of young people)
2. Being Not in Employment, Education or
Training (NEET) (8%)
3. Teenage parenthood (1%)
4. Emotional health concerns (22%)
5. Criminal activity (9%)
6. Substance misuse (15%).
 There were risk factors common to all
groups identified and these could be
targeted to provide early intervention.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/understandin
g-vulnerable-young-people-----
 Almost half (45 per cent) of young
people aged 16/17 experienced at least
one of these six disadvantages and 15
per cent had two or more.
Methods: Secondary analysis.
References: Barnes, M., Green, R. and Ross, A. Understanding vulnerable young people: analysis from the
longitudinal study of young people in England. London: Department for Education.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team matt.barnes@natcen.ac.uk
0207 549 5135
Child poverty in Britain
17
Consequences for children
Toward universal early years
provision
November 2010
In detail
Background
Good quality early years education is
associated with improved outcomes for
children’s development, and is particularly
beneficial for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds. However, children from
disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely
to attend early years education.
NatCen analysed data from the 2008 and
2009 Childcare and Early Years Survey of
Parents series, to examine:
 How the take-up of early years provision
varies by different dimensions of
disadvantage and;
 the main barriers experienced by
disadvantaged families.
Key Findings:
The following types of family were all less
likely to receive early years provision:
 From lower-income families;
 From larger families (with three or more
children);
 With mothers who did not have any
academic qualifications and/or;
 With mothers who did not work,
 Lack of awareness of the entitlement to
free early years provision and a low
level of information about local options
were also important factors affecting
take-up of early years provision by
disadvantaged families.
 There is some evidence to suggest that
some types of providers (e.g. nursery
classes attached to schools) might be
more easily accessible by
disadvantaged families than others (e.g.
day nurseries), which means that there
may be fewer options open to
disadvantaged families.
To distinguish between families
experiencing the highest level of multiple
disadvantage and those with lower levels (or
no disadvantage), NatCen accorded a score
of 1 to each of the following risk factors:
 Lone parent families
 Non-working families (no parents
employed)
 Families with an annual household
income under £20,000 (or in receipt of
certain working age benefits).
 Families with 3 or more children aged
under fourteen
 Families living in one of the 20% most
disadvantaged areas of the country (as
defined by Index of Multiple Deprivation)
 Families where parents have no or low
qualifications
 Families where at least one parent has a
long-standing illness/ disability
 Families living in rented accommodation
(as a proxy for social housing)
 Families where at least one child has a
special educational need or longstanding illness/disability.
Families having 4 – 9 factors were
considered as experiencing a high level of
multiple disadvantage.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/take-up-ofuniversal-early-years-provision-bydisadvantaged-families
Methods: Secondary analysis
References: S. Speight and R. Smith. Toward universal early years provision: analysis of take-up by
disadvantaged families from recent annual childcare surveys. London: Department for Education.
Key contact: Svetlana Speight, Research Director, Children and Young People team.
Svetlana.speight@natcen.ac.uk 0207 749 5146
Child poverty in Britain
18
Consequences for children
The circumstances of
children in persistent poverty
“Our findings suggest that significant
numbers of families with children live in
persistent poverty and that persistentlypoor children are at increased risk of a
range of other disadvantages, including
living in bad housing and being expelled
from school.”
Background
Just under one in five families with children
in Britain live in income poverty. But they are
not a homogenous group: some families
experience low income for a short period,
while others live in poverty over a longer
term. This study explores how many children
experience persistent poverty; the outcomes
for persistently poor children; and which
children are most likely to be persistently
poor.
Headline findings
 More than one in ten (12 per cent)
families with children experienced
persistent poverty – measured as living
in income poverty in at least three years
of a four-year period.
 In the four years under investigation,
nearly two in five (38 per cent) families
experienced income poverty at least
once, suggesting more families
experience at least some duration of
poverty than standard point-in-time
surveys may suggest.
 Children living in persistently poor
families were more likely to be
suspended or expelled from school, to
live in bad housing and to go without
regular physical exercise than children
from temporarily poor families.
 Workless families were the most likely to
experience persistent poverty - 40 per
cent of workless couple families and 46
per cent of workless lone-parent
families.
 Other families at high risk of persistent
poverty were families with young
mothers and those living in social
housing.
 Having a parent in work for at least 16
hours per week is the key factor keeping
a family out of persistent poverty.
 However, having only one parent in paid
work is not a guarantee of avoiding
persistent poverty - 7 per cent of couple
families with only one person in paid
work experienced persistent poverty
over the period.
Potential policy impact
 The evidence points to particularly
adverse outcomes for persistently poor
families. Despite this evidence, there are
no concerted policy measures to tackle
persistent poverty apart from those
designed to tackle poverty in general.
 One reason for this is because poverty
is still commonly viewed from a point-intime perspective that treats the poor as
a homogenous group. Policy clearly
needs to adapt to the diverse
experiences of poverty.
 Being without regular work dramatically
increases the risk of persistent poverty
and is also associated with a range of
other disadvantages, such as having no
qualifications.
 Employment policy therefore needs to
work alongside policies designed to
contend with these other disadvantages,
and to ensure that when work is found it
is secured and sustained.
 Policy must also recognise that work is
not always possible for all parents at all
times, particularly during periods of ill
health and concentrated times of
childcare.
Report:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2
007-2008/rrep487.pdf
Methods: This study used data from the Families and Children Study (FACS)
References: Barnes, M., Connoly, A. and Tomaszewski, W. (2008) The circumstances of persistently poor
families with children: Evidence from the Families and Children Study (FACS), DWP Research Report no.
487, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team Matt.Barnes@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 9535
Child poverty in Britain
19
Consequences for children
Outcomes for persistently
poor children in Scotland
“Persistent poverty affects a significant
proportion of young Scottish children.
However, the impact of poverty on child
outcomes is complex and our findings
suggest low income may not be the key
driver of poor outcomes during early
childhood.”
Background
The new Child Poverty Act established four
child poverty targets to be met by 2020/21,
which the Scottish Government is
accountable to. The targets include a
‘persistent poverty’ measure, defined as
living in income poverty in at least three of
the past four years. To date there has been
little research on poverty duration in
Scotland. This report explores the
circumstances of persistently poor young
Scottish children (aged 3-4 and 5-6 years).
Headline findings
 Some children are more at risk of
experiencing persistent poverty than
others. Living in social rented housing,
living in deprived areas, being the
member of a large family or a loneparent family and having a mother with
low or no qualifications are all
associated with an increased risk of
persistent poverty.
 Having parents who are regularly
without work is the factor with most
bearing on persistent poverty. Nearly
nine-in-ten children with parents who
spent very little or no time in work over
the four-year period experienced
persistent poverty.
 Mothers’ concerns about their child’s
development and language skills were
more prevalent among persistently poor
children. Persistently poor children were
also more likely to be assessed as
having social, emotional and
behavioural difficulties.
 Interestingly, persistent poverty was not
associated with the child outcomes
when other factors were taken into
account. The analysis suggested that
some of these other factors were more
likely to be linked to child outcomes,
including child’s gender, family size, and
mother’s health and education.
 This suggests that the impact of poverty
may not be captured by our indicator of
low income or that low income per se is
not what drives poor outcomes for
young children.
Potential policy impact
 There are already many policies
designed to increase parents’ propensity
to work. Our research has shown that
workless families with young children
also experience a range of other
disadvantages - including low parental
education and poor health. This means
that employment policy needs to operate
alongside policies designed to contend
with these other hardships.
 Mothers with young children are likely to
face particular decisions around work;
including how to balance work and
caring responsibilities, and, if looking to
work, how to find suitable and
sustainable jobs and childcare services.
Policy must therefore recognise the
complexity of the constraints faced by
many parents and also consider that
work is not always possible or desirable
for all parents at all times.
 Being in work may not mean a family
avoids persistent poverty. So alongside
implications for childcare policy, these
findings are relevant to discussions of
policies that deal with parents’ readiness
for work, suitable employment for
parents, adequate wage levels and
amounts of in-work financial support.
Report:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/3
10430/0097968.pdf
Methods: This study used data from the Growing Up in Scotland Study (GUS)
References: Barnes, M., Chanfreau, J. and Tomaszewski, W. (2010) Growing Up in Scotland: The
Circumstances of Persistently Poor Children, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team Matt.Barnes@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 9535
Child poverty in Britain
20
Consequences for children
Understanding multiple
disadvantage among families
with children
“The research found nine groups of
multiply-disadvantaged families; with
each group having a different
combination of disadvantages.”
Background
Poverty is generally recognised to be multidimensional; that is, it involves more than
just living on a low income. People living in
poverty can face a range of other
disadvantages such as material deprivation,
poor health and living in a deprived
neighbourhood. This research sought to
explore the combinations of disadvantages
that families experience, what drives
multiple-disadvantage and how living in
these families impacts on child well-being.
Headline findings
 Just under half of families with children
had two or more of a basket of 18
disadvantages, including material
deprivation, debts, no savings,
worklessness, poor quality housing and
little social contact
 5 per cent of families were at risk of
‘severe exclusion’ as they experienced
approximately nine disadvantages each.
 Other groups of multiply-disadvantaged
families with high rates of income
poverty included families with ‘father in
poor health, material deprivation,
workless, low education and low social
participation’ (3 per cent of families),
families with ‘no private transport, low
education, workless, and debts’ (8 per
cent) and families with ‘father in poor
health, low social participation and living
in overcrowded accommodation’ (9 per
cent).
 The findings suggest multi-dimensional
disadvantage can be transmitted across
generations, as children from the most
disadvantaged families also experienced
high levels of disadvantage.
 Children’s well-being was associated
with parental disadvantage. For
example, children in low-income families
with poor parental health
disproportionately had poor health
themselves and less likely to exercise.
 Families that were successful in making
a transition out of multiple disadvantage
were more likely to be those with short
experiences of disadvantage, those with
some connection to the labour market,
and lone mothers who partnered.
 On the other hand, families that
remained at risk of severe multiple
disadvantage were more likely to be
lone parents, parents with low
education, and social tenants.
Potential policy impact
 The research shows the diverse and
range of problems experienced by
different groups of families, and
suggests the need to move from ‘onesize fits all’ services towards a more
personalised approach to providing
support for parents and their families.
 Identifying families at risk using
information on a range of disadvantages
may help service providers to better
identify the range and complexity of
need among families, and inform the
targeting and prioritisation of services.
 The identification of different
combinations of multiple problems
among families with children suggests
that such families access support a
range of different public service entry
points. Policy makers and service
providers may therefore wish to consider
how services can best be coordinated to
address the full range of need among
such families.
Report:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/2261
07/families-children.pdf
Methods: This study used data from the Families and Children Study (FACS)
References: Oroyemi, P., Crosier, T., Damioli, G. and Barnes, M. (2009) Understanding Social Exclusion
Across The Life Course: Families with Children, London: Cabinet Office
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team Matt.Barnes@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 9535
Child poverty in Britain
21
Consequences for children
Impacts on children living in
bad housing
“The research suggests that the longer
children live in bad housing, the more
likely they are to face health problems, to
be bullied and to struggle to keep up with
their homework.”
Background
There is a wealth of evidence to suggest
that living in unfit accommodation can have
detrimental effects on people’s health. This
study explored a range of well-being
measures for children living in bad housing.
We used three different measures of bad
housing - overcrowded, poor state of repair
and inadequately heated – and focused on
children that persistently lived in these
conditions (that is for three or more years of
a five-year period).
Headline findings
 13 per cent of children persistently lived
in overcrowded accommodation. These
children were disproportionately likely to
be living in social rented
accommodation, large families and have
an Asian mother.
 Children who lived in overcrowded
accommodation reported feeling
unhappy about their health, having no
quiet place to do their homework, being
suspended or excluded from school and
living in a family where parents cannot
afford an annual holiday or new clothes
for their children.
 6 per cent of children persistently lived
in accommodation in poor state of
repair. These children were
disproportionately likely to be living in
private-rented accommodation, from
income-poor families and those living in
deprived areas.
 As suggested in other research, our
study found that health problems are
clearly associated with children who
lived in accommodation in poor state of
repair, especially those who persistently
lived in these conditions.
 4 per cent of children persistently lived
in inadequately-heated accommodation.
These children were disproportionately
likely to be living in private-rented
accommodation, in lone-parent families
and have a Black mother.
 Children who lived in accommodation
that suffers from inadequate heating
also lived in families that face a number
of other economic disadvantages,
including inability to afford an annual
holiday, not having access to a car and
income poverty.
Potential policy impact
 Given there is a substantial number of
children who spend significant parts of
their childhood living in bad housing,
policy should focus on children who live
in bad housing for long periods.
 The issue of persistent overcrowding for
families in social-rented housing
highlights the lack of affordable and
suitably-sized accommodation for
families in the social-rented sector.
 Bad housing is not restricted to the
social-rented sector: our research shows
that a higher proportion of children in the
private-rented sector persistently lived in
inadequately-heated accommodation or
accommodation in a poor state of repair.
 Given the link between bad housing and
children's well-being, improvements in
housing will lead to progress in other
areas of children’s lives.
 Incorporating housing issues more
prominently into the policy agenda is
therefore highly beneficial, as it will
result in efficiency savings across a
range of policy goals.
Report:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/thedynamics-of-bad-housing-
Methods: This study used data from the Families and Children Study (FACS)
References: Barnes, M., Butt, S. and Tomaszewski, W. (2010) “The Dynamics of Bad Housing and Living
Standards of Children in Britain” Journal of Housing Studies, volume 25, issue 6 (November 2010) or volume
26, issue 1 (January 2011)
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team Matt.Barnes@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 9535
Child poverty in Britain
22
Causes of child poverty
Employment transitions and
changes in economic
circumstances of families
with children
“Movements in and out of work were the
key factors associated with changes in
income poverty and hardship status over
time”
Background
This study explores the impact of
movements in and out of paid employment
on the economic circumstances of families
with children. It also looks at the
circumstances of families that receive inwork tax credits to investigate how their
economic circumstances change following
employment transitions.
Headline findings
 When observed a year apart, 13 per
cent of families originally workless had
moved into work. Couple families were
more likely than lone parent families to
do so (21 per cent and 12 per cent).
 Following a transition into work, a
substantial proportion of poor families
had moved out of income poverty a year
later (70 per cent of both lone-parent
and couple families).
 Rates of exiting income poverty
improved further for families that
remained in work for a further year (77
per cent of lone parent families and 78
per cent of couple families).
 Moves out of hardship following a
transition into work were less
pronounced and happened at a slower
rate than moves out of income poverty.
 A sizeable number of families that
remained in work for two years
experienced a move out of hardship in
the second year.
 The research also looked at families that
had a transition out of work. Relatively
few families made this transition over
one year, with lone-parent families more
likely to than couple families (eight per
cent and two per cent respectively).
 The impact of leaving work on income
poverty was starker for couple families
than lone parent families – three
quarters (74 per cent) of couple families
who left and remained out of work for
two years moved into and stayed in
income poverty, compared to half (54
per cent) of lone parent families. The
proportions moving into hardship were
markedly lower, which is to be expected
given the more immediate impact that
losing a job has on family income.
Potential policy impact
 Most families who received in-work tax
credits had low earnings and so were
often closer to the income poverty
threshold than families who did not. This
was particularly true for single-earner
couple families. For these families inwork tax credits did not entirely make up
the difference between family income
and the income poverty threshold.
 If parents lost their jobs (or reduced their
hours to less than 16 hours per week)
their family was likely to make a
transition into income poverty again.
This suggests that tax credit policy
needs to sit closely with labour market
policies, and that a dynamic approach is
needed to ensure that families that
move into work can retain and progress
in work, to minimise their risk of falling
back into poverty.
Report:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_
abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_506.asp
Methods: This study used data from the Families and Children Study (FACS)
References: Barnes, M., Lyon, N. and Millar, J. (2008) Employment transitions and the changes in
economic circumstances of families with children, Department for Work and Pensions research report
no.506, Leeds: Corporate Document Services
Key contact: Matt Barnes, Research Director, Income and Work Team Matt.Barnes@natcen.ac.uk 0207
549 9535
Child poverty in Britain
23
Causes of child poverty
Mothers’ participation in paid
work and the role of ‘minijobs’
“Based on the analysis in this report, our
view is that ‘mini-jobs’ (work of 1-15
hours per week) seems to offer very
limited prospects for additional working.”
Background
Mothers living with a partner are much more
likely than lone mothers to be in work (73
per cent compared with 59 per cent). Around
half of this gap is a reflection of it being
more common for mothers living with a
partner to work in a job where their hours
are between one and 15 per week, referred
to as 'mini-jobs'.
Previous research into 'mini-jobs' had
identified a pattern of working in which
mothers moved from not working at all,
through a transitional period in a 'mini-job',
to working 16 hours or more per week.
Drawing on longitudinal data from the
Families and Children Study between 2001
to 2005, NatCen conducted a secondary
analysis project to examine the reasons why
more mothers in couples work in ‘mini-jobs’
and to see whether such jobs are a useful
transitional step towards full-time work.
Headline findings
 Lone parents are younger, on average,
than mothers in couples. When we
adjusted for this difference, we found
that slightly more lone parents, around
one additional percentage point, would
be in work if their age profile matched
that of mothers in couples.
 In general, mini-jobs as stepping stones
into full-time work were not a very
common pattern.
 We found little evidence that mothers in
couple families use mini-jobs as a
transition between not working and
working in full-time jobs. Rather, their
use was a stable pattern among
generally older women.
 Mini-jobs for lone parents offer limited
potential, especially for those in rented
accommodation.
 The study examined differences in
employment rates between mothers in
couple families and lone parents. A
great deal of this gap can be explained
by the fact that social renting is the most
common tenure among lone parents, at
44 per cent (compared with just 12 per
cent of mothers in couple families). If
lone parents had the same tenure profile
as mothers in couples, their employment
rate would be 82 per cent, rather than
56 per cent (in 2005).
Potential policy impact
 The concentration of worklessness
among mothers in social and private
rented accommodation indicates that
future policy measures to increase the
incentives to work need to engage with
arrangements for financial support for
housing.
 The key factor is whether mini-jobs can
be made much more worthwhile for lone
parents in social-rented accommodation.
This suggests changes would be
required in Housing Benefit and Council
Tax Benefit, as well as in rules around
earnings disregards by those in receipt
of Income Support or in rules around
eligibility for tax credits. If such changes
were to be implemented, they might also
increase participation in the labour force
by mothers in couple families in social
rented accommodation.
Report:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_
abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_467.asp
Methods: This study used data from the Families and Children Study (FACS)
References: Hales, J., Tipping, S. and Lyon, N (2007) Mothers’ participation in paid work: the role of ‘minijobs’, DWP Research Report No 467, Leeds: Corporate Document Services
Key contact: Sarah Tipping, Research Director (Statistician) Sarah.Tipping@natcen.ac.uk 0207 549 7077
Child poverty in Britain
24
Causes of child poverty
Multiply-disadvantaged
families’ use and views of
childcare provision
Background
It is known that poor families are less likely
to use formal childcare than families in
better circumstances. NatCen conducted
research to explore the relationship between
multiple disadvantage and childcare, to aid
the identification of optimal strategies for
helping children in these families to access
early learning and childcare opportunities
and wider family support services.
Headline findings
 For pre-school children there was a
clear association between receipt of
childcare and multiple disadvantage,
whereby the more disadvantage children
experienced, the less likely they were to
receive childcare.
 The differences in take-up of childcare
are largely driven by differences in the
take-up of formal childcare, particularly
for 0-2 year olds; where 55 per cent of
children who were not disadvantaged
received formal childcare compared with
15 per cent of the most disadvantaged.
 The types of formal childcare multiplydisadvantaged children were less likely
to attend were day nurseries,
playgroups and childminders. Although
this may reflect lower employment rates
among multiply-disadvantaged families,
the relatively high cost of day nurseries
and childminders is likely to be an
important factor too.
 Families experiencing the highest level
of multiple disadvantage were less likely
to receive childcare information through
word of mouth but more likely to receive
it from JobCentres and JobCentre Plus.
 In addition, parents from the most
multiply disadvantaged families said
they had too little information about
childcare and wanted more information
on the cost of childcare and availability
during school holidays.
 Lack of access to appropriate,
affordable childcare was a significant
barrier to employment for mothers from
families experiencing multiple
disadvantage – who said they would
prefer to go out to work if they could
arrange good quality childcare which
was convenient, reliable and affordable.
Potential policy impact
 The research recommends more active,
tailored targeting of disadvantaged
families to increase awareness of local
options for using childcare and early
years provision - and of the benefits of
good quality early education.
 However, the affordability of childcare
remains a major barrier to enabling
more disadvantaged children to benefit
from early years provision and
supporting more mothers to take up
employment.
 Most childcare subsidies are linked with
parental employment, for example tax
credits. It may be that provision of early
learning and childcare that is free, or
very inexpensive, at the point of use (as
with the free entitlement for 3 and 4 year
olds) is a more effective way of
increasing the number of disadvantaged
children receiving formal provision.
Report:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/e
OrderingDownload/DCSF-RR191.pdf
and
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/R
SG/EarlyYearseducationandchildcare/Page7
/DCSF-RR136
Methods: This study used data from the 2008 Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents
References: Speight, S., Smith, R., and Lloyd, E., with Coshall, C. (2010) Families Experiencing Multiple
Disadvantage: Their Use of and Views on Childcare Provision, DCSF Research Report DCSF-RR191
And Speight, S., Smith, et al. (2009) Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents 2008, DCSF Research
Report DCSF-RR136
Key contact: Svetlana Speight, Research Director, Children and Young People Team
Svetlana.Speight@natcen.ac.uk 0207 549 7159
Child poverty in Britain
25
Causes of child poverty
Assessing a pilot educational
scheme for disadvantaged
young children
Background
The National Childcare Strategy signalled a
commitment by government to provide good
quality and affordable childcare provision in
every neighbourhood. Following the
successful introduction of part-time early
years education for three and four year olds,
a pilot scheme for disadvantaged two and
three year olds was introduced with the aim
to improve the cognitive and social
outcomes of children and to increase takeup. NatCen carried out research to evaluate
the success of the pilot, including how
outreach approaches encouraged
disadvantaged families to take part.
Headline findings
 The evaluation concluded that the pilot
was reasonably well targeted at
intended beneficiaries and local
authorities developed a range of
marketing and outreach strategies
tailored to the needs of different groups.
 One on one, tailored approaches were
felt to be a particularly effective way of
targeting and informing families about
the pilot.
 However, there appears to be scope for
improving targeting, particularly in local
authorities that used broad geographical
and economic indicators to define and
target potential beneficiaries.
 Parents’ experiences, views and
perceptions of the effects of the pilot
were largely positive, not only about the
free early education and its positive
benefits in terms of child development,
but also about the additional services
and advice parents received which went
beyond early education.
 Very disadvantaged parents were
particularly likely to stress the benefits of
the pilot in terms of improved parenting
capacity and family functioning.
 Two areas for improvement identified by
parents were an increase in the number
of hours of early education and provision
that better meets the needs of children
with SEN or a disability.
 Overall the pilot did not significantly
improve pilot children’s language ability,
non-verbal reasoning or social
development. However, where children
attended higher quality settings, there
was a positive impact on language
ability.
 Parents felt that the setting had
positively affected their ability to parent,
their physical health and mental wellbeing, and provided them with
opportunities for self-improvement.
Potential policy impact
 The results suggest that in order to have
a positive impact on child outcomes,
when the programme is rolled out
nationally only settings with an Ofsted
score of at least ‘good’ should be used
by local authorities to provide free
places for disadvantaged two year olds.
 This points to a need for a greater
supply of high quality early education
providers, most likely achieved by
raising the quality of existing providers,
to improve the quality of the early years
workforce.
Report:
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/e
OrderingDownload/DCSF-RR021.pdf
and
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/st
andard/publicationdetail/page1/DCSFRR134
Methods: This study compared 1,000 families who were taking part in the pilot with a group of 1,400 families
living in a similar area where the pilot wasn’t available.
References: Kazimirski, A, Dickens, S, and White, C. (2008) Pilot Scheme for Two Year Old Children,
DCSF Research Report RR021
And Smith, R., Schneider, V., Purdon, S., La Valle, I., Wollny, Y., Owen, R., Bryson, C., Mathers, S., Sylva,
K. and Lloyd, E. (2009) Early Education Pilot for Two Year Old Children - Evaluation. Research report
DCSF-RR134. London: DCSF
Key contact: Ivonne Wollny, Senior Researcher, Children and Young People Team
invonne.wollny@natcen.ac.uk 0207 549 5020
Child poverty in Britain
26
Work in progress and data sources
Projects in progress
 Targeting initiatives on households in
poverty
A project that uses data from the Family
Resources Survey to explore the labour
market characteristics – including labour
market activity, skills and job type - of
families across the income distribution. The
project looks at the characteristics of both
partners in couple families.
decisions in this area. Fundamental
assumptions need to be tested and
disadvantaged children followed to assess
the effect of early years education on their
long-term outcomes.
The research period will run from 2013
through to 2016.
The findings of the project will help identify
where skills policies should be targeted to
most effectively reduce poverty. The project
should report in the summer of 2013.
 The health of people living in bad
housing
Analysis of the English Housing Survey and
the Health Survey for England to provide upto-date figures on the numbers of people
living in bad housing and the health of
people living in bad housing.
 Evaluation of Early Education in
England
High quality early years education has been
shown to have greatest impact on children
from the most disadvantaged backgrounds:
thereby making a key contribution to
narrowing the gap in development between
groups of children.
Early years education not only benefits
children but their families too. It reduces the
amount parents spend on childcare and
enables parents to work, re-enter the labour
market, undergo training to improve their
employability and work more hours. It can
play a role in improving the income levels of
families, reducing dependency on benefits,
reducing poverty for children and improving
social mobility of their family – and later for
the children themselves.
It is therefore vital that the Department has
objective, robust and impartial information to
inform its policy development and spending
Key contacts:
Evaluation of Early Education in England –ruth.maisley@natcen.ac.uk
Child poverty in Britain
27
Work in progress and data sources
Ongoing surveys
NatCen has expertise in collecting and
analysing data from a number of largescale surveys that can be used to explore
the impacts and drivers of child poverty.
 Poverty and Social Exclusion in the
United Kingdom www.poverty.ac.uk
The UK’s largest ever research project on
poverty and social exclusion was launched
in May 2010. The primary purpose of the
study is to advance the 'state of the art' of
the theory and practice of poverty and social
exclusion measurement.
The project will improve the measurement of
poverty, deprivation, social exclusion and
standard of living; measure the change in
the nature and extent of poverty and social
exclusion over the past ten years; and,
produce policy-relevant results about the
causes and outcomes of poverty and social
exclusion and how best to address these
problems.
It is the largest long running study of its kind
and has conducted seven ‘sweeps’ of
fieldwork to date, adding a second birth
cohort in 2011.
As well as collecting information on child
development, GUS covers topics such as:
income and money management,
employment, parenting and childcare,
education, health and social inclusion.
 Understanding Society (USoc)
www.natcen.ac.uk/study/understanding-society
USoc is the largest social research study of
its kind in the world with 40,000 UK
households taking part. We talk to everyone
aged 10 and over in participating
households every year and record what
changes - and stays the same - in people’s
health, education, family, wealth,
employment and political engagement.
 Family Resources Survey (FRS)
www.natcen.ac.uk/study/family-resources-survey
The FRS has been running since 1992 and
provides facts and figures about the living
conditions and resources of households in
the United Kingdom. It is used by the
government to monitor the impact of policy
changes, plan annual spending and
estimate official estimates of child poverty.
Results from the study help the government
understand how different sections of the
public are managing today. From the results
the government can assess what effect
decisions about taxes and benefits might
have on families and individuals.
 Growing Up in Scotland (GUS)
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/series/growing-up-inscotland
GUS plays a crucial role in helping the
Scottish Government understand how to
give children the best start in life and
whether national objectives for children are
being met.
Key contacts
Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK – emma.drever@natcen.ac.uk
Family Resources Survey (FRS) – clare.tait:@natcen.ac.uk
Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) – Paul.Bradshaw@scotcen.org.uk
Understanding Society (USoc) – alison.park@natcen.ac.uk
Child poverty in Britain
28
35 Northampton Square,
London
EC1V 0AX