Bringing Hope, Building Futures: Tackling child poverty delivery plan 2026-2031 – annex 2: Analysis of consultation and engagement

10. Support for marginalised groups

Chapter 10 presents an analysis of comments made throughout the call for evidence about tackling inequalities faced by marginalised groups.

The Scottish Government has identified six priority family groups that are at greatest risk of poverty:

• Lone parent families.
• Families with a disabled adult or child.
• Larger families with three or more children.
• Minority ethnic families
• Families with children under the age of one.
• Families with mothers under the age of 25.

However, the Scottish Government recognise that an intersectional approach must be taken in recognition that there are other marginalised groups at risk of poverty, that women and children’s poverty are intrinsically linked, and that there are additional barriers and challenges associated with living in rural areas. Respondents suggested ways to support the six priority family groups better, while others highlighted considerations for those families and other marginalised groups.

Question 8. What targeted action could be taken to tackle inequalities faced by marginalised groups, to help raise their incomes and improve their outcomes? This could include specialist support for one or more groups.

Views on the six priority family groups

Many respondents agreed with the focus on the six priority family groups and offered general suggestions for targeted action that could apply to all six of the priority groups. The Scottish Government's overview and guidance on the six priority groups reports that the six priority groups cover 90% of children living in poverty. As such, many of the suggestions made by respondents aligned with the approaches outlined throughout this report. These include, from most to least prevalent:

• Engaging directly with groups to understand their experiences, as the lived experiences of those in marginalised groups may be unique and require tailored support and services (Chapter 9).
• Providing longer-term funding for third sector organisations that assist priority families and marginalised groups (Chapter 7).
• Extending Best Start Grants and free school meals (Chapter 4).
• Improving data collection to better understand how different groups access current support and services (Chapter 9).
• Increasing access to services that improve pathways to employment, such as childcare, transport, and training programmes, alongside greater commitments to fair work principles by employers (Chapter 3).
• Reduction of discrimination in the workplace (Chapter 3).

In contrast, however, a few respondents expressed concerns about homogenising the diverse experiences of priority family groups by using actions that appear to be targeted but are still too broad. For example, the experiences faced by Gypsy/Traveller communities may be different to the experiences of migrant minority ethnic groups, or the experiences of migrant minority ethnic groups may be different to the experiences of minority ethnic groups born in the UK. Similarly, families with different types of disabilities may face unique challenges.

These respondents believed that understanding the diverse experiences within each priority group was essential to tailor support and services effectively. Ways to understand the diverse experiences included better data collection and engaging more with people with lived experience, as outlined in Chapter 9.

A few respondents called for the next delivery plan to provide more detail about the impact of actions already taken by the Scottish Government to support the six priority families.

Gender and intersectionality

Throughout the engagement, several respondents recommended taking an intersectional approach to supporting marginalised groups, particularly the six priority family groups, as they felt that family groups who experience more than one type of disadvantage faced compounding risks of poverty.

Some respondents expressed the view that this should be considered explicitly through the lens of gender, as they felt that women were more likely to experience severe and multiple disadvantages. One respondent suggested that evidence showed child poverty and women’s poverty are intrinsically linked, pointing out that concentrating targeted interventions on reducing women’s poverty, specifically lone parents (of whom the majority are women), minority ethnic women, women living with a disability, migrant women, women who are victims/survivors of domestic abuse, and women with no recourse to public funds, would help the Scottish Government meet child poverty targets. Women with multiple disadvantages living in rural areas were also specifically mentioned as a group in need of targeted assistance.

Recommended actions focused on providing pathways to work, well-resourced Fairer Scotland Duty and Public Sector Equality Duty, accessible childcare, rent controls and financial literacy and budgeting assistance. Other respondents mentioned improving access to health and wellbeing support. Another respondent suggested committing to enshrining the proposed Misogyny Bill into law alongside reporting guidelines for sexual assault and misogynistic abuse, referring to evidence that suggested misogynistic views harmed educational and professional prospects for women. Attendees at one engagement event recommended incorporating return-to-work standards in employment rules.

Families with a disabled household member

Beyond the recommendations mentioned above, some respondents highlighted specific support for families with a disabled adult or child, including:

• Greater consideration of children who have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in school settings.
• Support for employers to become disability aware.
• Improving social security processing times, particularly case transfers.
• Accessible childcare options for children with specific needs and improved wraparound childcare.
• One respondent suggested extending the Young Persons Family Fund to cover hospital transportation, both for young pregnant people and for parents who need to take children to the hospital.

Lone parent families

Some respondents throughout the call for evidence suggested approaches to help lone parent families, including some of the general actions mentioned above. Other suggestions, each mentioned by a few respondents or fewer, included:

• Using targeted financial levers, such as tax breaks or a cash-first approach, e.g. a monthly bursary.
• Ensuring these families have access to adequate childcare provision.
• Providing access to suitable housing options.
• Providing financial guidance to those who may marginally out-earn benefits but still struggle to pay for basic needs.
• Using targeted advocacy, such as assistance in managing the child maintenance system.

Minority ethnic families

A few respondents emphasised that racial inequality may be due to structural issues that need to be addressed to make a lasting impact on minority ethnic families. One example of how change can begin is through increased data collection and research on lived experiences. For example, one respondent cited research that showed a decline in the number of minority ethnic families claiming benefits, but stated that no research has been conducted to understand if recent barriers are preventing uptake or access. Attendees at one engagement event suggested monitoring how xenophobia and racism may impact service uptake.

At the engagement events, respondents highlighted an increase in racist rhetoric. They recommended increasing anti-racism education across schools and employers. Others felt that support should be culturally sensitive and services located in inclusive community spaces where diverse groups of people can gather. At one engagement event, it was noted that place-based approaches could overlook diverse experiences and may result in place-based inequality.

Mothers under the age of 25

A few respondents provided specific suggestions to help young mothers. This included providing access to tailored employability programmes and revising the Universal Credit criteria, which means people under certain ages are provided with less money, regardless of whether they are supporting children.

Considerations for other marginalised groups

Remote, rural and island considerations

A recurring theme across the call for evidence was the importance of acknowledging the unique disadvantages faced by low-income families in remote, rural and island locations. Respondents felt that rurality made it more challenging for families to access essential services such as healthcare and childcare, highlighted the poorer quality of infrastructure and housing, and noted the higher cost of living. The impact of living in rural communities was also mentioned in relation to digital access and availability, as discussed in Chapter 2.

A few respondents reiterated throughout the engagement the importance of the Scottish Government continuing to develop the National Islands Plan, arguing that it is necessary to identify and understand the service gaps, barriers faced, and solutions needed to end child poverty in island communities.

Other suggested groups and considerations

Families with non-UK-born parents or migrant families were mentioned by some respondents as a group that should be considered a priority. Respondents noted that migrant families may face additional barriers to employability and discrimination based on race or religion. A 2025 Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report on poverty among migrant families found that 47-50% of children born to parents born outside the UK are in poverty, which is nearly double the poverty rate of children with UK-born parents.

Related to this, a few respondents specifically mentioned migrant families who have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), as they often face extreme financial insecurity and barriers shaped by immigration policy. For example, families with NRPF do not have access to Universal Credit and are therefore excluded from passported benefits, such as Best Start Grants. Respondents expressed the view that although this group may be willing to work, they may be unable to do so due to policy or circumstances, such as a lack of accessible childcare, transportation, or housing.

People with care experience were also suggested as a group for greater consideration. Respondents believed that the support provided to this group varied across local authority areas and that these inconsistencies could have a significant impact on their future financial situation. For example, one respondent cited a report from MCR Pathways, which suggested that people with care experience living in areas with higher levels of deprivation were more likely to leave school without employment compared to those living in areas with lower levels of deprivation.

Some respondents highlighted other groups they felt should be considered, including:

• Families impacted by imprisonment.
• Carers and young carers who may be unable to work due to their caring responsibilities.
• Victim/Survivors of domestic abuse
• Families living just above the threshold for social security assistance who are currently struggling with the current cost of living.