Child poverty in the UK and Scotland

Appendix A: Methodology

This appendix provides further detail on the aims and scope of this work, the different strands of work undertaken and the methodology employed in each part.

Research aims

The overarching aim is to explore child poverty reduction measures in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK since 2010.

Specifically, the report addresses the following research questions:

• What are the trends in child poverty over time between Scotland and the UK as a whole? Where and how do these trends differ?
• What strategies have been taken by governments across the UK since 2010 to tackle child poverty? How do these approaches differ in scope?
• To what extent can changes in child poverty outcomes in Scotland be attributed to UK Government policy action? Which policies have made significant contributions?

The first research question establishes the historical context and baseline, identifying where and when rates in child poverty and associated indicators have changed over time. The second research question contextualises strategic approaches to tackling child poverty across the UK and devolved nations. The third research question explores contribution to efforts to tackling child poverty and will help us to identify policies that may have driven divergence or convergence in outcomes between Scotland and the UK, while also identifying policy learnings and where gaps in provision may exist.

Methodology

In order to cover all research questions, the methodology adopts a three-strand approach: trends analysis, strategy overview, and a rapid evidence review.

Trends analysis

We have focused on the measures of poverty used for the child poverty targets as set out in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. These are: relative poverty; absolute poverty; combined low income and material deprivation; and persistent poverty. All four measures are based on the income left to a household after housing costs.

Therefore, in this report, we provide a historical overview of child poverty trends across these four measures. More information on each measure is available in the Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland 2022-2025 report).

The trend analysis helps to answer the first research question: What are the trends in child poverty over time between Scotland and the rest of the UK as a whole? Where and how do these trends differ?. The analysis provides an understanding of how and where child poverty trends have differed across time, offering an insight into both the scale and level of child poverty, as well as variation between the UK and Scotland in levels and trajectories. By examining multiple measures of poverty, it also highlights differences in the nature of poverty experienced by children, including the extent to which families are affected by child material deprivation and persistent poverty. Together, this enables a more comprehensive assessment of how child poverty has evolved.

To maximise accessibility, charts within this chapter focus on Scotland and the UK overall. Full UK nation-level trend charts are provided separately in Appendix C.

The Child Poverty Measurement Framework, updated as part of the Bringing Hope, Building Futures evaluation strategy, includes a range of indicators that assist in monitoring the drivers of poverty over time. In this report, we have included the 7 indicators for where there is comparable Scottish and UK data (for example, labour market indicators including hourly earnings, hours of paid employment and secure work). However, for some indicators (9 in total), there is no comparable data (for example, childcare costs and affordability, transport costs and affordability, and fuel poverty). Further, for many indicators (14 in total) there is no policy evidence to support their inclusion in this focus report and therefore they are not included (for example, parents’ qualifications, and the underutilisation of skills).

Data caveats

After housing costs is used in the child poverty trends chapter as this aligns with the Scottish Government child poverty targets and the way these are measured. These measures were adopted because they provide a better representation of the disposable income that low-income households have available to spend on essentials after housing costs have been met.^[130]

Estimates in the chapter on child poverty trends across the UK are shown as three-year rolling (overlapping) averages, unless otherwise stated. Combining three years of data helps to reduce the impact of year-to-year fluctuations than can occur due to sampling variation. This provides a more stable picture of trends over time and differences between groups. Care should be taken to interpret trends since the introduction of linked data. Changes over time may reflect the use of the new linked-data methodology as well as real changes in poverty levels, meaning comparisons with earlier estimates should be made with caution.

The Family Resources Survey (FRS) provides the data for three out of four target measures: relative child poverty, absolute child poverty and child combined low income and material deprivation.

Due to data linkage and other methodological changes on the FRS, some of the data cannot be compared across time. For example, for the measure of relative child poverty data linkage means care should be taken in making direct comparison before and after the linkage break (data prior to 2021/22). Further detail is provided in the methodological changes section of the poverty and income inequality in Scotland report.

Further, data collection for the FRS was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic with no representative sample obtained for Scotland in 2020/21. This means that the periods 2018-2021, 2019-22 and 2020-23 only contain data from two financial years. Statistics revert to a three year average from 2021-24. Further information on the data source is available in the Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland 2022-2025 report.

Additionally, for child material deprivation, estimates from 2023/24 are based on an updated suitable on questions on the FRS. This means data for the period 2022-2025 is not comparable to the previous three year averages due to this methodological change. Further, for this period, poverty rates are reported as a two-year average rather than a three-year average (based on 2023/24 and 2024/25 survey years).

Strategy overview

The strategy overview provides a summary of strategic approaches to tackling child poverty since 2010 across the UK and devolved administrations. Strategies for inclusion were selected based on the following criteria:

• The strategy has a primary policy focus on tackling child poverty
• The strategy has been published, or developed, after 2010
• The strategy relates to a strategic direction in Scotland, the UK as a whole, or in Northern Ireland or Wales.

Due to the focused scope of this overview, only strategies with an explicit focus on poverty were included. As a result, strategic documents addressing child poverty indirectly (for example, through childcare, wellbeing and life chances, social mobility, or employability) were excluded from this overview.

Overall, fourteen strategies have been included as per Table 5:

A coding framework was developed in Microsoft Excel using the following headings:

• Strategy details (official strategy title, associated hyperlink, and date published)
• Policy scope
• Intended beneficiaries
• Implementation timescales
• Statutory status
• Approach to resource redistribution

One social researcher was responsible for the coding and analysis process. However, following drafting of the chapter, the broader research team reviewed and provided challenge and feedback on analysis. In addition, wider Scottish Government colleagues working across policy and analytical roles cross-checked these findings against their own knowledge and understanding of this area. This process provided an additional level of quality assurance and helped ensure the accuracy and robustness of the findings.

Considerations for interpretation

Child poverty is a high-priority and rapidly evolving policy area across the UK. Many of the most recent strategies included have been published within the past 12 months, and Northern Ireland’s Anti-Poverty Strategy remains in draft form. As a result, these documents set out planned actions for the coming years, meaning that policy direction and pace may develop over time.

It is also important to recognise the diversity of the UK policy landscape. Approaches to tackling child poverty vary considerably across nations reflecting political priorities, socio-economic contexts, and implementation timelines. Further, differences in devolution arrangements add further complexity to cross-UK comparisons. Variations in devolved powers affect both the range of policy levers available to each administration and the degree to which strategies can align with broader cross-government priorities. As such, each approach to tackling child poverty must be understood within its specific national, institutional, and governance context.

Finally, this overview is not a systematic analysis of strategic approaches to tackling child poverty across the UK since 2010. It does not provide an assessment of the effectiveness, implementation or impact of individual strategies. Findings should therefore be interpreted as a high level, descriptive overview of policy approaches and strategic priorities.

Evidence review

The evidence review sought to answer the third, and final, research question: To what extent can changes in child poverty outcomes in Scotland be attributed to UK Government policy action? Which policies have made significant contributions?

To answer this question, the evidence search focused on identifying robust empirical and comparative research examining key child poverty policies implemented across the UK since 2010. Emphasis was placed on studies that assessed the impacts of policies on child poverty outcomes in Scotland, enabling an evaluation of their relative effectiveness and contribution to observed trends in Scotland. However, for the other UK nations (Wales, Northern Ireland, England), the review placed emphasis on drawing out lessons and examples of good practice from policy design and implementation. This comparative perspective was used to contextualise findings for Scotland and to highlight approaches that may inform future policy development.

Step 1. Collation of evidence: formal library search

An evidence search was conducted using Idox, KandE, Knowledge Network and ProQuest databases. Keyword searches were used to capture data on:

• Scope: Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, UK, Scottish Government, Scottish Executive, UK Government, Welsh Government, Welsh Assembly Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Labour Government, Conservative Government, Coalition Government
• Poverty: Low-income families, Low-income households, Families in poverty, Child poverty, Persistent poverty, Sustained poverty, Deep poverty, Depth of poverty, Relative poverty, Extreme poverty, Low income, Material deprivation
• Drivers of poverty:
• Income from employment: Employment ,Paid work, Low pay, Fair work, Sustainable employment, Parental employment, Working parent, Lone parent, Part-time work, Return to work, Pay gap, Maternity leave, Parental leave, Skills development, Qualifications, Lifelong learning, Underemployment
• Income from social security and benefits in-kind: Social security, Benefits, Welfare, Crisis grant, Financial support, Income support, Income supplement, DWP, Housing benefit, Disability support
• Reducing costs of living: Living costs, Housing, Rent, Childcare, Cost of the school day, Food insecurity, Free school meals, Fuel insecurity, Energy costs, Income maximisation, Finance advice, Debt, Period poverty, Transport

To be included in the review, the evidence source had to:

• Specify policy outcomes by child poverty (e.g. impact on child poverty)
• Cover one or all of the following countries: Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales, UK.
• Be published since 2010.
• Be an academic publication or grey literature (e.g. working papers, evaluation, government reports).

A total of 183 documents were received.

Step 2. Collation of evidence: stakeholder evidence

We undertook a further step of evidence collation which comprised of two elements:

1. Inviting colleagues working in key policy areas across the Scottish Government to contribute evidence.

2. Inviting colleagues working across the UK Government and the devolved administrations to contribute evidence.

These calls for evidence were issued in flexible formats to suit the preferences of individuals and teams (for example, Microsoft Word documents with headings and hyperlinks to sources, or structured Microsoft Excel tables). To support consistency, a template table was also provided to guide contributors on the type of information to include. The template included a completed example, as shown below:

• Policy name:
• Scottish Child Payment
• Impact on poverty (e.g. direct/indirect):
• Direct
• Scale (.e.g pilot, national approach):
• National approach
• Target group, e.g. all population, all in poverty – how is poverty assessed?
• Low income families with a children under 16 (linked to benefit entitlement)]
• Evidence of impact on poverty in Scotland, that is evaluation, modelling, academic literature). Please include links:
• The following Scottish Government publications: Scottish Child Payment: interim evaluation, Five Family Payments: evaluation, Child poverty modelling: update and Scottish Child Payment – estimating the effect on child poverty

A total of 189 additional documents were received: 88 from Scottish Government colleagues and 101 from colleagues across the UK Government and devolved administrations.

Step 3. Reviewing the evidence

Overall, the collation of evidence resulted in 372 documents. Table 6 provides a summary of evidence identified and the selection process. Titles and abstracts were reviewed with documents categorised by their country or nation of relevance: Scotland (126 sources), England (38 sources), Wales (42 sources), Northern Ireland (48 sources), or the UK (118 sources). A process of inclusion and exclusion was subsequently undertaken by two social researchers, guided by the original inclusion criteria outlined in Step 1. At this stage, 184 documents were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 188 included documents. Exclusions were made for several reasons, including: lack of focus on policy impact; being discursive or opinion-based (e.g. think pieces) rather than grounded in empirical evidence; falling outside the scope due to evidence being produced prior to 2010; and being high-level strategic documents.

Step 4. Coding and analysis

A coding framework was developed in Microsoft Excel, with a separate worksheet for each document categorisation (e.g. country or nation). Coding was undertaken by two social researchers which allowed for discussion of emerging codes and themes to ensure consistency, minimise bias and refine the analysis. This process identified key themes across the following areas for each categorisation:

• Income from Employment
• Income from Social Security
• Cost of Living
• Marginalised families
• Quality of life
• Other overarching

Appendix B provides the full coding framework used in the evidence review.

During the coding process some overlap between categories was identified with some documents being relevant to more than one nation or country (for example, a journal article covering Sure Start in the UK and Flying Start in Wales). In these instances, documents were coded under all relevant jurisdictions to reflect their cross-national relevance.

A draft structure was then developed. Two social researchers drafted the four chapters (covering the three drivers of poverty and a fourth chapter on supporting children and families to thrive). The social researchers reviewed each other’s sections, with additional input from a third social researcher who had not been involved in the earlier stages. This process helped to ensure clarity, consistency, and robustness across the findings.

Key findings from the initial drafting process were shared with the Research Advisory Group (RAG) to sense check and validate the evidence review findings. In addition, gaps in data and evidence were discussed with the RAG, and their expertise was sought to identify further evidence to address these gaps. This process helped to ensure the completeness and robustness of findings.

Subsequently, internal Scottish Government colleagues (working across policy and analytical units) were invited to cross-check the findings. This included, for example, providing relevant policy updates since the initial collation of relevant documents.

The publication of this review, and wider report, adheres to the Scottish Government Social Research Publication Protocol.

Research Advisory Group

A Research Advisory Group (RAG) was established for the project to provide insights, advice, feedback and contacts that would help to contribute to quality assurance. The group included stakeholders from internal Scottish Government teams working in key policy areas relevant to child poverty (i.e. childcare, employability), as well as representatives from other Governments across the UK (including from the UK Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive).

The group met at key stages during the project, including at project initiation and when initial findings were available. In addition, the group were offered the opportunity to provide feedback on the key findings and executive summary of the report prior to publication.

The group assisted with various aspects of the review, including:

• Providing expert advice regarding technical, operational, and policy-relevant elements of the research approach.
• Representing the wider views of their team/organisation/profession/sector.
• Feeding back progress to relevant stakeholder groups and networks as appropriate.
• Ensure the independence and integrity of the project is maintained.
• Provide comment on the outputs and interim reports of the research (in skeleton format).
• At project completion, disseminating information about and learning from the evaluation to their teams, stakeholders and networks, as relevant.

Limitations

The evidence review was conducted over a short timeframe and does not reflect a comprehensive systematic appraisal of all research evidence on the topic of policy actions taken by governments across the UK since 2010 to tackle child poverty. However, care was taken to consider the robustness of the evidence included and to work with both internal and external stakeholders to fill evidence gaps where these were identified.

The scope of this evidence review is broad, primarily covering the drivers of poverty. There is a wide evidence base across these parameters with both academic and grey literature available covering both primary and secondary data analysis. However, the criteria for the review was to include evidence from 2010 onwards only and with a specific focus on Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK as a whole. This means that there may be other older or international evidence that has not been included.

The lack of comparable data across the UK and associated nations is a further limitation. This limits understanding of cross-national differences and the extent to which findings can be meaningfully compared. This is compounded by the different policy approaches taken in different contexts. For example, the targeted approach to early learning and childcare in England, compared to the more universal offer in Scotland. While this provides opportunities for learning for the Scottish context, it also makes it more challenging to draw direct comparisons and generalisable conclusions.

The lack of comparable data also meant that we were unable to fully answer the final research question relating to the attribution of UK Government policy action to Scottish child poverty outcomes since 2010. This limits the extent to which causal relationship can be confidently established and attributed to specific policy interventions.