Five Family Payments evaluation: annex A - mixed methods research

9. Conclusion and policy considerations

The aim of this study was to explore and understand the extent to which the Five Family Payments (FFP) are meeting their short to medium-term outcomes. There is clear evidence from this study that both individually and collectively, FFP are meeting their short-term outcomes and good progress is being made towards achieving a number of the medium-term outcomes. While it is a positive picture for the majority of families, the perceived impact of FFP on families does vary.

9.1. Reduced incidence of material deprivation

A medium-term outcome of FFP is to reduce the incidence of material deprivation. A key way in which FFP are contributing to achieving this outcome is by helping families to increase child-related spend. Across all FFP there is evidence that these payments are helping the majority of families to increase a wide range of child-related spend, particularly at key transition points.

SCP, BSG and BSF help parents and carers provide essential items for their child(ren) such as clothing, furniture, first infant formula milk and toys during pregnancy, birth, early development and learning, and starting school. Parents and carers reported that payments helped the provision of these items when their child(ren) needed them most, instead of delaying purchases until they had saved enough money or borrowing money from loan-providers or family members. FFP enabled many parents and carers to choose better quality items that would last longer, or meet their child’s needs better, without worrying about the cost.

Nursery and school related costs were a common source of expenditure for families, and SCP and BSG have contributed to or covered these costs both at transition points (e.g. starting school) and throughout the year. Parents and carers of children of all ages shared that school clothing was expensive and frequently needed replaced due to wear and tear and their child outgrowing items. SCP was particularly helpful at enabling parents and carers to meet these ongoing costs.

SCP, and to some extent BSG, have also enabled families to pay for their child(ren) to participate in social and educational activities on an ongoing basis. For some families, FFP helped their child(ren) to take part in activities that they otherwise would have been unable to afford. For others, FFP enabled their children to take part in more than one group or activity. Parents and carers shared that this has helped their children to participate equally alongside their peers, promoting social inclusion.

Finally, for some families, the payments have enabled them to go beyond essential spending and provide special treats for their children and family as a whole. Treats ranged from family days out, pocket money, takeaways and other items. Being able to spend money on their family in this way had a positive impact on parents’, carers’, and their children’s, wellbeing.

9.2. Improved financial circumstances

The long-term aim of all FFP is that child poverty will be reduced. In the short to medium-term, FFP aim to reduce pressure on household finances, money-related stress, and incidences of debt and food insecurity. All FFP have helped to improve the overall financial circumstances of low-income families to varying degrees.

For many families, FFP have helped them to cover the costs of essential child and household expenditure, reducing pressure on their household finances and reducing money-related stress. FFP also helped families to deal with unexpected costs more easily. For some families, receiving FFP was the difference between being able to meet these essential needs or failing to do so. While some families still faced financial pressure and made sacrifices to overcome financial restrictions, FFP have reduced the need to use food banks and reduced their need to borrow money, either from family or from money-lending organisations. Without FFP, some parents and carers said they would be living in poverty, relying on food aid and facing increasing debt. For many families, FFP helped them bridge the gap between other sources of income.

For some families, the impact of FFP went beyond reducing financial pressure on the household. In both the survey and interviews, parents and carers highlighted the impact FFP had on their financial position. FFP helped those with one income to provide, or maintain, a quality of life for their children. There was a parent who shared that SCP had helped them to retain their family home after a relationship breakup which minimised further disruption to their family life. Many others shared that FFP had helped them provide for their family without needing to borrow money and get into debt. There were also those who said that FFP helped them to reduce their overall debt.

Increasing the eligibility for and value of SCP has had a positive impact on a number of low-income families. Parents and carers shared that child-related costs increase as their child gets older, in terms of clothing, food and social and educational activities. Receiving four weekly SCP up to their child turning 16 gave peace of mind to many, reducing the money-related stress they experienced. However, parents and carers were concerned about SCP stopping at age 16, and those with a child nearing that age were considering what cutbacks they would need to make. In both open-text responses to the survey and in interviews, parents and carers called for SCP to be extended further, until a child has left school education as an acknowledgement that they were still meeting the cost of their child(ren) while they lived at home.

9.3. Improved mental and physical health and wellbeing

All FFP have had a positive impact on both the mental and physical health and wellbeing of parents, carers and their children.

The biggest impact of FFP on the mental health and happiness of parents and carers was from a reduction in money-related stress and anxiety. However, being able to provide for their children, choose new or better quality items, and the ability to ‘say yes’ to treats and special items made them feel good, with some sharing that it helped their relationship with their child(ren) and made them feel like better parents or carers.

Parents and carers also felt happy seeing the positive mental and physical health impacts FFP had on their children. They shared that their child(ren) being able to have similar items to their friends and enjoy activities with their peers increased their child(ren)’s confidence and happiness. Participating in social and educational activities also made their child(ren) feel included and enabled them to develop social and personal skills that parents and carers thought would help them throughout their lives.

FFP are also having a positive impact on the physical health of both children and parents and carers by helping families to afford healthy foods. BSF, SCP and BSG were all reported as enabling families to buy and eat healthy foods. BSG helped parents and carers meet the cost of formula milk and supplement the food expenditure while BSF helped with healthy foods in early years. SCP helped with ongoing food costs for children over the age of 3 when BSF ends, but for some, this is at the expense of other child-spend (e.g. activities for children). However, it is important to note that rising prices have made affording healthy food more challenging, with families sharing that FFP are helping towards, but not always meeting, these increased costs.

9.4. Reduced barriers to education and the labour market

For the majority of families, FFP are not having an impact on their work and education decisions. However, there is evidence that SCP is helping reduce barriers to work and education, for a small proportion of parents and carers.

SCP helped families to: pay for work and educational related costs such as travel and equipment, look for and start work and educational courses, and stay in work or work longer hours. There were also parents and carers that said FFP helped them by enabling them to stop or reduce their working hours so they could meet the caring needs of their families. For example, receiving FFP allowed some parents and carers to reduce their hours at work to help them look after a disabled partner and/or child. Others reduced their working hours to fit around school schedules and childcare.

Although there were parents and carers who expressed a desire to work, they faced barriers in finding flexible employment that fitted around their family needs. Furthermore, as a result of UC being a qualifying benefit for FFP and other benefits, there were parents and carers who would face income loss if they worked, or worked longer hours, as they would then be over the UC income threshold.

9.5. Priority family groups at increased risk of poverty

This study has found some variation in the impact of FFP on different priority groups. For example, large families with three or more children and households with a disabled family member(s) were more likely to report that SCP helped pay for household essentials (compared with households with one or two children or without a disabled family member). Interviews with parents, carers and those who support low-income families provided some context to these findings. There are families facing greater overall costs due to the size of their family. Others have limitations on their income as a result of being the sole carer or because they cannot work, or can only work limited hours because they care for a disabled family member(s).

However, it is important to note that many priority families share one or more of the priority characteristics and the analysis undertaken for this study does not control for these interconnected characteristics. This makes it difficult to determine which individual factor, if any, is driving the relationship with particular outcomes. To understand the relative independent weight that individual variables (e.g. ethnicity) have on an outcome measure (e.g. improved mental health), multivariable regression analysis of the survey data would be advisable.

9.6. Policy considerations

Evidence from this study suggests that overall the FFP are meeting their short-tem, and a number of the medium-term, outcomes for many families, and their impacts are being perceived positively. However, families have highlighted the ongoing impact of rising costs for essentials such as food, household bills and clothing. Therefore, continued monitoring of the impact of FFP is required to ensure that the payments continue to meet their short, medium and long-term outcomes.

While FFP are perceived positively, parent, carers and stakeholders have suggested a number of ways in which their experience of receiving FFP could be improved (Chapter 8). While extending the eligibility and value of FFP are mentioned, most suggestions relate to improving awareness and understanding of FFP among low-income families, and those who support them, to increase take-up amongst families currently eligible for the payments. Access to specialist support from those with an in-depth knowledge of the benefits system was particularly highlighted as important to help increase the take-up of FFP.

Finally, Universal Credit as a qualifying benefit was highlighted as a barrier to FFP because completion of the application form was perceived to be challenging and onerous, with the result that some did not complete it at all whereas others were rejected initially due to errors in the application. Without Universal Credit, many families could not claim FFP. Council Tax reductions were proposed as an alternative qualifying mechanism.