Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group work and potential trial in Scotland: intersectional analysis

Intersectional data gaps

Lack of use and prioritisation of intersectional disaggregated data

An ongoing issue, highlighted repeatedly by a number of equality specific organisations and those working at the intersections of inequalities, is the lack of intersectional and disaggregated data to enable competent policy-making.

Across public institutions in Scotland, there are a significant number of gaps related to equality data. An attempt was made to overcome this by creating the Equality Evidence Finder, an online platform bringing together the latest data on a range of issues from housing to employment, categorised by protected characteristic. Whilst this has created some progress, it reinforced the siloing of data rather than provided the same data in a way that can be disaggregated to provide multi-axis analysis across protected characteristics. The consequence of this is that whilst the data is available to determine, for example, that non-white households are more likely to be homeless, the data is not disaggregated to tell us the number of non-white women that involves. Some intersecting data, for example relating to the labour market and the intersection of racism and sexism, is available which demonstrates that the “minority ethnic” employment gap is higher for women; however, this data is patchy and significant gaps remain. The Equality Evidence Finder also requires further attention to ensure it is regularly updated, as currently its utility is constrained by outdated information often not updated since 2021.

For the Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group, this is a significant challenge in their ability to pursue a full and competent intersectional analysis. Disaggregated and intersectional data related to the labour market, housing, income and poverty and social security in particular all need to be available to assist in determining what the most minoritised groups in Scotland need from a Minimum Income Guarantee. Without such data, policy formation of this kind is designed to meet the needs of a majority rather than responding to the specific needs of those whose lives would most improve as a consequence of a Minimum Income Guarantee. This also creates challenges in determining which population group a basic income trial would be most effective for. As such, the final report should include a recommendation to the Scottish Government on the need for intersectional data to be invested in, to be readily available and for it to be competently used in policy-design both within the Scottish Government and by working groups advising the government.

Intersectional data on applicants and approval ratings has been made available by Social Security Scotland and should have been utilised by the Expert Group. However, the most comprehensive intersectional data set (referred to below) provided by the Scottish Government is from 2020. Social Security Scotland should be providing this level of data annually.

Supplementary intersectional data on ethnicity and disability found that, whilst white and disabled applicants had approval rating of 75%, this drops to 64% for African disabled applicants, 68% for other ethnic groups and 70% for Asian disabled applicants. If we take the intersection of gender and religion, whilst the total percentage of women applicants approved is 73%, this drops to 60% for Sikh women (compared to 76% of Sikh men) and 68% for Muslim women (compared to 72% of Muslim men).

The use of such data by the Expert Group would have reinforced the importance of and need for further investment in this type of data. Not seeking out this data, which is publicly available, and utilising it to inform the methodology of the Expert Group’s work and the design of a Minimum Income Guarantee is a significant oversight.

The utilisation of the existing, though limited, intersectional data and application of intersectional analysis is not currently visible in the draft final report of the Minimum Income Guarantee, and this should be addressed as a priority. The examples provided above should be used as illustrative examples in the final report.

The Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group did engage in specific data and insights from equalities organisations, in particular those representing women and disabled people. This is clear from the specific work on additional payments for disabled people. However, there is no reflection of the intersectional data gap in Scotland in either the interim report or the draft final report as it currently stands. The Expert Group needs to be clear and candid about the data challenge and the barriers this created to designing and implementing a fit for purpose Minimum Income Guarantee in Scotland. Much of the group’s work had relied upon public reports and/or qualitative data gathering by equalities organisations which are often under-resourced and over capacity, therefore unable to provide the extent of analysis required.

Whilst invaluable qualitative lived experience expertise has been provided by the experts by experience group, the thread of this expertise is not clear across the final report. There are specific recommendations (often as detail within recommendations) on issues highlighted by the experts by experience group, but there is no explanation as to what intersectional analysis the insights of the Experts by Experience Panel provided. This is a missed opportunity by the Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group, given that those involved as experts by experience will have direct understanding of compounding and intersecting inequalities which may have been hugely valuable to enabling an intersectional lens being embedded into this work at an earlier stage.

The Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group was also given resources to commission specific research to support the development of a Minimum Income Guarantee model for Scotland. Whilst this intersectional analysis has been commissioned, it focuses on the work of the Expert Group to date and a potential future trial. An opportunity has been missed to commission early intersectional data analysis of both existing data which exists within Scottish public institutions but is not analysed through this lens, as well as pursuing relevant qualitative data directly from minoritised communities experiencing intersecting inequalities.

Given the Expert Group is coming to an end of its time and close to publishing its final report, at this stage primary intersectional research cannot take place. However, there is an opportunity for the final report to name specific intersections where further data gathering is needed and should be applied ahead of any decision-making by the Scottish Government on a trial. This should include data on the intersections below:

• Disability/Sex/Low or no income
• Disability/Ethnicity/Low or no income
• Disability/Lone Parents/ Low or no income
• Disability/Rurality/ Low or no income
• Disability/unpaid care/Low or no income
• Sex/ethnicity/ Low or no income
• Sex/Rurality/ Low or no income
• Sex/unpaid care/Low or no income
• Lone parents/Rurality/ Low or no income
• Rurality/Sex/ Low or no income
• Rurality/ethnicity/Low or no income
• Rurality/unpaid care/Low or no income

NB: the above provides examples of the intersections where further data and analysis would be of benefit for Minimum Income Guarantee design and implementation based on those minoritised groups who are disproportionately more likely to experience both poverty and be overlooked in data collection, but this is by no means a comprehensive list. The above are examples of the overlap of two intersections between two minoritised population groups and poverty. Intersectional analysis can go further to provide multi-axis analysis within these intersections; however, this as a starting point of analysis would provide significant progress on the application of intersectionality in policy-design.

In the final report, the Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group should provide a rationale behind the decision-making of commissioned research and why an intersectional analysis within the commissioned research by WPI Economics – Economic Impact of a Minimum Income Guarantee: Analysis of economic theory and policy evidence, WPI Economics – Financing a Minimum Income Guarantee, and Progressive Partnerships – Framing a Minimum Income Guarantee - was not requested in contracted work. It is understood that an effective equalities lens was provided by specific Expert group members which is welcome, but there is likely to be significant additional benefit in making such analysis part of the procurement request.