Tackling child poverty - progress report 2023-2024: annex b - focus report on gender and poverty

Executive Summary

As set out in the Equality Impact Assessment underpinning Best Start, Bright Futures, evidence has highlighted children’s poverty is intrinsically linked to women’s poverty. This is due to cultural norms around care of children, but also due to structural factors which impact upon all aspects of a woman’s life. As a result, and in order to tackle child poverty in Scotland, we need to better understand the links between gender and poverty and untangle the hidden poverty-gender dynamics for low income households with children.

This report provides an analysis of evidence to explore the intersections of gender with poverty, while addressing the following research questions:

1. What does the evidence say about the relationship between poverty and gender, specifically, how poverty rates have changed over time, but also how poverty is managed and experienced by gender?

2. What are the trends in the gender-poverty relationship over time and what do we know about progress across the three drivers of poverty by gender?

3. How do other equality characteristics (such as ethnicity, disability, age) interact with the relationship between gender and poverty?

4. How are Best Start, Bright Futures policies taking a gender lens in their design and implementation? What have we learned so far from the approach taken?

In order to answer the research questions, the methodology encompasses three strands: (1) a review of the Child Poverty Measurement Framework indicators, (2) an evidence review of academic and grey literature published since the passing of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, and (3) an assessment of key policies which are part of Best Start, Bright Futures and the extent to which they are considering gender and intersectionality across published outputs.

What does the evidence say about the relationship between poverty and gender?

Gender and child poverty are intrinsically linked. This is due to the ingrained gendered nature of domestic roles, with women often being the primary caregivers for children and the unpaid carers for disabled and older family members. Gender norms and stereotypes can drive inequalities across the labour market, and impact on a women’s earnings potential throughout their lives.

How poverty is experienced depends not only on a person’s gender, but also on a range of other protected characteristics (such as race or disability) and structural inequalities. Multiple, intersecting protected characteristics, for example being a disabled black woman, can often increase compounding societal inequalities. In developing policy responses, it is essential to consider the multidimensionality and complexity of the poverty experience and the drivers which can push families into poverty.

Understanding progress on poverty rates by gender is not easy. Most income data is collected at household level, with limited consideration on how resources are shared within the household. We know from evidence that income, and other household resources, are often not shared equally in a household and this can be a significant factor in women’s economic inequality. The lack of income data by gender means that no one single source can tell the whole story. Instead, there is a need to collate, and interpret, statistics alongside other wider evidence, across the drivers of poverty, to deepen the understanding of the gendered poverty issue.

What are the trends in the gender-poverty relationship over time and what do we know about progress across the three drivers of poverty by gender?

It is evident that there has been progress in reducing gender inequalities, but longstanding disparities are persistent and remain.

Income from employment. The gender pay gap has narrowed, but there are still disparities between men and women. There continues to be a consistent undervaluation of women’s work which drives the gender pay gap, higher levels of in-work poverty and then in turn child poverty. Shared parental leave was introduced in 2015, however, women still use the majority of parental leave after birth. This trend is consistent across the UK. Despite some progress over the past 25 years, there continues to be ingrained gender roles and stereotypes concerning the role of women in unpaid care. Policy support has been provided, particularly around early learning and childcare, but this sometimes does not go far enough in providing women with flexibility, access, affordability and wrap around care to enter and/or remain in the labour market.

Costs of living. Findings show gendered impacts of the cost of living, particularly highlighting the gendered dimensions of homelessness, where men are more likely to face homelessness, while women, when they do face homelessness, are most likely to do so because of domestic abuse. In addition, due to societal, cultural, and economic factors, women tend to have lower levels of financial resilience, such as lower levels of savings and higher risk of accruing debts. This highlights the need to ensure that the tackling child poverty agenda sits alongside policy action to tackle gender inequalities.

Income from social security and benefits in kind. There has been progress across the Scottish social security system. Specifically, through the introduction of the Five Family Payments (Scottish Child Payment, three Best Start Grants and Best Start Foods). As women tend to be more reliant on the social security system, due to the role of women in undertaking unpaid work in the household, this has particularly benefitted women. However, payments made through the Scottish social security system tend to be linked to the eligibility of Universal Credit - which is administered by the UK Government. Therefore, in the context of child poverty, any changes to eligibility can have a significant impact on women’s income from social security.

How do other equality characteristics interact with the relationship between gender and poverty?

Across the evidence reviewed in this report, there were certain groups of women where intersecting gendered characteristics frequently further negatively impacted on their experiences of poverty. This included lone parents, disabled people, those from a minority ethnic background, unpaid carers and victims/survivors of domestic abuse. Some of these groups faced structural discrimination as a result of their background, which then result in specific challenges in moving into, and remaining in, employment.

We also considered, and highlighted, the limited evidence base surrounding men’s gendered experiences of poverty and how this intersects with child poverty. For example, around men’s experiences of parental leave and/or division of labour in a household. More evidence is required in this space in order to better understand the facilitators and barriers to gender parity across these areas.

How are Best Start, Bright Futures policies taking a gender lens in their design and implementation? What have we learned so far from the approach taken?

Gender is considered across all policies in Best Start, Bright Futures reviewed as part of this exercise. The extent to which gender is reflected across policy documents varies, depending on whether the policy is focused on women as a primary beneficiary or not. This can result in inconsistency in how gender and intersecting inequalities are reflected across policymaking.

The lessons learned from taking a gender lens focus to designing and implementing policies are:

• Engagement with stakeholders is critical to ensuring policies are designed meeting the needs of those with lived experience. Our policy review found high levels of consultation with women and/or stakeholder groups working to improve opportunities and outcomes for women. This can inform understanding of how the policies will impact upon those from equality groups, and lead to considered EQIAs which fully account for, and ensure policies do not discriminate or disadvantage, particular groups of people. However, it is unclear how high levels of consultation with women result in better gender-competent policies and better outcomes for women.
• Diversity of the gendered experience, beyond the priority family concept. The priority family groupings are intended to be used as a lens to understand the complexity, and diversity, of experiences of poverty. The concept is not intended to be used as a means to target policy action. In doing so, this would risk not reaching other marginalised groups at risk of poverty (i.e. see the 2024 focus report on other marginalised groups) or the nuances behind a gendered approach to tackling child poverty Further information on reach and targeting can be found in the Child Poverty Evaluation Framework.
• Intersecting inequalities can amplify challenges to moving out of poverty. The use of the priority family concept helps to understand key barriers and enablers in a family’s journey out of poverty. However, it is important to still acknowledge the complexity of the gender experience and why it is intrinsically linked with children’s poverty. For example, references to policies reaching lone parents, frequently acknowledge these are primarily headed by women, but do not engage in discussion of the systemic and complex barriers they face. In order to mainstream gender across policymaking, there needs to be understanding of the structural and intersecting which can prevent, and be barriers to, mainstreaming. Intersectional gendered policy responses are critical in ensuring equal rights, opportunities and outcomes for all.
• The nature of place-based, person-centred approaches can obscure gender inequalities at a national level. However, personalised approaches have the potential to improve consideration of gender through deeper engagement with individual experiences. Indeed, policy action in this area is focused on personalised, holistic, flexible and local approaches to tackling child poverty. However, there is a risk that holistic, wide reaching and ranging, services take the spotlight away from tackling gender inequalities – which are a crucial factor in eradicating child poverty. The policy process can play an important role in building knowledge and understanding of gender inequalities and the central role structural barriers have in limiting the outcomes of specific policies. We also know that strong partnership working is required to ensure alignment across national and local governments to tackle gender inequalities.

Conclusions

Experiences of poverty vary by gender, and intersecting inequalities and structural barriers can add further complexity. Knowledge and understanding of diverse experiences is critical to providing policy options which consider the multidimensionality and complexity of the poverty experience.

For women, many of these inequalities are rooted in gender roles that make women primary carers of children, poverty managers in the household and ultimately result in economic inequality. The gendered nature of domestic roles, unequal sharing of financial resources within household and the impact of men’s violence on women’s income all negatively impact on a women’s ability to access a liveable income which meets the rising costs of living for them and their families. This results in an intrinsic link between women’s and children’s poverty.

Improvements in gender equality across all aspects of a women’s life will not only impact the wider economy positively, but will also support the child poverty agenda. This will require an explicit focus on gendered outcomes and progress as part of policy reviews.

However, no one policy will tackle gender and intersectional inequalities. Instead, it is a systemic issue requiring wide-ranging policy efforts to challenge cultural norms and societal structures which have led to, and embedded, gender disparities and inequalities.