Tackling child poverty - progress report 2024-2025: annex b - focus report on gender and poverty

What we know about child poverty and gender poverty

Highlights

• Statistics on poverty rates provide a limited view of gendered poverty experiences. It masks how income is distributed across members of the same household, the choices individuals can make in increasing their incomes, or the diverse challenges people may face.
• From wider evidence on the societal and household context, it is clear that children’s poverty and women’s poverty are intrinsically linked. This is due to a combination of factors, but mostly because of the significant role women play in doing unpaid work needed for individual households and society to run, including caring for children.
• Such inequality in unpaid work responsibility drives aspects of the gender pay gap whilst hiding the true costs and benefits of care. Gender equality issues therefore take a central role in tackling child poverty.
• Experiences of poverty vary by gender and barriers are emphasised with intersecting characteristics. There is no singular experience. Knowledge and understanding of diverse experiences is critical to providing policy options which consider the multidimensionality and complexity of the poverty experience.

This chapter aims to summarise recent Scottish evidence on the relationship between poverty and gender. It focuses on the period since the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act came into force in 2017. Firstly, it looks at the available data on poverty rates and trends, and then explores further societal and household context evidence.

While reviewing the evidence, it was clear that there are some limits to what the quantitative data can tell us in terms of gender inequality and its link to tackling child poverty. There are various reasons, such as: the way the data is collected (for example at a household level, rather than at individual level) or the scope of the questions asked (for example quantifying behaviours but lacking understanding as to what is driving said behaviour). In some cases, qualitative evidence is available to provide a more nuanced understanding of experiences, particularly when aiming to explore intersectional barriers within gender, such as gender and disability or gender and ethnicity.

The vast majority of evidence found looks at child poverty and gendered poverty through the lens of women. Evidence specific to men’s poverty in the context of child poverty is very limited. This most likely reflects the significant caring role that most women play in society, particularly caring for children. Where possible, evidence for fathers/male carers is included but is unlikely to represent the wide range of experiences amongst them. Similarly, most evidence tends to assume heteronormative relationships, and as such any specific challenges or experiences of same sex family dynamics are not covered by this report.

Poverty rates

In 2021-24, it is estimated that (after housing costs) 23% of households with children in Scotland were living in relative poverty and 20% in absolute poverty. Poverty statistics for Scotland show a relatively stable trend over the past 10 years.

There is limited ability to uncover gender differences in poverty rates. This is because poverty is measured at a household level. This means that men and women in the same household are both recorded as either in poverty or not in poverty. Any differences in distribution of resources by gender in the household is not accounted for. As such, trends in poverty provide an overarching understanding of poverty trends for the population as a whole, but may not truly reflect different poverty experiences by gender.

In order to better understand any potential differences by gender, data analysis can focus on single adult households, and break down further by whether there are any children living with them. We can also display data for single childless men, single childless women, and single mothers. However, due to limited sample sizes there is no data on poverty rates amongst single fathers. Lone parent households, generally headed by women, have been identified as a household type at greater risk of poverty. Poverty rates amongst lone parent households continue to be higher, with levels child poverty rates for them remaining relatively stable since the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act came into force (39% in 2014-17 and 36% in 2021-24).

We can also look at how well households are managing financially. It is more a subjective question of financial security, rather than poverty, but can also give us an understanding of people’s experiences. Overall, there has been a decrease over time in those saying that they are not managing well (15% in 1999 to 9% in 2023). In line with poverty rates, lone parent households (which we know are more likely to be led by women) were more likely to report they were not managing well financially (25%).^[2] In fact, households where the highest income earner was a man were more likely to manage well (57% compared to 46% of those where the main income earner was a woman).

While data can only provide a limited gendered perspective, further analysis has identified that groups at greater risk of being in poverty, tend to be households with a woman at the centre. For example, households with a mother aged under 25, a lone parent (usually led by women), families with a baby under one (where women are more likely to be reducing working hours or stopping/pausing paid work completely) or families with three or more children (where caring is mostly the responsibility of the women). Latest statistics on these subgroups continue to show them at greater risk of poverty, as explained in further detail in this year’s annual tackling child poverty progress report and the overview of the priority family types.

Poverty rates provide a limited view of gendered poverty experiences. They mask how income is distributed across members of the same household, the choices individuals are able to make in increasing their incomes, or the diverse challenges people may face. As such, it is necessary to explore the societal and household context.

Societal and household context

Societal expectations

There are perceived differences between sexes which permeate societal structures including at a household level. In practical terms this means that society assumes specific roles for the different sexes. In current Scottish society, irrespective of other protected characteristics, evidence shows us that women undertake the great majority of caring in both the formal and informal sectors, with care being both paid and unpaid.^[3]

Care decisions, whilst shaped by societal expectations, are usually taken at a household level. But a lot of the work that women do in society remains unpaid and undervalued. Women in general continue to spend more time on average on unpaid work (5 hours and 20 minutes on average per day) than men (4 hours and 7 minutes). Whereas there were no differences between women and men in time spent on other activities, including paid work, free time and personal care. In households where two adults work, women continue to spend more time on unpaid work. This mostly involved housework and cooking. When there are children in the household the difference is even more stark. Women with children spent the longest on unpaid work (6 hours and 27 minutes) when compared to any other group, this includes men with children (who spent on average 4 hours and 38 minutes).^[4]

Indeed, caring responsibilities remains a key challenge when combined with paid work. This will be the case for both parents, but data shows that it is women who are more likely to be inactive in the labour market due to caring^[5]. When the woman works, in many cases it is facilitated by reduced working hours, or working part-time, which in turn reduces the income for the family.^[6] In other cases, however, we see many women in low income households who also take part in multiple low paid jobs to make ends meet. A comprehensive mixed-methods review of women in multiple low paid jobs was recently undertaken by the Nuffield Foundation. The research showed that across the UK just over half (51%) of women in multiple low paid jobs had caring responsibilities. Their study included examples of women managing pre-school and after-school care, complex or additional support needs care, or family care, on top of managing multiple low paid jobs. ^[7]

At an individual household level, the decisions may make sense but at a societal level, it is the unpaid role of one partner, usually the woman, that allows the other partner to work full-time or invest more energy on career progression and better pay. The contribution to the economy that women make through unpaid work can often be discounted. And the contribution they are able to make economically, will be reduced due to unpaid pressures. If we look at other countries, such as Finland, where employment rates reached parity for men and women in 2023, this has been supported by societal normalisation of dual breadwinner households and supportive family policies, such as state-subsidised childcare, before/after school activities and shared parental leave.

Beyond financial stability, we also look at the network of relationships and trust within a society. This is what we call social capital. It is relevant in the context of child poverty, and in particular women’s poverty, because it can provide access to support, resources, or even opportunities and choices, a combination of which can alleviate the negative impacts of living in poverty, and is known to contribute to people’s wellbeing. Social capital includes close family, but looks beyond family too, at connections in the places people live, work, learn, run businesses, and interact with friends, colleagues and neighbours.

Research shows that social capital has decreased across the board since 2013. It is also not evenly distributed across society, with large disparities across geographies and demographics. On the whole, women tend to report stronger social networks than men, women being more likely to engage in social interactions and feel a stronger sense of community cohesion. Despite this, women reported higher levels of loneliness than men, and were also less likely to feel safe.^[8]

Inequality in unpaid work drives aspects of the gender pay gap, whilst hiding the true costs and benefits of care. Therefore, tackling gender inequality takes a central role in eradicating child poverty.

Gender equality

Gender equality is about ensuring that everyone has the same rights, opportunities and outcomes regardless of their gender. Multiple stakeholders and international evidence show the link between greater gender equality and reductions in child poverty.

In Scotland, there is indication of some positive strides towards gender equality in recent years. The Gender Equality Index is designed to represent gender equality numerically. It represents a simple form of assessing equality as it does not measure and address inequalities faced by diverse groups of women. Still, it can still uncover generic systemic issues. The Index includes various ‘domains’ such as work, money, time and power, and allocates a score between 1 (very low equality) to 100 (perfect equality). Overall, there has been some positive progress in terms of gender equality between 2020 and 2023 across all domains. However, it is unclear whether positive strides have been recorded by disabled women, or minority ethnic women, or single mothers, for example. Indeed, wider evidence shows the added challenges and increased discrimination that groups with multiple disadvantages face, as shown in subsequent chapters of this report. As such, it cannot be assumed that strides towards gender equality can be felt equally by all women.

Being able to advance gender equality can be fundamentally a matter of power For example, as in being represented in decision making forums that can ultimately impact on daily life. For the purpose of the gender index, power looks at the representation of women and men in decision making positions in large institutions, rather than at an individual or household level. There has been an increase in gender equality around power in Scotland, from 44 in 2020 to 56 in 2023 – though it still remains the lowest domain in terms of gender equality.^[9] The power category encompasses three sub-domains: political, economic and social. The political subdomain scored the highest, with increases in political posts held by women in Scotland. The gender balance on decision making positions in public bodies or large private sector companies (economic domain) scored the lowest. On the whole, educational outcomes tend to be higher for girls and women.^{[10], [11], [12]} However, this does not translate to equal pay, with men more likely to earn higher salaries.^[13] The chapter on employment explores this in greater detail.

Experiences of inequality for men and women are diverse and wide-ranging. This results in different experiences of poverty by gender. Policy options need to be attuned to the complexities of societal expectations, household decisions, and individual circumstances.

Household experiences

From a child poverty perspective, we look at how household income is organised between couples. There is no clear pattern emerging on how income is organised amongst heterosexual couples living together in the one household, which represents the majority of households with children in Scotland. Women are more likely than men to keep all of their own income, are more likely to have child benefit paid to them and to make decisions on grocery spending. Men are more likely to use their own money to pay for large household items and emergency repairs and more likely to have the accommodation they live in with their partner in their name. Women, however, appear to take on more of the responsibility for budgeting within the household as they are more likely than men to say they are responsible for ensuring the household does not live beyond its means. What is clear is that being married, rather than living with a partner, leads to a greater sharing of financial responsibilities and pooling of resources. Living with a partner, whether married or not, was also shown to be a protective factor in relation to being able to afford basic essentials and leisure activities. Those in low income households, such as the unemployed and disabled people, were significantly more likely to lack access to both essential items and social activities.^[14] These findings align with trends seen in poverty rates, where lone parent households, or households with a disabled person, are at greater risk of being in poverty. ^[15]

While data suggests that living with a partner can be a protective factor for financial stability, this is not the experience for all. Where relationships end, the separation process can be difficult. In some cases, when a partner is a victim/survivor of domestic abuse, the repercussions can be significant and complex. Leaving an abusive partner often does not mean the end of the abuse, nor security or safety for the victim/survivor and their family, including children.^{[16], [17]} In the context of child poverty, this is important because fleeing abuse can put some women at risk of falling into poverty. Women experiencing domestic abuse often become lone parents, with limited capacity to earn independently and are likely to report financial challenges and ongoing financial abuse. ^[18] Last year’s focus report, looked closely at victims/survivors of domestic abuse. The review found that there are three known policy approaches that are helpful to support these families. This includes: a whole system approach that ensures women and children are supported holistically; a focus on prevention; and for those experiencing abuse, financial support to leave the relationship.^[19]

Separated parents and child maintenance

Child maintenance is a financial arrangement between separated parents to ensure support and care for the child/ren. This is paid to the resident parent (with whom the child lives for all or most of the time) by the non-resident parent (with whom they spend a minority of time). Policy in this space is reserved to the UK Government.

In the UK, parents are encouraged to reach voluntary, private arrangements, with a statutory Child Maintenance Service available when this is not possible. It is not a social security benefit. Since 2010, the UK child maintenance system has allowed parents to exclude child maintenance payments from their benefit entitlement calculations. Evidence highlights that this has incentivised the payment of child maintenance and maximised the potential of this payment to reduce poverty.^[20] This can be a crucial source of financial support for lone parents, many of whom we know are women.

However, recent evidence highlights that four in ten families (41%) across the UK have no maintenance arrangements in place. For those who do have a statutory arrangement in place, over four in ten families (42%) received no payments in the quarter ending June 2024.^[21] This means families and children are going without maintenance payments, and frequently going without essentials because of the lack of adequate and consistent child maintenance payments. Further, child maintenance arrangements can escalate instances of conflict between parents or, in cases where women have experienced domestic abuse, the service can fail to protect these individuals and heighten the abuse.^[22]

In Scotland, a ‘test and learn’ approach to the delivery of child maintenance has been adopted in Fife. This delivery model has undertaken: staff training to positively position conversations between practitioners and families concerning child maintenance; and targeted case work with families to provide trusted support and advice services. This approach has led to financial gains in child maintenance – and highlighted the level of support required for families on child maintenance. It also demonstrates the range of systemic issues which can be faced in particularly complex cases, such as women who are victims/survivors of domestic abuse.^[23] Learnings may also be taken from other countries. In Finland there is a state-supported child maintenance system which pays a top-up to resident parent families, if payments are not received from non-resident parents.

Living with a partner has the potential to provide greater financial stability when linked to an equal distribution of resources, but this is not always the case. Separation processes can be difficult, both emotionally and financially. When associated with domestic abuse it puts women (generally the victims/survivors of domestic abuse) at greater risk of poverty.