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

A gendered lens to income from social security

Income from social security and benefits in-kind are an important source of support for many families, including those experiencing unexpected circumstances or those living on a low income.

It is well documented that poverty is not a fixed state and indeed families move in and out of poverty at different points in their life.^[106] Social security should therefore have the ability to support families flexibly as and when needed. During periods of crisis or uncertainty, certain groups are more vulnerable than others to fall into poverty. This includes those living on a low income, women, those with a disability or those from a minority ethnicity in Scotland.^[107],[108] For example, evidence shows that during COVID-19, access to government support varied. Minority ethnic women, young women and mothers were more likely to be negatively affected by the economic and social impacts of the pandemic. Women were more likely to be furloughed than men in almost everyone region of the UK. They were also more likely to be furloughed for longer periods and less likely to claim coronavirus support.^[109] On the whole, women are more reliant on the benefit system and therefore more sensitive to changes in benefit policy. We know that the majority of people on Universal Credit are women.

As part of the annual progress reports, the measurement framework includes key indicators to monitor progress in supporting families to increase their income through social security or benefits in-kind. This includes: reach of benefits, value of out-of-work and in-work benefits, value of Scottish Child Payment (SCP) and take up of SCP. These indicators allow us to see whether at a general level families with children are being supported through the benefits system.

For the purpose of this focus report, however, these indicators are not suitable for unpicking gender differences in the support received. Instead, we reporting on what general literature and data tell us around key gendered issues in the social security space. These revolve around: stigma, conditionality and the value of benefits.

Stigma of social security support

Poverty-related stigma is often felt by those living in low-income communities. However, there are particular groups of women who are at risk of poverty and are more likely to experience multiple forms of stigma and discrimination. Women from ethnic minority communities, with a disability, or with experience of the criminal justice system can face increased and compounding disadvantage due to these intersecting characteristics overlapping with gender.. This can intensify the impact of stigma on the lives of individuals and communities.^[110] The complex and deeply ingrained nature of poverty stigma can result in fear, shame and parents and children not receiving the support they are entitled to receive.

Through a poverty lens, we know that supporting parents to successfully move into employment can help to address child poverty. However, an exclusive focus on employment can be detrimental for those parents who are unable to work.

There are some parents who may not apply for social security benefits due to feelings of being undeserving or not identifying themselves as someone eligible.^[111] Through a gender lens, evidence shows how stigma manifests in the lives of mothers reliant on social security benefits. Mothers’ experiences of stigma are argued to revolve around the devaluation of caring labour, the perception that benefits are undeserved and the notion of 'bad motherhood' when using the social security system.^[112] No evidence was found around feelings of stigma specifically for fathers in poverty.

In terms of progress towards reducing poverty stigma in Scotland, research has shown the significant repercussions of feelings of stigma on those eligible for social security support.^[113] Research participants, taking part in the Social Security Experience Panels, spoke about their experiences of stigma from people they knew in their neighbourhoods and local communities, while some expressed how these attitudes had caused them to ‘watch their back’ for wrongful fraud accusations from neighbours. Others stated how they kept social security applications secret from friends out of fear of the judgement they may receive. This research was focused on stigma generally, and did not look at any specific issues amongst parents, or amongst mothers and fathers distinctively.

Families living in low-income households, with intersecting protected characteristics (e.g. disability, gender, ethnicity), are more likely to face multiple forms of stigma and discrimination. Stigma associated with receiving social security support can result in fear of judgement and shame.

Coverage of benefits

For families in Scotland, the social security system comprises benefits received from both the UK and the Scottish Governments. The Scottish Government has some devolved powers, meaning that it can decide on the value and scope of those benefits administered by them. This includes, for example, the Five Family Payments (of which the Scottish Child Payment is one). Others benefits, such as Universal Credit, are set by the UK Government and they decide on the value and eligibility criteria. Some Scottish benefits are conditional upon receipt of Universal Credit (which is administered by the UK Government).

In the context of child poverty in Scotland, any changes to the conditionality of Universal Credit can have a significant impact on the scope of Scottish related benefits, including the Five Family Payments. This is because eligibility of certain Scottish payments is linked to being eligible to Universal Credit. We know as well that there is a significant gendered element to conditionality with majority of applicants to Social Security Scotland being women applying for child-related benefits, and changes to conditionality will have a greater impact on women. ^[114]

The eligibility criteria for Universal Credit can also have negative gendered impacts. This is because couples are required to complete a joint claim for Universal Credit with the value received dependent on overall household income. This has implications for the financial independence of both partners in a couple.^[115] One aspect of the household level assessment that can be problematic to women in particular is the lack of individualised work allowances. The woman (in a hetero couple) usually earns less than the man and is more likely to take time out of work (mostly due to caring). However the earnings will be subject to the Universal Credit taper rates because the household (driven by the man’s income) may have exhausted the work allowance. These implications are magnified for women who are victims/survivors of domestic abuse. Evidence¹⁸ highlights that gendered assumptions are critical in shaping women’s vulnerability to domestic abuse. This includes:

• Incorrect assumptions concerning access to household incomes and resources (i.e that these are equally shared by both partners)
• Situations of financial dependency which can put women at risk of poverty if they leave, including whether benefits are received as a dependent or in one’s own right
• Gendered expectations regarding women’s caring responsibilities which limits employment prospects
• Situations where male partners prevent women from working, claiming benefits, or leaving the house

To support those already experiencing financial abuse or domestic violence, split payments would enable the current single household payment made in Universal Credit to a couple to be split into two separate payments. However, this is currently only available in exceptional circumstances, and introduced as an Alternative Payment Arrangement by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) work coaches. Whilst an individual payment would be the best course of action in some situations to improve financial resilience and financial independence of women, the Universal Credit system is not set up in this way.^[116] The Scottish Government are working with the UK Government to introduce a split payment policy available to all households in Scotland, which does not require input from work coaches.

Changes to the value and eligibility criteria for Universal Credit can impact on eligibility for Scottish related benefits. This can also have a gendered impact with the majority of applicants to Social Security Scotland being women.

Impacts for parents and children

Multiple angles can be taken when exploring the impacts of social security payments, sanctions and conditionality. For the purpose of this report, and keeping to the context of child poverty, we are looking at it from the angle of impacts for parents and for children.

Intended impacts for parents

Evidence is mixed on whether benefit sanctions can be effective in moving people into employment and there is some indication that any positive impacts in this regard may be short term.^[117]

Evidence suggests that there are gendered impacts of sanctions, mainly linked to the significant role women play in caring for children. For example, a recent review of empirical evidence concluded that failure to recognise the unpaid care of children as equal to paid work leads to women having to follow through with extensive work-related requirements in order to receive Universal Credit, ultimately causing strain on their unpaid care responsibilities.^[118] However, efforts to minimise this are evidence, with distinct requirements for the main carer of young children. Of note, the author found that conditionality does not have a significant positive impact on end results, as few women enter into paid work as a result of the requirements. The author concludes that policies should be developed around Universal Credit with more recognition of mothers’ caring responsibilities, and a move from sanctions to supporting and providing suitable childcare provision for those seeking work.

In Scotland, analysis has explored the potential impact of the Scottish Child Payment on labour market outcomes. ^[119] To date, analysis of economic data around the labour market, Universal Credit award data and employment likelihood of Universal Credit conditionality regimes suggests Scottish Child Payment is not currently negatively affecting labour market outcomes at scale in the economy.

Intended impacts for children

There is mixed evidence on whether who receives the benefit, mother or father, results in an impact for the child. Some evidence suggests that cash transfers to mothers are more likely to benefit children, as opposed to these being received by fathers. However, other reviews suggest that there is no difference in impact for children.^[120] From a gendered perspective, a review points to the advantages of ensuring that cash transfers reach women in the context of female independence and empowerment, but that the evidence is less clear when it comes to children’s outcomes^[121]. As highlighted in other chapters of this report, whether children benefit from benefits is linked to how the household distributes its resources, how key household tasks are allocated and how couple households balance paid and unpaid work, with the implications this can then have on financial gender inequalities during the relationship – and if the relationship ends.

Benefits have gendered impacts linked to the significant role women play in caring for children. Failure to consider unpaid caring responsibilities can cause strain and stress in trying to meet the conditions of receiving a benefit. Evidence is mixed concerning who receives the benefit, mother or father, on associated impacts for the child.

Value of benefits

The value of benefits are set for the individual, regardless of gender. In some cases, household income is accounted for and the final value received is dependent on the number of people in the household and the overall household income. As such, the value of benefits received will overlap with working patterns and income received by the men and women in the household. We know from previous chapters that working patterns and income varies by gender.

As highlighted in the previous chapter, women are more likely to earn less, have fewer savings and are more likely to be in debt. We have also seen how they are more likely to take on caring responsibilities (for children and older relatives), limiting the options for women to take on paid work. This is why women tend to be more reliant on income from social security and therefore more vulnerable to changes to the social security system.

Most of the benefits that Social Security Scotland provides relate to disability support and support for children. Data shows that caring roles most typically fall to women.^[122] As such, it is not surprising to see that applications to Social Security Scotland are more likely to be from women than from men (77% vs 16% to March 2023).¹¹⁴

Cuts to social security benefits in recent years have had wide ranging impacts across the population. Analysis by the Women’s Budget Group shows that social security cuts since 2010 at UK level as a result of austerity measures, have significantly impacted women and girls.^[123],[124] The Group found that women were more likely to be negatively impacted by cuts, but cuts did not impact all women equally. In particular:

• women in the lowest income decile lost on average £3,348 per year
• black women across all income groups, lose on average £2,498 per year (compared to white men who lose on average £990 per year)
• lone parents lose nearly £7,000 per year on average
• disabled women significantly lose out by £2,553 per year on average. While generally, cuts to benefit schemes have impacted those with disabilities more than those without, disabled women lost out more than disabled men.

Women tend to be more reliant on income from social security – and, therefore, more vulnerable to changes to the social security system. Intersecting protected characteristics can further negatively impact women, with those from minority ethnic backgrounds, with a lone parent status and with a disability more likely to be impacted by cuts to benefits.