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

A gendered lens to policies contributing to eradicating child poverty

The Scottish Government is committed to mainstreaming equality and human rights across all aspects of its work. This includes their duty to advance equality of opportunity across protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Gender policy coherence has been a critique of Scottish Government policy making. A report from the NACWG notes that there are ‘pockets of good practice’, but they argue that policymakers largely do not adopt a gender sensitive lens in designing policies that affect the lives of women and girls. In the Equality Outcomes 2025-2029 publication, the Scottish Government recognises the need ‘to support a more cohesive and coordinated approach, embedding equality considerations into decision-making’.

In order to achieve this aim, and address systemic inequalities and promote inclusion across all equality groups, the Scottish Government have set out three key equality objectives for 2025-2029. These are:

• Equality Evidence. This commits to the publication, and consistent and improved use of, equality and intersectional evidence across policy design, monitoring and evaluation.
• Lived Experience and Participation. Individuals with lived experience of inequality and exclusion will have greater influence in shaping policies that affect them.
• Equality and Other Relevant Impact Assessments. The effectiveness and quality of impact assessments will be strengthened – with a focus on ensuring high quality, consistent, rigorous and timely assessments.

Further, the Scottish Government highlights their commitment to developing a Gender Equality Strategy for Scotland. This Strategy will draw current work advancing gender mainstreaming into a coherent and holistic policy approach. As outlined in the recent Programme for Government for 2025 to 2026, this strategy has the potential to create ‘a whole government programmatic approach to tackling gender equality’, which would be in line with the implementation priorities for gender equality set out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). ^[125]

This chapter of the report provides a review of the extent to which key polices seeking to eradicate child poverty are considering gender. In particular, we explore the approaches taken to gender sensitivity when designing, implementing and evaluating policies, while identifying the learnings to date from these approaches. While we evidence good practice from policy areas, we also highlight areas where gender sensitive approaches could have been considered in greater detail in policy related publications. This is not to say that gender has not been considered at all, but it has not always been highlighted and transparently considered in published outputs. It is also important to remember that the policies considered in this review are on-going, with work taking place to continually build and develop upon learnings and evidence.

Approach

Policies for inclusion in the review were selected based on the following criteria:

• The policy is included in Best Start, Bright Futures
• Eradicating child poverty is a key outcome of the policy
• The policy impacts (directly or indirectly) on child poverty targets via one of the drivers of poverty
• The policy has been developed/introduced since the introduction of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017.

We also drew on knowledge and evidence from the previous two Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plans (Every Child, Every Chance and Best Start, Bright Futures) to reflect on the key gender challenges in the child poverty context.

This resulted in the inclusion of the following policies (see Annex B for further detail):

• Affordable Housing Supply Programme
• Carer Support Payment and Child Disability Payment
• Early Learning and Childcare Programme
• Ending Homelessness Together
• Fair Work Action Plan
• Family Nurse Partnership
• Five Family Payments (Best Start Grant; Best Start Foods; Scottish Child Payment)^[126]
• Fund to Leave
• Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy (including Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund for Adults)
• National Strategy for Economic Transformation
• National Transport Strategy (including Under 22s free bus travel, ScotRail Peak Fares Removal Pilot)
• No One Left Behind
• Pathfinders / Fairer Futures Partnerships
• School Age Childcare Programme
• Universal Credit Scottish Choices
• Welfare Advice and Health Partnerships
• Whole Family Wellbeing Funding Programme

In order to undertake the policy review, we collated a range of policy documents, Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) and evaluation strategies and research reports.

The approach for the review was developed alongside the Research Advisory Group (RAG) which consisted of internal and external stakeholders. This Group provided established and international frameworks which could be used to develop the key questions to assess policies. This resulted in a three-step process. First, we reviewed policy strategy documents to assess the extent to which policy development focuses on gender equality and intersectional gender equality. Second, we assessed EQIAs, where available, for each policy area through a gender lens. Third, we reviewed the evaluation programmes and considered the extent to which evaluation activity prioritised gendered outcomes. An overview of all published documentation included in this review can be found in Annex C. The findings draw together key themes which were identified during the analysis stage. Therefore, we do not comprehensively report on each policy, and have selected examples to illustrate thematic findings. The analysis of gender considerations is based on published policy documents and is therefore not able to comment on gendered considerations in policy thinking or development outside of these published documents. Findings therefore, should be read with this limitation in mind.

The detailed methodology and selection criteria for this review is outlined in Annex A. Further, Annex D provides a summary of the policies included in the review and their consideration of gender.

A policy focus on intersectional gender equality

In this section, we explore the extent to which policies focus on gender and intersecting inequalities. In particular, we consider whether the policies are:

• Defining intended outcomes for women and/or aiming to improve women’s lives/outcomes
• Targeting gender inequality
• Considering specific groups of women (i.e. are they adopting an intersectional gender lens?)

Many of the Scottish Government policies in scope for this review consider outcomes for women, gender inequalities or intersections with gender as part of their strategies. For some, this is explicit and for others it is subtly implied. However, few policies consider all three aspects carefully across published outputs. When policies do consider all three, there is often incomplete exploration, particularly in relation to how the policy targets gender inequalities and the extent to which they adopt an intersectional gendered lens.

There are some policies which have an explicit focus on women, such as the Fund to Leave and the Family Nurse Partnership. The Fund to Leave was a pilot fund for women experiencing domestic abuse to receive essential crisis costs and enable a woman to leave an abusive partner. The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a programme for young, first-time mothers to prepare them for motherhood and the early years of their child’s life. Due to their policy focus, these policies naturally target gender inequality and have intended outcomes for women.

Notably, an intersectional lens is adopted in the FNP policy documents. The policy was initially targeted at young women aged under 20 years, although health boards were able to include mothers up to 25 years of age if they were care experienced or from deprived communities. This highlights an understanding that these groups, with intersecting characteristics, may require greater support as they become first-time mothers. Additionally, while there is no published strategy for the Fund to Leave, the pilot was carefully developed with stakeholders, with consideration given to various intersecting equality characteristics, including women from the following communities: disabled; Gypsy/Traveller; migrant; and minority ethnic.

The remaining policies considered in this review did not have a singular policy focus on women. This was because these policies were designed to support the general population, or other sub-groups of the population regardless of gender (i.e. families living in low income households, or families more generally).

The National Transport Strategy, which provides the overarching plan for Scotland’s transport system considers gender inequalities in transport. For example, the Strategy notes how women are less likely to drive, be more reliant on public transport, make multi-stop and multi-purpose journeys and feel vulnerable using public transport. Further, the Strategy considers how transport poverty can affect women, while also recognising the intersectionality of various characteristics. It notes that experiences of Scotland’s transport system must be considered in terms of age, disability, ethnicity, sexuality and class, as these are ‘dimensions which may exacerbate some of the issues and challenges faced’. Finally, the Strategy highlights the role it has in targeting gender inequality, particularly in relation to eradicating child poverty.

...promoting gender equality will also likely have a positive impact on tackling child poverty and in that regard proper understanding of women’s often more complex travel behaviour will help ensure fairer access to work and reduce the gender pay gap.

The National Transport Strategy is supported by annual Delivery Plans. The first Delivery Plan highlights how gender inequalities can be shaped by transport and commits to exploring how infrastructure investment impacts on the gender pay gap. Subsequent Delivery Plans (the second, the third and the fourth) do not mention the gender pay gap in the context of infrastructure investment, however, the gender focus is on women’s and girl’s safety across public transport.

Meanwhile, the employability policy No One Left Behind sits within a broader policy context, which includes the National Strategy for Economic Transformation (NSET) and Fair Work Action Plan (FWAP). Both the Strategy and the Plan are considered in their approach to gender, with each publication highlighting the need to take action to improve labour market outcomes for disadvantaged groups, of which this includes women. While the NSET does not consider intersectionality explicitly, the FWAP notes the importance of an intersectional approach, with people often facing multiple barriers and compounding discrimination in the workplace due to possessing a combination of equality characteristics (for example, disabled women).

Additionally, and importantly, the FWAP points to No One Left Behind as a driver for improving gendered outcomes in the labour market. In the Plan it notes how the strategic partnership approach of multiple stakeholders across No One Left Behind will recognise and address the specific challenges faced by a range of equality groups,, with women being one of these groups. Further, the FWAP commits to incorporating Fair Work outcomes into the design of No One Left Behind to take account of lived experience and the needs of equality groups, such as women.

In the No One Left Behind Strategic Plan there is discussion of systemic inequalities facing women, contextual information on the disproportionate barriers women face with regards to enhancing employability and access to fair work. These barriers include structural inequalities in the labour market which prevent women from gaining employment. As recognised by Engender, if policies do not recognise and respond to structural inequality, then progress on gender equality will be limited. Here, No One Left Behind provides a particularly strong consideration of systemic inequalities facing women. For example, the No One Left Behind Delivery Plan, published in 2020, notes the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on particular groups, including women, with an acknowledgement that women face established labour market barriers. The No One Left Behind Strategic Plan, published in 2024, provides further detail on the barriers facing women in relation to employment: low pay, part-time work, lower employment rates, and poor labour market outcomes. Additionally, the Strategic Plan acknowledges the association between women’s poverty and child poverty, while further recognising that lone parent families are a priority family group primarily consisting of families headed by women.

However, there are no intended or measured gendered outcomes focused on improving the lives of women across the No One Left Behind Strategic Plan or Delivery Plan. The recently published Mainstreaming Report, which provides an update on the Scottish Government’s progress towards mainstreaming the public sector equality duty,^[127] highlights how broad wording is often required across policies in order to meet the universal reach of the initiatives. However, gender equality can be supported through targeted actions to support the delivery of the wider outcome. This is the case for No One Left Behind where the policy has universal reach, and broad wording, but through policy actions we can see a commitment to supporting progress in gender quality. For example, the case study of Fife Gingerbread, detailed in the child poverty annual progress report, provides a clear example of a targeted, gendered No One Left Behind policy action to support female lone parents in entering employment.

There are also examples of policies which continually seek to draw from evidence and feedback to further develop policy action and strategies. The School Age Childcare Programme have sought to incorporate lived experience and co-design elements into their policy work and this is evident across the range of published outputs to date, including the School Age Childcare Delivery Framework. In particular, recent work across this policy team has involved engagement activities with marginalised women and girls to better understand experiences and needs in relation to school age childcare. ^[128] This ability to be responsive to new evidence and stakeholder or lived experience feedback is important for ensuring policy action remains relevant and timely.

All policies reviewed consider gender to some extent, while the depth and breadth of inclusion depends on the scope of the policy. As such, there is a great degree of flexibility in how gender and intersecting inequalities are considered.

It is frequently implicit, rather than explicit, how policies will target gender discrimination, while few policies fully adopt an intersectional gendered lens. Explicitly referring to gender gaps, differences and dynamics can ensure that policies are attuned to the broad population, meaning that explicit consideration of gendered policy issues, and structural inequalities, could be a key lever in mainstreaming gender across policy making.

A gender lens in place-based, person-centred approaches

The context in which policies are being developed and designed is important for understanding the focus of policies. The 2011 Christie Commission Report identified that person-centred approaches were a means to achieving public service reform which improved outcomes for the people of Scotland, while also improving the quality of service provision. A recent review on the learnings from person-centred approaches, across a range of Scottish Government policies, highlights that a person-centred approach ‘may be a means through which outcomes can be improved for those groups who have not previously been well served by public services’. Further, a key attribute of person-centred approaches, as identified by the review, was that they adopt a holistic understanding of an individual, acknowledging their needs and the complexity and individuality of each individual’s life. As highlighted in an evidence synthesis on using intersectionality to understand structural inequality in Scotland, the term intersectionality may not be commonly used, but “person-centred” is commonly used in documentation/strategies and includes awareness of the need for policies and services to consider a whole person and their unique characteristics and circumstances.

There are a number of person-centred policies in this policy review (such as No One Left Behind, the Child Poverty Pathfinders, School Age Childcare and the Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund). The School Age Childcare Delivery Framework states that a people-centred approach to designing and delivering their policy will:

… ensure that we don’t just design services and system structures in the right ways, but that we design the right services and the right support system. It means that the school age childcare system will be co-designed with those who use services and those who deliver them. As we design and build the school age childcare system we will put the needs, rights and experiences of those who use and deliver services at the heart of our decision making.

There are also policies that focus on the whole family, such as Whole Family Wellbeing Funding Programme (WFWF). This Programme draws on the Getting It Right For Every Child National Practice Model to set out their definition of a holistic whole family approach, as one which provides:

support for children and young people, and their families, with the principle that wellbeing is about all areas of life, including family, community and society. This includes universal provision to support development and build resilience, and specialist and intensive help to address more complex needs.

Person-centred polices, through their considered design and development of holistic and personalised services, can be a gateway to providing comprehensive, tailored support for each and every individual. As a result, person-centred approaches, when effectively implemented, will help to improve women’s lives, will have improved gendered outcomes and will be considering the complexity and uniqueness of each individual’s experience. However, this approach, paired with a place-based approach, may hide the gender experience from policy strategy documents at a national and local level. A place-based approach, as defined by the Place Principle, encourages and enables local flexibility to respond to issues and circumstances in different local areas. Again, this approach is adopted by many of the initiatives considered in this review.

For example, No One Left Behind is an approach to devolved employability support with values and principles underpinning the policy approach and delivery. This empowers Local Employability Partnerships to lead the design and delivery of employability services in each local area. There are a range of guidance and support documents to help Partnerships, such as The Employability Service Standards, The Customer Charter, and The Shared Measurement Framework.

However, this approach can result in broad, high level strategies, with broad, high level outcomes, with the fine details of policy action in local areas obscured in generic evidence, frameworks and outcomes. The challenge here is that evaluation approaches, framework designs and outcomes identifications are able to get into the detail of local action. This is important because herein lies the value of place-based approaches in that they allow for local areas to respond to the specific needs of their local communities and context. Further, as discussed in the previous section, and referring back to the Mainstreaming Report, broad, high level strategies are frequently required due to the universal reach of policies, but it is then important to deliver targeted actions to improve gender equality – as we see in the No One Left Behind case study in the annual progress report detailing how female lone parents are being supported to enter employment.

As outlined in reports published by the NACWG joined up working across all levels of the system (local and national) is essential in tackling gender inequalities as all system wide decisions have impacts for women and girls. The NACWG, in their most recent scrutiny report, found that there can be an implementation gap with regard to how national policy intentions translate to local policy action and delivery. Issues in policy alignment can derive from a lack of coherence across national and local government, insufficient resourcing and skills, competing policy priorities and agendas, and a lack of transparency and accountability. This is pertinent for place-based policies, and those working within the collaborative approach of the Verity House Agreement, to ensure that policies are implemented as intended and have appropriate measures of accountability and assurance to address gender inequalities.

Person-centred, place-based approaches are a means through which outcomes can be improved for people and local areas. It allows for a tailored approach fitted to local needs. 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.

Gender sensitivity across Equality Impact Assessments

Equality Impact Assessments (EQIA) are a tool to ensure policies and practices consider equality and comply with legal requirements. They consider how policies will affect different groups of people and promote equality and benefits for all members of society. Further, they act as a way to ensure equality considerations are actively integrated into policy development, supporting fairer and inclusive outcomes.^[129] In this section, we consider whether EQIAs have:

• Used relevant gender-sensitive, sex-disaggregated evidence (including both qualitative and quantitative data)
• Filled evidence gaps (where required)
• Applied evidence to highlight where gender discrimination against women could be reduced and/or women’s equality could be advanced
• Used analysis to inform policy development

The majority of reviewed policies have completed an EQIA. However, these varied in their approach to the assessment – with some considering gender, gender discrimination and women’s equality in greater detail than others.

The School Age Childcare Programme EQIA is a strong example of an EQIA which carefully considers the gendered outcomes and impacts of the policy, while drawing upon a strong evidence base to inform and support policy development. The EQIA provides data split by gender for both parents/carers and children. Further, the EQIA highlights that the burden of childcare disproportionately falls on women, limiting their ability to take up work, education, and training, while identifying where gender discrimination can be reduced and equality for women advanced with accessible and available childcare. Most notably, the EQIA considers the preventative nature of school age childcare with regards to gender inequalities and discrimination.

There are also opportunities to foster good relations between girls and boys by developing a policy that ensures school age childcare services are inclusive, non-gender biased and co-designed with the children who attend to ensure they meet their particular needs.

The policy programme in the area of devolved benefits includes Five Family Payments (Scottish Child Payment; Best Start Foods; and the three payments as part of Best Start Grant), Child Disability Payment, Carer Support Payment, and Universal Credit Scottish Choices. Each policy EQIA considers gender and they are notable for their strong levels of engagement and consultation with stakeholder groups and those with lived experience across a diverse range of equality characteristics.

Focusing on the Five Family Payments, and in particular the EQIA completed for the Scottish Child Payment (SCP), the document has a gendered focus with a key finding that:

…women are more likely to benefit from the SCP, being more likely to be claiming a child responsibility benefit. Lone parents (one of the priority groups identified in the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan), the majority of whom are women, are considerably more likely to live in poverty and therefore be eligible for the new benefit.

Throughout the EQIA, there is a consideration of the inextricable links between child poverty and women’s poverty. There is also consideration of women who face multiple intersecting inequalities, with lone parents (who are predominantly woman) a particular focus of the EQIA. Further, consultation events were held with key stakeholder organisations who support those in the following communities: disability; minority ethnic; victims/ survivors of domestic abuse; lone parents; and, religious groups. Further, user research, through the Social Security Experience Panels, has been fundamental in shaping the Scottish Child Payment, and designing a policy which is founded in understanding the social barriers to accessing social security. Finally, there is also consideration of the impact of the Scottish Child Payment on fathers, and in particular lone fathers, and how changing wording can be important in promoting inclusivity (i.e. changing the term ‘birth mother’ to ‘birth parent’) and ensuring lone fathers receive the benefits that they are entitled to.

Another example of thoughtful and considered engagement with stakeholder groups and those with lived experience is drawn from the area of housing policy. The Ending Homelessness Together Action Plan sets out how national and local government and third sector partners will work together to end homelessness. One of the plan’s key policies is Discretionary Housing Payments which enables local authorities to provide payments to tenants who need help to pay their rent. This policy mitigates UK Government policies such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. The EQIA for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) is notable for the use of evidence and data, particularly in the use of qualitative research to provide greater understanding on how best to support those most affected by the policy. This research included women and lone parents (of which the EQIA acknowledges the majority are headed by women). The EQIA also considers the impact of homelessness on women and how victims/survivors of domestic abuse may be at particular risk of being negatively affected by the benefit cap through moving home, budgeting or moving into employment. There is also an acknowledgement that ‘advancing equality of opportunity’ for women will allow them to better support their families, through increasing their income and financially allowing them to move into employment if, and when, they are ready to do so.

There are some EQIAs where it is pertinent to note the influence of person-centred and place-based policy-making (as discussed in the previous section). This comes to the foreground in considering the EQIA for the Fairer Futures Partnerships, where there is an expectation regarding protected characteristics, including sex, that:

…the FFP initiatives will have a positive impact in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and advancing equality of opportunity.

However, due to the EQIA being an overarching document for locally led work, driven by partners, the assessment is light-touch as the interventions at a local level are determined by local partners, with support from the Scottish Government, and therefore not fully developed at the time of writing the EQIA (but the EQIA does note that this document should be considered alongside existing EQIAs and evidence on tackling child poverty). As reported by the NACWG, there is no work to improve gender competence at a local government level (at a similar scale to what we see across the Scottish Government), which results in considerable divergence or variation in terms of how gender is considered and supported at local levels. The NACWG highlight that there is a potential role for the Scottish Government to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) to ensure a coherent and collaborative approach to tackling gender inequalities.

Further, in the previous section, we discussed how there may be a disconnect between national level outcomes (such as reporting on gender) and the data being collected by local areas in place-based, contextual approaches. The WFWF Programme EQIA clearly articulates the variation in data collected by local areas, and how these do not typically include all equality groups, including gender.

…data gathered on family support will differ by each local area, and may not clearly fit the equalities characteristics and the format of an EQIA. Furthermore, the funding formula for Element 1 is based on age, low income, rurality and multiple deprivation (and does not explicitly fit all equality groups descriptives in the EQIA).

This suggests that there is work to be done across policies in aligning national and local outcome frameworks, and encouraging and supporting local partners, to collect data which allows for full exploration of equality characteristics.

Finally, as noted at the start of this section, there were some policies with no published EQIA (see Annex D). In completing an EQIA, it may have been possible for these policy areas to provide greater transparency in how the policy is considering the needs of different groups through their strategy or initiative, strengthening an intersectional approach to policymaking.

There are some considered gender-sensitive approaches in EQIAs, particularly around the use of evidence to support the policy and consultation with stakeholders, and those with lived experience, to inform understanding of how the policies will impact upon those from equality groups (including women and girls).

Evaluation data and gendered outcomes

Data collection and policy evaluation are essential in understanding how interventions have been implemented and what difference has been made and for whom. The most recent report from the NACWG highlighted the importance of data collection and evaluation in addressing gendered inequality:

The impact of policy on the most marginalised women and girls should be routinely collected, analysed and considered. Doing this will help to more clearly see the real issues facing marginalised women and girls and to show how to meaningfully address the problems faced, which we know are compounded once viewed through an intersectional lens.

Further, the Equalities Outcomes 2025-2029, highlights the value of high-quality equality data in providing ‘a robust evidence base to identify disparities and inform policy decisions’, with evaluation being key to strengthening transparency and inclusivity.

This section will consider whether evaluation activity for the policies in scope has taken a gendered focus and whether such activities consider intersectionality.

We found gendered approaches to evaluation varied across policies. In particular, we found evaluation activity was particularly limited in the use, and analysis of, intersectional data. This finding is echoed in the Equalities Outcomes 2025-2029, which highlights a focus for the next four years on strengthening the availability, quality and use of equality and intersectional data.

Policies that have a focus on certain groups of women, such as the FNP naturally provided explicit and direct outcomes for women. The FNP Evaluability Assessment sets out the theory of change for the intervention, with clear outcomes for young mothers across a range of mental and physical health outcomes. Meanwhile, the Revaluation of the FNP in Scotland provides insights from those participating in and delivering the programme. In particular, this report highlights the intersecting characteristics of women participating in the FNP. This considers mental health, disability, and experiences of: the criminal justice system, the care system, low income, and homelessness. This highlights the range of support needs for parents involved in the programme and the complexity in providing support. This is one of the few evaluations that considers intersecting characteristics in such detail.

There were also other positive examples of evaluation activity reporting on gender. The Evaluation of the Young Persons’ Free Bus Travel Scheme had a gendered outcome focused on ‘increased awareness of bus as a viable travel option amongst young women’. This outcome was achieved, with analysis in both the Baseline Data and Year 1 evaluation considering gender across quantitative and qualitative data sources. The findings highlighted that young women and girls undertook a higher number and proportion of trips than young men and boys, while also being more likely to highlight safety benefits of free bus travel when travelling at night. However, in the transport policy area there are other published outputs which feed into the development of policy making which do not consider gender. This includes the Fair Fares Review which provides evidence, options and recommendations for future decision-making. Gendered issues, and barriers, to using public transport are outlined in a supporting paper provided by the Poverty Alliance. However, this is not drawn out, and incorporated, into the Review’s main report which establishes a framework to build upon the vision set out in the National Transport Strategy.

Across many policies, gender was implicitly considered in the published evaluation documents. While this does not mean gender was not considered, it means that, in published outputs, characteristics, such as the priority family types, operated as a proxy for gender. Across the School Age Childcare programme, a range of evaluation activity has taken place across the Access to Childcare Fund, Get into Summer, the Evaluation of the Summer Holiday Food, Activities and Childcare Programme and the Early Adopter Communities. Each of these evaluation reports refer to priority family types, with both young mothers and lone parents identified as key groups to be supported by the policies. Across the evaluation activity there are no specific outcomes for women, but these impacts are highly gendered given women take on the majority of childcare responsibilities. While these evaluation reports used gender neutral language, referring to parents, carers and families more broadly, the data collected suggests that women were well represented in the sample. For example, of the 386 families being supported by the Early Adopter Communities, 248 of these were lone parent families. As we already know, the majority of lone parent households are headed by women and it follows that many of the intended impacts for this group will be gendered and most likely have positive impacts for women. However, there is a risk that implicit connections can hide the structural inequalities and intersectionality facing women, and may hinder transparent, accountable and gendered approaches to policy evaluation.

Further, there was some evaluation activity where the opportunity for gendered analysis was possibly missed. This was primarily found across the place-based and person-centred policy approaches.

The Dundee and Glasgow Child Poverty Pathfinders are a whole system, person-centred approach to local support. The Child Poverty Pathfinders - Early Implementation Process: evaluation primarily focused on outcomes for parents/carers. The evaluation collected demographic data, and made significant efforts to ensure that demographics could be linked to the family types at greater risk of poverty (i.e looking at ethnicity, disability, family size, lone parenthood). Many of these family types will be headed by women, but the data reported did not include the gender of research participants, and therefore findings cannot be understood through a gender lens.

It is important to be mindful of data protection laws and the ethical requirements of researchers to only collect data that is necessary for the intended research purposes. There are also ethical considerations around the sensitivities of asking for personal information. This was a factor in the evaluation of the school age childcare early adopter communities where the evaluability assessment noted how detailed demographic data (i.e. ethnicity, gender, sexuality) was not routinely collected across the early adopter communities. This was in keeping with ensuring application forms were short for families to complete, while also being aware of the sensitive nature of these questions. Therefore, these details could be provided by parents/carers on an optional basis. This means that demographic data is limited across the evaluation (including gender). However, there is a recommendation for future evaluators to work with early adopter communities to link family data and outcomes data.

In some policy areas gendered data collection and greater consideration of outcomes for women has the potential to develop over time. The WFWF Programme offers holistic support aimed at ensuring that families can access the help they need, when and where they need it. The WFWF Year One evaluation report and WFWF Year Two evaluation report primarily focused on the implementation of Elements One and Two of the fund where: funding was provided to Children’s Services Planning Partnerships (CSPPs) to scale up holistic whole family support; and support provided to a small number of CSPPs to build local capacity for transformational system change across family support. While there was some broad recognition of women experiences in the Year One report, it was limited to the priority family groups (i.e. acknowledging lone parent families are predominantly headed by women). Beyond this, findings were reported using gender neutral language, discussing outcomes for ‘parents’ and ‘carers’ and ‘children’ with no disaggregation of data by gender and no specific outcomes for women.

However, there may be potential in future reporting for the evaluation to further consider gender. The Element Three activity of the fund provides funding to support a cross-portfolio approach to system change through Scottish Government-led national policy delivery. This element has the potential to provide women focused outcomes, with two of the twelve Element Three projects (as outlined in the WFWF Year Two evaluation report) focused on providing support and services for women. Further, the outcomes in the WFWF Programme logic model also suggest more individual-level outcomes which may be possible to disaggregate by gender, depending on locally available data (i.e. parental confidence in supporting their child’s learning, parents having opportunities to gain qualifications).

Policy evaluations are on the whole focused on answering key research questions relevant to the specific policy assessed. In the context of child poverty, gendered outcomes are frequently implicit and inferred . Broadly, outcomes are explored through the use of priority family groups, such as lone parents (who are more likely to be headed by women) or mothers aged under 25 years. Meaning that there is often not an explicit focus on gendered outcomes.