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

Annex A: Methodology

This annex provides further detail on the aims and scope of this work, the different strands of work undertaken and the methodology employed in each part.

Research aims

The overarching aim is to better understand the link between gender and poverty, and uncover hidden poverty/gender dynamics for low income households with children.

Specifically, the report will aim to address the following research questions :

• 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?
• 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?
• How do other equality characteristics (such as ethnicity, disability, age) interact with the relationship between gender and poverty?
• How are Best Start, Bright Futures (BSBF) policies taking a gender lens when designing and implementing policies? What have we learned so far from the approach taken?

Methodology

In order to cover all research questions, the methodology encompasses three elements.

1. Review of measurement framework indicators

2. Evidence review

3. Assessment of key policies part of BSBF

Taking each one in turn.

1. Review of measurement framework indicators

As part of the evaluation strategy for BSBF, the Child Poverty Measurement Framework includes a range of indicators that assist in monitoring the drivers of poverty over time. To understand the trends in the gender-poverty relationship over time and the progress made so far, we had initially intended to create a gender disaggregated version of the Child Poverty Measurement Framework. However, on reviewing the data included for each of the indicators it was apparent that this would not be possible. The Child Poverty Measurement Framework indicators are derived from a range of data sources. Some of these data sources collect data at a household level and do not allow for disaggregation by gender, and then further into parental status.

We reviewed each of the Child Poverty Measurement Framework indicators and looked for alternative data sources that could offer a gender split. For the ‘income from employment’ driver of poverty data was available from the Gender Index, but this did not offer a direct comparator for the child poverty indicators as data was disaggregated by gender but did not include a breakdown for parents. There was no alternative disaggregated data available for either the ‘cost of living’ or ‘income from social security’ drivers. This presented a data gap that we sought to fill through additional data collected during the evidence review.

2. Evidence review

An evidence search was conducted using Idox, KandE, Knowledge Network and ProQuest databases. Keyword searches were used to capture data on gender (such as ‘gender gap’, ‘gender equality’, ‘gender poverty gap’), poverty (such as ‘child poverty’, ‘low-income families’, ‘deep poverty’, ‘persistent poverty’), and the three drivers of poverty Social Security and benefits in kind (such as ‘social security’, ‘benefits’, ‘income support’), Income from Employment (such as ‘employment’, ‘low pay’, ‘parental employment’) and the Cost of Living (such as ‘living costs’, ‘housing’, ‘cost of the school day’ ‘food insecurity’). Each of these keyword categories were cross-referenced against each other to produce a range of empirical evidence on both the rates and extent of poverty by gender and gendered experiences of poverty across the three drivers of poverty.

To be included in the review, the evidence source had to:

• Draw on empirical evidence on the links between gender and poverty in relation to rates and extent of poverty as well as experiences of poverty by gender, particularly in relation to how child poverty, the drivers of poverty and other equalities characteristics intersect with gender.
• Be published between the passing of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 and the present.
• Be an academic publication or grey literature (e.g. working papers, evaluation, government reports).

A total of 234 papers were received. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to sort papers into four separate groupings – corresponding to each of the three drivers of poverty (39 papers for income from social security, 82 for income from employment, 55 for the cost of living) and those that related more closely to data on the priority family types (58 papers). There was some overlap between these groupings with some topics being relevant to more than one driver (childcare for example could fit within both the cost of living in relation to affordability but also income from employment in relation to barriers to employment). In these instances an assessment was made about which driver the material more closely related to. In each grouping, a social researcher assessed the papers using the inclusion criteria. In total 52 papers were included and 182 were excluded at this stage. Reasons for exclusion included papers that were focused specifically on the Covid-19 pandemic, papers that related solely to England and Wales and did not include relevant findings for Scotland, and papers that did not adequately link to both poverty and gender.

The evidence search was also supplemented by searches for Scottish Government related reports and evidence on gender resulting in the inclusion of 19 sources such as Scotland’s Gender Index, data on time use in Scotland, and the Thematic Gender Review of the National Performance Framework among others. Further grey literature was also sought through engagement with Research Advisory Group (RAG) members and included reports from key stakeholders such as Engender, Scottish Women’s Aid, Close the Gap, and the Scottish Women’s Convention which resulted in a further 21 sources being included.

A range of suggested sources were provided including outputs from stakeholder roundtables, parliamentary briefings, stakeholder reports and published outputs from the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls (NACWG). These sources were considered against the inclusion criteria and cross-checked against our existing list of evidence papers. Of the 30 papers suggested by RAG members 9 new papers were included in the review, with the other 21 suggestions either reflecting duplicates of evidence already included or older evidence, for example where parliamentary budget briefings by stakeholders had been superseded by a subsequent year.

A coding framework was developed in Microsoft Excel, with a worksheet for each grouping of papers. Coding at this stage brought out key themes in the following areas for each grouping:

• Income from Social Security: value of benefits, reach of benefits, benefit take-up
• Income from Employment: barriers to (employment), unpaid care, pay gap, undervaluation, childcare
• Cost of Living: debt, financial wellbeing, food insecurity, housing, transport

The evidence on the priority family types was coded in a similar way, but with key themes relating to the drivers of poverty (in work poverty, social security, food insecurity, the cost of living). The initial intention was for the report to have a chapter exploring gender and the priority family types. However, during the coding process, and based on earlier discussions with the RAG, it became evident that it was more appropriate to include intersectional evidence on priority family types within the chapters on the drivers of poverty.

Then, a draft structure was developed for the evidence review with two social researchers drafting the four chapters covering the drivers of poverty alongside a contextual overview of the relationship between gender and poverty in the Scottish context. The researchers reviewed each other’s sections, alongside a third researcher who had not been involved in the earlier stages, in order to ensure clarity and consistency across findings.

Key findings from the initial drafting process were shared with the RAG to sense check and validate the evidence review findings. In addition, gaps in data and evidence were discussed with the RAG and their expertise sought in providing further evidence to fill these gaps. This process ensured that findings were robust.

3. Assessment of key policies part of BSBF

An important question of this review was Research Question 4 which asks “How is BSBF taking a gender lens when designing and implementing policies? What have we learned so far from the approach taken?”

This is not an easy question to answer and requires a careful approach to ensuring that the review can be as systematic and objective as possible. Different options were assessed and discussed and ultimately reviewed and agreed by the RAG. The RAG consisted of both internal and external colleagues to the Scottish Government. The conclusion was that we would try to replicate as much as possible well established frameworks for assessing gendered policy making. Details of each step of the process below.

Step 1. Identifying what policies to include

In order to address this question, we undertook a review of key policy documents from key BSBF policies to assess whether policies are designed and reviewed with a gender lens in mind.

Policies were selected for inclusion based on the following criteria:

• The policy is included in BSBF
• 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
• 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

Step 2. Consideration of established frameworks for review

The next step was to consider how to review these policies through a gender lens. Firstly, we agreed that we should be looking at policies through three separate lens.

1) The first concerns policy strategy and whether a gendered and intersectional understanding is considered for that particular policy.

2) The second is the EQIA and the gender and intersectional analysis utilised to complete the assessment.

3) The third concerns evaluation activity, in the sense of whether ongoing evaluations aim to uncover progress of policies by gender, and intersectionality, to better understand whether any gender gaps are being addressed and reduced.

While there is no one agreed framework for assessing gender inclusion in policy documents, RAG members offered suggested frameworks to assess policy documents in relation to gender. Some of the frameworks referred to were internal to the organisation and simplified versions of the questions used were provided to the research team. We also drew upon the OECD Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality,¹²⁵ with particular reference to the chapters on institutional and governance frameworks for gender equality and mainstreaming, strategic use of governance tools to promote gender equality and mainstreaming gender considerations in infrastructure. The toolkit provides an internationally recognised resource to assist governments in implementing gender equality and includes self-assessment tools to guide assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of policies, mechanisms and frameworks for gender equality. Further, academic papers outlining key frameworks for gendered and intersectional policy analysis were also considered.^{[130] [131]} These papers outlined the key considerations when viewing policies through a gendered lens including how intersectional identities interact with policies, whether the policy results in equality of impacts, whether presumed gender neutrality hides the reality of the gendered nature of the policy problem, whether women were clearly visible in the policy, and whether gendered expectations and language are encoded in the policy.

The well-established frameworks consulted provide a comprehensive approach to gendered policy analysis from both an academic and practitioner perspective. Following their review, the below key questions were developed by the research team to assess the different elements of each policy.

Each document was then reviewed according to policy stage (policy strategy, EQIAs and evaluation), with each stage adopting a different assessment framework. The following key questions for each stage are outlined below.

First, we reviewed policy strategy documents to assess the extent to which policy development focuses on gender equality and intersectional gender equality. To answer this element of the review the following questions were considered:

• Does the policy strategy have intended outcomes for women? Are policies aiming to improve women’s lives/outcomes specifically?
• Are policies targeting gender inequality?
• Are policies considering specific groups of women (i.e. an intersectional gender lens?)

Second, we assessed completed EQIAs for each policy area through a gender lens. In answering this element, we considered whether the EQIA:

• Has used relevant gender-sensitive, sex-disaggregated qualitative and quantitative evidence;
• Has filled evidence gaps where needed;
• Has applied the evidence to identify where gendered discrimination against women could be reduced and where women’s equality with men can be advanced; and
• Has used this analysis to inform policy development by making appropriate changes to the original policy solutions or ensuring that the detailed policy development addresses the inequalities and opportunities for equality that have been identified. Is there any evident policy action aiming to tackle those barriers/issues identified? (e.g. through targeted measures which focus on these groups / barriers)

And third, we reviewed the evaluation programmes and considered the extent to which evaluation activity prioritised gendered outcomes. In answering this element of the review, we considered the question:

• Does the evaluation look at specific outcomes for women / specific groups of women?

A summary of the assessment of each policy against these questions can be found in Annex D. The assessment of policies against these three elements was then used to consider how different BSBF policies were taking a gender lens during design and implementation at each stage of the process, from the creation of policy strategies to EQIAs and then in evaluating the impact of these policies. In considering what we have learned so far from the approach taken, we also looked at whether evidence on gender gathered during the EQIA and evaluation was used to inform policy development.

Step 3. Collation of data

In order to undertake the policy review, we collated a range of policy documents, EQIAs evaluation strategies and research reports. The collation of documents was all based on publicly available documents. No internal documentation was used to inform this process. This was in line with recent recommendations for the Scottish Government to increase accountability, transparency and access to work on intersectional gender equality.

Relevant policy and analytical colleagues for each specific policy area were contacted and asked to feed into this process. They reviewed the documents the researchers found and, either confirmed that the documents we had collated were the most up to date or provided further documents that set out how gender had been considered in policy development and delivery.

A list of all published policy documentation considered in this review is listed in Annex C.

Step 4. Coding and analysis

A coding framework was developed in Excel using the questions outlined under Step 2 (see also Annex D). Two social researchers were involved in the coding and analysis process. This allowed for us to discuss the emerging codes and themes, ensure consistency, and refine our analysis. This process also allowed for cross-validation of codes and themes and minimised bias increasing the robustness and trustworthiness of the analysis.

Each output gathered for this review was considered – either as policy document, EQIA, or evaluation output – in the analysis.

During the review of documents, the social researchers looked for key terms around gender and sex more broadly (i.e. gender, sex, man, woman, boy, girl, male, female) and also considered more implicit terms relating to gender (as we have pulled out in the policy review itself, this refers to the priority family groups and the use of parents/carers). The review also looked for references to equalities more broadly (i.e. equality, discrimination, protected characteristics). Notes were made to the extent to which each document was said to answer the question set out in the framework. For example, when considering ‘Does the evaluation look at specific outcomes for women / specific groups of women?’, notes were made if this was direct (reference to women), indirect/implicit (reference to priority family groups such as young mothers or lone parents), gender neutral (reference to parents/carers) or not specified (reference to individuals or service users).

Upon completion of coding, a draft structure for the policy review was agreed by the social researchers. This set out to answer the research questions – highlighting the extent to which gender has been considered by key BSBF policies and what we have learned to date. This drew together thematic findings from across the range of policies considered in the review. In considering what we have learned to date, we sought to highlight where we found good practice across policy design, development and implementation.

The policy review was drafted and key findings from this draft were shared with the RAG (consisting of internal and external stakeholders). This allowed for challenge and validation of findings by key stakeholders working in the area of gender equality. This adds a further layer of validity and credibility to the policy review findings. Then, internal Scottish Government colleagues (working across policy and analytical units) were invited to cross-check these findings with their knowledge and understanding of their respective areas. For example, providing us with further updates on how gender has been considered since the initial collation of relevant document (see Step 3. Collation of data).

The publication of this policy review, and wider report, adheres to the Scottish Government Social Research Publication Protocol.

Research Advisory Group

A Research Advisory Group (RAG) was established for the project to provide insights, advice, feedback and contacts that would help to contribute to quality assurance. The group included stakeholders from internal Scottish Government teams such as the Equalities Policy Unit and external stakeholders such as representatives from the NACWG, Close the Gap and Engender.

The group met at key stages during the project, including at project initiation and when initial findings were available. In addition, the group were offered the opportunity to provide feedback on the key findings and executive summary of the report prior to publication.

The group assisted with various aspects of the review, including:

• Providing expert advice regarding technical, operational, and policy-relevant elements of the research approach.
• Representing the wider views of their team/organisation/profession/sector.
• Feeding back progress to relevant stakeholder groups and networks as appropriate.
• Ensure the independence and integrity of the project is maintained.
• Provide comment on the outputs and interim reports of the research (in skeleton format).
• At project completion, disseminating information about and learning from the evaluation to their teams, stakeholders and networks, as relevant.

Limitations

Evidence Review Limitations

This was a rapid evidence review conducted over a short timeframe and does not reflect a comprehensive systematic appraisal of all research evidence on the topic of gender and poverty. As set out above, care was taken to consider the robustness of the evidence included and to work with both internal and external stakeholders to fill evidence gaps where these were identified.

The scope of this evidence review is broad, covering the drivers of poverty as well and gender alongside a range of other equalities characteristics. There is a wide evidence base across these parameters with both academic and grey literature available covering both primary and secondary data analysis. However, the criteria for the review, including evidence from 2017 onwards only and with a specific focus on Scotland and the UK means that there may be other older or international evidence that has not been included.

The lack of high quality, sex disaggregated poverty data is a further limitation. Standard household level measurements used across UK and Scottish Government data collection do not lend themselves to an understanding of the differential impact, and experiences, of poverty by gender over time. There are some alternative sources of data that do disaggregate by gender, and these are synthesised in Scotland’s Gender Equality Index and Equality Evidence Finder. These are useful tools to understand the current context of gender equality, as well as gendered trends. However, these tools have limitations in the context of child poverty as the data does not provide a further breakdown for parents and non-parents.

There is a strong evidence base on how women are experiencing, and impacted by, the drivers of poverty, but there is a lack of comparative data on men’s experiences. Gaps were particularly apparent in the evidence on lone parents. The vast majority of lone parents are likely to be women, but there is little evidence on the experiences of lone fathers. Similarly, there are gaps in the evidence on understanding men’s experiences in relation to caring responsibilities and the division of labour. We can infer from the evidence available about why men may be less likely to take an active role in unpaid care and domestic responsibilities. However, more evidence is required on the barriers men face taking a more equal role in these spheres.

The evidence review aimed to include intersectional analysis where possible and, in some instances, there was good quality evidence available on intersectional experiences of inequality. However, this is inconsistent and there are gaps in the available data. In addition, due to the focus of the review on the links between women’s poverty and child poverty, we primarily focused on intersectional data relating to the priority family types (lone parent families, minority ethnic families, mothers under 25, families with a disabled family member, and families with three or more children) and this meant that some equalities characteristics were not fully explored (such as sexual orientation).

Both equalities and poverty policy are key priorities for the Scottish and UK Governments and these are also areas with strong representation from an active stakeholder base. This has meant that the available evidence in these areas is consistently evolving with new data published regularly and this may mean that some evidence has not been included.

Policy Review Limitations

Similarly to the evidence review, the policy review was carried out within a relatively short timeframe. The scope of the review was limited to published documents. Therefore, we only included policy strategies, EQIAs, evaluation strategies and research reports that were in the public domain. This means that, across the policy areas, any internal documents that addressed the subject of gender were not included in analysis.

The scope of the policy review was clearly defined, with a focus on how policies took a gender lens in their development, implementation and evaluation. This review does not, and is not intended to, provide an assessment of the effectiveness of any of these policies in meeting their aims and outcomes.

The coding framework applied was tightly defined in determining what could be characterised as gender sensitive policy development. We identified where references to gender were direct, indirect/implicit, gender neutral or not specified. Our analysis is based on an assessment of how explicit policies were in seeking to address outcomes for women across published documents. This method provides an assessment of whether gender and intersecting characteristics are explicitly discussed throughout the policy process. However, policies that do not have an explicit gender focus across published outputs, may still have positive impacts for women.