A Scottish Government National Statistics publication

Published on 23 March 2023

This is the latest release.

This report presents three-year averaged estimates of the proportion of people, children, working-age adults and pensioners in Scotland living in poverty, and other statistics on household income and income inequality. These estimates are used to monitor progress in reducing poverty, child poverty and income inequality.

The latest estimates are from the period between April 2019 and March 2022. Data collected in the middle of this three-year period (April 2020 - March 2021) was removed due to data quality issues related to the pandemic.

What you need to know

Statistics in this report are based on data from the Family Resources Survey. This survey has been the main source of information on household income and poverty in Scotland since 1994/95.

Poverty measures

The Scottish Government measures different aspects of poverty with different indicators. The most commonly used poverty indicator in Scotland for showing trends is relative poverty after housing costs. Other poverty measures in this report are absolute poverty, material deprivation, and degrees of household food security. These are included in additional charts throughout the report.

Unless otherwise stated, these statistics are based on net income and adjusted for household size. Net income is income from earnings, social security payments and other sources minus taxes. All incomes are in 2021/22 prices, so the purchasing power is comparable over time. Estimates in this publication are rounded to the nearest £1 for weekly incomes, £100 for annual incomes, 1% for proportions and ratios, and 10,000 for populations. Poverty is defined at the household level. If the household income is below the poverty threshold, all people within the household are in poverty.

Survey data

The estimates in this publication are based on a sample survey and are therefore subject to sampling variation.

For example, the child poverty rates for Scotland in the latest period can vary within a typical uncertainty range of plus or minus seven percentage points, or plus or minus 80,000 children. This means that the proportion of children in relative poverty is likely to be somewhere between 16% and 31%. And the number of children in relative poverty after housing costs is likely to be somewhere between 160,000 and 310,000 children. Poverty rates and numbers shown in this report give the central estimates only.

For some of the key estimates, you can find the ranges in the measurement uncertainty section. To show this in the poverty charts, you can now also add indicative confidence intervals around the trendlines.

Add confidence intervals by clicking on the greyed-out parts of the legend.

None of the latest changes in the estimated poverty rates in the Poverty and Child poverty sections of this report are statistically significant. It is therefore better to look at longer-term trends to confirm that a change over time is real, or that differences between groups are consistent.

Three-year averages

The poverty and income estimates are shown as three-year rolling (overlapping) averages, unless stated otherwise. Taking the average over three years reduces fluctuation due to sampling variation and shows trends and differences between groups more clearly.

Some single-year estimates are also available in the associated tables.

Impact of the pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic severely disrupted the data collection in 2020/21. As a result, we were unable to obtain a representative sample for Scotland in that year.

The 2021/22 data is considered to be representative of the Scottish population.

This means that the three-year periods 2018-21 and 2019-22 only contain data from two financial years each. Therefore, some real changes that happened to incomes, such as the furlough scheme or the temporary increase of Universal Credit are only partially captured in the time series.

Due to the missing data year and the ongoing impact of the pandemic on survey response rates, the sample size is much reduced in the latest two periods. This means that data is more volatile, and sudden changes need to be interpreted with caution.

More information about the impact of the pandemic on data collection and the data itself is available in DWP’s HBAI Technical report.

All people

The most commonly used poverty indicator in Scotland is relative poverty after housing costs. Alongside this key indicator, we also report on other poverty measures, focusing on different aspects of poverty.

Relative poverty

Relative poverty rate for all individuals broadly stable

It is estimated that 21% of Scotland's population (1,110,000 people each year) were living in relative poverty after housing costs in 2019-22. Before housing costs, 19% of the population (1,000,000 people) were living in poverty.

Relative poverty is a measure of whether the lowest-income households are keeping pace with middle income households across the UK.

The latest estimate is higher than in previous years, driven by a higher rate for working-age adults. It is yet unclear whether this is the beginning of a new trend, or if it is a volatile data point. It might be the latter, because UK data shows declining working-age poverty, and Scottish working-age income trends usually move similarly to the UK's.

The proportion of people in relative poverty after housing costs had been falling slightly between the late nineties and the lowest point in this time series in 2009-12. After that, it started to rise again up until 2015-18, and has been stable since. Before-housing-costs poverty looks similar, with the all-time low slightly later, in 2011-14.

Add confidence intervals by clicking on the greyed-out parts of the legend.

Table 1a: Proportion of people in relative poverty, Scotland<br>Note: see commentary for data concerns around latest estimate
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 24% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20% 19% 19% 19% 19% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 21%
Before housing costs 21% 21% 21% 20% 20% 20% 20% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 14% 15% 15% 16% 17% 17% 17% 17% 19%
Table 1b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
All people 8,299 8,105 7,698 7,579 7,626 8,095 11,023 14,003 16,458 16,157 15,337 15,092 14,739 14,686 14,442 13,385 12,152 10,750 10,277 9,795 9,596 9,369 9,521 9,346 6,239 5,061

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty rate for all individuals broadly stable

It is estimated that 17% of the population (930,000 people each year) were living in absolute poverty after housing costs in 2019-22. After a long decline since the beginning of this time series in the mid-nineties, absolute poverty rates have stagnated in the last decade.

Before housing costs, 15% of the population (820,000 people each year) were in absolute poverty. The trend is similar to the after housing costs measure, although the downward trend started to stagnate a few years later.

The gap between the before and after housing costs measure had widened in 2008-11, but has remained largely steady since.

Absolute poverty is a measure of whether the incomes of the poorest households are keeping pace with inflation, and is based on a fixed poverty threshold, the inflation-adjusted relative poverty threshold in 2010/11.

Table 2a: Proportion of people in absolute poverty, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 39% 38% 35% 33% 31% 29% 27% 24% 22% 21% 20% 19% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 17% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Before housing costs 37% 35% 33% 31% 30% 28% 25% 23% 21% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 15% 14% 14% 14% 15%
Table 2b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
All people 8,299 8,105 7,698 7,579 7,626 8,095 11,023 14,003 16,458 16,157 15,337 15,092 14,739 14,686 14,442 13,385 12,152 10,750 10,277 9,795 9,596 9,369 9,521 9,346 6,239 5,061

Food security

A third of people in poverty live in households that lack high food security

Food security is measured at a household level. The person in the household who knows most about buying and preparing food responds to the questions about food security. Note that not everyone in the household may experience this in the same way. For example, a parent may have worried about running out of food or reduced their own meal sizes, but protected their young children from this experience.

In 2019-22, 86% of the population lived in households with high food security. This means that 14% of people lived in households with marginal, low or very low food security.

People in poverty were less likely to experience high food security: just 65% of those in relative poverty, and 65% of those in severe poverty lived in high food security households.

Household food security questions were newly added to the Family Resources Survey in 2019/20. They ask about whether people were worried about running out of food, had to reduce meal sizes or skip meals. More information can be found in the Definitions section.

Table 3a: Levels of household food security of all people and those in poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group High Marginal Low Very low
All people 86% 6% 4% 4%
In relative poverty 65% 13% 11% 11%
In severe poverty 65% 12% 11% 13%
Table 3b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All people 5,019
In relative poverty 1,026
In severe poverty 739

Food security tables are now available for a range of household types and equality characteristics in the associated tables. They show, for example, that the older the household, the more food secure it is.

Children

Children are more likely to be in poverty across all measures compared to adults.

The Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 requires us to report every year on four different child poverty measures. The latest single-year estimates can be found in the Child poverty summary. In this report, however, we show three-year averaged estimates only, which are better for seeing trends.

In this publication, 'child' refers to a dependent child. This is explained in the Definitions section.

Relative poverty

Child poverty stable

It is estimated that 24% of children (250,000 children each year) were living in relative poverty after housing costs in 2019-22. Before housing costs, it is estimated that 22% of children (230,000 children each year) were in relative poverty.

After a long fall between the late nineties and 2010-13, which slowed briefly just before the 2008/09 recession, child poverty rates were gradually rising again. The after-housing-cost rise appears to have stopped rising now, whereas the before-housing costs measure continues to rise slightly.

Add confidence intervals by clicking on the greyed-out parts of the legend.

Table 4a: Proportion of children in relative poverty, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 32% 32% 32% 31% 31% 31% 30% 28% 26% 25% 25% 24% 25% 24% 24% 21% 21% 21% 22% 23% 23% 24% 23% 24% 25% 24%
Before housing costs 29% 29% 30% 29% 27% 27% 26% 25% 23% 22% 21% 20% 21% 20% 19% 17% 17% 16% 16% 16% 18% 20% 20% 21% 20% 22%
Table 4b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Children 2,277 2,168 1,980 1,921 1,858 1,967 2,708 3,414 3,963 3,771 3,543 3,498 3,443 3,417 3,364 3,103 2,851 2,504 2,386 2,174 2,122 1,974 2,031 1,947 1,326 1,000

Working poverty

Having paid work is an effective way out of poverty, and those families where all adults are in full-time work have a low poverty risk. But having a job is not always enough, for example when it does not pay well, or when someone is unable to work enough hours.

More than two thirds of children in poverty live in working households

While the poverty risk is much lower for children in working households compared to those in non-working households, not all work pays enough to ensure the household is above the poverty threshold. Figure 5a shows the make-up of children in poverty, and Figure 5b shows the share who live in working households.

It is estimated that in 2019-22, 69% of children in relative poverty after housing costs were living in working households (170,000 children each year).

Figure 5b shows that in-work poverty has been increasing consistently, reflecting high employment rates, and is now broadly stable at its highest level.

The terms ‘working’ and ‘in-work poverty’ here refer to paid employment. They do not include unpaid work such as caring for your children or other family members. In-work poverty refers to the share of children in poverty who live in households where at least one member of the household is in either full or part-time paid work.

Table 5a: Children in relative poverty after housing costs by household work status, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
In workless households 53% 56% 55% 53% 51% 52% 54% 52% 50% 49% 50% 51% 49% 49% 46% 45% 41% 36% 34% 34% 35% 32% 32% 31%
In working households 47% 44% 45% 47% 49% 48% 46% 48% 50% 51% 50% 49% 51% 51% 54% 55% 59% 64% 66% 66% 65% 68% 68% 69%
Table 5b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Children 1,980 1,921 1,858 1,967 2,708 3,414 3,963 3,771 3,543 3,498 3,443 3,417 3,364 3,103 2,851 2,504 2,386 2,174 2,122 1,974 2,031 1,947 1,326 1,000

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty rate for children largely stable

Absolute child poverty after housing costs affected 21% (210,000 children each year). Before housing costs, absolute child poverty was at 18% (180,000 children each year).

Absolute child poverty before housing costs steadily decreased between the mid-nineties and just before the 2008/09 recession. The decrease of the after-housing-costs rate then slowed down. The before-housing-costs measure continued to decrease until 2013-16 and has been largely flat since.

Table 6a: Proportion of children in absolute poverty, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 50% 49% 46% 43% 40% 38% 34% 31% 27% 26% 25% 24% 24% 24% 23% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 21% 22% 21% 21% 21% 21%
Before housing costs 46% 46% 43% 40% 38% 36% 33% 29% 25% 23% 22% 21% 20% 20% 19% 17% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18%
Table 6b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Children 2,277 2,168 1,980 1,921 1,858 1,967 2,708 3,414 3,963 3,771 3,543 3,498 3,443 3,417 3,364 3,103 2,851 2,504 2,386 2,174 2,122 1,974 2,031 1,947 1,326 1,000

Material deprivation

Children in combined material deprivation and low income broadly stable

It is estimated that 11% of children were living in combined low income and material deprivation after housing costs in 2019-22. Before housing costs, this was 10% of children.

We cannot say exactly how many children are affected, because the sample size is low this year. But in the previous period, 120,000 children were in combined low income after housing costs and material deprivation each year.

This measure has not changed much since it was introduced, and the long-term trend is stable. The recent gradual fall is small and may not be real, as the latest two estimates cannot be directly compared to previous estimates. This is because the latest two periods cover a time when families were less able to undertake certain activities due to the pandemic, and not necessarily because they couldn't afford to. This changed how people responded to the material deprivation questions.

Combined low income and child material deprivation is an additional way of measuring living standards. It is about households who cannot afford basic goods and activities that are seen as necessities in society.

More detail on this can be found in the Definitions section.

Table 7a: Proportion of children in combined low income and material deprivation, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Old measure, after housing costs 16% 15% 16% 16% 16% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
New measure, after housing costs -- -- -- -- -- 12% 12% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 13% 12% 11%
Old measure, before housing costs 15% 15% 16% 15% 15% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
New measure, before housing costs -- -- -- -- -- 10% 11% 11% 11% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 10%
Table 7b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Old measure 3,543 3,498 3,443 3,417 3,364 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
New measure -- -- -- -- -- -- 2,851 2,504 2,386 2,174 2,122 1,974 2,031 1,947 1,326 1,000

Material deprivation data has been collected since 2004/05. Due to a change in the methodology, it is not possible to compare the most recent years with years before 2010-13 directly. This is shown as a break in the chart. But trends before and after the break are broadly stable.

Food security

Children in poverty often live in households that lack food security

Food security is measured at a household level. The person in the household who knows most about buying and preparing food responds to the questions about food security. Note that not everyone in the household may experience this in the same way. For example, a parent may have worried about running out of food or reduced their own meal sizes, but protected their young children from this experience.

In 2019-22, 79% of children lived in households with high food security. This means that 21% of children lived in households with marginal, low or very low food security.

Children in poverty were less likely to have high food security: just 55% of those in relative poverty, and 56% of those in severe poverty lived in high food security households.

People are in severe poverty when their household income is less than half of the UK median income.

Household food security questions were newly added to the Family Resources Survey in 2019/20. They ask about whether people were worried about running out of food, had to reduce meal sizes or skip meals. More information can be found in the Definitions section.

Table 8a: Levels of food security of all children and those in poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group High Marginal Low Very low
All children 79% 9% 7% 6%
In relative poverty 55% 18% 16% 12%
In severe poverty 56% 16% 16% 12%
Table 8b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All children 1,000
In relative poverty 224
In severe poverty 166

Priority groups

Some types of households with children are known to be at a particularly high risk of poverty. These include households with single parents, three or more children, disabled household members, of a minority ethnic background, with a child aged under one, or a mother aged under 25. These groups do not cover everyone at higher risk of poverty, but taken together, they cover the majority of households with children that are in poverty.

This section looks at children in these groups, and their poverty risk under four different poverty measures.

Note that households with mothers aged under 25 and households with babies aged under 1 are not included in this analysis, because there were too few of them in the sample this year to provide robust estimates.

Here, the minority ethnic group includes white minorities such as white people who are not British. The Equality analysis section includes more detailed ethnicity categories.

Relative poverty

Children in priority groups have a higher risk of being in relative poverty

Children in the priority groups were more likely to be in relative poverty compared to all children. This was in particular true for those in ethnic minority households, and those with a single parent in the household.

Table 9a: Proportion of children in relative poverty after housing cost, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Rate
All children 24%
3 or more children in the household 34%
Disabled household member(s) 28%
Youngest child in the household is under 1 --
Minority ethnic household 39%
Single parent in the household 38%
Mother under 25 in household --
Table 9b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All children 1,000
3 or more children in the household 133
Disabled household member(s) 360
Youngest child in the household is under 1 71
Minority ethnic household 149
Single parent in the household 279
Mother under 25 in household 29

Absolute poverty

Children in priority groups have a higher risk of being in absolute poverty

Children in the priority groups were more likely to be in absolute poverty compared to all children. This was in particular true for those with a single parent in the household and for ethnic minority households.

Table 10a: Proportion of children in absolute poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Rate
All children 21%
3 or more children in the household 32%
Disabled household member(s) 24%
Youngest child in the household is under 1 --
Minority ethnic household 34%
Single parent in the household 36%
Mother under 25 in household --
Table 10b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All children 1,000
3 or more children in the household 133
Disabled household member(s) 360
Youngest child in the household is under 1 71
Minority ethnic household 149
Single parent in the household 279
Mother under 25 in household 29

Material deprivation

Children in some priority groups have a higher risk of experiencing combined low income and material deprivation

Children in the priority groups tended to be more likely to be in combined low income and material deprivation compared to all children. This was in particular true for those with a single parent in the household.

Table 11a: Proportion of children in combined low income and material deprivation, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Rate
All children 11%
3 or more children in the household 18%
Disabled household member(s) 18%
Youngest child in the household is under 1 --
Minority ethnic household 16%
Single parent in the household 23%
Mother under 25 in household --
Table 11b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All children 1,000
3 or more children in the household 133
Disabled household member(s) 360
Youngest child in the household is under 1 71
Minority ethnic household 149
Single parent in the household 279
Mother under 25 in household 29

Persistent poverty

Children in priority groups have a higher risk of being in persistent poverty

The persistent poverty measure is based on data from the Understanding Society Survey. We cover this measure in detail in the Persistent Poverty report. Here, we only include persistent child poverty for the priority groups, where data is available.

Note that the groups are slightly different from the groups used in the other priority group charts.

Table 12a: Proportion of children in persistent poverty after housing cost, Scotland 2017-2021
Understanding Society Survey
Group Rate
All children 18%
3 or more children in the family --
Disabled adult(s) in family 28%
Youngest child in the family is under 5 22%
Minority ethnic family --
Single parent family --
Mother under 25 --
Table 12b: Sample size
Understanding Society Survey
Group Sample
All children 382
3 or more children in the family 70
Disabled adult(s) in family 146
Youngest child in the family is under 5 102
Minority ethnic family 11
Single parent family 69
Mother under 25 2

Working-age adults

Working-age adults tend to be less likely to be in poverty compared to children.

Working-age adults are all adults up to the state pension age. Women’s state pension age reached 65 in November 2018, aligning it with men’s state pension age. Since December 2018, the state pension age for both men and women has been increasing. In the latest data period included in this report, the State Pension age for both men and women increased to 66 years.

Relative poverty

Relative poverty rate for working-age adults largely stable

Relative poverty for working-age adults has been broadly stable since the nineties, when reporting began. The relative poverty rate in 2019-22 was estimated to be 21% after housing costs, and 18% before housing costs.

The latest estimate is higher than in previous years, driven by more working-age adults who are economically inactive. This means they are not in work and are not looking for work, maybe because they are disabled or have retired early. It is yet unclear whether this is the beginning of a new trend, or if it is a volatile data point. It might be the latter, because UK data shows declining working-age poverty, and Scottish working-age income trends usually move similarly to the UK's.

In 2019-22, there were 710,000 working-age adults in poverty after housing costs, and 620,000 before housing costs.

Add confidence intervals by clicking on the greyed-out parts of the legend.

Table 13a: Proportion of working-age adults in relative poverty, Scotland<br>Note: see commentary for data concerns around latest estimate
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 18% 18% 19% 19% 20% 20% 20% 19% 19% 19% 18% 18% 18% 19% 19% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 21%
Before housing costs 16% 15% 16% 16% 17% 17% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 16% 15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 15% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 18%
Table 13b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Working-age adults 6,205 6,129 5,809 5,759 5,727 6,101 8,251 10,399 12,170 11,917 11,315 11,108 10,812 10,774 10,526 9,767 8,854 7,834 7,432 7,003 6,854 6,647 6,808 6,661 4,457 3,518

Working poverty

Having paid work is an effective way out of poverty, and those families where all adults are in full-time work have a low poverty risk. But having a job is not always enough, for example when it does not pay well, or when someone is unable to work enough hours.

Most working-age adults in poverty live in working households

In 2019-22, 57% of working-age adults (410,000 working-age adults each year) in relative poverty after housing costs were living in a household where someone was in paid work.

The share of working-age adults in poverty who lived in working households continuously increased since 2011-14, reflecting high employment rates, and now appears largely stable except for the latest estimate.

While the number of adults in working poverty remains largely stable, their share of all working-age adults in poverty shows a drop. This is because the additional adults who are now in poverty largely live in non-working households. It is yet unclear whether this is the beginning of a new trend, or if it is a volatile data point.

The terms ‘working’ and ‘in-work poverty’ here refer to paid employment. They do not include unpaid work such as caring for your children or other family members. In-work poverty refers to the share of children in poverty who live in households where at least one member of the household is in either full or part-time paid work.

Table 14a: Working-age adults in relative poverty after housing costs by household work status, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
In workless households 52% 52% 53% 52% 48% 49% 50% 49% 48% 47% 49% 48% 48% 48% 47% 48% 45% 43% 41% 40% 40% 39% 38% 43%
In working households 48% 48% 47% 48% 52% 51% 50% 51% 52% 53% 51% 52% 52% 52% 53% 52% 55% 57% 59% 60% 60% 61% 62% 57%
Table 14b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Working-age adults 5,809 5,759 5,727 6,101 8,251 10,399 12,170 11,917 11,315 11,108 10,812 10,774 10,526 9,767 8,854 7,834 7,432 7,003 6,854 6,647 6,808 6,661 4,457 3,518

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty rate for working-age adults stable

Absolute poverty amongst working-age adults remained broadly stable during the last fifteen years. In 2019-22, 18% of working-age adults were in absolute poverty after housing costs, and 15% before housing costs.

This means that in 2019-22, there were 620,000 working-age adults each year in absolute poverty after housing costs, compared to 520,000 before housing costs.

The latest estimates show an increase, but again, it is yet unclear whether this is the beginning of a new trend, or if it is a volatile data point.

Table 15a: Proportion of working-age adults in absolute poverty, Scotland<br>Note: see commentary for data concerns around latest estimate
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 31% 30% 28% 27% 26% 25% 23% 21% 20% 19% 19% 18% 18% 19% 19% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 17% 18%
Before housing costs 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 21% 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 14% 15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 15%
Table 15b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Working-age adults 6,205 6,129 5,809 5,759 5,727 6,101 8,251 10,399 12,170 11,917 11,315 11,108 10,812 10,774 10,526 9,767 8,854 7,834 7,432 7,003 6,854 6,647 6,808 6,661 4,457 3,518

Food security

More than one third of working-age adults in poverty live in households lacking high food security

Food security is measured at a household level. The person in the household who knows most about buying and preparing food responds to the questions about food security. Note that not everyone in the household may experience this in the same way. For example, a parent may have worried about running out of food or reduced their own meal sizes, but protected their young children from this experience.

In 2019-22, 85% of working-age adults lived in households with high food security. This means that 15% of working-age adults lived in households with marginal, low or very low food security.

Working-age adults in poverty were less likely to have high food security: just 63% of those in relative poverty, and 64% of those in severe poverty lived in high food security households.

People are in severe poverty when their household income is less than half of the UK median income.

Household food security questions were newly added to the Family Resources Survey in 2019/20. They ask about whether people were worried about running out of food, had to reduce meal sizes or skip meals. More information can be found in the Definitions section.

Table 16a: Levels of food security of all working-age adults and those in poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group High Marginal Low Very low
All working-age adults 85% 6% 4% 4%
In relative poverty 63% 13% 11% 13%
In severe poverty 64% 11% 11% 15%
Table 16b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All working-age adults 3,477
In relative poverty 768
In severe poverty 603

Pensioners

Pensioners are adults who have reached their state pension age.

Women’s state pension age reached 65 in November 2018, aligning it with men’s state pension age. Since December 2018, the state pension age for both men and women has been increasing. In the latest data period included in this report, the State Pension age for both men and women increased to 66 years.

Relative poverty

Relative poverty rate for pensioners stable

The relative poverty rate after housing costs for pensioners was 15% in 2019-22, or 150,000 pensioners each year. The poverty rate has been consistently below that for working-age adults (21%) and children (24%).

Before housing costs, 16% of pensioners (150,000 pensioners) were in relative poverty.

Relative pensioner poverty after housing costs showed a long decline until 2008-11, was then largely stable for a few years before it started to rise again. In recent years, relative pensioner poverty has been largely stable.

Note that for pensioners, the before-housing-cost poverty rates are higher than the after-housing-costs poverty rates. This is because the majority of pensioners tend to have a relatively low income but also low housing costs as they own their home. It is therefore more meaningful to use the after-housing-costs poverty measure for comparing the standard of living between pensioners and other age groups.

Add confidence intervals by clicking on the greyed-out parts of the legend.

Table 17a: Proportion of pensioners in relative poverty, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 31% 31% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 23% 20% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 13% 15% 15% 14% 14% 15%
Before housing costs 28% 27% 27% 26% 26% 24% 23% 22% 22% 20% 19% 20% 19% 18% 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% 16% 17% 18% 18% 17% 16% 16%
Table 17b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Pensioners 2,322 2,189 2,082 2,039 2,131 2,252 3,111 4,060 4,828 4,778 4,538 4,504 4,461 4,469 4,471 4,134 3,756 3,296 3,172 3,096 3,039 3,057 3,052 3,035 2,003 1,744

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty rate for pensioners gradually decreasing

Absolute poverty after housing costs for pensioners was 10% (100,000 pensioners each year) in 2019-22. Before housing costs, it was 12% (120,000 pensioners).

Absolute poverty had remained broadly stable between 2008-11 and 2016-19, following a continuous decrease since the nineties, when reporting began. In recent years, absolute pensioner poverty has gradually decreased.

Table 18a: Proportion of pensioners in absolute poverty, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
After housing costs 53% 50% 46% 42% 39% 34% 31% 28% 24% 20% 17% 16% 14% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 11% 10%
Before housing costs 54% 51% 47% 44% 40% 36% 31% 28% 26% 23% 21% 21% 19% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 12%
Table 18b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Pensioners 2,322 2,189 2,082 2,039 2,131 2,252 3,111 4,060 4,828 4,778 4,538 4,504 4,461 4,469 4,471 4,134 3,756 3,296 3,172 3,096 3,039 3,057 3,052 3,035 2,003 1,744

Material deprivation

Pensioners in material deprivation gradually decreasing

In 2019-22, 4% of pensioners were in material deprivation.

While this estimate has been gradually declining over the years, we cannot directly compare the latest estimate to previous estimates. This is because the latest period covers a time when people were less able to undertake certain activities due to the pandemic, and not necessarily because they were deprived. This changed how people responded to the material deprivation questions.

We cannot say exactly how many pensioners were affected, because the sample size is low this year. But in the previous period, about 50,000 pensioners were in material deprivation each year.

Pensioner material deprivation is different to other measures of poverty, including the child low income and material deprivation measure. It does not only consider low income. It also captures other barriers to accessing goods and services, such as poor health, disability and social isolation.

More information about pensioner material deprivation can be found in the Definitions section.

Pensioner material deprivation is included for all pensioners aged 65 or over. There were some pensioners in the analysis who were younger than 65; these were not included. Therefore, this measure looks at a slightly smaller group of people than the other measures in the Pensioners section.

This data has been collected since 2009.

Table 19a: Proportion of pensioners aged 65 and over in material deprivation, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Pensioners aged 65 and over 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4%
Table 19b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Pensioners aged 65 and older 3,497 3,257 2,931 2,886 2,872 2,859 2,939 2,991 3,014 2,000 1,744

Food security

Pensioners usually live in households with high food security

Food security is measured at a household level. The person in the household who knows most about buying and preparing food responds to the questions about food security. Note that not everyone in the household may experience this in the same way.

In 2019-22, 96% of pensioners lived in households with high food security. This means that 4% of pensioners lived in households with marginal, low or very low food security.

Pensioners in poverty were slightly less likely to have high food security: 93% of those in relative poverty, and 92% of those in severe poverty lived in high food security households.

People are in severe poverty when their household income is less than half of the UK median income.

Household food security questions were newly added to the Family Resources Survey in 2019/20. They ask about whether people were worried about running out of food, had to reduce meal sizes or skip meals. More information can be found in the Definitions section.

Table 20a: Levels of food security of all pensioners and those in poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group High Marginal Low Very low
All pensioners 96% 2% 1% --
In relative poverty 93% 4% 2% 1%
In severe poverty 92% 6% 2% --
Table 20b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Sample
All pensioners 1,743
In relative poverty 286
In severe poverty 155

Equality analysis

Poverty is measured at a household level. Everyone in the same household is considered either in poverty or not in poverty. This makes it difficult to measure the poverty risk by individual characteristics such as age or gender for people who share the households with others.

For most characteristics in this section, we include everyone in the analysis, but keep in mind that the poverty risk is influenced by others in the household.

Note that estimates in this section tend to fluctuate, because some groups are smaller and have small sample sizes. This means that we can comment on consistent differences between groups, but any short-term changes over time are hidden in the fluctuations.

Age

The age analysis looks at the age of the head of the household. Poverty rates refer to the proportion of people in households by age of the household head.

Working-age households

Relative poverty rates highest for the youngest households

In the last 15 years, the youngest households (household heads aged 16-24) have been consistently more likely to be in relative poverty compared to older households.

Figure 21 shows that in 2019-22, 36% of people in households with household heads aged 16-24 were in relative poverty after housing costs (160,000 people each year).

In comparison, the age groups 25-34, 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 all had similar (and lower) poverty rates between 17% and 22%.

Table 21a: Proportion of people in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
16-24 25% 25% 27% 28% 30% 28% 27% 27% 29% 30% 28% 30% 30% 33% 32% 29% 32% 32% 33% 28% 29% 31% 31% 29% 27% 36%
25-34 27% 26% 27% 27% 29% 27% 26% 24% 24% 22% 21% 20% 20% 21% 20% 19% 19% 19% 20% 22% 24% 24% 22% 22% 23% 20%
35-44 23% 24% 22% 21% 22% 23% 22% 20% 18% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 17% 17% 18% 19% 20% 18% 18% 16% 18% 19% 17%
45-54 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 16% 17% 18% 18% 17% 21%
55-64 17% 19% 21% 20% 21% 22% 22% 22% 21% 19% 18% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 17% 17% 18% 18% 19% 18% 19% 19% 22%
Table 21b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
16-24 1,139 1,133 1,071 1,038 1,032 1,077 1,434 1,765 2,061 2,065 1,922 1,885 1,757 1,776 1,742 1,603 1,411 1,161 1,119 1,020 1,027 912 922 808 535 318
25-34 1,572 1,523 1,396 1,325 1,251 1,260 1,637 2,017 2,377 2,321 2,178 2,039 1,945 1,961 1,940 1,819 1,682 1,540 1,474 1,353 1,297 1,200 1,250 1,210 841 626
35-44 1,408 1,398 1,344 1,373 1,372 1,453 1,993 2,571 3,010 2,860 2,713 2,651 2,609 2,483 2,336 2,117 1,885 1,652 1,489 1,382 1,335 1,280 1,288 1,230 824 675
45-54 1,131 1,130 1,108 1,117 1,141 1,283 1,777 2,198 2,535 2,482 2,411 2,464 2,488 2,509 2,495 2,314 2,134 1,855 1,770 1,667 1,594 1,543 1,546 1,492 970 714
55-64 1,047 1,025 989 1,012 1,034 1,125 1,559 2,048 2,456 2,442 2,356 2,317 2,289 2,323 2,295 2,149 1,909 1,723 1,645 1,593 1,584 1,616 1,655 1,692 1,118 976

Pensioner households

Poverty rates similar among older age groups

Older households tend to have lower poverty rates compared to working-age households. There were no marked differences between households with heads aged 65-74, 75-84, and 85 and older.

Table 22a: Proportion of people in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
65-74 27% 27% 26% 26% 25% 24% 24% 22% 19% 15% 14% 14% 13% 12% 11% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 16%
75-84 39% 38% 36% 32% 30% 28% 26% 24% 22% 20% 18% 18% 16% 14% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 13% 16% 19% 19% 17% 16% 17%
85+ 32% 33% 33% 31% 28% 29% 29% 27% 23% 19% 19% 18% 16% 14% 13% 13% 15% 16% 18% 18% 17% 17% 15% 16% 16% 13%
Table 22b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
65-74 1,139 1,079 1,011 958 976 1,026 1,447 1,832 2,133 2,078 1,976 1,955 1,924 1,894 1,926 1,790 1,716 1,550 1,521 1,509 1,514 1,562 1,598 1,597 1,063 969
75-84 670 623 612 594 633 664 900 1,244 1,513 1,546 1,434 1,419 1,377 1,360 1,333 1,228 1,100 986 967 974 946 954 980 1,014 691 605
85+ 193 194 167 162 187 207 276 328 373 363 347 362 350 380 375 365 315 283 292 297 299 302 282 303 197 178

Poverty estimates for children by age are available in the associated tables.

Gender

In 2019-22, 20% of women and 20% of men were in relative poverty after housing costs.

Poverty is measured at a household level. This means that men and women in the same household are both either in poverty or not in poverty. In the analysis below, we therefore only include single adult households (with or without dependent children).

In 2019-22, the relative poverty rate after housing costs for single adults (working-age and pensioners) was 29%, higher than for the total adult population (20%).

Single working-age adults and gender

Relative poverty rates highest for single mothers and single men

The poverty rate was highest for single mothers (36%, number not available) and single childless men (36%, 90,000). The poverty rate for single childless women was 30% (70,000). Estimates for single fathers are not available due to small sample sizes.

In this publication, 'child' refers to a dependent child living in the household. This is explained in the Definitions section.

Table 23a: Proportion of single working-age adults in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Single mother 64% 63% 63% 60% 58% 55% 52% 52% 49% 47% 46% 47% 47% 45% 40% 36% 32% 33% 35% 38% 41% 39% 37% 38% 40% 36%
Single man, no children 39% 39% 40% 39% 41% 41% 39% 37% 35% 34% 33% 32% 33% 34% 35% 34% 35% 35% 35% 34% 33% 32% 33% 34% 36% 36%
Single woman, no children 32% 31% 29% 29% 33% 33% 34% 31% 32% 28% 27% 29% 29% 29% 27% 29% 29% 33% 34% 34% 32% 30% 28% 27% 26% 30%
Single father -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Table 23b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Single mother 478 452 398 408 410 449 602 779 904 848 781 764 771 771 734 687 656 615 587 509 461 421 423 425 282 218
Single man, no children 579 582 551 548 548 596 793 1,061 1,280 1,323 1,276 1,244 1,224 1,232 1,204 1,136 998 918 857 858 820 837 803 792 497 449
Single woman, no children 449 420 421 451 500 519 685 844 1,017 989 968 924 893 892 877 859 753 701 656 677 661 664 716 769 541 483
Single father 43 38 34 22 29 32 47 66 74 73 60 60 50 44 46 58 61 54 41 32 36 33 41 33 26 16

Single pensioners and gender

Relative poverty rates similar for male and female pensioners

In 2019-22, 23% of single female pensioners (60,000 women each year) and 18% of single male pensioners (number not available) were in relative poverty after housing costs. Note that there were too few single male pensioners in poverty in the sample to produce a robust estimate of their number.

In most years, the poverty rate after housing costs for single female pensioners had been higher than that for single male pensioners.

Table 24a: Proportion of single pensioners in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Single male pensioner 33% 40% 42% 42% 34% 28% 22% 20% 17% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 12% 10% 10% 12% 13% 15% 17% 19% 18%
Single female pensioner 45% 44% 43% 39% 38% 36% 34% 30% 25% 21% 19% 20% 17% 16% 14% 14% 14% 15% 18% 20% 19% 19% 18% 20% 19% 23%
Table 24b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Single male pensioner 286 275 236 235 259 284 378 506 604 617 564 561 520 509 507 512 512 469 458 443 463 470 511 525 368 318
Single female pensioner 927 847 820 783 789 824 1,160 1,506 1,739 1,709 1,624 1,642 1,561 1,555 1,549 1,417 1,260 1,071 1,029 996 922 913 890 930 620 575

Estimates for all men and women (whether in single, couple or other households) are available in the associated tables.

Sexual orientation

Relative poverty rates higher for LGB+ adults

The poverty rate has been consistently higher for LGB+ adults compared to straight / heterosexual adults. In 2019-22, 27% of LGB+ adults (number not available) were in poverty, compared to 20% of straight adults (600,000 adults) and 17% of adults whose sexual orientation we don't know (230,000 adults).

We included the 'Missing' category in the tables because it contains a fairly large number of adults. This group contains adults who were not asked the question because they weren't present at the interview. It also includes adults who chose not to answer the question.

Note that there were too few LGB+ adults in poverty in the sample to produce a robust estimate of their population. Also, measurement uncertainty is quite wide for this group.

LGB+ adults in this analysis are those adults who responded that they thought of themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or something other than straight or heterosexual.

Table 25a: Proportion of adults in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
LGB+ 27% 22% 22% 21% 23% 23% 24% 26% 27%
Heterosexual / straight 18% 18% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 20%
(Missing) 13% 13% 14% 14% 16% 15% 15% 14% 17%
Table 25b: Median age
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
LGB+ 40 39 37 37 36 37 37 37 38
Heterosexual / straight 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53
(Missing) 39 38 37 37 37 38 38 38 41

Marital status

Relative poverty rates highest for single, divorced & separated, and lowest for married adults

In 2019-22, the relative poverty rate after housing costs was highest for single adults (31%, 290,000 adults each year) and divorced (or separated) adults (31%, 110,000). Married adults were the least likely to be in poverty (14%, 290,000), and widowed and cohabiting adults were in the middle (21% and 17%; 60,000 and 110,000).

Poverty among widowed and divorced/separated adults largely decreased over the long term, whereas the trend for singles, cohabiting and married adults was broadly flat over time.

By 'Single' we mean adults who have never been married or in a Civil Partnership, and are not living with their partner. The 'Married' category includes Civil Partnerships, and couples who are married or in a Civil Partnership but temporarily living apart. The 'Divorced' category includes divorced couples, dissolved Civil Partnerships, and couples who are married or in a Civil partnership but are not living together because of estrangement.

Table 26a: Proportion of adults in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Divorced 40% 37% 38% 38% 41% 41% 40% 38% 34% 30% 28% 29% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 26% 27% 27% 27% 26% 25% 27% 28% 31%
Widowed 37% 38% 37% 34% 31% 28% 27% 24% 21% 17% 17% 17% 16% 15% 13% 13% 12% 14% 16% 18% 18% 19% 17% 19% 19% 21%
Cohabiting 24% 23% 21% 22% 21% 20% 19% 18% 20% 19% 19% 20% 19% 20% 17% 17% 17% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21% 20% 19% 18% 17%
Single 23% 23% 24% 24% 27% 26% 26% 25% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 27% 27% 26% 27% 28% 28% 26% 26% 28% 27% 27% 26% 31%
Married 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% 16% 16% 15% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 11% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 13% 14%
Table 26b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Divorced 959 952 885 899 916 1,025 1,392 1,795 2,072 1,996 1,897 1,917 1,982 1,979 1,923 1,753 1,587 1,413 1,334 1,258 1,206 1,213 1,268 1,297 859 731
Widowed 1,212 1,120 1,045 1,023 1,074 1,141 1,522 1,913 2,214 2,164 1,985 1,951 1,823 1,831 1,774 1,631 1,438 1,251 1,190 1,168 1,116 1,114 1,089 1,119 757 664
Cohabiting 594 630 670 708 766 806 1,172 1,560 1,932 1,968 1,954 1,972 1,976 2,054 2,124 2,034 1,896 1,784 1,788 1,740 1,630 1,630 1,646 1,632 1,056 830
Single 2,305 2,318 2,242 2,211 2,207 2,287 3,078 3,920 4,674 4,641 4,367 4,244 4,109 4,142 4,090 3,871 3,497 3,071 2,926 2,780 2,745 2,563 2,595 2,496 1,670 1,309
Married 7,052 6,800 6,382 6,184 6,092 6,478 8,890 11,190 13,064 12,744 12,222 11,988 11,674 11,414 11,186 10,226 9,364 8,246 7,866 7,438 7,428 7,328 7,492 7,236 4,850 3,884

Ethnicity

Ethnicity data relates to all people in a household and is based on the ethnicity of the adult with the highest income.

Relative poverty rates higher for ethnic minorities

In 2017-22, people from non-white minority ethnic groups were more likely to be in relative poverty after housing costs compared to those from the 'White - British' and 'White - Other' groups.

The poverty rate was 49% for the 'Asian or Asian British' ethnic groups and 48% for 'Mixed, Black or Black British and Other' ethnic groups (no population estimates available due to the small sample).

The poverty rate amongst the 'White - Other' group was 23% (80,000 people) and that of the 'White - British' group was 18% (860,000 people).

This analysis doesn't take into account differences in the age profiles of the ethnic groups.

For the 'White - British' ethnic group the median average age of the highest income earner was 55, compared with a median age of 37 for the 'White - Other' ethnic group, 40 for 'Asian or Asian British' and 41 for 'Mixed, Black, Black British or Other' ethnic groups.

Older people have a lower poverty rate, so the age profile partly explains the lower poverty rate for the 'White - British' ethnic group. However, the age difference cannot explain the entire gap in poverty rates between ethnic groups.

The ONS working paper on 'Equality across different areas of life in the UK' has more information on how age may partly explain different outcomes for different ethnic groups.

Table 27a: Proportion of people in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2017-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2001-06 2002-07 2003-08 2004-09 2005-10 2006-11 2007-12 2008-13 2009-14 2010-15 2011-16 2012-17 2013-18 2014-19 2015-20 2016-21 2017-22
Mixed, Black or Black British, and Other 39% 35% 36% 35% 37% 35% 36% 35% 36% 33% 35% 36% 40% 40% 43% 44% 48%
Asian or Asian British 37% 35% 36% 37% 42% 42% 42% 42% 39% 36% 35% 36% 34% 39% 41% 42% 49%
White - Other 24% 23% 23% 22% 23% 24% 25% 25% 27% 27% 26% 25% 26% 25% 24% 24% 23%
White - British 20% 19% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Table 27b: Median age of household head
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2001-06 2002-07 2003-08 2004-09 2005-10 2006-11 2007-12 2008-13 2009-14 2010-15 2011-16 2012-17 2013-18 2014-19 2015-20 2016-21 2017-22
Mixed, Black or Black British, and Other 38 39 39 38 38 39 37 35 35 35 35 36 37 38 38 39 41
Asian or Asian British 38 38 39 39 39 38 36 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 40
White - Other 43 44 43 42 42 42 41 40 39 37 36 36 35 35 36 36 37
White - British 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 53 53 54 54 54 55

More information on ethnicity data

Figure 27 shows an ethnicity breakdown based on an average of data from the past five years. This provides a reasonably detailed breakdown, whilst still using relatively recent data. A more detailed ethnicity breakdown using ten years of data was previously published.

Due to the small sample sizes for some of the ethnic groups, and the fact that ethnic composition of the population is not accounted for in the survey weighting process, estimates fluctuate between years and the measurement uncertainty is fairly large.

Religion

Data on religion is available for adults only, so this analysis does not include children.

Relative poverty rates higher for Muslims

In 2017-22, Muslim adults were more likely to be in relative poverty (63%, 40,000 each year) than adults overall (19%), after housing costs were taken into account.

Of adults belonging to the Church of Scotland, 16% were in relative poverty after housing costs (170,000 adults each year), compared to 19% of Roman Catholic adults (110,000 adults) and adults of other Christian denominations (19%; 60,000 adults).

This analysis doesn't take into account differences in the age profiles of the religions.

For adults belonging to the Church of Scotland, the median average age was 63. In contrast, the median age was 38 for Muslim adults, and 41 for adults belonging to no religion.

Older adults have a lower poverty rate, so age profile partly explains the lower poverty rate for adults belonging to the Church of Scotland. However, the age difference cannot explain the entire gap in poverty rates between religious groups.

Table 28a: Proportion of adults in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland 2017-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2011-16 2012-17 2013-18 2014-19 2015-20 2016-21 2017-22
Muslim 33% 37% 41% 49% 52% 56% 63%
No religion 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%
Roman Catholic 18% 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 19%
Other Christian 18% 18% 18% 19% 19% 19% 19%
Other religion 18% 18% 19% 18% 21% 21% 27%
Church of Scotland 14% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 16%
Table 28b: Median age
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 2011-16 2012-17 2013-18 2014-19 2015-20 2016-21 2017-22
Muslim 32 32 33 35 36 37 36
No religion 39 40 40 40 41 41 41
Roman Catholic 47 48 48 48 48 49 50
Other Christian 51 50 50 50 49 49 51
Other religion 48 48 50 49 50 50 48
Church of Scotland 58 59 60 61 62 62 63

More information on religion data

Figure 28 shows an average for data from the past five financial years.

Due to the small sample sizes for some of the religious groups, and the fact that religious composition of the population is not accounted for in the survey weighting process, estimates fluctuate between years and the measurement uncertainty is fairly large.

Disability

Relative poverty rates higher where a household member is disabled

Poverty rates remain higher for households in which somebody is disabled compared to those where no-one is disabled. The gap between the two groups has remained fairly steady over the last few years. However, the latest estimate shows an increase for people with disabled household members. It is yet unclear whether this is the beginning of a new trend, or if it is a volatile data point. We do know that the increase is related to the increase of economically inactive working-age adults in poverty, see the discussion in the working-age section.

In 2019-22, the poverty rate after housing costs for people in households with a disabled person was 24% (560,000 people each year). This compares with 18% (550,000 people) in a household without disabled household members.

Table 29a: Proportion of people in relative poverty after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
No-one disabled 22% 21% 21% 20% 20% 20% 20% 19% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 16% 16% 17% 17% 17% 17% 18%
Someone disabled 28% 27% 29% 30% 31% 30% 28% 26% 25% 24% 24% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20% 22% 22% 23% 23% 23% 24% 23% 23% 22% 24%
Table 29b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
No-one disabled 3,553 5,211 4,970 4,813 4,752 5,019 6,831 8,647 10,219 9,994 9,535 9,292 9,142 9,219 9,022 8,283 7,383 6,532 6,107 5,746 5,515 5,337 5,365 5,126 3,395 2,714
Someone disabled 1,931 2,894 2,728 2,766 2,874 3,076 4,192 5,356 6,239 6,163 5,802 5,800 5,597 5,467 5,420 5,102 4,769 4,218 4,170 4,049 4,081 4,032 4,156 4,220 2,844 2,347

The way in which information on disabled people is collected changed several times during this timeseries. This causes breaks in the timeseries. Due to these changes, care needs to be taken when considering long-term trends.

Since 2012/13, disabled people are identified as those who report any physical or mental health condition(s) or illness(es) that last or are expected to last 12 months or more, and which limit their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

More detail can be found on pages 34-36 in the 2015/16 Households Below Average Incomes technical report.

Additional living costs of disabled people

Some illnesses and disabilities incur additional living costs. The poverty measure does not normally consider this. However, the analysis shown in Figure 30 uses an adjusted poverty rate that partly accounts for additional living costs for those households where someone receives disability benefits.

Relative poverty rates, with disability benefits removed from household income, are higher where a household member is disabled

Research shows that additional costs associated with disability vary greatly in level and nature. There is no general agreement on how to measure these costs.

The analysis in Figure 30 excludes Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Personal Independence Payments from total household income. These benefits are paid as a contribution towards the additional living costs for disabled people. If this income is excluded from total household income, then we are able to compare households with and without a disabled household member on a more like for like basis.

In 2019-22, as in previous years, the poverty rate was higher for individuals in households with a disabled person, when disability-related benefits are not included in the household income. After housing costs, the poverty rate was 29% (660,000 people each year) for people living with a disabled household member, and 16% (490,000 people) for those without.

Table 30a: Proportion of people in relative poverty (disability benefits removed from household income) after housing costs, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
No-one disabled 21% 21% 20% 19% 19% 19% 19% 18% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 15% 14% 14% 14% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%
Someone disabled 33% 33% 35% 36% 38% 36% 34% 32% 31% 30% 29% 29% 29% 27% 27% 26% 27% 27% 27% 27% 28% 30% 29% 29% 28% 29%
Table 30b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
No-one disabled 3,553 5,211 4,970 4,813 4,752 5,019 6,831 8,647 10,219 9,994 9,535 9,292 9,142 9,219 9,022 8,283 7,383 6,532 6,107 5,746 5,515 5,337 5,365 5,126 3,395 2,714
Someone disabled 1,931 2,894 2,728 2,766 2,874 3,076 4,192 5,356 6,239 6,163 5,802 5,800 5,597 5,467 5,420 5,102 4,769 4,218 4,170 4,049 4,081 4,032 4,156 4,220 2,844 2,347

Excluding disability benefits from the analysis changes the poverty threshold. This is because some households now have a lower income, which lowers the median and therefore also the poverty threshold. As a consequence, some households without a disabled person that were just below the poverty threshold in the previous analysis will now be above the threshold. As a result, the poverty rate for households without a disabled person is slightly lower.

Income

Income inequality

Summary measures of income inequality are useful for tracking change over time. In this section, we use a range of summary measures to describe different features of the income distribution.

The Gini coefficient of inequality is widely used, and it is based on the whole distribution. But it is sometimes considered overly sensitive to changes in the middle, and not sensitive enough to changes at the top and the bottom. The Palma ratio focuses on the top and the bottom of the distribution only. In practice, both Gini and Palma measures show very similar trends. Decile shares give a more nuanced picture of the different parts of the distribution, but they cannot be summarised with a single estimate.

Palma

Palma ratio of income inequality fluctuating

The Palma ratio of income inequality is the total income of the top ten percent of the population divided by the total income of the bottom forty percent of the population (written as a percentage). It is commonly used to estimate how much more income top-income households have compared to those at the bottom.

The Palma ratio is usually calculated from income before housing costs, but we have included it for after-housing-costs income as well. After-housing-costs incomes are distributed more unequally.

In 2019-22, the top ten percent of the population had 18% more income (before housing costs) than the bottom forty percent combined. This compares to 33% more income of the top ten percent in 2007-10, the period with the highest income inequality in this time series as measured by the Palma ratio.

Income inequality has been fluctuating since the beginning of this data collection in the mid-nineties, and, after the most recent high point in 2015-18 is currently decreasing again.

Table 31a: Palma ratio of income inequality, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Before housing costs 112% 114% 116% 121% 126% 126% 122% 116% 113% 113% 116% 123% 129% 133% 127% 122% 116% 115% 114% 121% 125% 127% 124% 121% 120% 118%
After housing costs 129% 131% 134% 141% 147% 146% 141% 133% 131% 131% 135% 144% 152% 157% 151% 143% 137% 137% 136% 144% 148% 152% 147% 143% 142% 138%
Table 31b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
All people 8,299 8,105 7,698 7,579 7,626 8,095 11,023 14,003 16,458 16,157 15,337 15,092 14,739 14,686 14,442 13,385 12,152 10,750 10,277 9,795 9,596 9,369 9,521 9,346 6,239 5,061

Income decile shares are available in the associated tables.

Gini

Gini coefficient of income inequality fluctuating

The Gini coefficient measures income inequality on a scale from 0% to 100%. A Gini of 100% means that only one person has an income, and everyone else has none. A Gini of 0% means that everyone has the same income.

In 2019-22, the Gini coefficient (before housing costs) was 31%. The Gini coefficient is usually calculated from income before housing costs, but we have included it for after-housing-costs income as well. After-housing-costs incomes are distributed more unequally.

Income inequality has been fluctuating since the beginning of this data collection in the mid-nineties, and, after the most recent high point in 2015-18 is currently very gradually decreasing again.

Table 32a: Gini coefficient of income inequality, Scotland
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
Before housing costs 31% 31% 31% 32% 33% 32% 32% 31% 30% 31% 31% 32% 33% 33% 33% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 32% 33% 32% 32% 32% 31%
After housing costs 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 34% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 37% 36% 35% 34% 34% 34% 35% 36% 36% 36% 35% 35% 34%
Table 32b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-00 1998-01 1999-02 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 2006-09 2007-10 2008-11 2009-12 2010-13 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 2015-18 2016-19 2017-20 2018-21 2019-22
All people 8,299 8,105 7,698 7,579 7,626 8,095 11,023 14,003 16,458 16,157 15,337 15,092 14,739 14,686 14,442 13,385 12,152 10,750 10,277 9,795 9,596 9,369 9,521 9,346 6,239 5,061

Income distribution

Figure 36 shows the distribution of weekly income before housing costs across Scotland in 2019-22 with relative poverty threshold, UK median income, and Scottish income decile groups.

Many people have household incomes near the poverty threshold. This means that small movements in the overall distribution can sometimes lead to sizeable movements in poverty rates.

Decile groups are groups of the population defined by the decile points. The first decile group is the ten percent of the population with the lowest incomes. The second decile group contains individuals with incomes above the lowest decile point but below the second decile point.

Poverty thresholds

Most of the income estimates in this publication are based on equivalised income. This means that household income is adjusted to reflect different household sizes and compositions. When income is not equivalised, households of different sizes have different poverty thresholds. The table below shows the relative and absolute poverty thresholds, before equivalisation, for households of different sizes.

The incomes presented elsewhere in this report use the value for “Couple with no children” as the standard; incomes of all other household types are adjusted (equivalised) to reflect their different household composition.

Table A: Weekly income and poverty thresholds for different household types after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure Single person with no children Couple with no children Single person with children aged 5 and 14 Couple with children aged 5 and 14
UK median income £290 £499 £599 £809
Scottish median income £293 £505 £606 £818
Relative poverty threshold (60% of UK median income) £174 £300 £360 £485
Absolute poverty threshold (60% of inflation-adjusted 2010/11 UK median income) £153 £264 £317 £427
Table B: Weekly income and poverty thresholds for different household types before housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure Single person with no children Couple with no children Single person with children aged 5 and 14 Couple with children aged 5 and 14
UK median income £381 £569 £683 £870
Scottish median income £370 £552 £662 £844
Relative poverty threshold (60% of UK median income) £229 £341 £410 £522
Absolute poverty threshold (60% of inflation-adjusted 2010/11 UK median income) £206 £307 £369 £470
Table C: Annual income and poverty thresholds for different household types after housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure Single person with no children Couple with no children Single person with children aged 5 and 14 Couple with children aged 5 and 14
UK median income £15,100 £26,000 £31,200 £42,200
Scottish median income £15,300 £26,300 £31,600 £42,600
Relative poverty threshold (60% of UK median income) £9,100 £15,600 £18,700 £25,300
Absolute poverty threshold (60% of inflation-adjusted 2010/11 UK median income) £8,000 £13,800 £16,500 £22,300
Table D: Annual income and poverty thresholds for different household types before housing costs, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Measure Single person with no children Couple with no children Single person with children aged 5 and 14 Couple with children aged 5 and 14
UK median income £19,900 £29,700 £35,600 £45,400
Scottish median income £19,300 £28,800 £34,500 £44,000
Relative poverty threshold (60% of UK median income) £11,900 £17,800 £21,400 £27,200
Absolute poverty threshold (60% of inflation-adjusted 2010/11 UK median income) £10,700 £16,000 £19,200 £24,500

Income sources

Earnings and social security payments main household income sources

Figure 37 shows the different sources of gross income by decile, ranking the population by income and dividing it into ten equal-sized groups. Income components are considered before tax; this is therefore a different definition of household income from that used elsewhere in this report.

Higher income households receive a large proportion of their income from earnings, and lower income households receive more of their income from social security payments. Social security payments include the state pension.

Earnings account for less than half of gross income for those in the first three deciles compared to over 80% for those in the top three deciles.

Except for the people in the bottom two income deciles, earnings are the main income source.

Table 37a: Income sources as a percentage of gross income by income decile, Scotland 2019-22
Source: Family Resources Survey
Source Lowest 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Highest
Earnings 44% 41% 46% 62% 65% 69% 75% 83% 85% 80%
Investments 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 8%
Occupational pensions 5% 4% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 8% 6% 8%
Other sources 4% 6% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%
Social security payments 46% 46% 40% 27% 24% 18% 13% 6% 3% 2%
Table 37b: Sample size
Source: Family Resources Survey
Group Lowest 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Highest
All 544 527 562 516 519 549 495 457 447 445

Data source

All the figures in this publication come from the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Households Below Average Income dataset, which is produced from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). UK figures are published by DWP in Households Below Average Income on the same day as Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland. For the UK figures, as well as more detail about the way these figures are collected and calculated, see the DWP website.

What does HBAI measure?

Households Below Average Income (HBAI) uses household disposable incomes, adjusted for the household size and composition, as a proxy for material living standards. More precisely, it is a proxy for the level of consumption of goods and services that people could attain given the disposable income of the household in which they live.

The unit of analysis is the individual, so the populations and percentages in the tables are numbers and percentages of individuals - both adults and children.

Data is collected during the financial year, so between April and March of the following year. Statistics are usually published in March, a year after the end of the data collection.

The living standards of an individual depend not only on his or her own income, but also on the income of others in the household. Consequently, the analyses are based on total household income: the equivalised income of a household is taken to represent the income level of every individual in the household. Equivalisation, a technique that allows comparison of incomes between households of different sizes and compositions, is explained in the Definitions section. Thus, all members of any one household will appear at the same point in the income distribution.

Data collection during the coronavirus pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic severely disrupted the data collection in 2020/21. As a result, we were unable to obtain a representative sample for Scotland in that year.

The 2021/22 data is considered to be representative of the Scottish population.

This means that the three-year periods 2018-21 and 2019-22 only contain data from two financial years each. The five-year periods 2016-21 and 2017-22 only contain data from four financial years each. Therefore, some real changes that happened to incomes, such as the furlough scheme or the temporary increase of Universal Credit are only partially captured in the time series.

Due to the missing data year and the ongoing impact of the pandemic on survey response rates, the sample size is much reduced in the latest two periods. This means that data is more volatile, and sudden changes need to be interpreted with caution.

More information about the impact of the pandemic on data collection and the data itself is available in DWP’s HBAI Technical report.

Revision of the data

In 2021, previously published datasets underwent a minor methodological revision to capture all income from child maintenance. This led to small changes in household income and small adjustments to some poverty estimates. Therefore, some poverty and income estimates that were published in 2021 may not exactly match previously published estimates for 1994/95 to 2018/19. The revision did not affect any trends in poverty or household income.

Population coverage

The Family Resources Survey is a survey of private households. This means that people in residential institutions, such as nursing homes, barracks, prisons or university halls of residence, and also homeless people are excluded from the scope of the analysis presented here. The area of Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal was included in the FRS for the first time in the 2001/02 survey year, and from the 2002/03 survey year, the FRS was extended to include a 100 percent boost of the Scottish sample. This has increased the sample size available for analysis at the Scottish level. In 2002/03, the sample size was around five thousand. However, following cost savings introduced to the FRS in 2010, the sample size in Scotland has reduced. It was just over 2,800 households in 2021/22. For further information see the DWP Households Below Average Income publication.

Reliability of estimates

Estimates in this report are based on a sample survey and are therefore subject to sampling variation as well as other measurement error.

Confidence intervals describe measurement uncertainty that comes from using a random sample to represent a whole population. There are other sources of measurement error, which are not captured by confidence intervals. This means that confidence intervals can only represent part of the measurement uncertainty.

We use two kinds of confidence intervals, with tables and more detail available on the measurement uncertainty page. Estimates for the confidence intervals around the key figures are provided by DWP. We have also added indicative confidence intervals to all poverty charts. They are not as accurate as those calculated for the key figures, but they sufficiently reflect how sample size and variation affect measurement uncertainty.

When describing trends or differences between groups in this report, we judge whether an apparent trend or a difference is likely to be real by looking at a range of clues:

  • Is the trend or difference large?
  • Is it consistent over time?
  • How much do previous data points fluctuate?
  • How much measurement uncertainty do the confidence intervals suggest?
  • Does the trend make sense based on what else we know about the economy or the groups?
  • What do we know about any data issues affecting this particular data?

The Family Resources Survey publication contains information on topics such as sample design, non-response biases, weighting; item non-response, imputation and editing; accuracy of income data.

Detailed methodology

More detailed information on definitions and methodology can be found on the Scottish Government’s poverty methodology pages and in DWP’s Households Below Average Income publication.

Housing costs

It could be argued that the costs of housing faced by different households at a given time do not always match the true value of the housing that they actually enjoy, and that housing costs should therefore be deducted from any definition of disposable income. However, any measure of income defined in this way would understate the relative standard of living of those individuals who were actually benefiting from a better quality of housing by paying more for better accommodation. Income growth over time would also understate improvements in living standards where higher costs reflected improvements in the quality of housing.

Conversely, any income measure which does not deduct housing costs may overstate the living standards of individuals whose housing costs are high relative to the quality of their accommodation. Growth over time in income before housing costs could also overstate improvements in living standards for low income groups in receipt of housing benefit, and whose rents have risen in real terms. This is because housing benefit may also rise to offset the higher rents (for a given quality of accommodation) and would be counted as an income rise, although there would be no associated increase in the standard of living.

Therefore, this publication presents analyses on two bases: before housing costs (BHC) and after housing costs (AHC).

Definitions

Household income

The income measure used in HBAI is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income. This comprises total income from all sources of all household members including dependants. An adjustment is made to sample cases at the top of the income distribution to correct for volatility in the highest incomes captured in the survey.

Income is adjusted for household size and composition by means of equivalence scales, which reflect the extent to which households of different size and composition require a different level of income to achieve the same standard of living. This adjusted income is referred to as equivalised income (see definition below for more information on equivalisation).

Income before housing costs (BHC) includes the following main components:

  • net earnings
  • profit or loss from self-employment (after income tax and National Insurance contributions)
  • all UK and Scottish social security payments, including housing and council tax benefits, tax credits, and the state pension
  • occupational and private pension income
  • investment income
  • maintenance payments
  • top-up loans and parental contributions for students, educational grants and payments
  • the cash value of certain forms of income in kind such as free school meals, free welfare milk and free school milk and free TV licences for the over 75s (where data is available)

Income is net of:

  • income tax payments
  • National Insurance contributions
  • contributions to occupational, stakeholder and personal pension schemes
  • council tax
  • maintenance and child support payments made
  • parental contributions to students living away from home

Income after housing costs (AHC) is derived by deducting a measure of housing costs from the above income measure.

Housing costs

Housing costs include the following: rent (gross of housing benefit); water rates; mortgage interest payments; structural insurance premiums; ground rent and service charges.

Income sources

The analysis on income sources is the only analysis in this report not using net income. This analysis is based on income before taxes from employment or self-employment, social security payments, investment, occupational pensions and other income. In some cases, income from self-employment was negative in a year, for example, when someone in self-employment made a loss. In these cases, total income from earnings was set to zero. Negative investment income was also set to zero.

Real prices

Unless otherwise stated, all figures relating to income are in 2021/22 prices. Values from previous years are uprated to account for inflation using a variant of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This follows a change in methodology for 2014/15. Prior to this the Retail Price Index (RPI) was used.

Full details can be found at this link: Methodological changes to poverty statistics (pdf)

Equivalisation

Equivalisation is the process by which household income is adjusted to take into account variations in the size and composition of the households in which individuals live. This reflects the common sense notion that, in order to enjoy a comparable standard of living, a household of, for example, three adults will need a higher income than a single person living alone. The process of adjusting income in this way is known as equivalisation and is needed in order to make sensible income comparisons between households.

Equivalence scales conventionally take an adult couple without children as the reference point, with an equivalence value of one. The process then increases relatively the income of single person households (since their incomes are divided by a value of less than one) and reduces relatively the incomes of households with three or more persons, which have an equivalence value of greater than one.

Consider a single person, a couple with no children, and a couple with two children aged fourteen and ten, all having unadjusted weekly household incomes of £200 (Before Housing Costs). The process of equivalisation, as conducted in HBAI, gives an equivalised income of £299 to the single person, £200 to the couple with no children, but only £131 to the couple with children.

The equivalence scales used here are the modified OECD scales. Two separate scales are used, one for income Before Housing Costs (BHC) and the companion scale for income After Housing Costs (AHC).

Table C: Modified OECD equivalence scales, rescaled to a couple without children
Source: Family Resources Survey
Household member Before housing costs After housing costs
First adult 0.67 0.58
Spouse 0.33 0.42
Additional adults 0.33 0.42
Children aged 0-13 0.2 0.2
Children aged 14+ 0.33 0.42

The construction of household equivalence values from these scales is quite straightforward. For example, the BHC equivalence value for a household containing a couple with a fourteen year old and a ten year old child together with one other adult would be 1.86 from the sum of the scale values:

0.67 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.20 = 1.86

This is made up of 0.67 for the first adult, 0.33 for their spouse, the other adult and the fourteen year old child and 0.20 for the ten year old child. The total income for the household would then be divided by 1.86 in order to arrive at the measure of equivalised household income used in HBAI analysis.

Further information on equivalisation can be found in the methodology report on the Scottish Government website.

Poverty measurement

Individuals are defined as being in poverty if their equivalised net disposable household income is below the poverty line. Different poverty measures have different poverty lines, for example:

  • Relative poverty: Relative poverty is the most commonly used poverty measure. The relative poverty line is 60% of the UK median income in the same year. People are in relative poverty if they live in a household whose equivalised income is below this amount. Relative poverty is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole.

  • Absolute poverty: The absolute poverty line is 60% of the inflation-adjusted UK median income in 2010/11. People are in absolute poverty if they live in a household whose equivalised income is below this amount. Absolute poverty is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are seeing their incomes rise in real terms.

  • Severe poverty: The severe poverty line is 50% of the UK median income in the same year. People are in severe poverty if they live in a household whose equivalised income is below this amount. Severe poverty is a measure of whether those in the very lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole.

The latest poverty lines can be found in the Poverty thresholds section.

The median is the income value which divides a population, when ranked by income, into two equal sized groups. Since the mean is influenced considerably by the highest incomes, median income thresholds are widely accepted as a better benchmark when considering a derived measure for poverty.

Child material deprivation

A suite of questions designed to capture the material deprivation experienced by households with children has been included in the Family Resources Survey since 2004/05. Respondents are asked whether they have 21 goods and services, including child, adult and household items. The list of items was identified by independent academic analysis (pdf, McKay, S. and Collard, S. (2004)). Together, these questions form a discriminator between those households with children that are deprived and those that are not. If they do not have a good or service, they are asked whether this is because they do not want them or because they cannot afford them.

These questions are used as an additional way of measuring living standards for children and their households.

A prevalence weighted approach has been used, in combination with a relative low income threshold. The income threshold is 70 percent of the median income. Prevalence weighting is a technique of scoring deprivation in which more weight in the deprivation measure is given to households lacking those items that most in the population already have. This means a greater importance, when an item is lacked, is assigned to those items that are more commonly owned in the population.

Changes to measuring material deprivation in 2010/11

The 21 items in the suite of questions used to measure material deprivation are designed to reflect the items and activities people in the UK believe to be necessary. These items are reviewed periodically to ensure the measure remains a relative measure of poverty. In 2010/11, four new questions about additional items were included in the FRS to be used in the future calculation of material deprivation scores, replacing the four existing items that were identified by research as potentially out of date partly because the proportion of the population considering them necessary had fallen. As such, there is a break in the series for child low income/material deprivation and estimates from 2010/11 onwards cannot be compared to those from before 2010/11.

In the 2010/11 FRS, both the new and the old questions were asked. As such, single-year estimates are presented based on both sets of questions for this year.

For further information about material deprivation see the DWP Households Below Average Income publication.

Pensioner material deprivation

A suite of questions designed to capture the material deprivation experienced by pensioner households has been included in the Family Resources Survey since 2009/10. Respondents are asked whether they have access to 15 goods and services. The list of items was identified by independent academic analysis. See:

Together, these questions form the best discriminator between those pensioner households that are deprived and those that are not.

Where they do not have a good or service, pensioner households are asked whether this is because they do not have the money for this, it is not a priority on their current income, their health / disability prevents them, it is too much trouble or tiring, they have no one to do this with or help them, it is not something they want, it is not relevant to them, or any other reason. Where a pensioner lacks one of the material deprivation items for one of the following reasons - they do not have the money for this, it is not a priority for them on their current income, their health / disability prevents them, it is too much trouble or tiring, they have no one to do this with or help them, or any other reason - they are counted as being deprived for that item.

The exception to this is for the question on whether they could cover an unexpected expense, where the follow up question was asked to explore how those who responded ‘yes’ would cover this cost. Options were: use own income but cut back on essentials, use own income but not need to cut back on essentials, use savings; use a form of credit, get money from friends or family, or any other reason. Pensioners are counted as materially deprived for this item if and only if they responded ‘no’ to the initial question.

The same prevalence weighted approach has been used to that for children, in determining a deprivation score. Prevalence weighting is a technique of scoring deprivation in which more weight in the deprivation measure is given to households lacking those items that most already have. This means a greater importance, when an item is lacked, is assigned to those items that are more commonly owned in the pensioner population.

For children, material deprivation is presented as an indicator in combination with a low income threshold. However for pensioners, the concept of material deprivation is broad and very different from low income; therefore, it is appropriate to present it as a separate measure.

A technical note giving a full explanation of the pensioner material deprivation measure is available for download.

Food security

The Family Resources Survey collected household food security information for the first time in 2019/20. The questions were adopted from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Adult Food Security Survey Module (pdf), using a 30-day reference period, and using the same food security levels (“high”, “marginal”, “low”, “very low”).

The food security analysis in this report excludes shared households, such as a house shared by a group of professionals. These respondents may not have insight into the food security status of others in their household and may not regularly share financial information.

Previously, data on household food insecurity in Scotland had been collected by the Scottish Health Survey. The measure in this report is different from the one from the Scottish Health Survey, because it is based on different questions, which are asked in a different context, using a different sample of the population, and refer to a different period of time. Therefore, these measures cannot be directly compared.

Dependent children

In this publication, ‘child’ refers to a dependent child. A dependent child is a person aged 0-15, or a person aged 16-19 and: not married nor in a Civil Partnership nor living with a partner, and living with their parents, and in full-time non-advanced education or in unwaged government training.

Single parents

Family types are becoming increasingly complex. In this publication, ‘single parents’ and ‘single mothers’ refer to a situation where the primary residence of a dependent child is in a family with one adult. Data for single fathers is not available due to small sample sizes. This family type does not necessarily imply that the child only has contact with one parent. The child may have non-resident parents who contribute to their welfare. Income transfers from a non-resident parent to the resident parent (such as Child Maintenance payments) are included in the household income.

It is also possible that a single parent family shares a household with another family, for example the child’s grandparents. Income from all household members contribute to the household income and determine whether the household is in poverty.

Household head

The head of the household is the adult with the highest income. If two adults have the same income, it is the older person.

Shared households

A shared household is a household where the household reference person is unclear or arbitrary, such as a group of students, unrelated adults etc., where the household is being shared on an equal basis. Households where adult children are living with their parents or where there are lodgers, but the owner lives in the household, are both not considered shared households for the purposes of this definition.

Find more information

Tables and further analysis

This publication contains the headline poverty, child poverty and household income statistics. Associated tables are available for download and contain:

  • all estimates used in the charts

  • additional relative and severe poverty and child poverty estimates including numbers, rates and compositions of those in poverty disaggregated by a wide range of personal and household characteristics such as:

    • housing tenure
    • family type
    • economic status
    • urban / rural area
    • Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation decile
    • number of children in household
    • child age

Additional analysis themes are based on the needs of users. If you have any suggestions for future analysis please contact us.

Local poverty analysis

The main poverty data source, the Family Resources Survey, provides information at national level only. Alternative data sources are not directly comparable with the official poverty estimates presented in this report.

More information on local poverty and income analysis from alternative data sources is available.

Persistent poverty

New figures on persistent poverty were published on 23 March 2023.

Persistent poverty identifies the number of individuals living in relative poverty for 3 or more of the last 4 years. It therefore identifies people who have been living in poverty for a significant period of time, the rationale being that this is more damaging than brief periods spent with a low income, with the impacts affecting an individual through their lifetime.

One of the four statutory child poverty target measures is persistent child poverty after housing costs.

These figures come from the Understanding Society survey which tracks individuals over time. The persistent poverty figures are not directly comparable to the figures in this publication as they use different income definitions and cover different time periods, but they provide useful additional information on poverty in Scotland.

Scottish Government websites

Further analysis based on the FRS and HBAI datasets is published by the Scottish Government throughout the year on the Scottish Government’s poverty and child poverty statistics webpages. These and other Scottish Government statistics are available here:

National Statistics

Official and National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Both undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs and are produced free from any political interference.

Statistics assessed, or subject to assessment, by the UK Statistics Authority carry the National Statistics label, a stamp of assurance that the statistics have been produced and explained to high standards and that they serve the public good.

The designation of these statistics as National Statistics was confirmed in May 2012 following a compliance check by the Office for Statistics Regulation.

Access source data

The data collected for this report cannot be made available by Scottish Government for further analysis, as the Scottish Government is not the data controller. However, the data controller (the UK Department for Work and Pensions) are making the data available through the UK Data Service.

Contact

For enquiries about this publication please contact the lead statistician.

Maike Waldmann
Communities Analysis Division

Address

The Scottish Government
Communities Analysis Division
Area 2H North
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

Phone

0131 244 7714

If you would like to be consulted about statistical collections or receive notification of publications, please register your interest at ScotStat.

Details of forthcoming publications are regularly published.