Briefing

Child poverty

Children being left behind: deep poverty among families in Scotland

As we approach the next Scottish election, parties aspiring to government must radically up their game to help the 80,000 children in very deep poverty.

You are currently reading:

1. Introduction

80,000 children in Scotland live in a household in very deep poverty. That is around the population of children aged 16 or under in Edinburgh (NRS, 2024). This report explains why that is happening and how we can fix it. It looks at the particular drivers of this hardship and how to stop them. It serves as a plea to all politicians who approach the 2026 elections in Scotland to do better and radically improve the lives of these children who deserve far, far better.

2. As child poverty targets loom, children are being left behind

Child poverty in Scotland is too high, with 1 in 4 children in relative poverty after housing costs (AHC).

In 2016, the Scottish Parliament unanimously agreed to set the Child Poverty Reduction Targets. We now know that the interim targets they set have not been met and progress thus far has been too slow.

The Scottish Government has taken some action to reduce child poverty, the flagship policy being the introduction of the Scottish Child Payment in 2021. Modelling undertaken last year suggests that the introduction of the Scottish Child Payment (SCP) is likely to reduce child poverty by 3 percentage points by 2030–31 compared to if it had not been implemented.¹

The SCP reduces deep poverty and very deep poverty by around 2 percentage points for both. This would still leave 20% of children in poverty, 12% in deep poverty and 7% in very deep poverty.

There is clearly a moral imperative that poverty reduction/prevention policies reach those furthest from the poverty line. Families in very deep poverty will be experiencing the most severe symptoms of poverty, and children in Scotland should not experience these levels of hardship. Likewise, it is also impossible to reach the 2030/31 targets without children furthest from the poverty line being lifted out of poverty. To achieve this, we must target the right policies to the right people, at the right scale.

This briefing will investigate:

the scale of deep and very deep child poverty in Scotland
how far from the poverty line families with children in Scotland are
the key policy drivers of child poverty for families furthest from the poverty line
which families are most at risk of this level of hardship.

3. Depth of child poverty in Scotland

Over the last 30 years, child poverty in Scotland has fallen from 32% in 1994–97 to 24% in 2020–23. However, the risk of deep and very deep poverty has changed less over the period, meaning that a higher proportion of children living in poverty now are in very deep poverty than they were in 1994–97. In 1994–97, 1 in 5 children in poverty were living in very deep poverty. While this has seen a steady decline in the last few years (likely due to the impact of the temporary £20 uplift to Universal Credit during the Covid-19 pandemic), 1 in 3 children in poverty now are in very deep poverty. This means that around 80,000 children in Scotland are living in households with very low incomes.

With such a high proportion of children in poverty in very deep poverty it is almost impossible to reach the child poverty targets without lifting these children, who are furthest from the poverty line, out of poverty. It also means that solutions that raise incomes marginally are not going to lift this third of children in poverty, out of poverty.

4. The scale of the challenge

Families with children in deep and very deep poverty are significantly below the poverty line. In the most recent data (2016–23 – we move to a 7-year average in the remainder of this briefing to avoid a small sample size and increased volatility), people in households with children in very deep poverty are, on average, 54% below the poverty line. This means that their incomes are less than half of what is needed to reach the poverty line. Just over 3 in 10 children in poverty are in households in very deep poverty.

Just under 4 in 10 children in poverty are in households in deep but not very deep poverty, that is, with equivalised household incomes between 40% and 50% of the median income. People in households with children in deep but not very deep poverty are, on average, 25% below the poverty line, compared to 35% for all people in deep poverty in households with children. Finally, just over 3 in 10 children who are in poverty are in poverty but not in deep poverty. This means their equivalised household income is below the poverty line but above 50% of the median. People in households with children in poverty but not deep poverty are 8% below the poverty line, compared to 27% for all people in households with children in poverty.

In 2016–23, people in households with children who are in poverty or deep poverty are further below the poverty line now than they were in 1994–2001. This means that the incomes of people in poverty with children have fallen further from the poverty line and median income over the last 25 years. People in households with children in very deep poverty have seen no improvement in their distance from the poverty line.

As incomes are equivalised to allow us to compare to the poverty line, these percentages refer to different amounts in pounds for different family types.²Figure 4 shows how this distance from the poverty line translates to an amount for a couple with 2 children, one of the most common families with children who experience poverty at different depths.

As households with children in very deep poverty are an average of 54% below the poverty line, this translates to a gap of around £1,100 a month for couple-parents with 2 children in very deep poverty. This is equivalent to the couple working around 15 extra days a month on the National Living Wage (assuming that the parent is not paying tax and would not lose any benefits) or an increase in the SCP by around £120 per week per child.

People in households living in deep but not very deep poverty are much closer to the poverty line but the gap for this family would still translate to needing an additional £500 per month to reach the poverty line. This is still equivalent to the SCP being increased to more than triple the current rate, increasing by around £60 per week per child.

Finally, for families in poverty but not deep poverty, who are closest to the poverty line, the equivalent gap for the same family type is £160 below the poverty line every month. Only for this family do tweaks to the current system feel adequate to address their income shortfall.

The scale of the challenge, both in the distance to the child poverty targets and the distance of children in poverty from the poverty line means that the Scottish Parliament must raise its ambitions if it wishes to meet the targets. The following section looks at more detail on the drivers of poverty for children in deep and very deep poverty.

5. Drivers of very deep child poverty

We know there are a number of drivers of poverty in Scotland. This section begins by simplifying these into 3 acute challenges that have a significant impact on families’ incomes:

no one in work
no or low benefits, that is, social security makes up less than 10% of a household’s income
housing costs pulling people into poverty.

It will then investigate these groups further to include more nuanced understandings of the drivers of poverty, such as work intensity and type of benefits.

Acute drivers of poverty: no work, expensive housing and no or low social security

We know that while in-work poverty is growing in Scotland (Birt et al., 2023), employment still provides a significant buffer to falling into poverty. Of people in households where someone is in work, 14% are in poverty. This compares to 57% of people in households where no working-age adults are in work.

Social security is a critical support for low-income families in Scotland. Earlier Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) analysis highlighted that for many families, benefits are failing to keep them out of poverty (Birt et al., 2024), with one of the challenges being families receiving no or little benefits. 3 in 10 households with children in very deep poverty have the vast majority (more than 90%) of their household income coming from benefits. However, more than half (55%) have less than half of their income from benefits (55%) and within this group, 3 in 10 have 10% or less of their household income from benefits.³

This analysis looks at families on very low or no support from benefits, focusing on the 3 in 10 households receiving 10% or less of their income from benefits. To be clear, we are focusing on this group because having very low, or no, amounts of benefits is an acute cause of deeper poverty – we are not suggesting that the broader social security system is also not a cause of poverty: it is, but it is a more general cause of inadequate incomes (Birt et al., 2024).

Finally, we know that housing costs can significantly contribute to poverty, pulling people who would otherwise have incomes above the poverty line into poverty or deeper poverty. In this analysis, we look at whether housing costs are pulling people into that depth of poverty. For example, we identify when a household that is not in deep poverty before housing costs falls into deep poverty after housing costs.

It is also the case that these drivers may not act independently, and families may experience any combination of these barriers, from none to all.

Of children in very deep poverty:

over 2 in 5 children are in a household where no one is in work
over 1 in 3 are in a household pulled into very deep poverty by housing costs
just less than 3 in 10 are in a household with no or low benefits.

When we look at how these groups overlap, we see different patterns across the different depths of poverty (Figures 5a and 5b).

While a similar number of children (between 15,000 and 18,000) in each depth of poverty experience none of the acute drivers of child poverty, the proportion of children in this group is different by depth of poverty.

1 in 5 children in very deep poverty are in households experiencing none of these acute drivers of child poverty compared to 1 in 4 children in poverty but not deep poverty. This means that these children are in households where someone is in work, in which more than 10% of their household income comes from benefits and which do not have housing costs that are pulling them into very deep poverty.

Other than those with no acute drivers, the biggest groups of children in very deep poverty are those that just have no one in work (22%), those that have no one in work and housing costs are pulling them into very deep poverty (16%) and those where households are just receiving little or no benefits (15%). Being in a household with no adult in work is much less likely for children in poverty but not deep poverty. This means that solutions to poverty for families just below the poverty line are much more likely to involve moving parents into more and/or better work than getting them into work itself.

It is clear that the drivers vary across poverty depth. We see that for children in deep but not very deep poverty, housing is the biggest factor. More than half (59%) of children are pulled into deep poverty due, at least in part, to housing costs. While work remains important, a higher proportion of children in deep but not very deep poverty have one or more household members in work (64%) compared to children in very deep poverty (58%).

Finally, for families in poverty but not deep poverty, a higher proportion of children have none of these drivers (26%). Just high housing costs and just no or low benefits and both factors combined make up the majority of children in this group (21%, 19% and 13%, respectively). For this group, in-work poverty is much more prevalent.

These categories capture the acute drivers of poverty, and this analysis highlights that the drivers of poverty vary with the depth of poverty. This means that policy interventions intended to support families furthest from the poverty line must tackle raising incomes (specifically for families not in work) compared to reducing housing costs in relation to incomes for families closer to the poverty line – particularly for families in poverty but not deep poverty.

This is a useful starting point, but it is necessary to look at these drivers of poverty in more detail so that we can find out more about the systems that are pushing families with children into very deep poverty.

Work

Here we look at the amount of work that families are doing. This is important for understanding the group experiencing none of the acute drivers of poverty, where one or more adults at home are in work but remain in very deep poverty.

As expected, having no household member in work is a significant driver of very deep child poverty. Children in households where no one is working make up a larger share of children in very deep poverty than those in households with low or no benefits or high housing costs. While samples for this group are small, in recent years, the most common reason for parents not to be in work is because they are economically inactive rather than unemployed.

For children in families where someone is in work, children in very deep poverty are slightly more likely to have a full-time self-employed parent than children in other poverty depths or not in poverty.

They are less likely to have a parent in full-time (non-self-employed) work than children closer to or above the poverty line. Children not in poverty are around 3 times more likely to have a parent in full-time work than children in very deep poverty.

Having parent/s with only part-time work is more common for children in poverty than children not in poverty. However, only having part-time work is more common for children in families closer to the poverty line who are not in very deep poverty, in part because they are more likely to be in work than families further from the poverty line.

2-fifths of children in households in poverty who do not experience any of the acute drivers of poverty have parents who only work part-time. For families with no acute drivers of poverty, improving the quality and quantity of the work that these parents already have could significantly improve their incomes and lift them out of poverty. Such improvements include increasing their hours, their pay and the security of their employment.

Increasing household income by parents moving into work could impact 2 in 5 children in very deep poverty. However, as most children in very deep poverty live with parents who are inactive rather than unemployed, this will require greater efforts to support parents into work that is suitable for them. For those who cannot work (for example due to having young children or being disabled), governments must increase incomes through other means such as social security.

Housing

While housing appears to be a primary driver of poverty for households with children who are nearer the poverty line, the majority (59%) of children in very deep poverty are in unaffordable housing (housing costs being a third or more of their household’s total income) – in part this is due to incomes (before housing costs) being so low.

On average, households with children in very deep poverty spend two-fifths (40%) of their income on their housing costs. This falls to one-quarter (25%) of incomes for households in deep but not very deep poverty and one-fifth (20%) for households with children in poverty but not very deep poverty.

Income before housing costs is more of a protective factor for families in poverty but not deep poverty than it is for families further from the poverty line. Therefore, reducing housing costs would lift more families out of poverty than deep or very deep poverty. However, the burden of housing costs is greater for families furthest from the poverty line because their incomes before housing costs are so low. This means that reducing housing costs might have a bigger impact on child poverty rates than deep and very deep child poverty rates, but the impact on families’ disposable incomes is likely to have a positive impact across poverty depths.

Benefits

A smaller proportion of children in very deep poverty were in receipt of a low-income benefit (54%) (Universal Credit or equivalent legacy benefit) than children in poverty who were closer to the poverty line. Around 7 in 10 children in poverty but not deep poverty were in a family in receipt of a low-income benefit.

Children in very deep poverty are slightly less likely to be in families in receipt of disability benefits (6% versus around 9% for children in poverty but not deep poverty). Disability benefits are intended to cover the additional costs of being disabled, and while it is important that families claim all the support that they are entitled to, these families’ incomes would be even lower if we were to exclude these benefits. It is unclear why just under 3 in 10 children in very deep poverty and, in turn, who are living in households with very low incomes, receive little to no support through social security. This could in part be due to known issues with benefits reporting in the Family Resources Survey, but households not claiming benefits to which they are entitled is very likely to also play a role.

As we have argued for some time, the social security system is plagued by inadequacy. In that context it is crucial that all households already in receipt of social security support are helped to claim everything they are eligible for but also that that fundamental inadequacy is reversed. A significant chunk of families in deep but not very deep poverty are in receipt of some benefits. Again, maximising their take-up of all eligible benefits and increasing their value could lift a significant number of children out of poverty. For families in poverty but not deep poverty, the high share of working families in this group means that interventions would need to increase the amount of income from benefits while maintaining income from work. This could include increasing the value of benefits issued by Social Security Scotland, or the UK Government altering the taper rate.

6. Which children are trapped in very deep poverty?

Just over half of children in very deep poverty live in couple-parent families with 2 or more children in the household. This is similar to children who are in poverty but closer to the poverty line.

Of children in very deep poverty:

7 in 10 live in a couple-parent family, this is higher than for children in less deep poverty but less than for children not in poverty
2 in 3 are aged 10 or younger, this is slightly higher than for children in less deep poverty and children not in poverty
nearly half (47%) have a child aged 0–4 in the family, this is similar to children in less deep poverty but greater than for children not in poverty
2 in 5 have someone disabled in their family, this is similar to children in less deep poverty but greater than for children not in poverty
just over 1 in 3 (36%) have 3 or more children in their household, this is greater than for children in households in less deep poverty and children not in poverty
just under 1 in 4 are from a minority ethnic background, this is greater than for children in households in less deep poverty and children not in poverty.

Previous work has shown that couples with children who are not in work are particularly vulnerable to poverty if they are reliant on Universal Credit (Birt et al., 2024). Universal Credit requires couples with 3 children (who are affected by the 2-child limit) to have both parents in full-time work to be lifted out of poverty (Cebula, 2024).

The prevalence of younger children in very deep poverty is concerning and highlights the need for more support for parents in the early years. This could include policy interventions such as more affordable and accessible childcare for low-income parents, allowing parents to move into work, and/or better maternity support in the first year of a baby’s life.

Households with 3 or more children are known to experience higher levels of poverty: that 36% of children in very deep poverty are in a large family (while they make up just 24% of all children in Scotland) highlights their over-representation in even the deepest levels of poverty. Children in households with 3 or more children have double the risk of experiencing very deep poverty compared to children in families with 1 or 2 children (13% versus 7%).

It is not possible to solve poverty in Scotland without significantly reducing poverty for families where someone is disabled and for children from minority ethnic backgrounds. While minority ethnic communities make up a smaller proportion of the overall population in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, because their risk of poverty is so high they make up nearly 1 in 4 children in very deep poverty (23%). In comparison, a significant proportion of the Scottish population is disabled. They also have a higher risk of poverty, with 42% of children in very deep poverty having someone in their family who is disabled. Without tackling the specific barriers that these groups face, including children who are at the intersection of the 2, policies intended to reduce poverty will fail.

7. What this means for policymakers in Scotland

As is well known, without significant efforts to raise incomes and reduce housing costs we will not reach the child poverty reduction targets. Worse, we risk leaving 1 in 3 children in poverty significantly below the poverty line.

The scale of the challenge:

80,000 children in Scotland were in very deep poverty in 2020–23, meaning they are significantly below the poverty line.
7 in 10 children in very deep poverty live in couple-parent families.
Households with children in very deep poverty are an average of 54% below the poverty line; this translates to a gap of around £1,100 a month for couple-parents with 2 children. The SCP has successfully lifted children, primarily those nearest the poverty line, out of poverty. However, without a significant uplift, it will not make the income changes needed at the right scale for a large proportion of the remaining children who are currently so far from the poverty line.

Work and employment:

Children furthest from the poverty line are more likely not to have any parents in work, and those parents tend to be ‘inactive’ rather than unemployed. This means that employability policies must consider the additional barriers to work for these parents such as childcare and being disabled. For some families, such as those with babies, work is not an option, and social security is a necessity to prevent deep poverty.
Children closer to the poverty line are much more likely to experience in-work poverty where one or more parents are in employment. One in 5 children in poverty but not deep poverty have parents with only part-time work – increasing work hours for these parents could dramatically increase incomes for these households.
Around 1 in 5 children in very deep poverty have a full-time self-employed parent. Self-employment is an area that needs more consideration within the Fair Work policy from the Scottish Government and the Employment Rights Bill from the UK Government.
The priority families are overrepresented in very deep poverty, and we know that these families face specific and multiple barriers to work. Any employability policies must account for the varying needs and barriers of these families.

Housing:

Across different depths of poverty, housing costs are unaffordable for too many households. Reducing housing costs will help low-income families make ends meet and could lift all families closer to the poverty line, even if it is unlikely to lift families in very deep poverty over the poverty line alone.
Reducing housing costs could lift families nearest the poverty line out of poverty. Fourteen thousand in poverty but not deep poverty were in poverty due to housing costs alone.
Increasing access to social housing through house building and investment is critical to reducing housing costs for low-income families.

Social security:

Making sure families have access to all the support to which they are entitled will be crucial in lifting families out of poverty. Children in households further from the poverty line were more likely to have no or low benefits as an acute driver of poverty than children just in deep poverty and are simultaneously less likely to be in work.
It is critical that the Scottish Government and Local Authorities bolster Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits such as through the SCP and Discretionary Housing Payments.
The analysis here highlights just how inadequate the social security system is. If the UK Government implemented the Essentials Guarantee, a pledge to ensure the basic level of Universal Credit is enough to afford life’s essentials, that would help many families in poverty.
This analysis shows how important it is that the Scottish Government keep its promise to mitigate the 2-child limit. However, we urge the UK Government to remove the 2-child limit across the UK.

8. Conclusion

This analysis should be a crucial tool for each of the political parties as they consider their manifestos in advance of the Scottish Parliament’s May 2026 elections. It shows the key drivers of very deep poverty amongst families with children in Scotland and provides key insights into how to fix things.

Eighty thousand children live in very deep poverty in Scotland; that is, around the number of children 16 or under in Edinburgh (NRS, 2024).

That one child and their family has to get by on such low incomes is a tragedy; that 80,000 do should enrage and empower our politicians and decision-makers to vanish this hardship from our country.

Methodology

‘Benefits’ includes all social security payments including the state pension and non-means-tested state and non-state benefits.

Poverty is calculated at the household level, but some of the sub-groups are based on the family level (multiple families can live in one household). This is specified where relevant.

Notes

The modelling referred to here was undertaken in version 02_70 of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) Tax Benefit Model and changed only whether there is or is not SCP. Everything else is assumed to stay the same. This is not directly comparable to the recent JRF analysis (Milne et al., 2025). This showed the estimated child poverty rate for a different target year (2029), included the mitigation of the 2-child limit proposed by the Scottish Government and used a different version of the IPPR Tax Benefit Model.
Equivalisation is the process that we use to adjust household incomes to take into account variations in the size and composition of the household. We do this because it allows us to compare the income across different families as we know different-sized families with different compositions need a different amount of resources to have the same standard of living. For example, it allows us to compare the incomes of a single adult with a couple with 3 primary-aged children. This process is used across poverty analysis in the UK. For further details of the equivalisation process, see the Scottish Government’s (2024) Poverty and Income Inequality report.
Over the last 25 years, the proportion of income from benefits has changed over time, falling as a proportion of total income for those in the lowest-income households (Birt et al., 2025).