SWBG blog

Reflecting on Challenge Poverty Week 2024

Our Policy and Engagement Lead, Carmen Martinez, reflects on this year’s Challenge Poverty Week.

Today marks the end of Challenge Poverty Week 2024, the Poverty Alliance’s annual event aimed at highlighting the ‘injustice of poverty in wealthy Scotland’. It is a time to pause and reflect on the work currently ongoing to tackle poverty in the country. For us reflecting on this week means drawing attention to women’s experiences of inequality and poverty, which our Women’s Survey 2024 describes in detail.

This report, published ahead of Challenge Poverty Week, provides a clear picture of how the recent inflationary period has impacted women’s economic resilience in Scotland. Amongst the different findings captured in the report, two stood out to us:

• 69% of the total 1026 women who took the survey feel financially worse off compared to the same time last year;
• 55% of the 992 women responding to questions relating to debt told us they have some type of debt, and 35% said they have no savings[1].

But the cost-of-living crisis is not affecting women equally. Disabled women, single mothers and women from minority ethnic communities are struggling with energy bills and food costs in greater numbers, and so are those with an annual household income of less than £20k per year (46% of which are single households without children)[2].

While inflationary pressures are the main reason why women find themselves in an ever more precarious economic position, a closer look at the reasons why they feel financially worse off highlights the gendered aspects of this crisis. Women told us about the impact Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) had on them, with some respondents stating how SMP’s low rate at times made it impossible to meet overall household costs. Women also pointed to the cost of childcare as a barrier to their ability to increase paid work and/or as a drain to their finances. Other reasons for feeling worse off include lack of savings, or savings being used up, stagnating wages or pay increases not keeping in line with inflation, fixed rate mortgage deals ending, wage increases reducing Universal Credit (UC), moving to UC from legacy benefits, helping adult children and health impacting on their ability to work. These reasons might also be applicable to men, particularly marginalised men, however, women’s likelihood to work part time and/or to work in low-paid jobs or to report a disability increases the risk of entrenching gender inequalities.

The question is, where does this end? We need to see progress towards a more caring economy which supports and values women. Yet our joint report with The Young Women’s Movement (YWM) further highlights the challenge of making this caring economy a reality. On the contrary, this research is a stark reminder of how structural gender inequality disadvantages women early in their lives. Statistics show that young women on average earn £5,000 less per year in comparison with young men of their age, which makes it difficult for young women to become financially resilient in times of crisis[3]:

“I’ve realised that I need to retrain in a new career if I ever want to own a house and be more financially independent. I’m currently a youth worker, an industry predominantly worked in by women. Typical ‘women’s roles’ pay very little, despite being essential work”[4].

The young women who engaged with us shared a sense of hopelessness about their future, their ability to live alone, to afford a home and/or to plan for a family.

The findings of both surveys speak about an economy that does not support young people, and women particularly. Additionally, these findings should serve as a warning of the disadvantages and costs that an economy divorced of all social purpose can create. If we want to see an end to poverty in Scotland, we need to transform our economy so it can create thriving communities. With work on next year’s budget underway, it is a necessary time to keep reflecting on these issues and think about how budgetary decisions can better work for women.

Notes

Both reports make specific recommendations for the UK and the Scottish Governments as well as for Local Authorities. You can find these in full here:

• The Scottish Women’s Budget Group, “Women’s Survey 2024. Navigating increasing costs and debt”.
• The Young Women’s Movement and the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, “I am just keeping my head above water. Young women’s experiences of the cost-of-living crisis in Scotland”.

[1]  https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Womens-Survey-2024-FINAL.pdf

[2] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Womens-Survey-2024-FINAL.pdf

[3] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-YWM-Cost-of-Living-Young-Women-report.pdf

[4] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-YWM-Cost-of-Living-Young-Women-report.pdf

Is investing in childcare worth it? A summary

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is hosting a series of events focusing on the need and rationales for further investment in childcare. Our first two events examined issues of affordability and lack of flexibility in childcare provision in Scotland. The third webinar in this series, “Is investing in childcare worth it?”, delved into how investing in childcare is crucial to supporting the creation of a more inclusive and prosperous economy, as well as child development.

Childcare as a solution to gender inequality and fiscal pressures

Our first speaker, Scherie Nicol, Policy Analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), discussed the work that her organisation has done to reduce countries’ fiscal costs, and explained the importance of using gender budgeting to close “gender gaps” as part of this. But what are gender gaps? Essentially, these are any differences between women and men’s levels of participation, rights, access, pay, etc., in any given area. For example, despite more women entering the labour market, men are more likely to be in work than women in every single OECD country and that’s despite women having higher educational outcomes. As a result, the population as a whole is not achieving its full potential in the labour market, which has an impact on the overall functioning of the economy across the OECD.

Scherie stressed that projecting forward over the next five years, if OECD countries closed the remaining gender gaps, the result could see an increase on average real GDP per capita of 9.2%. In the context of ageing populations, closing gender gaps can translate into fiscal gains for countries at a time of growing economic pressures.

But what can be done to reduce the employment gap? Women face multiple barriers and inequalities, so closing any gender gaps ultimately requires working in a holistic way to achieve gender equality, and for this to translate into fiscal gains. In relation to this, she pointed out that gender budgeting is one of the key policy tools at governments’ disposal to achieve their strategic objectives related to gender equality, and one that could help increase the effectiveness of the budget.

Canada is a prime example of this. In 2018, the country introduced a gender results framework designed to track how it performs on gender equality. When each new budget proposal is prepared, government departments need to carry out a gender impact assessment which involves:

• Assessing the impact of proposals on the population at large, and certain groups in particular.
• Being responsive, for example, by identifying barriers to gender equality and seeking to remove them, while flagging how each measure is going to drive progress in relation to each of the areas contained within the country’s gender results framework.

All the budget measures flagged as having the potential to improve gender equality are placed in a ‘map’, which is then analysed by the department of finance as well as the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister during the budget process.

As a result of this process, Canada has taken forward a brand-new policy in relation to affordable childcare where the cost of childcare across every province will reduce to $10 a day by 2025. This is a concrete outcome of using gender budgeting as a tool for closing gender gaps and suggests childcare provision can be the solution to some key current economic problems, such as closing the fiscal costs of gender inequality.

Tangible results: lessons from Vienna’s kindergarten model

While Scherie’s presentation focused on the ‘process’ and rationale that led Canada to investing in childcare, our second speaker, Peter Huber, Senior Researcher at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research, presented the results of a study on gender budgeting commissioned by the city of Vienna. This study was meant to evaluate a range of headline measures implemented in the city, including its free kindergarten model.  

Peter explained that before the free model for kindergarten was introduced in 2009, there was an acute problem with a lack of places being available, and the political debate centered around the impact of this on the city’s increasing ethnic and social divides. A new kindergarten model was envisioned to tackle this issue.

On 1^st September 2009, the council published its financial support package for childcare facilities. This support was dependent on the child’s age and ranged from €60 to €1,230 per child per month. Under the new scheme childcare facilities received:

• Fixed support for all children in Viennese kindergartens of between €60 and €240 per child;
• A care support payment for children with their main residence in Vienna (€137 - €226 per child);
• An administrative grant (per group) of between €500 - €1,500.

As the goal was to find new providers, this financial support particularly targeted the private and non-for-profit sectors. To avoid neighboring federal states taking advantage of the policy, there was an additional bonus for children who were residents in the city. The budget developed from the years 2009 and 2010, and the programme was sizeable: €1,250 million, which in the long-term represented 0.3% of the Vienna’s GDP.

The study looked at the impact of the kindergarten model on women’s labour supply, particularly women between 20-29 years of age. The study compared the participation rate in Vienna pre-reform with that in other provinces of Austria who did not introduce any changes, and the participation rate post reform. The results showed:

• An increase in women’s participation rate of 1.5%;
• An increase in women’s employment rate of 1.2%;
• An increase in women’s hours worked: 0.7 hours per woman;
• A reduction in women in overqualified employment of 0.8%; and
• Higher effects among:
  • Single mothers (substantially);
  • Women with children under 3 (moderately).

Regarding the macroeconomic effects of this expenditure, the study also captured the effects on employment and gross value added (GVA). Figures on return of investment were not part of the original study as the Austrian system of transfers within the state implies that all revenues are accrued by the central state and the regional government only profits marginally from any changes in the economy. However, upon our request, Peter and his team very kindly checked this ahead of the webinar. Based on investment of €360 million, there is a return from both taxes and social security contributions of approximately €302-320 million. This means that if the state is considered a unit, the policy was 80% self-financing. However, Austria is a federal system, which means that Vienna only gets €20 million of these revenues. Therefore, for the city, this was not a self-financed programme.

Peter’s presentation further attested to the efficacy of gender budgeting to increase gender equality and provided insights on the economic benefits of investing in childcare. Yet, Peter acknowledged some of the limitations of the study, including a lack of information on children’s educational outcomes. This question was, however, discussed as part of the webinar’s last presentation, as explored below.

Economic gains in the long term: investing in children

Our final speaker, Jonathan Broadbery, Director of Policy and Communications at NDNA Scotland, brought the focus back on to the UK and Scottish context, drawing attention to the potential of investing in childcare for tackling poverty in the long-term.

Jonathan started off by asking the question “is childcare expensive?” While OECD figures usually show that the UK has one of the most expensive childcare systems in proportion to average earnings, comparisons with other countries shine a light on the issue.In countries such as Germany, France or Sweden, increasing public investment sees a decrease in the cost of childcare to families, while in the UK and New Zealand, a relatively low level of investment from governments leads to a higher proportion of income being spent by parents on childcare. Therefore, the question is not whether childcare is expensive, but what happens when there is investment (or lack thereof) in this area.  

Jonathan highlighted why investing in the first five years of a child’s life is crucial for the child’s development, and the impact that this has in the long term on the child and society. Research by the London School of Economics found that the lack of early years support costs England 16 million pound every year, and 40% of the disadvantage gap at age 16 has already emerged at age 5. This is well illustrated by Professor James Heckman whose research demonstrates that if we don’t get it right in early years, closing the inequalities gap becomes much harder (and costly). Jonathan argued that, with Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, identifying the eradication of child poverty as his “first and foremost” priority, budgets should align with this commitment.

Yet not all interventions need to be costly. Evidence from NDNA’s Maths Champion programme, which is focused on embedding mathematics into play and activities in Early Years settings, showed that within the space of 9 months, children in this low-cost but high-impact programme were able to make an additional three-months’ progress in their learning.

However, when governments do not get it right, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve the full benefits of investing in early years. A recent survey by NDNA showed that 70% of providers expect to operate at a loss or merely break-even due to ELC funding not covering all costs for the delivery of the policy. Johnathan suggested that the adoption of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 this year may become a crucial tool to correct some of the pitfalls in ELC implementation, and a mechanism to scrutinise the impact of policymakers’ decisions on children and children’s policies.

Conclusions

This webinar demonstrated that framing ELC as a cost to the economy misses the links between ELC investment and the fiscal and wider gains associated with greater gender equality and children’s development. Scotland has, until very recently, had the most generous ELC offer in the UK, yet the webinar showed that overall, the level of investment in childcare in the UK falls short compared to other countries, with parents paying the price for this shortfall. In times of tightening budgets, managing and planning for the delivery of public services is crucial. However, there is a need to start examining the resources required to improve and expand the current publicly-funded offer if we want to reap the economic benefits.

What more can we learn from other countries’ approach to childcare? Find out in our next (and last) webinar of this series!

This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland

News! Fa'side Women and Girls Group Award Winning Work

Fa'side Women and Girls Group has been recognised for its inter-generational approach to its cost-of-living project jointly delivered with Making Rights Real and The Scottish Women's Budget Group. 

At the Generations Working Together awards in the Scottish Parliament the group were awarded the valuing generational inclusion and diversity prize. 

This project aims to understand how the cost-of-living crisis is impacting on women in East Lothian and how this is exacerbating experiences of inequality.  As well as identifying responses needed from East Lothian Council and other decision makers.  The project has been running since 2021.  

Clare McGillivary, Making Rights Real and member of Fa'side Women and Girls Group said:

'to be recognised in this way is fantastic, its testament to the hard work of all members over the last 12 years and shows the importance of us working across the generations to demand and protect each others human rights.'

Heather Willams from The Scottish Women's Budget Group said:

'This work has been truly innovative bringing women from across the generations together to use  gender budgeting and human rights approaches, to address issues which are important to women and girls in the area.' 

Jude Currie, Vice-Chair of Generation Working Together:

'Huge congratulations to Fa-side Women and Girls Group in Tranent on your GWT Generational Diversity & Inclusion Award. Ensuring there are safe, inclusive and supportive ways for groups of women and girls of all ages to gather, connect meaningfully, break down stereotypes, and empower each other just has to be celebrated. Seeing you work intergenerationally to identify needs and effect change has clearly been inspiring to so many in your community and beyond. Well done!'

Editors note

• Initial findings from the research can be found here https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-FWGG-Briefing-final.pdf
• Video from Generation Working Together https://vimeo.com/960281487

About the Organisations

• The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is an independent analysis and campaign group that aims to promote gender analysis in public policy and public finance decisions through budgetary processes. 
• Making Rights Real is a grassroots human rights organisation that supports communities to name and claim their rights.
• Generation Working Together is the nationally recognised centre of excellence supporting the development and integration of intergenerational work across Scotland.

Picture from left to right: Heather Williams, Loreen Purdoe, Katie McFarlane, Clare MacGillivary, Charlie Steele, Kaukab Stewart MSP 

Women’s Work: The Juggling Act of Multiple Jobs

Guest blog by Louise Lawson, Lecturer in Public Policy and Health Policy in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

The exhibition ‘Women’s Work: The Juggling Act of Multiple Jobs’ built on research based at the University of Glasgow exploring women’s low paid employment, highlighting issues around multiple paid and unpaid work, caring responsibilities and health and wellbeing. The project and exhibition provided unique and timely insights into the key features of the women’s work, caring and health, detailing the lived experience of multiple low-paid employment in the UK today.  The exhibition will be turned into an online resource and will be available for charities and third sector organisations. It showcases a selection of the research findings alongside artworks and filmed personal testimonies of women working multiple jobs.

Over 100 women were interviewed for the research project. The sheer hard work of many women working multiple jobs was striking: many working five, six or seven days a week, early starts, non-standard hours, stretched hours, but still “skint”, “working for nothing”, and “squeezing it all in”. Many felt their work lacked recognition and value: “we are just numbers”, “absolutely done in”, and “one day I will not have to suffer this”. Metaphors were used to describe the often relentless nature of multiple low-paid work: “juggling act”, feeling like a “hamster in a wheel”, “on a rollercoaster”, “forever on a loop”. Yet there were also stories of joy and determination with some women dedicated to and finding fulfilment from their work, seeing it as a route to something better and optimistic for the future”.

Have your Say

A key aim of the project was to give voice to women in multiple low-paid employment, and to provide opportunities to raise the profile of women’s work, paid and unpaid. We are taking our research findings to the Scottish Parliament at the end of May.

If you are working multiple jobs, or have experience of working multiple jobs, and would like further information or some involvement in our work then please contact Louise Lawson louise.lawson@glasgow.ac.uk