SWBG blog

Women and active travel: lessons from our work with Sustrans

Our Training Lead, Heather Williams, discusses why the work we did with Sustrans is key to reducing inequalities in active travel.

Over the last few months, we’ve been working with Sustrans to look at how gender budgeting approaches can be used in the active travel field. Scotland has set out a vision for active travel to be ‘seen as the norm, regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or background’ [1]. While the Scottish Government has committed to spending 10% of the transport budget on active travel infrastructure, increased investment in active travel alone will not lead to the increased diversity needed to achieve their vision. 

There’s a theory that says we measure what we value. If we look at active travel policy from this perspective, what do we see?  

One of the strategic objectives in the Active Travel Framework [2] is ‘Reduced Inequalities’. Despite this, the outcomes and indicators focus on the need to improve the availability and safety of infrastructure for ‘all’ and on increasing the number of kilometres built.  

This tells us something about where the strategic focus is of those involved in designing the active travel strategy. It also highlights why the work we have carried out with Sustrans is essential.  

Our Women’s Survey [3] which looked at transport and active travel last year showed that: 

• Only 5% of those responding to our survey used cycling as a main mode of transport, this dropped to none for single parents. 

• 17% used walking/wheeling as the main mode of transport, this increased to 23% for single parents 

• 59% of respondents to the survey felt questions on access and safety of cycle routes was not applicable to them, 34% of respondents felt the same for walking and wheeling routes 

Those who completed our survey told us that the reason they didn’t walk, wheel or cycle for journeys is because routes didn't take them to where they needed to go, or they didn’t feel safe on the routes available. Our survey echoed what other research has found, that women are more likely to trip-chain engaging in multi-purpose and multi-stop trips related to caring and other household tasks. Those who completed our survey told us that current infrastructure does not allow them to undertake these journeys in the time available to them:

      ‘There are "nice" cycle routes but a lack of safe practical routes between shops, train stations & home etc.‘ 

      ‘No segregated cycle lanes anywhere I need to go. Nothing that connects me to even simple places like post office, shops, etc. Some cycle lane for leisure, but not far'. 

      ‘Kids go to school in next town to our home and I work in neighbouring local authority area so need to travel quite a bit to do school run and get to work'. 

To help ensure that as many people as possible benefit from spending on active travel, our work with Sustrans has highlighted it’s essential that: 

• We know our local communities and consider the journeys people take and how active travel can support them to do this. This means asking why people travel and where they need to get to and designing routes which support these journeys. 

• We design (and fund) community engagement processes to help hear from a diverse range of people.  

• We collect sex disaggregated data on those who take part in any community consultations or engagement exercises, so we know who we have heard from and who we haven’t.    

• We carry out Equality Impact Assessments in the early stages of any project to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. These should be reviewed and updated as the project progresses. 

• We ensure that active travel projects support people to undertake care related journeys. This means looking at investing in infrastructure to support people walking and wheeling as well as in cycling infrastructure. The design of these need to be based on providing people with as direct access as possible to the places they need to get to. 

• We consider women’s perceptions of safety in the design of active travel schemes using tools such as “safety audits and safety tours” as standard practice.  

• We invest in social infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure in order to grow the numbers from diverse groups who walk, wheel and cycle. Projects such as Women on Wheels are essential if we are to diversify those who benefit from active travel expenditure. We have to recognise that funding these types of programmes is as important as building the physical infrastructure.  

• We ensure there is space for people to stop and sit in the design of active travel infrastructure.  

As Transport Scotland take over some of the work which has been carried out by Sustrans, it is crucial that the learning from our work is taken forward and that those involved at all stages of delivering the active travel strategy are able to apply an intersectional gender perspective to address inequalities in active travel. If we continue to develop and design these projects as if they will benefit everyone without considering the need of specific groups, we will continue to embed inequality. 

References

[1] Transport and Travel in Scotland 2014 | Transport Scotland

[2] Key policy approaches to improving the uptake of walking and cycling in Scotland for travel | Transport Scotland

[3] Womens-Survey-2023-Transport-Report.pdf (swbg.org.uk)

Women's Survey 2024 Launch

On Friday 1st March we launched our Women's Survey 2024! 

Our 2024 Women’s Survey is once again looking to capture women in Scotland's experiences of how they are managing the cost-of-the living crisis and the impact this is having on them and their families. While headline inflation figures have reduced during 2023 and into 2024, prices are still higher than they have ever been, and households' disposable income is lower now than in 2019. [1]  

Our previous surveys have shown that women are often the shock of absorbers of poverty for their households skipping meals, not replacing clothes or shoes for themselves or skipping haircuts etc. to try and protect other family members from the impact of increasing costs. 

‘Sometimes my meals are very different from everyone else’s’ [2] 

The tactics women are using to manage their household budgets have been one of reducing spending on non-essentials to afford items like food and heat. Yet, our surveys have shown that for many this hasn’t been enough, and that single parents and disabled households often must make the decision between heating and eating. 

With the UK having tipped into technical recession as a result of household incomes declining, as part of this year's survey we have added some additional questions around debt and savings. From previous surveys we know that women have been using savings or credit cards to manage regular monthly expenditure and that they are worried about the impact this will have on their retirement. This year, we want to explore the potential longer-term consequences of the current crisis for women.  

Additionally, this year's survey also looks at public sector reform. In November 2023 we heard the Deputy FM say that  

‘there was “no doubt” that staffing for services would have to be reduced due to tight budgets and inflation-driven pay deals’. [3]  

Given the consequences that declining public services have on women, who often end up impacted or picking up the slack caused by this, we feel it's important that we understand what good public sector reform looks like for women and we want to hear from you about this.  

Finally, with the country soon heading to the polls, we are keen to know women’s priorities for the upcoming UK General Election. Decisions made at Westminster have a great impact on women in Scotland. Analysis by the UK Women’s Budget Group last week showed that cuts to National Insurance contributions in the Spring Budget will benefit better off men, impacting on women’s inequality [4]. Let us know what really matters to you so we can advocate for policies that make a difference to women’s lives. 

How can you help us?

We’d like to hear different views from women across Scotland. This is crucial for us to understand the different realities of women in   all local authorities. We are particularly interested in hearing from more ethnic minority women, women that are carers, and women who are single parents.

We are also offering a £25 voucher to 10 people who complete the survey, this will be selected at random. 

If you haven’t done so already, we’d like your support to share the Women's Survey 2024 to help us reach a diverse range of women across Scotland. You can do this by: 

• Sharing the survey through your social media account (if possible): LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter). 
• Sharing amongst your networks
• Sharing with any women’s groups you might work with 

References 

[1] https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-uk-families-suffering-worst-decline-living-standards-g7 

[2] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Cost-of-Living-report-proof-06.pdf

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-67539045

[4] Tax giveaways to better off men will cost worse off women, says WBG - Womens Budget Group

The cost of funding tax giveaways. Reflections ahead of the UK Spring Budget 2024

Blog by Heather Williams, SWBG Training Lead

With a general election on the horizon, the newspapers and TV are full of the potential tax cuts being considered as the Chancellor comes under increasing pressure from MPs worried about their re-election chances. The hope is that tax giveaways in the 2024 Spring Budget can have a similar effect to those in Norman Lamont’s Budget in 1992.[1]

Doing the news rounds yesterday, Jeremey Hunt promised to embark on the ‘long path’ to lower taxation,[2] which suggests that the Chancellor hasn’t paid much attention to the recent YouGov poll. This showed that 3/4s of those polled were not supportive of personal tax cuts and would rather see the money used to prop up already crumbling public services.[3]

Due to the self-imposed fiscal rules the Chancellor is choosing to adhere to, the outlook for UK public services is potentially bleak. The decisions made this week could have worrying long term consequences for the UK economy, which has already slipped into a technical recession after being stagnant for a long period of time.[4] The impact of the cost-of-living crisis on the back of the pandemic and austerity has squeezed households’ disposable income, affecting their spending decisions. Our Women’s Surveys for the last two years have shown that households have been rapidly cutting back on what they see as unnecessary expenditure such as meals out, haircuts or clothes, all of which has had a knock-on effect on the High St.[5] While the Chancellor may hope further tax cuts could reverse this trend, with interest rates high, inflation still high, income tax personal allowance thresholds remaining static (pushing more into paying tax or into higher tax bands), and cuts to public spending including a punitive social security system, this short-term approach is unlikely to provide sufficient stimulus.

According to the OBR, the impact of the Chancellor's decisions in the Autumn to prioritise tax cuts at the expense of further investment in public services along with inflation has meant that departmental spending is facing a £19bn real term loss by 2027-28.[6] Many believe that current public spending plans for both revenue and investment are illusory and cannot be sustained, with 3 councils in England having already issued bankruptcy notices and another 9 requesting further financial support.  If the Chancellor chooses to cut personal taxes on the back of announcing further cuts to public spending, then this will be based on nothing more than ‘fantasy.’[7]

Additionally, if the Chancellor sticks to his current spending plans for public services, this will mean no further consequentials for the Scottish Government.  In Scotland this has meant that in this year's budget the Scottish Government has cut back on planned capital expenditure (due to a reduction in the grant funding in this area and the impact of inflation). As a result of decisions taken by the Scottish Government to prioritise investment in roads, namely the A9, they have had to make substantial cuts to investment in social housing and hospitals[8]

Women’s Groups across the UK (including SWBG) are warning the Chancellor that his decisions risk putting ‘gender equality into reverse’ due to the disproportionate impact that cuts to public spending, needed to balance any reductions in tax, have on women.[9]

Ahead of Wednesday, the Chancellor needs to decide if he is going to prioritise the UK’s long term financial and social stability or roll the dice on pre-election giveaways in the hope that this Budget can do what Norman Lamont’s did for the Conservative Party in 1992.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/mar/03/budget1999.budget7 

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68461581 

[3] https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1758539234733076563 

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/94ecda75-35de-4d09-bda6-f3a7c71dc3c6 

[5] https://www.swbg.org.uk/content/publications/SWBG-Cost-of-Living-report-proof-06.pdf 

[6] https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/obr-autumn-statement-measures-will-cause-19bn-fall-in-public-spending-power#:~:text=Speaking%20in%20a%20press%20briefing,eroded%20by%20around%20%C2%A319bn 

[7] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/five-things-look-out-spring-budget-2024 

[8] https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/pages/2/#:~:text=Our%20%C2%A36.25%20billion%20capital,ambitions%20will%20not%20be%20easy 

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/29/cuts-to-public-services-in-england-will-reverse-gender-equality-unions-warn 

What’s wrong with childcare in Scotland? A summary

The Scottish Women’s Budget Group (SWBG) is hosting a series of events focusing on the need to further invest in childcare in Scotland. Last month, we hosted the first webinar, ‘What’s wrong with childcare In Scotland? Perspectives ahead of the Scottish Budget 2024/2025’.

Aimed at policymakers and other stakeholders with an interest in improving the current system in Scotland, as well as the public, the webinar explored issues such as the affordability of childcare, availability, and the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on service providers. The webinar featured:

• Insights from SWBG’s 2023 Childcare Survey and Pregnant then Screwed Scotland’s survey data;
• Perspectives from childcare providers via the National Day Nurseries Association;
• Evidence on links between childcare, poverty and work from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The webinar also presented an opportunity to discuss recommendations ahead of the publication of the Scottish Budget 2024/2025, and generated a wave of debate amongst those in attendance. Participants contributed their own views and experiences as users and providers of childcare services.

Below we capture the key insights from the webinar.

Looking at childcare through a gendered lens.

SWBG Coordinator, Carmen Martinez, kicked off the webinar with a summary of the SWBG’s ‘2023 Childcare Survey’  findings, drawing attention to the cost of childcare and the impact that the current inflationary period is having on women’s ability to manage this expense. For example, 54% of women told us that they had to make changes to other areas of household spending to manage childcare costs while 30% were struggling with costs. Regarding availability, 38% of all survey respondents found accessing childcare difficult, and 22% found it very difficult (both during the school term and holidays). Those who struggle due to accessibility issues include respondents with school-age children who are unable to find wraparound care which fits around their working hours. SWBG also highlighted some of the issues with the existing 1,140 hours of funded childcare offer, this mainly focused on the lack of flexibility in provision, as only 14% of respondents who qualified for funded hours noted that the scheme fully meets their needs.

We also looked at the impacts that managing childcare have on women. According to our survey, 55% of women said that this has impacted on paid work they could do, with 66% reporting that the cost of childcare has impacted their financial wellbeing, and 48% stating that managing childcare has influenced their decision NOT to have another child. Finally, SWBG brought to the fore the economic impacts of childcare costs on women. Almost 33% of our survey respondents had to reduce their working hours to be able to manage childcare costs (while only 8% of respondents told us that their partners had to reduce their hours). In addition, 20.5% women said they were using compressed hours, arranged informally with their employer to manage childcare. This figure was 14.8% for their partners. This highlights the extent to which the lack of social infrastructure (i.e. affordable and accessible childcare) penalises women, contributing to gender inequality.  

Carole Erskine, from Pregnant then Screwed, shared similar findings. According to their survey data, 65% of Scottish parents are leaving the workforce or reducing their hours due to the cost and/or lack of availability of childcare. In addition, 43% of parents who have seen childcare costs increase in the last 10 months say they cannot afford to have any more children, and 65% of mothers with a child under 12 months say that they either have or will have to cut their maternity leave short due to the cost-of-living crisis. These percentages contribute to the increasing body of evidence linking the cost and/or lack of adequate childcare services to women’s inequality.

The providers’ perspective

An interesting perspective, and one that the SWBG was keen to explore following our Childcare Survey 2023, was the implementation of the funded ELC offer in Scotland. Jonathan Broadbery, Director of Policy and Communications at the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA), a representative body for private and voluntary day nurseries that are involved in delivering childcare, provided a very informative assessment. He started by pointing out what’s right with childcare in Scotland, recognising where the country sits compared to other UK nations. He highlighted the ambition of the 1,140 hours policy, which center on facilitating parents’ return to the labour market and, very importantly, improving the quality of childcare at a crucial time for children and their development. Other laudable policy principles are affordability and accessibility for 3- and 4-year-olds, parental choice, and its focus on children’s rights.

Jonathan also discussed the differential funding approaches to ELC as well as the impact that inflation is having on providers’ cost-of-operating crisis. For example, whilst 30% of funded hours are delivered by private nurseries, the funding received is not proportional to this, which is exacerbating the recruitment crisis in the sector, but also impacts on parent’s choice and the overall costs of childcare. For instance, parents of younger children face higher costs as providers try to ensure the sustainability of their service. Given these challenges, NDNA calls for increasing investment to pay ‘genuinely’ sustainable rates, improving providers’ business sustainability, and pay for the workforce. Additionally, it would like to see supported employment programmes into ELC and a single ELC account for families to make the system less complex and increase take-up.

Pre-school childcare as an effective tool to reduce poverty

The webinar also discussed other approaches to ELC. Jack Evans, Senior Policy Adviser at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, spoke about their current project, which focuses on meeting one of the Scottish Government’s three strategic objectives for ELC: poverty reduction. Before delving into the project’s details (literature review, polling with families, public and sector consultations and modelling), Jack noted some key aspects that interact with ELC policy such as the value that parents place on their childcare, the risks of ignoring inequalities in unpaid work, and issues affecting the workforce and providers, which are crucial to finding solutions that can work in the ‘real world’.

More specifically, the project’s context considers work intensity trends (number of working hours that people do) for all families, and for those living in poverty. For example, while the most common working set-up for families is both parents in full-time work, families in poverty are more likely to include one parent working full time, and one parent not working (93% of those not in work being women). Regarding people trapped in persistent low paid work (11% of Scotland’s population), 72% of them are women. Therefore, to avoid exacerbating gender inequalities in the labour market, Jack highlighted that having an ELC offer that moves parents into work is not enough. Instead, parents need to move to jobs that pay at least the Real Living Wage or above, and argued that ELC has a role to play in supporting parents to find better work.

Within this context, the project’s literature review captures previous research on ELC, and it includes a summary of 47 recommendations related to the interaction of work and ELC, such as data collection, parent’s lack of choice, the financialisation of childcare or interactions between ELC and the child benefit payment. This literature review found large gaps about what hasn’t been properly evaluated, for example, the variation in delivery and strategy between local authorities. While this does not mean that there are 32 different ELC strategies in Scotland, there is a certain degree of variation, and knowing ‘what works’ would be key to improve good practice. The project’s literature review also focuses on contradictory findings. For example, while quantitative research shows that families are generally happy with the quality and flexibility of ELC, parents may report a different experience via qualitative research. In this regard, the project’s commissioned polling has revealed that the policy aims of the existing offer match with parents’ needs and what parents want from a new offer is not widely different, with the majority indicating a preference for a funded ELC of between 35 and 40 hours per week. This new offer would increase family resilience. In terms of what this new offer would mean for parents’ work, it would allow parents to increase their work hours (from no work to work, or from part-time work to full-time), to access better paid work (overcoming the pay gap that exists from part-time to full-time work) and more secure work.

While there is more data to analyse, some early conclusions from this project point out that the interaction between childcare and increasing income is not straightforward, and that any considerations about ELC policy must include labour market dynamics. In addition, changes to existing offers must be targeted, for example, to close the dissatisfaction gap between rural and urban settings. Finally, Jack noted that new funding models must be on the table, including the review of the existent universal offer to ease the burden on services and to ensure that people on the lowest income get the necessary support, so Scotland can meet its poverty targets.

Scotland’s incomplete journey on childcare

The webinar made it clear that the issue of childcare in Scotland is far from being resolved. While the Scottish Government’s funded ELC offer has been welcomed by families, its implementation has caused challenges to private and third sector providers, particularly as the cost-of-living crisis has increased their operating costs. This, in turn, is impacting on childcare affordability as providers have no other choice but to increase their fees for 1- and 2-year-olds to ensure the financial sustainability of their service.

Inevitably, existing gender inequality in the labour market and/or persisting gender stereotypes over who does care mean that women are increasingly affected by childcare costs, as evidenced by SWBG’s and Pregnant then Screwed Scotland. What’s the way forward? While increasing the scope of the existing offer was in the mix of solutions discussed, speakers agreed that the Government’s priority should be to improve the implementation of the current funded ELC. But how long will parents need to wait for key improvements to be made? And what will delays mean for them, their children, those working in the sector and the wider Scottish economy?

What's next in the series?

Our second webinar will take place (online) on Tuesday 5th March. Further details will be shared early next week via our socials, so please keep an eye out!

This webinar series is supported by Oxfam Scotland