Annual Report for the Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland 2016

Copyright

© Crown copyright, 2017

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at www.gov.scot

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at
The Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

First published by the Scottish Government, December 2016
ISBN: 978-1-78652-697-7 (web only)

E-book in EPUB format first published by the Scottish Government, January 2017
ISBN: 978-1-78652-698-4 (EPUB)

E-book in MOBI format first published by the Scottish Government, January 2017
ISBN: 978-1-78652-699-1 (MOBI)

Published by the Scottish Government, January 2017

Produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA
PPDAS58018 (01/17)

Contents

Ministerial Foreword

Child Poverty Measurement Framework – Performance at a Glance 2016

1. Introduction

2. Child Poverty In Scotland
Relative child poverty
Absolute child poverty
Combined low income and material deprivation

3. Pockets: Maximising Household Resources Of Families On Low Income
Intermediate outcome 1: Maximised financial entitlements of families on low income
Intermediate outcome 2: Reduced household spend of families on low income
Intermediate outcome 3: Families on low income are managing finances appropriately and are accessing all financial entitlements
Intermediate outcome 4: Parents are in good quality, sustained employment in line with skills and ambitions

4. Prospects: Improved Life Chances Of Children In Poverty
Intermediate outcome 5: Children from low income households have improving levels of physical and mental health
Intermediate outcome 6: Children from low income households experience social inclusion and display social competence
Intermediate outcome 7: Children from low income households have improving relative levels of educational attainment, achieving their full potential
Intermediate outcome 8: Children from low income backgrounds are in good quality, sustained employment in line with skills and ambitions

5. Places: Children From LowIncome Households Live InWell-Designed Sustainable Places
Intermediate outcome 9: Children from low income households live in high quality, sustainable housing
Intermediate outcome 10: Children from low income households grow up in places that are socially sustainable
Intermediate outcome 11: Children from low income households grow up in places that are physically sustainable
Intermediate outcome 12: Children from low income households grow up in places that are economically sustainable

6. Annex: Child Poverty Measurement Framework – Data Sources And Years

Ministerial Foreword

Creating a Fairer Scotland is one of our top priorities as a Government. Our Fairer Scotland Action Plan, which was published on 5 October, sets out 50 actions that we will take to help us achieve that vision. Bringing forward a Child Poverty Bill for Scotland is one of those actions.

We know that tackling the deep-seated inequalities and poverty in our society is challenging – we only have to look at the figures to see that. In Scotland in 2014-15, poverty affected 940,000 people, after housing costs. That figure includes 220,000 children. It is simply wrong that more than one in five of our children are living in poverty.

That’s why we profoundly disagreed with the UK Government’s decision to repeal the income targets that were set out in the UK-wide Child Poverty Act 2010. There is widespread agreement that, more than anything else, poverty is about income. I will therefore bring forward a Child Poverty Bill for Scotland in this Parliamentary year. Over the summer we consulted on the Bill, seeking views on proposals to enshrine in legislation our clear ambition to eradicate child poverty, underpinned by statutory income-based targets, a robust Delivery Plan and annual reporting. Our new Bill will establish Scotland as the only part of the UK with statutory income targets on child poverty.

This report sets out the most recent statistics on child poverty, and details our progress against the measurement framework that we introduced in our 2014 Child Poverty Annual Report. I am clear that any new annual reporting arrangements that we bring forward in the Bill should build on this robust and innovative framework. In the meantime, I am absolutely clear that we need to maintain a strong evidence base, and I think that this report provides us with a clear picture of child poverty in Scotland in 2016 – a picture that will be the starting point for discussions on the Bill going forward.

Angela Constance

Cabinet Secretary for Communities,
Social Security and Equalities

Child Poverty Measurement Framework - Performance at a Glance 2016

<td↔ 14.6% of the poorest children spend 4+ hours at a screen per day

Pockets

↔ 20.1% of working people earn less then Living Wage

↔ Average private nursery costs in real terms: £104.06

↑ 25% of parent households are not managing financially

↔ 95% of parent households have a bank account

↑ Employment rate of parents 81.8%

↑ Underemployment rate of parents: 6.8%

↔ Earnings of top 10% are 15.4 times the earnings of the bottom 10%

↑ 8.1% of parents have low or no qualifications

Prospects

↔ 91.3% of the poorest children are in good health

↔ 18% of the poorest children have below average mental health

↔ 9.2% of the poorest children eat five fruit and veg a day

↔ 14.6% of the poorest children spend 4+ hours at a screen per day

↑ 10% of children in the most deprived areas smoke 1+ cigarettes a week

↔ 56.4% of the poorest children played sport last week

↔ 79.4% of the poorest children find it easy to talk to their mother

↓ 62.6% of the poorest children feel accepted by pupils in their class

↓ 54.3% of the poorest children perform well in numeracy

↔ 81.4% of the poorest children perform well in reading

↔ 56.3% of the poorest children perform well in writing

↔ Mean Strength and Difficulties score for the poorest children: 9.1

↔ 86% of poorest parent households are satisfied with local schools

↑ 86.1% of poorest school leavers are in positive destinations

↔ 86.6% of poorest children expect to be in positive destinations

↑ Modern Apprenticeship starts: 25,818

↔ Modern Apprenticeships completion rate 76%

Places

↔ 9.1% of average incomes is spent on housing

↔ 71% in the most deprived areas satisfied with condition of home

↔ 24% in the most deprived areas feel they can influence local decisions

↔ 64% of neighbours stop to talk in the most deprived areas

↔ Crime victimisation rate in the most deprived areas 21.2%

↑ 27% say drug misuse is common in the most deprived areas

↔ 84% in most deprived areas say their neighbourhood is a good place to live

↔ 80% satisfied with public transport in the most deprived areas

↔ 59% within 5min walk of green space in the most deprived areas

↑ 16 percentage point employment gap between most deprived and other areas

↔ 14.2 percentage point low qualification gap between most deprived and other areas

↔ 12 percentage point internet use gap between most deprived and other areas

↑ Performance improving ↔ Performance maintaining ↓ Performance worsening

1. Introduction

Scottish Ministers published the revised Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland in March 2014, which builds upon the original Strategy published in 2011. This document is the third annual report that relates to the revised Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland (2014), and the sixth annual report in relation to the first Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland, published in 2011.

Chapter 2 details progress, both before and after housing costs, against the four income-based measures that formed the basis of the Child Poverty Act 2010 targets. These are the same measures that the Scottish Government proposes to base the new Child Poverty Bill targets on.

Chapters 3–5 report progress in relation to the Child Poverty Measurement Framework For Scotland. The measurement framework, which was set out in the 2014 annual report, consists of a wide set of indicators intended to help government, the Scottish Parliament, and stakeholders monitor progress against the outcomes over time. The measurement framework is structured around three key outcomes, and chapters 3–5 of this report each cover one of the outcomes:

Chapter 3 – Pockets: Maximising financial resources of families on low incomes

Chapter 4 – Prospects: Improved life chances of children in poverty

Chapter 5 – Places: Children from low income households live in well-designed, sustainable places

For each key outcome, there are a number of ‘intermediate outcomes’, and each intermediate outcome has one or more associated indicators. Chapters 3–5 present the most recent figures for each indicator (usually from 2015 or 2014), compare them to the baseline published in the 2014 annual report, and set them within the context of longer-term trends, where possible.

The Annex provides more detail on the methods used, including data sources and source years.

2. Child Poverty In Scotland

This chapter details progress, both before and after housing costs, against the four income-based measures that formed the basis of the Child Poverty Act 2010 targets. These are the same measures that the Scottish Government proposes to base the new Child Poverty Bill targets on. The four income-based child poverty indicators are:

- Relative poverty – the percentage of children living in households with equivalised[1] net incomes of less than 60% UK median household income, in the same year.

- Absolute poverty – the percentage of children living in households with equivalised net incomes of less than 60% of UK median household income, in the base year (2010/11), adjusted for inflation.

- Combined low income and material deprivation – the percentage of children living in low income households that lack certain basic necessities. Low income here is defined as an equivalised net household income of less than 70% of the UK median household income.

- Persistent poverty – the percentage of children living in a household in relative poverty for at least three years out of a four-year period.

The measures set out above consider poverty in two ways – before and after housing costs:

- Before Housing Costs (BHC) measures the disposable income households have – from employment, benefits, savings etc. – before they have paid for their housing.

- After Housing Costs (AHC) measures the disposable income households have once they have paid their housing costs.

Scotland-level analysis of persistent poverty is not currently available. It is anticipated that estimates of persistent poverty levels in Scotland will be available in 2017.

Relative child poverty

Relative poverty measures whether incomes for the lowest income households are changing at the same rate as those for middle income households in any year.

In 2014/15, 17% of children in Scotland were in relative poverty before housing costs – 160,000 children. This was an increase from 14% the previous year, with 20,000 more children in poverty in 2014/15.

After housing costs, 22% of children were in relative poverty – 220,000 children. This was the same as in 2013/14.

Over the last decade, relative child poverty before housing costs has been falling, although there was an increase in the most recent year. Relative child poverty was 17% in 2014/15, a decrease from 21% in 2005/06. After housing costs are taken into account, while child poverty has fallen, the decrease is less than that seen for the before housing costs measure.

Source: HBAI dataset, DWP

Absolute child poverty

Absolute poverty measures whether incomes for the lowest income households are changing in line with inflation (in other words, whether living standards are maintained over time). Children are in absolute poverty if they are living in a household where equivalised income is below 60% of the inflation-adjusted median income in 2010/11.

In 2014/15, 16% of children in Scotland were living in absolute poverty before housing costs – 150,000 children. This was an increase from 14% the previous year, with 10,000 more children living in absolute poverty in 2014/15.

After housing costs, 21% of children were living in absolute poverty – 200,000 children. This was a decrease from 23% the previous year, with 30,000 fewer children in absolute poverty in 2014/15.

The rate of absolute poverty before housing costs has been falling over the last decade, from 23% in 2005/06 to 16% in 2014/15. After housing costs, the decrease in absolute child poverty over the last decade is significantly smaller, from 25% in 2005/06 to 21% in 2014/15.

Source: HBAI dataset, DWP

Combined low income and material deprivation

Material deprivation is a measure of whether children are going without necessities which are considered essential to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

In 2014/15, 10% of children were living in low income before housing costs and material deprivation – 100,000 children. This was a decrease from 13% in the previous year, with 30,000 fewer children in low income and material deprivation in 2014/15. This follows two years of increasing child material deprivation.

After housing costs, 12% of children in Scotland were living in low income and material deprivation – 120,000 children. This is a decrease from 14% the previous year, with 20,000 fewer children in low income and material deprivation in 2014/15. This follows two years of increases.

Source: HBAI dataset, DWP

3. Pockets: Maximising Household Resources Of Families On Low Income

This chapter presents data for the indicators associated with the four intermediate outcomes highlighted below:

Figure 3.1: Logic model for ‘Pockets’ outcome

Table 3.1 summarises how the baseline figures published in the 2014 annual report compare to the most recent figures for each indicator (usually from 2015 or 2014 – more detail on the dates and sources of data for each indicator are provided in the Annex). The assessment of performance is based on the following[2]:

↑ performance improving – a statistically significant change in the desired direction

↓ performance worsening – a statistically significant change in the opposite direction

↔ performance maintaining – no statistically significant change

Table 3.1: Summary of performance against the ‘Pockets’ indicators

Indicator

2014 report baseline

Most recent

Percentage of working people earning less than the Living Wage

18.6%

20.1%

↔

Average private nursery costs in real terms

£100.07

£104.06

↔

Percentage of poorest households (with children) that are not managing well financially

35%

25%

↑

Percentage of poorest households (with children) where someone has a bank account

90%

95%

↔

Employment rate of adults with dependent children

79.3%

81.8%

↑

Underemployment rate of adults with dependent children

8.4%

6.8%

↑

Earnings that go to the top 10% of earners, divided by the earnings of the bottom 10%

16.4

15.4

↔

Percentage of adults with dependent children with low or no qualifications

9.2%

8.1%

↑

The rest of this chapter considers each of the indicators in turn, looking at the longer-term trends and any additional data that helps put these into context. The baseline and most recent data points are highlighted in the charts.

Intermediate outcome 1: Maximised financial entitlements of families on low incomes

Indicator 1.1 Percentage of working people (aged 18+) earning less than the Living Wage

An important element of incomes is earnings. This indicator was chosen in recognition of the crucial role of good quality, paid employment as a route out of poverty, and reflects the Scottish Government’s commitment to promoting the Living Wage.

In 2016, 20.1% of employees in Scotland earned less than the Living Wage, compared to the baseline of 18.6% in 2013[3].

It should be noted that this indicator draws on hourly wages data, and low pay and poverty may persist for those earning the Living Wage or above, who work a low number of hours. This indicator should therefore be read in conjunction with the underemployment indicator (Indicator 4.2).

↔ Performance maintaining

Intermediate outcome 2: Reduced household spend of families on low incomes

Indicator 2.1 Average cost of 25 hours per week private nursery care for children aged two or over

Childcare is one of the most significant costs for parents that is not shared by other household types. High childcare costs are one of the key issues affecting parents on low incomes in particular, and form a major barrier to taking up employment or increasing hours worked for many parents.

In 2015 the average weekly cost of 25 hours private nursery care for children over two was £104.06, compared to an average cost of £100.07 in the baseline year (2013). These figures are adjusted to control for inflation over the time period[4]. Childcare costs rose substantially between 2007 and 2010, with a smaller overall increase between 2010 and 2015.

↔ Performance maintaining

Intermediate outcome 3: Families on low incomes are managing finances appropriately and are accessing all financial entitlements

Indicator 3.1 Percentage of households (with children) in bottom three income deciles who are not managing well financially

This indicator measures the perceptions of those on low incomes about their ability to manage financially. In 2015, 25% of households (with children) in the bottom three income deciles (i.e. the households with the lowest 30% of incomes) reported not managing well financially, compared to 35% in the baseline year (2012). The percentage has fluctuated since 2007. It was highest in 2012 and has fallen since to its lowest in the most recent year.

In comparison, the proportion of households (with children) in the other seven income deciles who report not managing well financially has remained relatively stable since 2007, falling slightly in 2015.

↑ Performance improving

Indicator 3.2 Percentage of households with children in bottom three income deciles where someone has a bank account

This indicator measures financial inclusion and access to basic financial services. Households without a bank account are unable to take advantage of features like direct debits, which can result in lower outgoings.

In 2015, 95% of households (with children) in the bottom three income deciles (i.e. the households with the lowest 30% of incomes) had access to a bank account, compared to 90% in the baseline year (2013). The percentage has increased consistently since 2007, with the exception of a slight drop in 2008.

Among households (with children) in the other seven income deciles, the percentage with access to a bank account remained relatively stable, meaning the gap between the two groups has closed in recent years.

↔ Performance maintaining

Intermediate outcome 4: Parents are in good quality, sustained employment in line with skills and ambitions

Indicator 4.1 Employment rate of adults with dependent children

The employment rate of parents increased to 81.8% in 2014, compared to 79.3% in the baseline year (2012). Parental employment rates have been fairly stable since 2007.

↑ Performance improving

Indicator 4.2 Underemployment rate of adults with dependent children

The underemployment rate is defined as the percentage of working people looking to increase their hours either in their current job, an additional job, or a different job. This is important, as a high employment rate may mask a situation where individuals are working but are not in employment that meets their needs.

In 2014, 6.8% of working parents were underemployed, compared to 8.4% in the baseline year (2012). Parental underemployment rose steadily between 2008 and 2011, and has been decreasing again in recent years.

↑ Performance improving

Indicator 4.3 Earnings that go to the top 10% of earners, divided by the earnings of the bottom 10% (S90/S10)

Earnings inequality, as measured by the earnings that go to the top 10% of earners divided by the earnings of the bottom 10%, is a common measure of inequality, frequently used in international studies.

In 2016, the earnings of the top 10% of earners were 15.4 times the earnings of the bottom 10% of earners, compared to 16.4 times in the baseline year (2013). Earnings inequality rose slightly between 2007 and 2011, and has been decreasing in recent years[5].

The trend of increasing inequality up to 2011 was largely due to an increasing share of earnings going to the top 10% of earners. In recent years, the fall in earnings inequality was largely due to decreases in the share of earnings going to the top 10% of earners.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 4.4 Percentage of adults with dependent children with low or no qualifications (SCQF level 4 or below)

This indicator measures whether individuals have the required skills to take up good quality employment. In 2014, 8.1% of parents had no or low qualifications, compared to 9.2% in the baseline year (2012). There has been a consistent decreasing trend in the percentage of parents with no or low qualifications between 2007 and 2014.

↑ Performance improving

4. Prospects: Improved Life Chances Of Children In Poverty

This chapter presents data for the indicators associated with the four intermediate outcomes highlighted below:

Figure 4.1: A Logic model for ‘Prospects’ outcome

Table 4.1 summarises how the baseline figures published in the 2014 annual report compare to the most recent figures for each indicator (usually from 2015 or 2014 – more detail on the dates and sources of data for each indicator are provided in the Annex). The assessment of performance is based on the following[6]:

↑ Performance improving – a statistically significant change in the desired direction

↓ performance worsening – a statistically significant change in the opposite direction

↔ Performance maintaining – no statistically significant change

Table 4.1: Summary of performance against the ‘Prospects’ indicators

Indicator

2014 report baseline

Most recent

Percentage of children from the poorest households with good or very good health

91.8%

91.3%

↔

Percentage of children from the most deprived areas with below average mental wellbeing scores

19%

18%

↔

Percentage of children from the poorest households eating five portions of fruit and veg per day

10.2%

9.2%

↔

Percentage of children from the poorest households spending four or more hours at a screen per day

14.1%

14.6%

↔

Percentage of 15 year olds from the most deprived areas smoking at least one cigarette a week

16%

10%

↑

Percentage of children from the poorest households who played sport in the last week

58.2%

56.4%

↔

Percentage of children from the poorest households that find it easy to talk to mother or stepmother*

80.0%

79.4%

↔

Percentage of children from the poorest households who agree pupils in class accept them*

71.1%

62.6%

↓

Percentage of P7 pupils from the most deprived areas performing well in numeracy

61.4%

54.3%

↓

Percentage of P7 pupils from the most deprived areas performing well in reading*

81.6%

81.4%

↔

Percentage of P7 pupils from the most deprived areas performing well in writing*

60.9%

56.3%

↔

Mean Strengths and Difficulties score for children from the poorest households

9.4

9.1

↔

Percentage of the poorest parent households that are satisfied with local schools

91%

86%

↔

Percentage of school leavers from the most deprived areas who are in positive destinations

82.4%

86.1%

↑

Percentage of 15 year olds from the poorest households who expect to be in positive destinations*

86.4%

86.6%

↔

Modern Apprenticeship starts

25,284

25,818

↑

Modern Apprenticeship completion rate

77%

76%

↔

*Note that there has been no new data on these indicators since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessments are therefore the same as reported previously.

The rest of this chapter considers each of the indicators in turn, looking at the longer-term trends and any additional data that helps put these into context. The baseline and most recent data points are highlighted in the charts.

Intermediate outcome 5: Children from low income households have improving levels of physical and mental health

Indicator 5.1 Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles with good or very good parent-assessed health

In 2014 and 2015 (combined), 91.3% of children in the lowest three income deciles were assessed by their parents as having good or very good health. This is a similar level as in the baseline year (2010 and 2011 combined). There has been little change since 2008 and 2009 (combined).

There has also been little change in parent-assessed health among two to 15 year olds from households in the other seven income deciles.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 5.2 Percentage of 13 and 15 year olds from the 20% most deprived SIMD datazones with below average scores (14-40) on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)

This indicator measures mental health among young people aged 13 and 15 through the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). Respondents are asked to indicate how often they have experienced 14 positive thoughts and feelings related to wellbeing and psychological functioning in the last two weeks. WEMWBS scores are reported on a scale of 14 to 70, with higher numbers indicating better mental wellbeing.

In 2015, 18% of 13 and 15 year olds from the 20% most deprived SIMD datazones had a below average WEMWBS score[7], compared to 19% in the baseline year (2010). Older data for this indicator is not available.

The percentage of 13 and 15 year olds in the rest of Scotland with below average WEMWBS scores was 14% in 2015 and 2013, and 16% in 2010.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 5.3 Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles eating five portions of fruit and veg per day

In 2014 and 2015 (combined), 9.2% of 2-15 year olds from households in the lowest three income deciles were eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, compared to 10.2% in the baseline year (2010 and 2011 combined).

The percentage of 2-15 year olds eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day has been consistently lower among households in the bottom three income deciles than those in the top seven.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 5.4 Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles spending four or more hours at a screen per day

This is a recognised measure of sedentary activities. In 2014 and 2015 (combined), 14.6% of 2-15 year olds from households in the lowest three income deciles spent four or more hours a day looking at a screen, compared to 14.1% in the baseline year (2010 and 2011 combined).

The percentage of 2-15 year olds spending four or more hours at a screen per day has been consistently higher among households in the bottom three income deciles than those in the top seven.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 5.5 Percentage of 15 year old school pupils in 20% most deprived SIMD datazones smoking at least one cigarette a week

Indicator 5.5 measures adolescent smoking, a health behaviour that displays a strong social gradient. In 2015, 10% of 15 year olds in the 20% most deprived SIMD datazones were regular smokers, defined as smoking at least one cigarette a week. This is a decrease from 16% in the baseline year (2010). There is an overall decreasing trend for this indicator.

The percentage of 15 year olds in the rest of Scotland who are regular smokers has also decreased.

↑ Performance improving

Intermediate outcome 6: Children from low income households experience social inclusion and display social competence

This outcome is important both in terms of children’s wellbeing, and their ability to ‘fit in’ in a range of social situations, allowing them to benefit fully from educational and social opportunities which will ultimately benefit them in accessing good quality employment.

Indicator 6.1 Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles who have played sport in the last week

This is included as a measure of participation in positive activities or hobbies, as well as participation in group activities. In 2014 and 2015 (combined), 56.4% of children aged 2-15 from households in the lowest three income deciles had played sport in the previous week. This compares to 58.2% in the baseline year (2010 and 2011 combined).

The percentage of 2-15 year olds who have played sport in the last week has been consistently lower among households in the bottom three income deciles than those in the other seven.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 6.2 Percentage of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from bottom third of family affluence scale that find it easy to talk to mother or stepmother

This measures an aspect of a supportive home environment, which is a key contributor to both the social inclusion outcome and educational attainment. There has been no new data on this indicator since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessment and figures are therefore the same as reported previously.

In 2014, 79.4% of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from the least affluent third of households reported that they found it easy to talk to their mother or stepmother, compared to 80.0% in the baseline year (2010). There has been virtually no change over time.

In 2014, children from the least affluent households were slightly less likely to find it easy to talk to their mother than children from other households, though there was no significant difference between the two groups prior to 2014.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 6.3 Percentage of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from bottom third of family affluence scale who agree that pupils in class accept them as they are

This focuses on social inclusion within the school context. There has been no new data on this indicator since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessment and figures are therefore the same as reported previously.

In 2014, 62.6% of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from the least affluent third of households agreed that pupils in their class accepted them as they were, compared to 71.1% in the baseline year (2010).

The percentage of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from the least affluent third of households agreeing that pupils in their class accepted them as they were has been consistently lower among the least affluent households compared to all other households.

↓ performance worsening

Intermediate outcome 7: Children from low income households have improving relative levels of educational attainment, achieving their full potential

This outcome recognises that education plays a key role in contributing to the future prospects of Scotland’s children.

Indicator 7.1 Percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived SIMD datazones performing well or very well in numeracy

The percentage of Primary 7 (P7) pupils from the 30% most deprived areas who performed well or very well in numeracy was 54.3% in 2015, compared to 61.4% in the baseline year (2011).

The percentage of P7 pupils who performed well or very well in numeracy has been consistently lower among households in the 30% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland.

↓ performance worsening

Indicator 7.2 Percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived SIMD datazones performing well or very well in reading

There has been no new data on this indicator since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessment and figures are therefore the same as reported previously.

In 2014, the percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived datazones who performed well or very well in reading was 81.4%, compared to 81.6% in the baseline year (2012 – the first time this measure was collected).

The percentage of P7 pupils who performed well or very well in reading has been consistently lower among households in the 30% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 7.3 Percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived SIMD datazones performing well, very well or beyond the level in writing

There has been no new data on this indicator since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessment and figures are therefore the same as reported previously.

The percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived datazones who performed well or very well in writing was 56.3% in 2014, compared to 60.9% in the baseline year (2012 – the first time this measure was collected).

The percentage of P7 pupils who performed well or very well in writing has been consistently lower among households in the 30% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 7.4 Mean Strengths and Difficulties score for children aged 4-12 from households in bottom three income deciles

The results of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) are presented as a difficulty score on a range from zero to 40, with higher scores indicating higher risk of mental health and behavioural problems. A score up to 13 is considered normal. The average (mean) score for children aged 4-12 from households in the bottom three income deciles was 9.1 in 2014 and 2015 (combined), compared to 9.4 at the baseline (2008 and 2009 combined).

The average SDQ score has been consistently higher among households in the bottom three income deciles than those in the other seven.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 7.5 Percentage of adults from households with children in bottom three income deciles that are satisfied with local schools

This has been included to provide an overall proxy of school quality. In 2015, 86% of adults with children in their household in the bottom three income deciles were satisfied with local schools. The analysis excludes those who expressed no opinion. This compares to 91% in the baseline year (2012). There has been little change over time on this measure.

Adults from households (with children) in bottom three income deciles and those in the other seven income deciles have very similar levels of satisfaction with local schools. Each year since 2007 there has only been one or two percentage points of difference in satisfaction between the two groups.

↔ Performance maintaining

Intermediate outcome 8: Children from low income backgrounds are in good quality, sustained employment in line with skills and ambitions

This outcome recognises the importance of work as a source of both income and life satisfaction and a major determinant of quality of life.

Indicator 8.1 Percentage of school leavers from 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who are in a positive destination approximately nine months after leaving school

86.1% of pupils from the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones, who left school during or at the end of the academic year 2014/15, were in learning, training or work in March 2016. This compares to 82.4% in the baseline year (2012/13). The percentage in positive destinations has increased steadily since 2010/11[8].

The percentage of school leavers in a positive destination has been consistently lower among households in the 15% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland, though the gap has decreased over time.

↑ Performance improving

Indicator 8.2 Percentage of 15 year olds from bottom third of family affluence scale who think they will be in positive destinations after leaving school

This is a measure of school children’s aspirations, and looks at the expectations of 15 year olds for what they will do after leaving school. There has been no new data on this indicator since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessment and figures are therefore the same as reported previously

In 2014, 86.6% of children from the least affluent third of households expected to be in positive destination (defined as being in work, skills training, an apprenticeship, or going to college or university), compared to 86.4% in 2010. There has been little change over the longer term.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 8.3 Number of Modern Apprenticeship starts

Modern Apprenticeships are one aspect of the availability of suitable work for young people. Indicators 8.3 and 8.4 should be used together.

There were 25,818 starts in 2015/16, just over 500 more than in the baseline year (2013/14)[9]. The number of young people starting Modern Apprenticeships decreased between 2007/08 and 2008/09, then increased substantially until 2011/12, and has been relatively stable since.

↑ Performance improving

Indicator 8.4 Modern Apprenticeship completion rate

In 2015/16 the Modern Apprenticeship completion rate was 76%, compared to 77% in the baseline year (2013/14)[10]. This indicator has been fairly stable over time.

It should be noted that non-completion may be due to moves into another positive destination (such as higher level work or further education), and may not necessarily be indicative of a less favourable outcome for the person concerned.

↔ Performance maintaining

5. Places: Children From Low Income Households Live In Well-Designed Sustainable Places

This chapter presents data for the indicators associated with the four intermediate outcomes highlighted below:

Figure 5.1: Logic model for ‘Places’ outcome

Table 5.1 summarises how the baseline figures published in the 2014 annual report compare to the most recent figures for each indicator (usually from 2015 or 2014 – more detail on the dates and sources of data for each indicator are provided in the Annex). The assessment of performance is based on the following:

↑ performance improving – a statistically significant change in the desired direction

↓ performance worsening – a statistically significant change in the opposite direction

↔ performance maintaining – no statistically significant change

Table 5.1: Summary of performance against the ‘places’ indicators

Indicator

2014 report baseline

Most recent

Average percentage of income spent on housing

9.8%

9.1%

↔

Percentage of households in the most deprived areas satisfied with condition of home

69%

71%

↔

Percentage of adults in the most deprived areas who feel they can influence decisions

21%

24%

↔

Percentage of children from the most deprived areas who agree that people in their area talk to each other on the street

63.8%

64.0%

↔

Percentage of adults in the most deprived areas who have been the victim of crime in the past year

21.3%

21.2%

↔

Percentage of adults in the most deprived areas who say drug misuse is common in their neighbourhood

34%

27%

↑

Percentage of adults in the most deprived areas saying their neighbourhood is a good place to live

80%

84%

↔

Percentage of households in the most deprived areas satisfied with quality of local public transport

76%

80%

↔

Percentage of adults in the most deprived areas who are within a five-minute walk of green space

60%

59%

↔

Gap in the employment rate between the most deprived areas and the rest of Scotland

19.5 percentage points

16.0 percentage points

↑

Gap in percentage of adults with low or no qualifications between the most deprived areas and the rest of Scotland

15.8 percentage points

14.2 percentage points

↔

Gap in personal internet use between the most deprived areas and the rest of Scotland

12 percentage points

12 percentage points

↔

The rest of this chapter considers each of the indicators in turn, looking at the longer-term trends and any additional data that helps put these into context. The baseline and most recent data points are highlighted in the charts.

The indicators under the ‘Places’ outcome are intended as measures of the characteristics of the areas in which children grow up, rather than the characteristics of the children or their families themselves. Findings are therefore presented for the 15% most deprived Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) areas as a whole, and do not focus only on households with children.

Intermediate outcome 9: Children from low income households live in high quality, sustainable housing

Indicator 9.1 Average percentage of income spent on housing

This is a measure of the affordability of housing[11]. In 2014/15, households in Scotland spent on average 9.1% of their combined post-tax income on housing, compared to 9.8% in the baseline year (2011/12).

The overall trend since 2007 is that housing has become more affordable. This is due to incomes increasing at a slightly greater rate than housing costs.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 9.2 Percentage of households in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones satisfied with condition of home

This is a proxy for housing quality. In 2014, 71% of households in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones were satisfied with the condition of their home, compared to 69% of those in the 15% most deprived datazones in the baseline year (2012). This indicator has fluctuated over time, with a low of 69% in 2007 and 2012, and a high of 76% in 2009.

Satisfaction with the condition of their home has been consistently lower among households in the 10% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Intermediate outcome 10: Children from low income households grow up in places that are socially sustainable

This outcome is in line with the Scottish Government’s focus on increasing openness and engagement, involving local communities in decision making. The indicators under this outcome focus on community engagement, interaction and safety.

Indicator 10.1 Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who agree they can influence decisions affecting their local area

This is a measure of one aspect of engaged communities. In 2015, 24% of adults in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones agreed that they could influence decisions affecting their local area, compared to 21% in the baseline year (2012). The analysis excludes those who expressed no opinion. There has been an increase in the percentage agreeing that they can influence decisions since 2007.

A similar trend is evident among households in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 10.2 Percentage of 13 and 15 years olds from 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who agree that people in their area say hello and talk to each other on the street

This indicator looks at community interaction and supportiveness from the perspective of children. There has been no new data on this indicator since the 2015 annual report, and the performance assessment and figures are therefore the same as reported previously.

In 2014, 64.0% of 13 and 15 year olds living in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones[12] agreed that people in their area say hello and talk to each other in the street, compared to 63.8% in the baseline year (2010).

The percentage agreeing that people in their area say hello and talk to each other in the street has been consistently lower among households in the 15% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 10.3 Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who have been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year

In 2014-15, 21.2% of adults in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones were victims of one or more crimes, compared to 21.3% in the baseline year (2012-13). This was lower than in 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Crime victimisation has been consistently higher among households in the 15% most deprived areas than those in the rest of Scotland. Since 2010-11, there has been no change to victimisation rates in the most deprived areas, but there has been a significant decrease in victimisation in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 10.4 Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who say drug misuse or dealing is common in their neighbourhood

This is a measure of anti-social behaviour. In 2015, 27% of adults in the 15% most deprived areas said drug misuse or dealing was common in their neighbourhood, compared to 34% in the baseline year (2012). There have been fairly substantial fluctuations between years, but a slight downward trend over time from 31% in 2007 to 27% in 2015.

Among adults in the rest of Scotland, the proportion who say that drug misuse is common in their area is much lower and has remained stable over time.

↑ Performance improving

Intermediate outcome 11: Children from low income households grow up in places that are physically sustainable

This outcome reflects the importance of the natural and built environment in influencing quality of life and wellbeing.

Indicator 11.1 Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who say their neighbourhood is a good place to live

This is a general proxy for place quality. In 2015, 84% of adults from the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones thought that their neighbourhood was a good place to live, compared to 80% in the baseline year (2012). Perceptions have gradually improved over time.

Among the rest of Scotland, ratings of neighbourhoods have been consistently high over time.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 11.2 Percentage of households in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones satisfied with quality of local public transport

Public transport is a key public service, which also has an important influence on the economic sustainability outcome through improving physical access to employment opportunities in other areas.

In 2015, 80% of adults in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones were satisfied with the quality of local public transport, compared to 76% in the baseline year (2012). This indicator shows little change over time.

Satisfaction with public transport has been consistently higher among adults in the most deprived areas compared to adults in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 11.3 Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who can access green space within a five-minute walk or less

This measures one aspect of the environmental quality of public spaces. In 2015, 59% of adults in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones could access green space within a 5 minute walk, compared to 60% in the baseline year (2013)[13].

The percentage of adults who can access greenspace has been consistently lower in the most deprived areas compared to the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Intermediate outcome 12: Children from low income households grow up in places that are economically sustainable

The final intermediate outcome under the Places outcome is ‘children from low income households grow up in places that are economically sustainable‘. The indicators under this intermediate outcome measure inequality between areas by looking at the gap between the outcomes of all adults living in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones and the outcomes for people in the rest of Scotland.

Indicator 12.1 Gap in employment rate between 15% most deprived and rest of Scotland

In 2015, the gap between the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones and the rest of Scotland was 16.0 percentage points, between 59.2% in the most deprived SIMD datazones and 75.2% elsewhere. This compares to 19.5 percentage points in the baseline year (2012) (between 53.8% in the most deprived SIMD datazones and 73.3% elsewhere). There have been fairly substantial fluctuations between years, but overall a slight downward trend between 2007 and 2015.

↑ Performance improving

Indicator 12.2 Gap in percentage of adults with low or no qualifications between 15% most deprived SIMD datazones and rest of Scotland

In 2015, the gap between the most deprived SIMD datazones and the rest of Scotland was 14.2 percentage points, with 23.5% of people having low qualifications (at SCQF level 4 or below) or no qualifications in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones, compared to 9.3% elsewhere. In the baseline year (2012), the gap was 15.8 percentage points (26.6% of people in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones had low or no qualifications compared to 10.8% elsewhere).

The gap has gradually decreased over time, due to larger reductions in the percentage of adults with low or no qualifications in the 15% most deprived SIMD datazones than in the rest of Scotland.

↔ Performance maintaining

Indicator 12.3 Gap in personal internet use between 15% most deprived SIMD datazones and rest of Scotland

This is included as a proxy for digital infrastructure. In 2015, the gap was 12 percentage points, with 72% in the 15% most deprived areas using the internet for personal use, compared to 84% in the rest of Scotland. This gap is the same as in the baseline year (2012: 79% in the 15% most deprived areas using the internet for personal use, compared to 67% in the rest of Scotland).

The gap has decreased since 2007, despite an increase in the most recent year. This is due to larger increases in internet use in the 15% most deprived datazones (from 46% in 2007 to 72% in 2015) than in the rest of Scotland (from 65% in 2007 to 84% in 2015).

↔ Performance maintaining

6. Annex: Child Poverty Measurement Framework - Data Sources And Years

Maximising financial resources of families on low incomes (Pockets)

Baseline

Most recent

Baseline source year

Most recent source year

Data source

Maximised financial entitlements of families on low incomes

1.1

Percentage of working people earning less than Living Wage

18.6%[14]

20.1%

2013

2016

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE)

Reduced household spend of families on low incomes

2.1

Average cost of 25 hours per week private nursery care for children aged two or over

£100.07[15]

£104.06

2013

2015

Childcare Costs Survey

Families on low incomes are managing finances appropriately and are accessing all financial entitlements

3.1

Percentage of households with children in bottom three income deciles who are not managing well financially

35%

25%

2012

2015

Scottish Household Survey (SHS)

3.2

Percentage of households with children in bottom three income deciles where someone has a bank account

90%

95%

2011

2015

SHS

Parents are in good quality, sustained employment in line with skills and ambitions

4.1

Employment rate of adults with dependent children

79.3%

81.8%

2012

2014

Annual Population Survey (APS) Household dataset

4.2

Underemployment rate of adults with dependent children

8.4%

6.8%

2012

2014

APS Household dataset

4.3

Earnings that go to the top 10% of earners, divided by the earnings of the bottom 10% (S90/S10)

16.4

15.4

2013

2016

ASHE

4.4

Percentage of adults with dependent children with low[16] or no qualifications (SCQF level 4 or below)

9.2%

8.1%

2012

2014

APS Household dataset

Improved life chances of children in poverty (Prospects)

Baseline

Most recent

Baseline source year

Most recent source year

Data source

Children from low income households have improving levels of mental and physical health

5.1

Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles with good or very good parent-assessed health

91.8%

91.3%

2010 & 2011 (combined)

2014 & 2015 (combined)

Scottish Health Survey (SHeS)

5.2

Percentage of 13 and 15 year olds from the 20% most deprived SIMD datazones with below average scores (14-40) on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)

19% (revised[17])

18%

2010

2015

Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey (SALSUS)

5.3

Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles eating five portions of fruit and vegetables per day

10.2%

9.2%

2010 & 2011 (combined)

2014 & 2015 (combined)

SHeS

5.4

Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles spending four or more hours at a screen per day

14.1%

14.6%

2008 & 2010 (combined)

2014 & 2015 (combined)

SHeS

5.5

Percentage of 15 year olds from the 20% most deprived SIMD datazones smoking at least one cigarette a week

16% (revised[18])

10%

2010

2015

SALSUS

Children from low income households experience social inclusion and display social competence

6.1

Percentage of children aged 2-15 from households in bottom three income deciles who have played sport in the last week

58.2%

56.4%

2010 & 2011 (combined)

2014 & 2015 (combined)

SHeS

6.2

Percentage of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from bottom third of family affluence scale that find it easy to talk to mother or stepmother

80.0%

79.4%

2010

2014

Health Behaviours of School-aged Children Study (HBSC)

6.3

Percentage of 11, 13 and 15 year olds from bottom third of family affluence scale[19] who agree that pupils in class accept them as they are

71.1%

62.6%

2010

2014

HBSC

Children from low income households have improving relative levels of educational attainment, achieving their full potential

7.1

Percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived SIMD datazones performing well or very well in numeracy

61.4%

54.3%

2011

2015

Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy (SSLN)

7.2

Percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived SIMD datazones performing well or very well in reading

81.6%

81.4%

2012

2014

SSLN

7.3

Percentage of P7 pupils from the 30% most deprived SIMD datazones performing well, very well or beyond the level in writing

60.9%

56.3%

2012

2014

SSLN

7.4

Mean Strengths and Difficulties score for children aged 4-12 from households in bottom three income deciles

9.4

9.1

2010 & 2011 (combined)

2014 & 2015 (combined)

SHeS

7.5

Percentage of adults from households with children in bottom three income deciles that are satisfied with local schools

91%

86%

2012

2015

SHS

Children from low income backgrounds are in good quality, sustained employment in line with skills and ambitions

8.1

Percentage of school leavers from 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who are in a positive destination approximately nine months after leaving school

82.4% (revised[20])

86.1%

2012/13

2014/15

Scottish Government publication: Summary statistics for attainment, leaver destinations and healthy living

8.2

Percentage of 15 year olds from bottom third of family affluence scale who think they will be in positive destinations after leaving school

86.4%

86.6%

2010

2014

HBSC

8.3

Modern Apprenticeship starts

25,284

25,818

2013/14

2015/16

Skills Development Scotland

8.4

Modern Apprenticeship completion rate

77%

76%

2013/14

2015/16

Skills Development Scotland

Children from low income households live in well-designed sustainable places (Places)

Baseline

Most recent

Baseline source year

Most recent source year

Data source

Children from low income households live in high quality, sustainable housing

9.1

Average percentage of income spent on housing

9.8%

9.1%

2011/12

2014/15

Family Resources Survey (FRS)

9.2

Percentage of households in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones satisfied with condition of home

69%

71%

2012

2015

SHS

Children from low income households grow up in places that are socially sustainable

10.1

Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who agree they can influence decisions affecting their local area

21%

24%

2012

2015

SHS

10.2

Percentage of 13 and 15 years olds from 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who agree that people in their area say hello and talk to each other on the street

63.8%

64.0%

2010

2014

HBSC

10.3

Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who have been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year

21.3%

21.2%

2012/13

2014/15

Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS)

10.4

Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who say drug misuse or dealing is common in their neighbourhood

34%

27%

2012

2015

SHS

Children from low income households grow up in places that are physically sustainable

11.1

Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who say their neighbourhood is a good place to live

80%

84%

2012

2015

SHS

11.2

Percentage of households in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones satisfied with quality of local public transport

76%

80%

2012

2015

SHS

11.3

Percentage of adults in 15% most deprived SIMD datazones who can access green space within a five-minute walk or less

60% (change in indicator from 2012)

59%

2013 (change in indicator from 2012)

2015

SHS

Children from low income households grow up in places that are economically sustainable

12.1

Gap in employment rate between 15% most deprived and rest of Scotland

19.5 percentage points

16.0 percentage points

2012

2015

APS

12.2

Gap in percentage of adults with low or no qualifications between 15% most deprived SIMD datazones and rest of Scotland

15.8 percentage points

14.2 percentage points

2012

2015

APS

12.3

Gap in personal internet use between 15% most deprived SIMD datazones and rest of Scotland

12 percentage points

12 percentage points

2012

2015

SHS

Footnotes

1. The poverty threshold is adjusted, based on the size and composition of the household, recognising that smaller and larger households may need different levels of income to maintain the same standard of living. This process of adjustment is known as equivalisation.

2. Unless otherwise stated

3. An increase or decrease by 1.5 percentage points or less is assessed as ‘performance maintaining’.

4. Costs are presented in 2015 prices. An increase or decrease by less than 5% of the (inflation-adjusted) baseline is assessed as ‘performance maintaining’.

5. The figure for 2014 has been updated in line with revised 2014 data released in November 2015.

6. Unless otherwise stated

7. The sample was divided into three groups, on the basis of their combined scores for the constituent items of WEMWBS. The three groups are those with ‘above average’ mental wellbeing (a score of over one standard deviation above the mean score), those with ‘average’ mental wellbeing (a score within one standard deviation of the mean) and those with ‘below average’ mental wellbeing (a score of more than one standard deviation below the mean). This threefold classification has been created solely for the purposes of analysis and is not based on any evidence that an average or below average score is problematic. As a rule, WEMWBS scores are not used as a diagnostic tool.

8. Figures for 2010/11 to 2013/14 have been calculated using an updated methodology.

9. An increase or decrease of less than 500 is assessed as ‘performance maintaining’.

10. An increase or decrease of less than 4 percentage points is assessed as ‘performance maintaining’.

11. It compares median housing costs for all tenures to median net unequivalised household incomes.

12. It should be noted that postcode information required for SIMD is not available for 26% of survey respondents in the HBSC. Findings presented are for the remaining individuals only.

13. The definition of this indicator was changed slightly from 2013 onwards, to align with green space access standards for local authorities. Therefore, the most recent findings are not directly comparable to those from 2011 and 2012, which relate to green space within a six-minute walk or less.

14. The 2016 estimate is for April 2016, and therefore a Living Wage rate of £8.25 has been applied. The 2013 estimate is based on a rate of £7.45.

15. Adjusted for inflation using 2015 as the base year.

16. SCQF level 4 (‘National 4’, which replaced Intermediate 1 or General Standard Grade) or below.

17. This indicator has been revised since the 2015 Annual Report. Data is no longer collected on eligibility for free school meals in the SALSUS survey; therefore, SIMD has been used as a measure of low income instead. The figure for the baseline has been revised accordingly.

18. This indicator has been revised since the 2015 Annual Report. Data is no longer collected on eligibility for free school meals in the SALSUS survey; therefore, SIMD has been used as a measure of low income instead. The figure for the baseline has been revised accordingly.

19. The Family Affluence Scale (FAS) is constructed on the basis of questions about material resources (number of cars, holidays, PC and bedrooms). The FAS has three categories of affluence, containing a third of the sample each.

20. Information on attainment and leaver destinations has been updated following methodological changes and changes to data availability. Data for the 2010/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 leaver cohorts have been updated, and supersede previously published figures for these years. This means that the 2012/13 figure reported here (82.4%) is slightly higher than the 2012/13 figure reported in the 2014 Annual Report for the Child Poverty Strategy (81.9%). The 2014/15 figure also uses the new methodology