Experiences of families living below Minimum Income Standard

• Context
• The study
• Key findings
• Points to consider

Context

The report is about the experiences of families in England whose incomes are below Minimum Income Standard (MIS), a benchmark based on the things that members of the public agree that households need as a minimum. Families below this level do not necessarily face severe material deprivation, but fall short of what people think is necessary to have the choices and opportunities required to participate in society. The research builds on previous studies of low family income in two ways. First, by using MIS it considers the situation of millions of families that are on low incomes, but not in the deepest poverty. Second, it considers low income in the context of the challenges of our present times, such as zero-hours contracts, payday loans, less stable housing tenure and benefit changes.

The study

The study comprised in-depth interviews with 30 families on low incomes, including a mix of lone parents and couples, and those in and out of work. Interviews took place across a range of English regions and included cities, large and small towns, and rural or village locations. The target range of disposable incomes, net of housing and childcare costs, was between 50% and 90% of the MIS level, to represent families who fall significantly short but are not in deep poverty; all but four of the interviewees had estimated incomes within this range. The participants were recruited face-to-face in the street or in their homes, and the interviews lasted up to two hours. The research was conducted by members of the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charity aimed at solving poverty in the UK, as part of its programme of research aimed at policy-makers, practitioners and service users.

Key findings

• Stability: Families need stability, but this is undermined by irregular employment and hours, changes in benefits and tax credits, and insecurity in private rented housing
• Hard work: Coping on a low income involves constant monitoring of budgets, hard work and discipline, but the stress of trying to keep on top of finances is emotionally draining, and relationships between partners were often affected.
• Children: Parents tend to prioritise meeting their children’s needs and sacrifice their own, for example, cutting back on their own meals in order to ensure that they could pay for the children’s food and keep their homes warm. Children were affected both directly by material hardship, and indirectly at a psychological level, by feelings of missing out or being the ‘odd one out’ among their peers.
• Priorities: Families tend to prioritise day-to-day expenses over larger outlays, but this can increase overall costs. They also found it important to be able to have an occasional treat, particularly for children but also occasionally for themselves.

(Brief explanation how the below relates to the above)

• Coping with low income: The study categorised the families that took part in the study into four broad groups in terms of how well they are coping and whether things are improving or getting harder. Most families were in the middle two groups, and their ability to cope was affected not just by their income but also by the presence or absence of debt and informal support. The groups were as follows:
  • Getting on/life improving – typically those with the greatest incomes
  • Getting by/keeping up
  • Getting stuck/finding it hard to keep afloat Getting harder/under increasing pressure – typically those with the lowest incomes

Points to consider

• Methodological strengths/weaknesses: This was a qualitative study aimed at describing experiences rather than producing statistical information about low income families. As such, the approach of in-depth interviews was appropriate. The study relied on self-reporting of income at the recruitment stage, rather than analysis of bank statements so there could be anomalies, however the authors report that interviewers checked and validated the information previously given about income.
  • The research took place in England, but included families from a range of settings which made the findings more representative.
  • The authors also drew on supporting material from a number of other publications.
• Relevance: Millions of families in the UK live with levels of income that are similar to those of the families studied in this report. The study brings their experiences to life in a vivid way, with many direct quotes, and is still relevant and topical today.
• Generalisability/ transferability: The study focuses on families and can’t be generalised to individuals or people who don’t have children living at home. Whilst some of the issues are no doubt similar for people without children, a main theme that emerged was around the need to protect children from the effects of a low income.
  • The study took place in England, but there are likely to be similar issues faced by families throughout the UK and in other developed nations.
  • This report is applicable to anyone with an interest in low income families, such as government, support agencies, policy makers, policy implementers, regulators or educators.