Transcript Social Exclusion Task Force Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course A series of research reports commissioned by the Social Exclusion.

Social Exclusion Task Force
Understanding the risks of social
exclusion across the life course
A series of research reports commissioned by the
Social Exclusion Task Force
July 2009
This presentation summarises findings from externally commissioned research into the risks of social
exclusion across the life course. It is not a statement of Government policy
© Social Exclusion Task Force 2009
Contents
• Executive summary
• Background
• Research aims and methodology
• Key messages and implications for policy
• Publication details
Social Exclusion Task Force
2
Executive summary
• This research project provides robust quantitative data on the complex relationships between different risk
markers of social exclusion and how these vary amongst the British population. The research explores social
exclusion across the life course through four separate projects on:
•
Children and families;
•
Youth and young adulthood;
•
Working age without dependent children; and
•
Older age.
• The innovative methodology used in this research provides a more nuanced understanding of the different
forms and combinations of risk experienced by individuals and families.
 This can assist with better identifying the range and complexity of need among those at risk of social
exclusion.
• Taking a dynamic approach allows the research to identify key drivers that can impact upon the risk of social
exclusion.
 This can help inform the targeting and timing of personalised support around key trigger events in
people’s lives.
• These findings draw attention to the duration and complex nature of social exclusion, and emphasise the need
for personalised, holistic approaches to tackling it.
Social Exclusion Task Force
3
Background
• The Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF) aims to extend the opportunities enjoyed by the vast majority of
people in the UK to those whose lives have been characterised by deprivation and exclusion. In particular, the
SETF works to provide joined-up, innovative solutions to supporting those experiencing multiple
disadvantages.
• To help tackle social exclusion, one of the roles of the SETF is to identify priorities for people suffering from
social exclusion, by understanding the persistence of exclusion across the life cycle and setting priorities to
give everyone a fair chance in life.
• SETF puts strong emphasis on analytical rigour and an evidence based approach to developing policy. This
document summarises the analytical work SETF commissioned on understanding social exclusion across the
life course.
• The work was funded by a range of government departments, reflecting the cross-cutting nature of social
exclusion:
-
The Social Exclusion Task Force
-
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-
The Department for Work and Pensions
-
The Strategy Unit
-
Communities and Local Government
-
Department of Health
-
The Department for Transport
Social Exclusion Task Force
4
Background
• In 2007, SETF published a report from academics
from Bristol University, led by Professor Ruth
Levitas, that reviewed existing literature on the
measurement
of
social
exclusion
and
recommended possibilities for secondary analysis
of existing data sets to fill gaps in the current
knowledge base.
The Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (Levitas et al, 2007) 1
• Levitas et al (2007)1 defined social exclusion as
“… a complex and multi-dimensional process. It
involves the lack or denial of resources, rights,
goods and services, and the inability to participate
in the normal relationships and activities available
to the majority of people in a society, whether in
economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It
affects both the quality of life of individuals and the
equity and cohesion of society as a whole“ .
• They also created a comprehensive operational
framework for studying social exclusion. The
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) defines
measures of social exclusion across three main
domains; resources, participation and quality of
life. The B-SEM was used to guide the subsequent
analytical work described below.
1
Social Exclusion Task Force
Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E. and Patsios, D. (2007) The
Multidimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion, A Research Report for the Social Exclusion Task Force
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/publications/multidimensional.aspx
5
Research aims and methodology
• The aims of the research were to answer the following questions:
 How are different risk markers of social exclusion related to each other?

How many people have multiple risk markers of social exclusion?

What happens to people’s risk of social exclusion over time?

What events can trigger social exclusion and what are the underlying drivers of social exclusion?
• Four research projects were carried out, each covering a different stage of the life course. The research used
secondary analysis of existing social survey datasets and was carried out by separate teams of researchers.
Life stage
1. Children and families
Data source
Families and Children Study (FACS)
Research team
SETF & NatCen
Paul Oroyemi, Giacomo Damioli, Tim Crosier, Matt Barnes
2. Youth and young adulthood
Family Resources Survey (FRS)
University of York
British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)
Linda Cusworth, Jonathan Bradshaw, Bob Coles,
Antonia Keung, Yekaterina Chzen
3. Working age without dependent
children
General Household Survey (GHS)
University of Bristol
British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)
Eldin Fahmy, Ruth Levitas, David Gordon, Demi Patsios
4. Older age
English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA)
NatCen
British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)
Elizabeth Becker, Richard Boreham
Social Exclusion Task Force
6
Research aims and methodology
Resources
• Economic participation: unemployment, carer, low skilled work
Quality
of life
• Material and economic resources: low income, mean-tested benefits, material deprivation, no savings, debts
Participation
• The research focused on understanding the different types and combinations of ‘risk markers’ of social exclusion
that people and families experience. A risk marker is a measure of an individual, family or area characteristic or
behaviour that is associated with an increased likelihood of social exclusion. Examples of risk markers include:
• Access to public and private services: no bank account, no access to private or public transport
• Social resources: no telephone or internet access, no one to turn to in times of need
• Social participation: little contact with friends and family, cannot afford to host social events at home
• Culture, education and skills: no qualifications, cannot afford to attend cultural events
• Political and civic participation: does not vote, not a member of a local interest group
• Health and well-being: limiting illness, poor mental health
• Living environment: overcrowded and poor quality housing, deprived neighbourhood
• Crime, harm and criminalisation: fear of local neighbourhood, excessive alcohol intake
• There are caveats to the methodology:
 Social surveys do not routinely include the non-household population, meaning many people at high risk of
social exclusion, e.g. homeless people, people in prison and other institutions, are excluded from the projects.
 Not all risk markers were available in all the surveys used in the projects. This limits the comprehensiveness
of attempts to measure the multidimensional nature of social exclusion.
Social Exclusion Task Force
7
Children and families – key messages and implications for policy
• This project looked at the social exclusion experienced by
families with dependent children between 2001 and 2006.
Trends in risk markers of social exclusion among families with children,
2001-2006
• Over this period there has been a slight fall in risk markers
among families with children, such as falls in income
poverty, debts, material deprivation and not having a
savings account.
• Around 5 per cent of families were at severe risk of social
exclusion. These families experienced nine risk markers
of social exclusion on average, including material
deprivation, worklessness, no education and mothers with
mental health problems. They were more likely to be lone
parents, have four or more children, have a younger
mother, have a Black mother, live in rented
accommodation, live in urban and the most deprived
areas.
The % of severely at risk families who experience different forms of risk
• Children from these families also experienced low levels
of well-being and their risk markers often reflected those
of their parents. They were particularly likely to have run
away from home; been suspended or expelled from
school; worry about being robbed or mugged and to have
smoked, used drugs, or drunk alcohol in the last year.
• The findings support existing evidence that risk markers
can be transmitted from one generation to the next.
Social Exclusion Task Force
8
Children and families – key messages and implications for policy
• The longitudinal nature of the data allowed us to look at
changes in families’ risk of social exclusion from one year
to the next. This showed that approximately half (51%) of
families at severe risk of exclusion were still at risk a year
later. One third (35%) had fewer risk markers and one in
seven (14%) had moved out of the ‘at risk’ categories.
• Lone parents, mothers with low/medium levels of
education, younger mothers, and social/private tenants
were more likely to be persistently at risk. Families that
were successful in moving out of the ‘at risk’ categories
had experienced events such as partnering and entering
employment while families that became ‘at risk’ had
experienced unemployment and family separation.
Key messages
Time 2
Time 1
Severe
risk of
social
exclusio
n
51%
Severe
risk of
social
exclusio
n
Some
risk of
social
exclusio
n
35%
14%
Little
risk of
social
exclusio
n
Implications for policy
• Distinct clusters of multiple at risk families were identified.
Families most at risk were more likely to have lone or younger
parents, 4 or more children, live in rented accommodation and
live in the most deprived areas.
• Assist with better identifying the range and complexity of need
among families with children
• Inform the provision of targeted and personalised support
• Key drivers and triggers can either increase or decrease the
chance of families experiencing multiple disadvantage
• Inform the targeting and timing of personalised support around
key trigger events such as unemployment, family separation
• Children from multiply disadvantaged families experience lower
levels of well-being than children from non-disadvantaged
families
• Provides further support for the provision of whole family
approaches that address the diverse and different problems
experienced by both parents and children
Social Exclusion Task Force
9
Youth and young adulthood – key messages and implications for policy
• This project looked at the social exclusion experienced by
young people aged 16-24 years.
• There were few obvious trends in the single risk markers
over the period studied (2001/02 – 2005/06), including no
marked reduction in the percentage of young people who
were NEET1, benefit dependent, income poor and
materially deprived.
• Those at severe risk of exclusion (who had seven or
more risk markers) fell from 21% to 16% over the period.
• Young people most likely to experience multiple risk
markers tended to be: female, older young people, those 2. Low income and tenure disadvantaged young
living independently with their own children, those living
people who were also likely to lack transport and
with a lone parent, social and private tenants, those living
tended to be living independently but did not have
in areas with higher levels of disadvantage.
children and were concentrated in urban areas.
• Four groups of young people with multiple risk markers 3. Disengaged young people on benefits, who were
likely to live in a workless household, not to have
were identified:
undertaken any education in the last year, and be
1. Subjectively disadvantaged young people, who
disengaged from the labour market, education and
were likely to have a high GHQ2 score and be
their communities. They tended to be female, have
dissatisfied with life. These young people tended to be
their own children or live with a lone parent, live in
female, living with parents but with their own financial
social housing, and in areas of high disadvantage.
arrangements, and living in owner-occupied 4. Young people living in poor housing and lacking
households.
material necessities who tended to be female, live
in rented accommodation and live in deprived urban
Not in education, employment or training
the General health Questionnaire (GHQ) is used to assess
areas.
mental well-being
1
2
Social Exclusion Task Force
10
Youth and young adulthood – key messages and implications for policy
• The most persistent risk markers that young people experienced were: lack of home ownership, lack of internet
connection, smoking more than five cigarettes a day, not having undertaken any qualification or training, and
living in a workless household. Those without a partner were more likely to become at risk of severe social
exclusion.
• Having lived with parents in receipt of income support increased the chance of young people having risk
markers later on in their twenties. This suggests the intergenerational persistence of risk markers.
• Higher self-esteem during adolescence reduced the likelihood of experiencing risk markers of social exclusion
in young adulthood.
Key messages
Implications for policy
• Young people who were living independently with their own
children tended to experience more risk markers.
• Increased focus on preventing teenage pregnancy and
supporting young parents.
• Levels of NEET were particularly high for young people with
their own children.
• Young parents could be offered more opportunities for
education and training, supported by improved childcare
facilities.
• Young people living with a lone parent were more likely to
experience multiple risk markers than those living with two
parents, perhaps as a result of lower average household
income.
• Increased promotion of policies, such as the educational
maintenance allowance (EMA), may improve rates of education
and training, improving later prospects and experiences.
• One of the most significant triggers of multiple risk factors in
young adulthood is having lived in a family who was in receipt
of income support during adolescence.
• This stresses the need to break the intergenerational cycle of
deprivation by increasing support for poor families with children
in order to improve the life chances of the next generation.
Social Exclusion Task Force
11
Working age adults without dependent children – key messages and
implications for policy
• This project looked at working age adults aged 25 years
and over, living in households without dependent children
during the period 1991 to 2005.
Millions
Individuals
withwith
household
incomes incomes
below 60% median
in 1996-97 a
Individuals
household
below AHC
60%income
median
07
by
population
group
AHC income in 1996-97 and 2006-07 by population group
• In recent years working age adults without dependent
children have been the only group where the number of
low-income people is higher than a decade ago.
• Just under one in 10 working age adults without children
were identified as being severely disadvantaged1. Two
further groups of people facing multiple risk markers were
identified – the low income sick and the working poor.
• The low income sick have poor health and multiple
other risk markers. They are not especially vulnerable to
material deprivation, at least in the short-term.
1
Social Exclusion Task Force
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
• However Opportunity for All suggests that there has been
considerable progress in tackling various risk markers of
social exclusion since 1999. These include reductions in
long-term income-related benefit receipt, and social wellbeing relating to smoking, suicide and homelessness.
• This project found fewer working age people were living
in rented accommodation and lacking material
necessities of life, but more were workless and not active
members of local groups.
4.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
Children
Pensioners
1996-97 (GB)
Working age adults with
children
Working age adults without
children
2006-07 (UK)
Source: Households Below Average Income, 1996-97, 2006-07.
• The working poor face high levels of resource
deprivation,
low
occupational
status
and
educational attainment, poor housing, and negative
area perceptions. These people tend to be in
employment and not in receipt of means-tested
benefits.
• The most influential predictors of social exclusion
were being unemployed or economically inactive,
renting, having few or no qualifications, being
single, never married or divorced, and living alone.
This group experienced many of the 25 risk markers used in this analysis
12
Working age adults without dependent children – key messages and
implications for policy
• Although only 5% of respondents in work experienced severe disadvantage, those in work comprised more than
one quarter of the severely disadvantaged group. These observations emphasise the importance of considering
the composition of the severely disadvantaged group alongside examination of those factors predicting
heightened vulnerability.
• Becoming severely at risk of social exclusion is significantly more common for certain working-age people,
including women, older people, renters, manual occupational groups, the unemployed, home makers, early
retirees and sick and disabled people, those with no qualifications, never married and single person households.
• The experience of disadvantage appears to be relatively enduring and persistent over time. Nearly threequarters of people severely at risk of social exclusion remained so from one year to the next.
Key messages
Implications for policy
• Trends in the incidence of individual risk markers of exclusion
suggest that overall progress in tackling disadvantage amongst
this population has, at best, been mixed. While there appears
to have been progress in some areas (material deprivation,
housing and neighbourhood quality) there is more to do.
• Tackling multidimensional disadvantage amongst working age
adults without children should be a key priority within the UK’s
overall strategy for social inclusion.
• The circumstances facing this group are not wholly explicable
in terms of labour market non-participation, for example with
regard to the circumstances of the ‘working poor’ and ‘low
skilled’ groups.
• The absolute magnitude of these groups means that tackling
disadvantage amongst those in work should also be an area for
focus in reducing the overall incidence of disadvantage in the
UK.
• Inclusion through paid work is likely to be an inappropriate
policy solution for those working age adults whose
circumstances are associated with ill health, disability, and
caring responsibilities.
• Labour market activation policies could be supplemented by
policies directed at improving the quality of working life for
those in work, as well as income maximisation policies for
those working age adults unable to participate in paid work.
Social Exclusion Task Force
13
Older age – key messages and implications for policy
• This project looked at people aged 60 years and over and
included analysis of multiple risk factors over the period
1997 to 2005.
Prevalence of risk markers in older age
• In terms of risk markers of social exclusion that older
people face, lack of qualifications was the most prevalent,
followed by having a limiting longstanding illness, fear of
area after dark and not owning a home. The least
prevalent forms of disadvantage were all linked to
economic resources, namely lack of access to financial
services, no pension wealth and material deprivation.
• The research identified five groups of older people with
multiple risk markers.
1. Around 5% of older people had an average of 5 risk
markers that related to access problems, including
poor access to services and public and private
transport in their local area. These older people
tended to be aged 80 and older, have no qualifications
and be living alone.
2. Older people who had mostly health problems, but
were also likely to have poor access to services.
These older people tended to have no qualifications
and a limiting, longstanding illness.
Social Exclusion Task Force
3. Older people who experienced low income. This
group of older people was particularly likely to live
alone and be unmarried.
4. Older people who had very infrequent contact with
others, low social support, and felt that they don’t
belong in the area where they lived.
5. Older people afraid of their local area after dark.
14
Older age – key messages and implications for policy
• Older people who experienced low income and transport
problems endured multiple risk markers for the longest
duration (over the period 1997 – 2005). Older people
experiencing health and loneliness, or low social support
and loneliness, experienced multiple risk markers for a
shorter duration.
• The project looked at the impact on social exclusion of
changes in circumstances between one year and the
next. Getting divorced and becoming widowed were the
main events that meant older people were more likely to
face multiple risk markers.
Key findings
Events that increase the risk of social exclusion in older age
Trigger event
Change in
disadvantage
Low social support
Low income
Material deprivation
Poor transport
Housing problems
Poor contact
No qualifications
Poor health
Poor mental health
Satisfaction with area
Retired
Pension
Move
house



Accident Widowed Divorced






Married






significant relationship
Implications for policy
• Women and the oldest old were identified as most likely to
experience multiple risk markers.
• A policy focus on social exclusion in older age should consider
these two groups, particularly as the fastest growing age group
in the UK is those aged 80 and over.
• Certain risk markers were endemic across all older people
experiencing multiple risk factors. These included poor
functional and literacy skills, bad housing, low social support,
and low political efficacy.
• Policy needs to confront these issues in a joined-up manner,
understanding that tackling such problems in isolation may not
work for older people at severe risk of social exclusion.
• Above all else, the research has shown that the forms of
multiple disadvantage experienced by older people are
complex and interrelated.
• The research calls for close co-ordination between government
departments, local authorities and third sector organisations in
delivering strategies to keep older people in touch with services
and society more generally.
Social Exclusion Task Force
15
Publication details
All 4 life stage reports are published on the SETF website:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force.aspx
• Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: Families with children, by Paul Oroyemi, Tim
Crosier (Social Exclusion Task Force), Giacomo Damioli (University of Essex) and Matt Barnes (National Centre for
Social Research)
• Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: Youth and young adulthood, by Linda
Cusworth, Jonathan Bradshaw, Bob Coles, Antonia Keung and Yekaterina Chzhen, University of York
• Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: Working age adults without dependent
children, by Eldin Fahmy, Ruth Levitas, David Gordon and Demi Patsios, University of Bristol
• Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: Older age, by Elizabeth Becker and Richard
Boreham, National Centre for Social Research
The preceding theoretical report that underpins this work is also published on the SETF website:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/publications/multidimensional.aspx
• The Multidimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion by Ruth Levitas, Christina Pantazis, Eldin Fahmy, David Gordon,
Eva Lloyd and Demi Patsios, University of Bristol
Social Exclusion Task Force
16