Bare necessities - homepage.univie.ac.at · 3 Bare necessities Poverty and Social Exclusion in...

Bare necessitiesPoverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland

3

Bare necessitiesPoverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland:

key findings

Paddy Hillyard, Grace Kelly, Eithne McLaughlin, Demi Patsios and Mike Tomlinson

Democratic Dialoguereport 16October 2003

Democratic Dialogue23 University StreetBelfast BT7 1FYTel: +44-(0)28-9022-0050Fax: +44-(0)28-9022-0051e-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.democraticdialogue.org

© Democratic Dialogue 2003ISBN 1 900281 15 5

Cover design by Dunbar DesignCover photograph: Oistín Mac Bride

Printed by Colour Books Ltd, Dublin

Preface 7

Acknowledgements 9

1. Introduction 13

2. Measuring poverty and social exclusion 15

3. Research design and method 21

4. Consensual poverty in Northern Ireland 27

5. Relative income and consistent poverty measures 35

6. Equality and consensual poverty 45

7. Social exclusion 57

8. Conclusions 63

Bibliography 67

Appendix: Technical Report 73

Contents

7

This is the 16th report from the thinktank Democratic Dialogue. DD

gratefully acknowledges thefinancial assistance for this projectfrom the Office of the First Ministerand Deputy First Minister in NorthernIreland. DD also greatly values the corefunding it currently receives from theCommunity Relations Council, theEsmee Fairbairn Foundation andQueen’s University Belfast.

Comments on the publication arevery welcome. Anyone wishing to bekept informed of DD projects and eventsshould e-mail the organisation viai n f o @ d e m o c r a t i c d i a l o g u e . o r g ;e-mailings are sent out everymonth or so.

Further copies of this report areavailable from DD, price £7.50 (£10institutions, £4.00 unwaged) plus 10per cent postage and packing. Ourcatalogue of publications is available,

Preface

along with more information about DD

and other projects, on our web site:http://www.democraticdialogue.org

DD

9

The research on which this report isbased was funded by the Office ofthe First Minister and Deputy

First Minister, the Department ofFinance and Personnel, and withsupport from the Treasury’s evidence-based policy fund.

We have benefited from the expertiseand guidance of many people duringthe course of the research. In the earlystages we had fruitful discussions withmembers of the project steering group:Frances Dowds (Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network), Graeme Hutchinson(Department of Finance andPersonnel), Stephanie Harcourt(Department of Health, Social Servicesand Public Safety), Alan McClelland(Office of the First Minister and DeputyFirst Minister), Andrew McCormick(Central Survey Unit, Northern IrelandStatistics and Research Agency), KevinSweeney (Central Survey Unit,Northern Ireland Statistics andResearch Agency) and Margaret Ward

(Democratic Dialogue). Our thanks tothe research staff who have beeninvolved in the project: MariaBergstrom and Caroline McAuley.

During the survey stages, SuzanneBradley, Peter Scott and AndrewMcCormick (Central Survey Unit) wereespecially helpful. Alan McClelland(OFM/DFM) has been particularlyattentive throughout the project,always responding quickly and withsound advice at critical points. Specialadvisors to the project, Dorothy Watson(Economic and Social ResearchInstitute, Dublin) Dave Gordon(Director, The Townsend Centre forInternational Poverty Research, BristolUniversity), Kevin Balanda (Instituteof Public Health, Dublin and Belfast)and Roger O’Sullivan (RuralCommunity Network) providedessential advice on the construction ofpoverty measures, equivalisation,comparative methodologies and healthindicators.

Acknowledgements

10

We are especially grateful to DaveGordon for detailed guidance andsupport – at all times of the day andnight – on the construction ofconsensual poverty.

Without the initial support andongoing enthusiasm for the researchfrom Stephen Donnelly (OFM/DFM), itis probable that Northern Ireland wouldstill be lacking a publicly available,benchmark statement of poverty levels.

Finally, our thanks go to all the CSUsurvey field force and the 3,104 peoplewho responded to the survey.

All of the above have contributed insome way to this report, but we alonetake responsibility for its contents.

Paddy Hillyard (University of Ulster) Grace Kelly (Queen’s University) Eithne McLaughlin (Queen’s University) Demi Patsios (University of Bristol) Mike Tomlinson (Queen’s University)

August 2003

13

vary across the nine dimensions ofequality specified in Section 75 ofthe Northern Ireland Act 1998; and

3. to compare poverty levels inNorthern Ireland with results ofresearch on low incomes, povertyand social exclusion in Britain andpoverty levels in the Republic ofIreland.

Two surveys were carried outbetween June 2002 and January 2003.In the first survey, a random sample ofpeople were asked to say whichmaterial items and social activitiesthey regarded as necessities of life atthe start of the 21st century. Theresponses were used to establish asocial consensus on the items andactivities people in Northern Irelandthink everybody should be able toafford and should not have to dowithout. The second survey identifiedthe numbers of households lackingparticular necessities.

For many years, Northern Irelandwas recognised to be one of the mostdeprived parts of the United

Kingdom. It has not featured stronglyin debates over either themeasurement of poverty, or povertyalleviation policies. In particular,Northern Ireland has no tradition ofpublishing household income datawhich would allow comparisons withother regions and countries.

This study begins to redress thesegaps and to provide a benchmark forpoverty measurement in NorthernIreland in the future. The researchshould inform debates on the futuredirection of poverty reduction policies.

The core aims of the research were:

1. to provide a baseline, early 21stcentury measurement of povertyand social exclusion which can beupdated periodically in the future.

2. to provide data on the extent towhich poverty and social exclusion

Chapter 1

Introduction

14

Bare Necessities: Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland

The survey evidence on deprivationwas then combined with householdincome to establish a measure ofpoverty. The extent to which thisapproach differs from poverty andsocial exclusion measures elsewhere isthe main focus of Chapter 2. Thechapter also discusses internationalobligations regarding povertydefinition and measurement, as well asdevelopments at European Union leveldesigned to replace the simple – andarguably ‘meaningless’ (Gordon et al,2000b: 93) – measures of low incomes.

Chapter 3 discusses in detail theresearch design and the method used tocalculate the poverty threshold forNorthern Ireland. The scope of bothsurveys is described and while thesereplicated research carried out in Britain,a different poverty threshold emergedreflecting lower income levels and ahigher number of deprivation items.

The report then presents, in Chapter4, the findings from the two surveys onnecessities and the numbers ofhouseholds and people below theconsensual poverty threshold inNorthern Ireland. Direct comparisonsare made with the equivalent researchcarried out in Britain.

Chapter 5 compares a number ofpoverty measures in Britain and theRepublic of Ireland with the samemeasures if they were used in NorthernIreland. This is not a simple exercisebecause different low income and

poverty measures rely on different‘equivalisation’ scales for standardisinghousehold income. Incomes have to berecalculated for each comparison beingmade. The chapter begins by describingfour different equivalence scales,showing how each of them affects theNorthern Ireland household incomedata. Only then are Northern Irelandstatistics on poverty and low incomecomparable with those published forthe Republic of Ireland and GreatBritain. Finally, the chapter presentsevidence from the surveys about theextent of income inequality in NorthernIreland.

Chapter 6 looks at poverty and socialexclusion within Northern Ireland.Poverty rates are presented for each ofthe dimensions of social equality listedin Section 75 of the 1998 NorthernIreland Act. This chapter also reportson how far people think their ownhousehold incomes fall below thepoverty threshold.

Finally, Chapter 7 looks at a numberof dimensions of social exclusion, givingthe survey results for employment,housing, access to services, socialparticipation, personal safety andimprisonment, before the concludingChapter 8.

15

Poverty measurement

Over the last decade there have been anumber of important developmentsin poverty measurement as a result

of growing concern at international levelabout widening social and economicinequalities and the persistence ofpoverty. In 1995 the United Nations (UN)convened a Summit for SocialDevelopment at which 117 countriesagreed two definitions of poverty, an‘absolute’ and ‘overall’ definition. TheSummit also agreed that governments atlocal, national and regional levels shoulddevelop clear plans for the measurementand reduction of overall poverty and theeradication of absolute poverty.

In the EU it was agreed in 2000 toadopt a strategy for eradicating povertyand social exclusion. The agreementtook the form of four commonly agreedobjectives and the preparation ofNational Action Plans for SocialInclusion (NAPsincl) and periodic

Chapter 2Measuring Poverty and Social Exclusion

The UN’s definition of absolute poverty:

A condition characterised by severe deprivation of basichuman needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitationfacilities, health, shelter, education and information. Itdepends not only on income but also on access to services(UN, 1995:75).

The UN’s definition of overall poverty:

[Poverty includes] lack of income and productiveresources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods;hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of accessto education and other basic services; increased morbidityand mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequatehousing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination andexclusion. It is also characterized by a lack of participationin decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life. Itoccurs in all countries: as mass poverty in many developingcountries, pockets of poverty amid wealth in developedcountries, loss of livelihoods as a result of economicrecession, sudden poverty as a result of disaster orconflict, the poverty of low-wage workers, and the utterdestitution of people who fall outside family supportsystems, social institutions and safety nets (UN, 1995: 57).

16


reporting and monitoring of progress.The latter requires the collection andreporting of comparable statistics onincome and social exclusion. This is thepurpose of the EU-SILC (Statistics onIncome and Living Conditions) dataseries to be published from 2003onwards. Eighteen indicators – the so-called ‘Laeken indicators’ (after theLaeken European Council, December2001) – are used to monitor poverty andsocial exclusion. These includemonetary indicators and a set of non-monetary indicators covering employ-

ment, education and health. The firstreport was published in April 2003(Eurostat, 2003).

The Republic of Ireland followed upthe UN agreements with a NationalAnti-Poverty Strategy (Governmentof Ireland, 1997). The strategyincluded an official definition ofpoverty, two measures of poverty –‘consistent’ and ‘overall’ poverty – andtargets for their reduction. The UnitedKingdom (UK) however has notformally adopted a definition ofpoverty nor, as yet, a measure ofpoverty for the one social group –children – for which it has adopted apoverty reduction target (Departmentfor Work and Pensions, 2003b).

The Republic of Ireland’s NationalAnti-Poverty Strategy defined andmeasured consistent poverty as‘equivalised’ household income below50 and 60 per cent of the average

combined with involuntary lack of atleast one of a set of eight expertselected indicators of ‘basic’ deprivation(Government of Ireland, 1997: 3).Although increasingly questioned asout of date, the eight basic necessities

Republic of Ireland National Anti-Poverty Strategy

Definition of poverty:

People are living in poverty if their income and resources(material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as topreclude them from having a standard of living which isregarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As aresult of inadequate income and resources people may beexcluded and marginalised from participating in activitieswhich are considered the norm for other people insociety (Government of Ireland, 1997: 3).

Definition of consistent poverty:

Less than 50 or 60 per cent mean household income plusenforced lack of at least one of eight indicators of ‘basic’deprivation.

Definition of overall poverty:

Less than 50 or 60 per cent mean household income.

Definition of equivalisation of income:

A technical process of giving different weightsto individuals in a household so that theincomes of different types of households areput on an equivalent basis and may becompared.

17

are still regarded as useful formeasuring changes in consistentpoverty over time (Nolan et al, 2002).The UK report Measuring ChildPoverty however commented that,‘statistical [and expert] approaches tothe selection of non-monetaryindicators of deprivation are lesstransparent than asking people theiropinion’ (Department for Work andPensions, 2003a: 26). The otherRepublic of Ireland poverty measure,‘overall poverty’, is based on lowhousehold income alone.

The UK Government has no definitionof poverty. It publishes two sets ofpoverty related statistics each year.Neither includes Northern Ireland. Thefirst uses household income data drawnfrom the Family Resources Survey(FRS) and is published annually as TheHouseholds Below Average IncomeSeries (HBAI). The HBAI reports theproportions of adults and children belowvarious income thresholds using anumber of measures of equivalisedhousehold incomes.

In Northern Ireland there has beenno income data series comparable tothe FRS, although this will changeafter 2003 as the FRS is now beingcarried out in Northern Ireland.Income data has been collected in theContinuous Household Survey formany years, but it is only recently thatany analysis of income statistics basedon this data has been published

(Dignan and McLaughlin, 2002;Dignan, 2003).

Traditionally, HBAI has defined low-income households in terms ofthresholds of mean income. InNovember 1998, the European Unionagreed that thresholds of medianincome should be used instead. Theincome threshold used to define therisk of poverty within the EU is nowtypically 60 per cent of the nationalmedian equivalised income perhousehold.

The disadvantage of the HBAIapproach is that it provides measuresof relative income only. Althoughrelative income is important forunderstanding the risk of poverty andchanges in income inequalities overtime, it does not measure theconsequences of persistent lowincomes in terms of deprivation, lowstandards of living and socialexclusion (Department for Work andPensions, 2003a).

The UK Government’s latest thinkingon poverty measurement favours a‘tiered’ approach for the futureinvolving income and other measures.It considers that ‘a better measure ofliving standards can be obtained bymeasuring both low income andmaterial hardship’ (Department forWork and Pensions, 2003b: 26).

The second set of UK povertystatistics is published in the annualreport Opportunity For All, available

Measuring poverty and social exclusion

18


from 1999 onwards (see for exampleDepartment for Work and Pensions,2001) and reflecting the work of theNew Policy Institute (Howarth et al,1999; Rahman et al, 2000; Rahman etal, 2001; Palmer et al, 2002). Thereports monitor deprivation on threedimensions: poverty and low income,stage in the family life cycle and‘communities’ or localities. Togetherthese dimensions constitute animplicit concept of poverty and socialexclusion measured with 50 separatesocial indicators (Palmer et al, 2002)and they go some way to meet therequirements of the UN agreementson poverty. However, because most ofthe indicators are based onadministrative data and are chosen forreasons of availability rather thanrobustness, they are more a reflectionof policy priorities and public serviceactivities than measures of poverty orsocial exclusion as such.

The multiple indicator approach ofOpportunity For All is also not asubstitute for a single measure of eitherpoverty or social exclusion from whichthe rise and fall of poverty can bejudged. The emphasis attached toresults within particular domains, andbetween domains, is vulnerable topolitical influence and change overtime. Finally, the explanatory power ofmultiple indicator approaches is limitedbecause it is difficult to draw a cause

and effect line between policy, policyimpact and indicator change over time.

The Northern Ireland Executive’sProgramme for Government declared:

We recognise the inequalities in thelife experiences of our citizens interms of poverty, health, housing,educational and economicopportunity and disability and weare determined to tackle them.(2001, para 1.3)

Prior to suspension in 2003 it had not,however, produced an agreed definitionor measure of poverty. Considerableeffort had been directed tomeasurement of multiple deprivationon a geographical basis using admin-istrative data. The spatial mapping ofmultiple deprivation as a substitute forpoverty measurement has beencharacteristic of social policy inNorthern Ireland since the 1970s(Noble et al, 2001; Tomlinson, 2001;Dignan and McLaughlin, 2002;Tomlinson and Kelly, 2003), and risksmissing the target by avoiding theeconomic and social structural causes ofpoverty (Quirk and McLaughlin, 1996).

The latest multiple deprivationspatial index is The Northern IrelandIndex of Deprivation (Noble et al, 2001).This utilises indicators organised intoseven domains: low income,employability and unemployment,health and well-being, education,access to services, social environmentand housing. In terms of poverty

19

Measuring poverty and social exclusion

measurement, the index shares thesame disadvantages as the OpportunityFor All multiple indicator approach.

PSE consensual poverty

The British Millennium Poverty andSocial Exclusion Survey, funded by theJoseph Rowntree Foundation, wascarried out in 1999 by a large team ofresearchers from Bristol,Loughborough and York Universities(Gordon et al, 2000a).

Like the Republic of Irelandconsistent poverty measure, the BritishPSE survey (PSEB) also used acombination of income and deprivationto define poverty but the method differsin that a sample of the general publicwere asked to decide what the basicnecessities of life are. Therefore apoverty consensus is used to defineindicators of deprivation.

All definitions and measures ofpoverty involve some element ofpolitical choice. The method of povertymeasurement used in PSEB mainlyrelies on public opinion for thesechoices. It minimises the expertjudgements that have to be made incombining income with other indicators.The authors therefore argue that theyhave devised a methodology which‘combines a representative popularbasis for agreeing what are necessities,with a scientific basis for establishing alevel of poverty’ (Gordon et al, 2000a:

11). For these reasons, it is the methodused to produce the headline povertyfigures for Northern Ireland given inChapter 4 and for the discussion ofequality and poverty in Chapter 6.

Social exclusion

Social exclusion is a concept closelyrelated to poverty. It representsparticular challenges to measurementbecause it has been given such a widevariety of meanings. These range fromlabour market exclusion (unem-ployment and ‘inactivity’), to exclusionfrom participation in social life andcustoms (Levitas, 1998). As a concept,social exclusion takes the focus awayfrom material deprivation and on toother dimensions of social deprivationand exclusion which are not necessarilycontigent on income. Above all, manycommentators regard social exclusionas a set of ‘processes’ rather than amaterial status (Giddens, 1998).

The PSEB and Northern IrelandPoverty and Social Exclusion (PSENI)surveys asked a range of questionsdesigned to explore various dimensionsof exclusion, including service exclusion(e.g. lack of telephone, electricitydisconnection), exclusion from socialrelations (various measures of socialisolation), and labour market exclusion.Preliminary findings on severaldimensions of exclusion are presentedin Chapter 7.

20


Conclusion

Until quite recently, official statistics ofpoverty relied on measures of relativeincome alone. The World Summit forSocial Development as well asagreements at EU level havestimulated a broader approach whichcombines relative income measureswith non-monetary indicators ofdeprivation and social exclusion. Thisprovides a more realistic basis forcomparing countries but does notnecessarily resolve the question of howto differentiate the poor from the non-poor. The PSEB method of combiningincome and other indicators ofdeprivation provides a consensualpoverty threshold, which is described indetail in the next chapter.

21

This chapter describes the mainmethod used to measure the natureand extent of poverty and social

exclusion in Northern Ireland. Withminor refinements, it replicates theconsensual mixed income-deprivationapproach used in the PSEB.

What are the bare necessities?

The PSEB study developed the‘consensus indicators’ approach firstused by Mack and Lansley (1985). Arepresentative sample of thepopulation were asked which items andactivities they considered to benecessities of life. Then it askedanother representative sample which ofthose items and activities, defined asnecessities by more than 50 per cent ofrespondents, they did not have. If thehousehold did not have the item, theywere asked if this was because they didnot want it, it was not available or wasunsuitable, or they could not afford it. A

‘poverty threshold’ was then calculatedusing a range of sequential statisticalprocedures to relate the number ofnecessities lacking in a household tothe incomes of households. Theprocedures maximised the differencesbetween the ‘poor’ and the ‘not poor’,and minimised the differences withinthese groups. The resulting povertythreshold for Britain was defined interms of a household on low income andlacking two or more necessities.

The PSENI research involved thesame two stages. Ten of the items andactivities used in Britain were not usedfor a variety of reasons and 19 newitems were added to the list of potentialnecessities. Some minor changes to thewording of other items and activitieswere also made in the interests ofclarity or adaptation in the NorthernIreland context. In total 90 items andactivities relevant to both adults andchildren were used. These included forexample a ‘warm, waterproof coat’,

Chapter 3Research Design and Method

22


‘visiting friends or family in hospital’,‘medicines prescribed by a doctor’,‘fresh fruit or vegetables at least once aday’, a ‘garden to play in’, a ‘computersuitable for doing homework’, a‘dictionary’ and ‘access to a decentpension’. The full list of items and theproportion of people defining them asnecessary is reported in Chapter 4.

In June 2002 a ‘Necessities module’was included in the Northern IrelandStatistics and Research Agency’sOmnibus Survey, which is conducted ona regular basis by the Central SurveyUnit. This survey is based on a randomsample of 2,000 addresses drawn fromthe Valuation and Lands Agency list of

addresses. After selecting one householdat the assigned address, interviewerslisted all the people in the householdand the interviewer’s computer, thenrandomly selected one person forinterview. One thousand and seventyinterviews were successfully achievedfrom 1,790 addresses, a 60 per centresponse rate. Everyone interviewedwas shown the list of 90 items andactivities and asked which ones theyregarded as necessities, that is‘something everyone should be able toafford and should not have to do

without’.The findings showed broad consensus

within Northern Ireland on thenecessities of life for both adults andchildren. There were a few differencesbetween subgroups of the population,but these were not extensive (seeMcAuley et al, 2003). One differencewas between the way men and womensaw ‘personal’ and ‘household’consumption, with men tending morethan women to prioritise items whichsatisfied personal needs above thosewhich related to household needs. Somesignificant differences betweenNorthern Ireland and Britain alsoemerged, particularly in relation tochurch attendance and a few materialitems. But perhaps the most significantfinding was the extent of consensusacross traditional social divides such asreligion on what constitutes necessitiesof life and the minimum standard ofliving in Northern Ireland (SeeMcAuley et al, 2003).

In the second stage of the research adifferent random sample of 3,490addresses was drawn from the Valuationand Lands Agency list of addresses forthe main survey. This survey was alsocarried out by the Central Survey Unit ofthe Northern Ireland Statistics andResearch Agency and fieldwork tookplace between October 2002 and January2003. As with the Omnibus Survey, onehousehold was selected at each address.One ‘responsible’ member of the

PSENI Survey I: The Omnibus SurveyNecessities Module

Response Rate 60%

23

Research design and method

household, the Household Respondent(HR), was asked a range of questionsabout the household, covering details ofthe household’s income; the number ofpeople; their age, employment status andother characteristics; and questionsabout the house and its condition. Thiswas followed by individual interviewswith all other people in the household

aged 16 or more. A household responserate of 64 per cent was achieved resultingin 1,976 household interviews and 3,104individual interviews from a possible3,865 persons.

The main survey also included a seriesof modules some of which were randomlyassigned to half the individualsinterviewed. The questions coveredpeople’s views on poverty, livingstandards within households, health anddisability, neighbourhood characteristics,community support, activism, localservices, mobility, ‘the troubles’, economicactivity, income, finance and debt, and aself completion section covering viewsabout health and economising behaviour(see Appendix).

Everyone in the household aged 16and over was asked if they had the 90necessities listed.

The interview was conducted with the

PSENI Survey II: Main Survey

Response Rate 64%

aid of a small portable computer. Mostof the questions were read from thecomputer by the interviewer and put tothe person concerned. Wherepotentially sensitive questions wereinvolved such as those on lack ofnecessities, identity, health and ‘thetroubles’, the interviewee was handedthe computer and asked to answer thequestions as they appeared by touchingthe screen. This meant such questionscould be answered entirelyconfidentially without the interviewerknowing the response. Thequestionnaire took between 60 and 90minutes to complete.

Calculating the poverty threshold

Once the data had been collected in themanner outlined above, a povertythreshold was then calculated using thePSEB method. This involved a numberof procedures, many of them technicallycomplex. In summary the procedurestested the validity, reliability andadditivity of indicators. First, thoseitems defined as necessities by morethan 50 per cent of the population in thefirst survey, but which were lacked bypeople because they could not affordthem, were used as the basis forassessing the range of deprivation. Thislist of 40 items and activities can beconsidered ‘politically’ valid as amajority of the general public believethem to be necessities.

24


Second, these items were tested toascertain whether they werescientifically valid indicators ofdeprivation. ‘Odds ratios’ werecalculated for each item compared totwo indicators of poor health (LongTerm Illness and a General HealthMeasure) and a subjective povertymeasure. This process suggested thatthe following necessities were invalid:‘fridge’, ‘collecting children from school’,‘visiting school’, ‘attending places ofworship’, ‘television’, ‘dictionary’,‘vacuum cleaner’ and ‘telephone’.

Third, the items were tested toascertain whether they were reliable.In other words, if the measurement wasrepeated, would the same results beobtained? The statistical technique forthis suggested that the following itemswere unreliable: ‘visiting school’, ‘coachor train fares to visit friends/family’,‘collecting children from school’, ‘health/disability aids’, ‘fridge’, and ‘television’.These two processes together suggestedthat eight items should be droppedfrom the computation of the povertythreshold because they were eitherinvalid or unreliable, or both.

The fourth stage involved checking allthe remaining items to ascertain whetherthey were additive. In other words, ahousehold lacking two necessities shouldbe better off than a household lackingfour. This process further reduced thenumber of selected items from 32 to 29.The frequency counts of the number of

Table 3.1: PSENI households in relation to deprivation items

Number of items lacking

0123456789

1011121314151617181920212223

Total

Number ofhouseholds

1001211137867572605746363431351813141114774232

1976

Per cent

50.710.76.94.43.83.63.02.92.31.81.71.61.8.9.7.7.6.7.4.4.2.1.2.1

100.0

CumulativePercent

50.761.368.372.676.480.183.186.088.390.191.993.495.296.196.897.598.098.799.199.499.699.799.9

100.0100.0

25

Research design and method

these deprivation items lacked byhouseholds are shown in Table 3.1. Lackof necessities is very unevenlydistributed. Most households lackednone or only one or two of the items.Half lacked no items, but a thirdhowever lacked three or more and afifth six or more because they wereunable to afford them. Seven per cent ofhouseholds lacked twelve or morenecessities.

Equivalising income

The fifth stage in calculating thepoverty threshold involved analysis ofhousehold income. Although everyindividual in the household was askedfor details of their income, the analysisreported here uses the total disposablehousehold income estimated by the HR.Income data were not recorded by atenth (190) of HRs. For thesehouseholds an estimated income basedon key household characteristics wasimputed by the researchers. Theserespondents were about five yearsyounger than others, more likely to beemployed and more likely to bepensioner couples or members of largerfamilies. They also reported lackingfewer necessities on average thanothers, suggesting that theserespondents were generally better offthan others. Despite imputing incometo these cases, their non-reporting islikely to have lowered mean and

median income levels in the surveyfindings as a whole, thereby slightlydepressing poverty thresholds. Furtheranalysis will be required to producepoverty thresholds based on the sum ofindividually reported incomes.

As noted in Chapter 1, householdincome was then subject to‘equivalisation’. This is a technicalprocess designed to take account ofdifferences in household composition sothat, for example, the standard of livingof a single person might reasonably becompared with a couple or a couplewith children. A number of differentequivalence scales are used in povertyresearch and measurement worldwide(see Chapter 5, Table 5.1).

Combining deprivation and income

The sixth and final step was toascertain where the objective povertythreshold lay by examining therelationship between PSE equivalisedincome and the deprivation scores.Statistical techniques identified thecombination of low income and lack ofnecessities which best distinguishedbetween poor and non-poor householdsand maximised the similarities withineach of these groups. Using a number ofdifferent methods, it emerged that thepoverty threshold was at three items(or more) and that the average PSEequivalised income for poor householdswas £156.27 per week.

It is important to stress that thewhole of the analysis presented in thisreport is based on equivalisedhousehold income. Where there arereferences to poor persons andindividuals, these are people defined aspoor by virtue of living in a poorhousehold. Information on personsshould be treated with caution for theobvious reason that not everyone livingin a poor household is in factthemselves poor and certainly allmembers of a household are unlikely tobe equally poor. Many adults, especiallywomen, make personal sacrifices toensure children are fed and clotheddecently. Future work will explore theextent of poverty within householdsbased on an analysis of income anddeprivation for each individual in thehousehold instead of an extrapolationbased on the household.

Conclusion

People in Northern Ireland havebroadly similar views on whatconstitute the bare necessities of life, asestablished in the first surveydescribed in this study. The second,main survey looked at the extent towhich households are deprived of thebare necessities as well as collectingdata on a wide range of factorsincluding income, employment, andsocial participation.

26


The PSE poverty threshold wasestablished by combining the surveyfindings on deprivation and income,using a number of statisticalprocedures designed to best distinguishthe ‘poor’ from the ‘non-poor’. Poorhouseholds lack at least threedeprivation items and have on averagean equivalised household income of£156.27 per week.

The next chapter presents povertyfigures for Northern Ireland based onthe PSE method and compares themwith poverty rates in Britain.

The Northern Ireland 2002/03consensual poverty threshold:

Poor households are those that lack at leastthree deprivation items and have on averagean equivalised income of £156.27 perweek.

27

Chapter 4Consensual Poverty in Northern Ireland

This chapter presents the figures onthe extent of consensual poverty inNorthern Ireland. The numbers

above, below and around the povertythreshold are compared with those inBritain. The chapter begins with abrief examination of lack ofnecessities.

Adults necessities

Table 4.1 shows the ranked percentageof respondents identifying differentadult items as necessities for each ofseven domains, including food, housingand clothing. Forty of the 53 items wereconsidered to be necessities by morethan 50 per cent of the population. It isclear from these items that peopleinterpret necessities in a broad waywhich goes beyond basic material itemssuch as food, shelter and clothing. Theyalso go beyond individual items, such as‘having a hobby or leisure activity’ (82per cent) and embrace a range of

customary activities and socialobligations. For example, 97 per cent ofthe population consider that ‘visitingfriends or family in hospital or otherinstitutions’ is a necessity. Similarly, 95per cent consider ‘celebrating specialoccasions such as Christmas’ anecessity. A high proportion of thepopulation consider other socialobligations as necessities such as‘attending weddings, funerals orsimilar occasions’ or ‘family days out’.

Table 4.1 notes the proportion ofpeople who say that they don’t have ordon’t want the item, as well as theproportion of people who don’t have andcan’t afford the item. There are twoitems that over 80 per cent of thepopulation possess – a ‘microwave oven’and ‘video recorder’ – but which are notconsidered to be necessities by themajority. This shows that there aregoods which most people possess butwhich are not considered as essentialfor a basic standard of living.

28

Omnibus‘Necessary’

Main SurveyHave Don’t have Can’t

don’t want afford

Table 4.1:Perception of adultnecessities andhow many peoplelack them (allfigures show % ofHouseholdRespondents)

123

456789

10

1112131415

16171819202122

23242526272829303132

33343536

3738394041424344454647484950515253

928359

999898928479

6

9386847562

8171613420137

99959590535233302212

94898376

9795918988868484757260565240353119

849086

919243869467

6

9185928891

95988460474042

99967597718688598638

57786480

8497929231742170668757346245534034

117

11

14

53235

45

49243

21.51536384441

0.7321

1710

9281146

191083

142.27.1

668.7

1978.4

2533.5

219582839285731

533

844

123

2849

56686

30.5

14

151617

0.31

232

1243

133

16

24122817

20.80.9

20.3

70.6

50.51124

81016193

35

percentages

Key:Italics – items

regarded as‘necessary’ by

less than half ofHRs.

Bold – itemsused to constuct

the povertyindex.

FOODFresh fruit and vegetables every dayMeal with meat, chicken or fish every second day, if you wanted itRoast dinner once a weekHOUSINGEnough money to pay heating, electricity and telephone bills on timeDry, damp free homeHealth/disability aids and equipment, if neededEnough money to keep your home in a decent state of decorationCentral heatingReplacing worn out furnitureSecond home/holiday homeCLOTHESWarm, waterproof coatGood clothes to wear for job interviewsTwo pairs of strong shoesGood outfit to wear for special occasions such as parties or weddingsNew, not second hand clothesINFORMATIONTelephone (includes mobile)TelevisionDictionaryDaily newspaperHome computerAccess to the internet from homeSatellite/Cable T.V.DURABLE GOODSFridgeWashing machineReplacing/repairing broken electrical goods such as fridges or washing machinesVacuum cleanerCarDeep freezerMicrowave ovenTumble dryerVideo recorderDishwasherPERSONAL FINANCESAccess to a decent pensionHome contents insuranceRegular savings (of £10 per month) for rainy days or retirementSmall amount of money to spend each week on yourself, not on your familySOCIALVisiting friends or family in hospital or other institutionsCelebrating special occasions such as ChristmasVisiting friends or family locallyAttending weddings, funerals or similar occasionsVisiting school, for example for sports day, parents eveningFamily days outCollecting children from schoolHaving a hobby or leisure activityAttending church or other place of religious worshipPresents for friends or family once a yearOne weeks annual holiday away from home (not staying with relatives)Visiting family/friends in other parts of the country by bus or train 4 times a yearHaving friends or family visit for a drink or meal once a monthGoing out for evening meal once a fortnightGoing out for meal in a restaurant once a monthPet, if you want oneHoliday abroad once a year

29

Consensual poverty in Northern Ireland

Figure 4.1: Household poverty rates, PSENI and PSEB compared

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0Poor Recent Risen Vulnerable

PSENI

PSEB

%

On the other hand, there are anumber of items that over 80 per cent ofthe population believe are necessities,yet sizeable proportions of thepopulation are unable to afford them.These include ‘replacing worn outfurniture’, ‘regular savings (of £10 permonth) for rainy days or retirement’and ‘access to a decent pension’. As weshowed in Chapter 3, lack of necessitiesis very unevenly distributed with halflacking no items and 7 per cent twelveor more.

Consensual poverty

Using the consensual mixed income-deprivation method described inChapter 3, well over a quarter ofNorthern Ireland’s households – 29.6per cent – were poor in 2002/03. Afurther 2.1 per cent of householdswere judged to have recently risen outof poverty – that is they lacked threeor more necessities but had relativelyhigh incomes. Another 12.1 per centcould be described as vulnerable topoverty in that their incomes wererelatively low but they did notcurrently lack three or morenecessities. When these two groups areexcluded, it means that there are185,500 poor households in NorthernIreland. There are 502,200 peopleliving in these poor households and148,900 of these are children.

185,500 householdsare poor

502,200 peoplelive in poor households

148,900 childrenare living in poor households

30


Omnibus‘Necessary’

Main SurveyHave Don’t have Can’t

don’t want afford

%979580

9998959283849370

97959492898876697225

928786887254825652402120

99948776

899687

9795869193959592

95987884845980648260

975888957779786357496449

52978689

738

12

1313110

41

18146

37128

1625

2397

4.61914181632462127

45276

(4)(1)

5

(2)(3)(1)

8(4)(4)(4)

8

(1)(1)

4(2)10(4)

828(2)15

(1)(3)

5(0.4)

(4)7

(4)21115

1524

(3)(1)

75

FOODFresh fruit or vegetables at least once a dayThree meals a dayMeat, fish or vegetarian equivalent at least twice a dayCLOTHESNew, properly fitted shoesWarm waterproof coat or jacketAll the school uniform required by the school*Buy new clothes when neededAt least seven pairs of new underpantsAt least four pairs of trousers, leggings or skirtsAt least four warm tops, such as jumpers, fleeces or sweatshirtsNew, not second-hand clothesPARTICIPATION and ACTIVITIESOpportunity to take regular exerciseCelebrations on special occasionsHobby/leisure activity*School trip at least once a term*Family day tripsYouth club or similar activitySports gear or equipmentOne week’s holiday away from home with familyFriends round to visit*Going to the cinema regularlyDEVELOPMENTALBooks of their ownPlay group (pre-school age)*Educational gamesToys (e.g. dolls, play figures etc.)*Construction toys such as LegoBicycle*At least 50 pence per week pocket moneyComputer suitable for doing school workComic, or magazine once a weekPet, if wantedComputer gamesAccess to the internet from homeENVIRONMENTALHealth/disability aids and equipment, if neededTheir own bedEnough bedrooms for boys and girls over 10 to sleep separately*Garden to play in

123

456789

1011

12131415161718192021

222324252627282930313233

54353637

Table 4.2: Views of children’s necessities and proportions lacking children’s necessities.

Key:Italics – items regarded as ‘necessary’ by less than half of HRs;Brackets ( ) – less than 20 unweighted cases;* – age-related items.

percentages

31


Living standard vignettes

The vignettes below and on the followingpages give a brief description of theeconomic circumstances and livingconditions of PSE-defined poor households.The names are fictitious but thecommentaries are based on real profiles ofrespondents to the PSENI survey. Theaverage equivalised weekly income of poorhouseholds was £156.27.

Vignette 1Widowed pensioner

Mary is a pensioner aged 67 with a weeklyincome of £95 per week (or £136 equivalised).She is widowed and lives alone in a propertyrented from the Housing Executive.

She thinks her neighbourhood is a verygood place to live and people are friendly.However, she does not have enough moneyto keep her home in a decent state ofdecoration. She doesn’t have homecontents insurance because she can’t affordto. She would like to replace worn outfurniture and to replace or repair brokenelectrical goods, but can’t afford to do so.

Mary economises a lot by buyingcheaper cuts of meat and cutting back ontelephone calls to family and friends. Infact she ‘often’ uses less gas, electricityand telephone than she needs to and sheworries about household finances ‘all thetime’. However, she does visit friends andfamily, and while she doesn’t have a car,she finds it easy to get about using publictransport.

While the PSEB and PSENI data weregathered three years apart, it is stilluseful to compare their results. NorthernIreland’s poverty rate in 2002/03 wasfour percentage points above that inBritain in 1999 (Figure 4.1).

Children’s necessities

A particular focus of UK policy since1998 has been children’s poverty and theremainder of this chapter focuses onchildren’s poverty in Northern Ireland.Adults in the PSENI were asked toidentify necessities for children as wellas adults. Table 4.2 lists the 37 items andactivities adults were asked about,organised into five domains. Only fouritems were not regarded as necessitiesby the majority of adults. More than tenchildren’s items attracted a consensus ofover 90 per cent. These included ‘new,properly fitted shoes’ (99 per cent), ‘warmwaterproof coat or jacket’ (98 per cent),‘three meals a day’ (95 per cent) ‘theirown bed’ (94 per cent) and ‘books of theirown’ (92 per cent). In the main survey,the parent nominated as most likely toknow about the children’s standard ofliving was identified and answeredquestions about children’s necessities –see Table 4.2.

As with adult items, there was abroad correspondence between whatpeople considered to be necessities andhow likely these items were to beowned. Two of the items which werenot believed to be necessities for

32


children were nonetheless owned byover 60 per cent of children.

The item lacked by the greatestmajority of children was ‘One week’sholiday a year away from home withfamily’ (28 per cent). A very similarproportion of adults reported the sameenforced lack (24 per cent, see Table4.1). Eight per cent of households withchildren were reported to rely onsecond hand clothing.

The extent of child poverty inNorthern Ireland

One way to measure the extent of childpoverty is to count up the number ofchildren living in poor households. Onthis basis 37.4 per cent of all children(aged 15 or under) in Northern Irelandare growing up in households fallingbelow the consensual povertythreshold. This means that 148,900children live in such households.

This approach makes two importantassumptions, which may not be true.First, it assumes that if the householdis poor then the children are also poor.Second, it assumes that the lack ofitems and activities for adults appliessimilarly to children. Neither may bethe case because resources are notevenly distributed within households.It may therefore be more appropriate touse children’s items and activitiestogether with low income as the basis ofdetermining the child poverty

Vignette 2

Lone parent with young child

Sarah is in her late 30s, separated from herhusband and living alone with her sevenyear old year son in private rentedaccommodation. She is currently behindwith her rent and can’t afford to insure thecontents of her home.

Sarah’s weekly income is £130 (or £113equivalised). She worries about herhousehold finances all the time and is verydissatisfied with her standard of living. Shefeels that she lacks adequate heating andsometimes puts up with feeling cold orstays in bed to save on heating costs. Shecan't afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetablesfor herself and her son everyday, nor doesshe have any money to spend on herself.When furniture wears out or electricalgoods break down, she is unable to replacethem. She has had to keep wearing oldclothes because she can’t afford to buy newones. She would like to have a holiday oncea year but can’t afford to. Nor can sheafford to buy her son a weekly comic ormagazine. Sarah’s health is poor as shesuffers from quite severe asthma anddepression and takes medication for both.Her mobility and ability to do houseworkare limited 'quite a lot'.

Sarah likes where she lives, but feels thatshe doesn’t have any influence on decisionstaken about the area. She lives in a 'friendly'neighbourhood and sees it as a place wherelocal people look after each other.

33


Vignette 4

Lone parent with adult son

Joan is divorced and lives with her 23 year oldson. She works for the health service and hasan income of £170 per week (or £148equivalised). She is the only person workingin the household. The property ismortgaged and is in her name only.

She would like to decorate her home andreplace or repair broken electrical goodsbut she can’t afford to. She has often boughtsecond hand clothes and relied on gifts ofclothing. She doesn’t have a warmwaterproof coat or two pairs of strongshoes and she would like to have a smallamount of money to spend on herself.

Joan worries about finances all the timeand has often skimped on food so that herson would have enough to eat. She doesn’thave a car but visits family and friends usingpublic transport. She also has friends roundto visit at least once a month.

Vignette 3

Couple with three children

Margaret and Sean live in a Housing Executiveterrace house in a small town.Margaret has nojob and spends her time looking after thechildren aged 15, 10 and 7. Sean suffers from adisability and has not worked for eight years.Their household income is less than £200 aweek (or less than £100 equivalised) includingchild benefit. They are very dissatisfied withtheir current standard of living and worryabout money all the time. They have centralheating, but don’t have enough money to payheating and other bills on time. They can’tmake regular savings for rainy days orretirement and neither has a pension.They donot have two pairs of strong shoes or a goodoutfit to wear to special occasions such asparties or weddings.They can’t afford holidaysor a range of other social activities.They can’tafford house contents insurance.

The children don’t have construction toyssuch as lego or any educational games andthey do not possess at least four pairs oftrousers, leggings, jeans or jogging bottoms.None of the children have a hobby or aleisure activity and they don’t go to thecinema regularly or to a youth club and they do not have friends around for tea.There is no money for any of these activities.

The family have been badly affected bythe ‘troubles’. Three close relatives havebeen killed and they know others who havebeen killed. Moreover, they were forced tomove house because of intimidation.

34


threshold and hence the number ofchildren in poverty, but such acalculation has not been carried out forthis report.

Conclusion

The PSE method reveals that half of allhouseholds are deprived of no itemsregarded as basic necessities by themajority of people in Northern Ireland.Two thirds lack no items or just one ortwo. When combined with income, wellover a quarter of households are poor asdefined by the PSE method. Thesehouseholds contain over half a millionpeople, including almost 150,000children.

How these figures compare withother measures of poverty and lowincome is explored in the next chapter.

35

Chapter 5Relative Income and Consistent Poverty Measures

This chapter examines the extent ofpoverty in Northern Ireland whencompared with the HBAI series for

Great Britain and the latest Living inIreland survey. The chapter begins witha discussion of income equivalisationbecause each of these measures uses adifferent equivalence scale. Most of thecomparisons which follow are based onrelative income, with the exception ofthe Republic of Ireland’s consistentpoverty measure which combinesrelative income with deprivation of oneof eight basic necessities. The chapterconcludes with a discussion of incomeinequality.

Equivalence scales

A number of equivalence scales areused in poverty research andmeasurement. Four of these are shownin Table 5.1. The HBAI uses theMcClements scale; the ‘before housingcosts’ weights used are shown in Table5.1 while Eurostat comparisons for EUcountries are calculated using the

‘modified OECD’ scale. The Republic ofIreland (A) equivalisation scale isbased on the levels of social welfarebenefits payable in the Irish Republic.The scale used in PSEB was devisedusing the results of budget standardsresearch. It gives more weight tochildren than the McClements scale(see Bradshaw, 1993; and Middleton etal, 1997).

The modified OECD and Republic ofIreland (A) scales weight the first adultas 1.0 whereas PSEB and McClementsweight the first adult plus spouse as1.0. This means that PSEB andMcClements are on a similar basis andcan be compared, and likewise OECDand Republic of Ireland (A).

The impact of the differentequivalence scales as applied to thePSENI household incomes is shown inTable 5.2. With no equivalisation,average weekly household income was£370.10. Using the McClementsequivalence scale, average weeklyhousehold income was £343.90. AsHBAI now presents low-income

36


First Adult 0.70 0.61 1.0 1.00Spouse 0.30 0.39 0.5 0.66Other Second Adult 0.45 0.46 0.5 0.66Third Adult 0.45 0.42 0.5 0.66Subsequent Adults 0.45 0.36 0.5 0.66Children aged under 14yrs 0.35 0.20 0.3 0.33Children aged 14yrs and over 0.30 0.30 0.5 0.33

Notes

1. The PSE scale weights the first child at 0.35 and each additional child at 0.3.If the head of the household is a lone parent 0.1 is added.

2. The McClements scale has more age groups than shown above:0-1 = 0.09; 2-4 = 0.18; 5-7 = 0.21; 8-10 = 0.23; 11-12 = 0.25; 13-15 = 0.27;16 and over = 0.36.

statistics for persons rather thanhouseholds, it is necessary to calculatemean and median incomes on anindividual rather than householdbasis in order to provide theappropriate comparison. The averageequivalised weekly income forindividuals was £337.95. Theequivalent figure in Great Britain(GB) for 2001/2 was £384 (Departmentfor Work and Pensions, 2003a: 11). TheGB HBAI median was £311, comparedwith a Northern Ireland figure of£268.97 for 2002.

The higher the equivalised income,the less ‘generous’ the scale and theless likely a particular household willbe defined as having a low income oras falling below a poverty threshold.As previously noted, the PSE scale canbe compared with McClements, andthe modified OECD with the Republicof Ireland (A) scale. The latter is 6-7per cent more generous than themodified OECD scale, and the PSEB isabout 10 per cent more generous thanthe McClements scale (see Table 5.2).

Using the four equivalence scales,the PSENI household income datawere used to calculate proportions ofhouseholds (and persons in thosehouseholds) living below a range ofrelative income thresholds. The resultsare shown in Table 5.3. The PSE scalegenerally captures a higher proportionof households below the thresholds.For example, 24.1 per cent of

Table 5.1: Weightings used in equivalence scales

Table 5.2: Mean and Median PSENI Equivalised Incomes (£ per week)

Table 5.3: Proportion of PSENI households (and persons living in thosehouseholds) with incomes below relative income thresholds

PSE1 McClements2 Modified OECD RoI

Not Equivalence scaleequivalised PSE McClements Modified Republic

OECD of Ireland

Percentages Equivalence scaleHouseholds N = 1976 PSE Modified McClements Republic (Persons N = 5163) OECD of Ireland

Mean 370.1 304.8 343.9 221.3 205.7

Median 290.0 236.4 270.0 170.0 162.2

<70% Median 32.1 (32.3) 30.1 (28.8) 30.9 (29.5) 31.0 (30.6)

<60% Median 24.1 (24.7) 22.9 (21.8) 23.5 (21.6) 23.7 (23.2)

<50% Median 16.4 (17.3) 14.1 (13.8) 14.6 (14.1) 14.6 (14.1)

<60% Mean 35.6 (36.9) 35.9 (34.7) 34.4 (33.5) 34.6 (35.1)

<50% Mean 26.9 (27.8) 27.1 (25.3) 25.7 (23.2) 26.7 (26.7)

<40% Mean 17.5 (18.1) 16.3 (15.7) 14.9 (14.3) 15.4 (15.3)

37

households (476) have incomes below60per cent of median income using thePSE equivalence scale. The modifiedOECD scale produces the lowestfigures for this threshold (22.9 percent, or 452 households) – resulting in24 fewer households below thethreshold.

The proportion of persons (shown inbrackets in Table 5.3), as opposed tohouseholds, living below the equivalisedhousehold income thresholds tends tobe higher under the PSE scale becauseof the heavier weightings for children.

Figure 5.1 charts the data in Table 5.3,selecting the two most commonly usedrelative income lines – 50 per cent ofmean household income and 60 per centof the median income. It shows theproportions of persons living inhouseholds below each of thesethresholds.

Irish comparisons: consistent andoverall poverty measures

As discussed in Chapter 2, two keymeasures of poverty are used in theRepublic of Ireland, ‘consistent’ and‘overall’ poverty. Using the sameRepublic of Ireland (A) equivalencescale, a consistent poverty measurewas computed for Northern Irelandusing less than 60 per cent meanincome and enforced lack of at leastone of the eight items which make upthe Republic of Ireland basic

Relative income and consistent poverty measures

Figure 5.1: Proportion of persons living in PSENI households below60% median and 50% mean incomes by equivalence scale

30

25

20

15

10

5

0PSE Modified McClements RoI (A)

OECD

<60% Median

<50% Mean

Figure 5.2: Households in consistent poverty, PSENI and Living inIreland (2000) surveys compared

<60% Mean <50% Mean

NI

RoI

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

%

%

38


deprivation index. On this basis, 6.9per cent of households in NorthernIreland are in ‘consistent poverty’.

Figure 5.2 shows the marginalvariation in consistent poverty ratesas between Northern Ireland and theRepublic of Ireland, bearing in mindthe time gap in data collection (twoyears). It is perhaps surprising thatconsistent poverty rates between thetwo do not differ more given growthrates in the Republic of Irelandeconomy over the last ten years.However, unemployment and‘inactivity’ rates north and south weresteadily converging throughout the1990s and were much the same by2000 (Tomlinson, 2001).

The second measure of poverty usedin the Republic of Ireland is ‘overallpoverty’, which is a simple measure ofrelative income. Again, using theRepublic of Ireland (A) scale, theproportions of persons living inhouseholds with incomes below therange of thresholds reported for theRepublic of Ireland are shown inFigure 5.3. Again, the rates are verysimilar. At the below 70 per centmedian threshold, 28.2 per cent ofpersons live in poor households in theRepublic of Ireland compared with30.6 per cent in Northern Ireland, afigure also very close to the PSENIconsensual household poverty rate of29.6 per cent.

Figure 5.3: Proportion of persons below median income thresholds(Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

<70% Median <60% Median <50% Median

NI

RoI

Figure 5.4: Proportion of households below mean income thresholds(Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland)

NI

RoI

<60% Mean <50% Mean <40% Mean

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

%

%

39


Figure 5.4 compares relative incomelevels using proportions of the mean,rather than the median. Thedifferences between Northern Irelandand the Republic of Ireland are lessusing this measure, except at the 40per cent of mean threshold where thedifference is 3.6 percentage points.

Britain and Northern Irelandcomparisons: HBAI based measures

Figures 5.5 and 5.6 present Britain andNorthern Ireland comparisons based onthe proportions of persons living in poorhouseholds using the HBAI methodand equivalisation scale. On all medianmeasures (Figure 5.5) Northern Irelandhas higher ‘poverty’ rates than GreatBritain, generally 5 percentage pointshigher. A similar result for meanincome thresholds is shown in Figure5.6, although these means may not bestrictly comparable because the HBAIseries adjusts very high incomes in away that could not be reproduced andwas arguably inappropriate for thePSENI data.

Northern Ireland compared

The analyses above have shown thatpoverty rates in Northern Ireland arehigher than in Great Britain and theRepublic of Ireland. Whichever povertymeasure is selected for NorthernIreland, significant proportions of

Figure 5.5: Proportion of persons living in households below HBAImedian income thresholds (Northern Ireland and Great Britain)

<70% Median <60% Median <50% Median

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

NI

GB

Figure 5.6: Proportion of persons living below HBAI mean incomethresholds (Northern Ireland and Great Britain )

<60% Mean <50% Mean <40% Mean

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

NI

GB

%

%

40


households and people are living inpoverty (see Figure 5.7).

Inequality

There is a growing volume ofevidence which suggests that whilepoverty blights lives and leads tohealth and other social problems,what is more important is the extentof inequality, the gap between richand the poor (Shaw et al, 1999). Anumber of robust health studies haveshown that the more unequal the

distribution of income the greater thechances of people getting sick anddying young. Two important studiescomparing the 50 states in the USA(Kaplan et al, 1996; Kennedy et al,1996) showed that not only didgreater disparities in income lead togreater death rates but they werealso associated with other socialproblems such as a higher proportionof babies born with low birth rates,higher murder and violent crimerates, and higher proportions ofpeople not being able to work because

Figure 5.7: Northern Ireland poverty rates, using different methods of calculation (proportions of persons)

RoI: Overall <60% Mean*

GB: HBAI <60% Mean

RoI: Overall <70% Median

PSE

GB: HBAI <70% Median

RoI: Overall <50% Mean*

GB: HBAI <50% Mean

RoI: Overall <60% Median

GB: HBAI <60% Median

RoI: Consistent <60% Mean*

RoI: Consistent <50% Mean*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40%* proportions of households

41


of disability. At the same time, stateswith the greatest inequality hadhigher costs per head on medical careand law and order. Although notexamining the association betweendeath rates and inequality, a recentstudy of mortality in Ireland showedconsiderable disparities in lifeexpectancy between differentsections of the population. Inparticular, in both the North and theSouth, the all-causes mortality ratein the lowest occupational class was100-200 per cent higher than the ratein the highest occupational class(Balanda, 2001).

There are a number of differentways of analysing the extent ofinequality. One simple way is toconsider the distribution of income.Figure 5.8 shows the incomedistribution for the total population inNorthern Ireland equivalised by theMcClements scale and hencecomparable with the distributionpublished annually in the HBAI seriesfor Great Britain. The shaded areasnumbered 1 to 10 show eachsuccessive tenth, or decile of thepopulation. The distribution, like theGB distribution, is clearly skewedtowards the lower end and has a long

Persons000s

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 5.8: Income distribution (McClements equivalised) of total Northern Ireland population 2002/2003

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300

£ per week

60 per cent median £16150 per cent mean £169

Median income £269

Mean income £337

42


1998/99 FES 38 600

1999/00 FES 36 586

2000/01 FES 39 524

2002/03 PSENI 42 1976

tail at the upper end. Over 64 per centof individuals had an equivalisedincome that was less than thenational average, compared with 60per cent in Britain. As can be seenfrom the figure, there was a heavyconcentration of individuals aroundthe 50 per cent of the mean incomeand 60 per cent of the median points.

Another way to consider inequality isto take two points on the incomedistribution – the 90th percentile andthe 10th percentile – and divide theformer by the later. Using the PSENIdata, in 2002/2003 this ratio was 5.21for Northern Ireland. This means thatrich individuals received five times theincome of poor individuals. Data from

the Family Expenditure Survey in 1988gave the same ratio as 3.63 showing avery considerable increase in incomeinequality in Northern Ireland over thelast fifteen years (McGregor andMcKee, 1995).

A more widely used measure ofinequality is the Gini coefficient. Thismeasures the extent to which thedistribution of income deviates from aperfectly equal distribution. It can beused to show disparities in income aswell as other social phenomena suchas inequality in education. A Lorenzcurve is used to plot the cumulativedistribution of total income whichpeople receive against the cumulativenumber of people who receive the

Table 5.4: Family Expenditure Survey and PSENI Gini Coefficients compared

Year/survey Gini coefficient Numbers of Households

43

income starting with the poorest. TheGini coefficient measures the areabetween the curve and a hypotheticalline of absolute equality. It is typicallyexpressed as a percentage and runs ona scale of 0, representing totalequality, to 100, representing totalinequality or where one person getsall the income.

Using PSENI data, the Ginicoefficent for Northern Ireland is 42per cent. A recent study (McClellandand Gribbin, 2002) calculated theGini coefficients for various years,based on PSE equivalised income,using the Family ExpenditureSurvey (FES). The results are shownin Table 5.4.

The data also suggest thatinequality in Northern Ireland isincreasing. Although internationalcomparisons are difficult because ofdifferent timescales and methods,nevertheless, they help to putNorthern Ireland in context. Based onthe 2002/2003 figure, NorthernIreland is one of the most unequalsocieties in the developed world.

More recently another method ofconsidering inequality has beendeveloped (Kennedy et al, 1996). It iscalled the Robin Hood index. It iscalculated by dividing the populationinto 10 equal groups from the richestto the poorest and then calculating

which group’s income exceeds 10 percent of the total income and by whatpercentage. The percentages of allthe groups in excess are thensummed and the product of thenumber of 10 per cent groups, whichmeet this criterion, subtracted. It isexpressed in percentage terms andtherefore the higher the percentagethe greater the inequality. UsingMcClements equivalised nethousehold income for the totalpopulation in Northern Ireland, theRobin Hood Index comes to 27 percent. Put another way, the top fourincome groups together possess 67per cent of the total householdincome in Northern Ireland. Yet toachieve total income equality theyshould have only 40 per cent of theincome. Thus 27 per cent of theincome would have to beredistributed from these top fourdeciles to the bottom six groups inorder to achieve equality.

Conclusion

On all measures presented in thischapter, Northern Ireland has higherpoverty rates than the Republic ofIreland and Great Britain, though thedifferences are marginal in the case ofthe Republic of Ireland. The scale ofpoverty is a reflection of widening


44


income inequalities. Northern Irelandis not only characterised by highpoverty levels but also by considerablyhigher levels of income inequalitythan Britain.

The next chapter considers who thepoor are in terms of the key dimensionsof inequality.

45

Chapter 6Equality and Consensual Poverty

As noted in Chapter 1, one of theaims of the research was to examinehow poverty and social exclusion

varied across the nine dimensions ofequality specified in Section 75 of the1998 Northern Ireland Act. Povertyrates for people on either side of thesevarious dimensions are shown in thischapter to vary considerably from theoverall consensual poverty rate of 29.6per cent.

In the following analysis, thecharacteristics of the householdrespondent are the basis of thepresentation, except for gender anddisability where the total numbers ofmen and women within households areconsidered. For example, a ‘Protestanthousehold’ is defined by the nominalreligion of the household respondent.

The first part of this chapterexamines the position of householdsand individuals within them across thenine equality dimensions. Each of thegraphs shows a number of things. First,

bar charts are used to show povertyrates for different sub-groups withinthe chosen dimension. Second, piecharts display the share of poverty foreach sub-group within the dimension.Thus in respect of marital status,

Section 75 equality duty

A public authority shall in carrying out itsfunctions relating to Northern Irelandhave due regard to the need to promoteequality of opportunity –

a) between persons of differentreligious belief, political opinion,racial group, age, marital status orsexual orientation;

b) between men and women generally;

c) between persons with a disability andpersons without; and

d) between persons with dependantsand persons without.

46


widowed people have a poverty ratearound the average 28 per cent (see themarital status bar chart) and theyconstitute only 11 per cent of all those

in poverty (see the marital status piechart). The graphs also note whetherthe differences shown are statisticallysignificant.

Religion

Poverty is a major problem along anumber of Section 75 equalitydimensions. Taking religious affiliationfirst, 36 per cent of Catholic householdsare in poverty compared with 25 percent of Protestant households. Bothgroups however make up similarproportions of poor households – 47 percent of poor households are Protestantand 48 per cent Catholic (Figure 6.1a).

Statistical significance

It is possible to calculate the probabilitythat the results reflect a real underlyingdifference between the differentcategories in the sample or simplychance. These calculations are calledtests of significance and are traditionallycalculated at either the 95 per cent orthe 99 per cent confidence level.Thus,at the 95 per cent confidence level, wecan be 95 per cent certain that theresults are not due to chance.

Significance levels are shown as follows:* < 0.05, ** <0.01, *** <0.001

Figure 6.1: Poverty rate by ‘religion’ of HR

Catholic Protestant Other None

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

%

Sig. level: ***

Figure 6.1a:Share of povertyby ‘religion’ of HR

48%Catholic

2% Other

3% None

47%Protestant

47

National Identity

When examined in terms of nationalidentity, the proportions experiencingpoverty appear to mirror the povertyrates by religious affiliation. Thirtyseven per cent of ‘Irish’ households arepoor compared with 25 per cent of‘British’ households. Meanwhile,British households form almost thesame proportion as Protestanthouseholds in poverty at 49 per cent,while Irish households form 33 percent. This suggests that a sizeableproportion of Catholics definethemselves as ‘other’ rather than ‘Irish’in terms of national identity (Figures6.2 and 6.2a).

Equality and consensual poverty

Figure 6.2: Poverty rate by national identity of HR

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0British Irish Other

Sig. level: ***

%

Figure 6.2a:Share of povertyby nationalidentity of HR

33% Irish 49% British

18% Other

48


Political Opinion

Poverty rates vary much more betweenpeople who express different politicalparty preferences. Some 43 per cent ofhouseholds in which the HR’s politicalpreference was for Sinn Féin were poorcompared with 19 per cent of those inwhich the HR’s political preference wasfor the Ulster Unionist Party (seeFigure 6.3). Poverty rates forsupporters of the Democratic UnionistParty were however above average (at32 per cent), while the SDLP’s wereaverage (at 30 per cent).

Figure 6.3a shows that almost a third(30 per cent) of HRs in poor households

Figure 6.3: Poverty rate by political opinion of HR

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0UUP DUP SF SDLP Other None

Sig. level: ***

Key UUP Ulster Unionist Party DUP Democratic Unionist Party SF Sinn Féin SDLP Social Democratic and Labour Party Other includes Alliance Party, Women’s

Coalition and smaller parties

16% UUP

14% DUP

12% SF

30% None

20% SDLP

8% Other

Figure 6.3a:Share of povertyby political opinionof HR

%

49

stated no political preference. TheDemocratic Unionist Party and SinnFéin shares of poverty appear lowerthan expected, given real votingpatterns and the poverty rates shownin Figure 6.3, and should be treatedwith caution.

Age

Looking at different age bands, youngerhousehold respondents were morelikely to be poor with some 41 per centof households in poverty where thehousehold respondent was aged 16-24.Households with the lowest povertyrate (22 per cent) were those where theHR was aged 75 plus (see Figure 6.4).This may reflect the way current livingstandards reflect past as well aspresent incomes.


Figure 6.4: Poverty rate by age of HR

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

016-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Sig. level: ***

%

23% 35-44

19% 25-34

17% 45-54

7% 16-24

18% 55-64

10% 65-74

6% 75+

Figure 6.4a:Share of povertyby age of HR

50


Figure 6.5: Poverty rate by marital status of HR

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Single Married/ Separated Divorced Widowed

cohabiting

%

30% Single

36% Married/cohabiting

11% Separated

12% Divorced

11% Widowed

Figure 6.5a:Share of povertyby marital statusof HR

Sig. level: ***

Marital status

The marital status of householdrespondents is strongly associated withpoverty. Households where therespondent is separated have thehighest rate of poverty (54 per cent),followed by those who are divorced (46per cent) and then single people (39 percent). Only those who are married orcohabiting have a poverty rate belowthe average (Figure 6.5).

51

Gender

There are significance differencesbetween men and women. A quarter (25per cent) of men live in poor householdswhile 29 per cent of women do so(Figure 6.6). In terms of the share ofpoverty, 57 per cent of adults in poorhouseholds are women. Poverty isclearly a gender issue.

Disability and ill health

Households with one or more disabledmembers are more likely than othersto be in poverty. Over half (56 per cent)of households containing one or moredisabled people are in povertycompared with 29 per cent containingno one with a disability (Figure 6.7).Households which reported having atleast one member with a disabilityhowever made up only 6 per cent of allthose in poverty.

When respondents were howeverasked if they had a ‘Long-term illness,health problem or disability whichlimits daily activities or work you cando’, those who answered ‘yes’ were halfof all those in poverty and had apoverty rate of 42 per cent. There maythen have been some under-reporting ofdisability by survey respondents inpoor households.


Figure 6.6: Poverty rate by gender of adults in poor households

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23Men Women

Sig. level: ***

%

Figure 6.7: Poverty rate of households with disabled people

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

No-one disabled One or more disabledSig. level: ***

%

52


Figure 6.8: Poverty rate by households with or without dependants

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

%

Caring for adults in oroutside household

Caring for children No one cared for

Figure 6.8a:Share of povertyby householdswith or withoutdependants

18% Caring for adults in or

outside household

19% Caring forchildren63% No one

cared for

Sig. level: **

Carers

One of the section 75 dimensions ishaving or not having dependants. Forthe purposes of this analysis, havingdependants was defined either as livingwith children under 16 in thehousehold or as providing unpaid helpand assistance to another adultwhether in the same or anotherhousehold. Childless households inwhich one adult was caring for anotheradult, in their own household orelsewhere, had a poverty rate of 36 percent and made up 18 per cent of allhouseholds in poverty. Householdscaring for children were 19 per cent ofall households in poverty and had apoverty rate of 32 per cent (Figure 6.8).

‘Race’ and sexual orientation

The final two dimensions of Section 75are ‘race’ and sexual orientation. Only16 (0.8 per cent) HRs belonged to ethnicminorities and had a low poverty rate(19 per cent), but this cannot beregarded as reliable or significant.

Similarly, the figures for sexualorientation are not significant orreliable. Two dozen HRs stated thatthey preferred same sex relationshipsand 16 said they were bisexual. Thepoverty rates for these two groups were48 and 44 per cent respectively.

53

Other

There are a number of other ways ofcategorising households which are notspecified under Section 75, but wherehigh rates of poverty are demonstrable.These include:

per centLone parents 67 Housing Executive tenants 67HRs with no qualifications 43Workless households

– sick/disabled 100Workless households

– unemployed 70

Subjective experiences of poverty

As well as developing an objectivedefinition of poverty based on lack ofnecessities and income, it is possible toutilise people’s own definition of theircircumstances. Everyone in the surveywas asked: How many pounds a week,after tax, do you think are necessary tokeep a household, such as the one youlive in, out of poverty? People were thenasked: How far above or below thatlevel would you say your household is?The results given by the HRs are shownin Table 6.1.

The results show that a subjectivedefinition of poverty corresponds to acertain extent with an objectivedefinition and is statisticallysignificant. Of those who claim thattheir household income is about thesame as the poverty income they


Table 6.1: Subjective and consensual measures of poverty compared

How far above or below the nominated poverty level?

Poverty rate

Share ofpoverty

A lot above that levelA little above that levelAbout the sameA little below that levelA lot below that level

37

235382

16

213339sig. level: ***

Source of borrowing for day-to-day needs

Poverty rate

Share ofpoverty

6389797223

15

112759

PawnbrokerMoney lenderFriendsFamilyNone of these

sig.level

n/s************

54


NeverRarelyOccasionallyOftenMost of the time

1527385371

231134248

Table 6.2: Extent of borrowing and poverty

More than enoughJust enoughNot enough

22472

24256

Table 6.3: Views on adequacy of income

Thinking about your income,how adequate is it to meetyour basic needs?

Poverty rate

Share ofpoverty

Table 6.4: Poverty over time

stated, some 23 per cent are in poverty.Of those who are a little below, some 53per cent are in poverty and of those whoclaim they are a lot below, 82 per centare in poverty. Conversely, of the peoplewho believed their income was a lotabove the level needed to keep theirhousehold out of poverty, 97 per centwere not poor.

Poverty rates are also associatedwith measures of financial stress suchas debt and borrowing for every dayneeds. Of those who had used amoneylender, 89 per cent were poorand the poverty rate of those who hadborrowed money from friends was 79per cent (Table 6.2). On the other hand59 per cent of poor households saidthey had not borrowed from any of thesources listed.

HRs were also asked to assess theadequacy of their household incomesrelative to their needs. Some 24 percent of HRs who thought that it wasjust enough were in poverty. Of thosewho thought that it was not enoughsome 72 per cent were in poverty(Table 6.3). Yet 42 per cent of poorhouseholds said they had ‘just enough’to meet basic needs.

The dynamics of poverty over timecan also be assessed subjectively.People were asked two biographicalquestions. The first asked them to lookback over their lives, and state whetherthey had ever lived in poverty. If theybelieved they had they were asked asig. level: ***

sig. level: ***

Share ofpoverty

Poverty rate

Looking back over your life,havethere been times when youthink you have lived in povertyby the standards of that time?

55

follow-up question about whether thiswas when they were a child or an adultor both. Of those HRs who believed thatthey had been living in poverty ‘most ofthe time’, 71 per cent were currentlyliving in poverty (Table 6.4). Twenty-three per cent of those householdscounted as poor on the PSE consensualmeasure, however, reported they hadnever lived in poverty.

Dignan (2003) using ContinuousHousehold Survey (CHS) data foundthat between 1990/91 and 2001/02 inNorthern Ireland three types ofhouseholds became significantly moreprominent in the bottom 30 per cent ofthe income distribution. The threetypes of households were lone parentfamilies, households headed by a sickor disabled person and sole earnercouples with children. This suggeststhat relationship breakdown, job losson the part of a family’s second earnerand the acquisition or continuance ofill health or disability are all lifeevents which affect movements intoand out of poverty and low income.

The second question on dynamicsasked if anything had happened in thelast two years which had improved orreduced their standard of living. Ofthose HRs who said that something hadhappened recently which reducedeither their standard of living or theirincome, 52 per cent and 37 per cent,respectively, were living in poverty.Significantly, those who said that

nothing had happened made up 55 percent of all households living in poverty(Table 6.5).

Conclusion

There are striking differences inpoverty rates when differentdimensions of inequality areconsidered. Of all persons in poorhouseholds, 57 per cent are female.Divorced and separated HRs have thehighest risk of poverty while marriedor cohabiting HRs have the lowest.Half of poor households arecharacterised by long-term limitingillness, health problems or disability,and carers have higher than averagepoverty rates. A quarter of Protestanthouseholds are in poverty, comparedwith over a third (36 per cent) ofCatholic households. In terms of


Improved your standard of livingReduced your standard of livingIncreased your incomeReduced your icomeNone of these

2052203728

7157

1655

Table 6.5: Life events and change in standard of living

Has anything happenedrecently (in the last two years)in your life which has... ?

Poverty rate

Share ofpoverty

56


political preference almost one third ofDUP supporters are in poverty whileSDLP supporters have an averagepoverty rate. The most strikingcontrast is that the poverty rate forSinn Féin supporters is 2.26 times thatof Ulster Unionist Party supporters.

People in poor households do notnecessarily see themselves as poor,although two-thirds of the poor thinkthey have been poor ‘occasionally’,‘often’ or ‘most of the time’ when theylook back over their lives.

57

This chapter reports on a number ofaspects of social exclusion. How toeradicate social exclusion and

increase inclusion was the subject of adetailed report for the Civic Forum in2002 (Civic Forum, 2002). For thepurposes of this study, social exclusionwas explored along six maindimensions: exclusion from anadequate income or resources; materialdeprivation and low income (reportedin previous chapters); exclusion fromthe labour market; exclusion fromdecent housing; exclusion from publicand private services; and exclusionfrom social participation and networks,including personal insecurity andimprisonment.

The labour market

Exclusion from the labour market is amajor problem in a society where identity,self esteem and income are based on paidwork. It is one of the main causes of

deprivation, contributes to ill-health andimpacts on social relations. In NorthernIreland at the end of 2002 and thebeginning of 2003, 13.6 per cent of allhouseholds (excluding pensionerhouseholds) had no adult in the householdin paid work. In contrast over one third ofall households had two or more workers inthem. Over one fifth of all households arecomposed of retired people (Figure 7.1).

Chapter 7Social Exclusion

Figure 7.1: Labour market exclusion, type of household

29% one worker

35% two worker

14% no workers – unemployed/other

14% no workers – sick/disabled

21% no workers – retired

58


Housing

In Northern Ireland two thirds of allhousing is owner-occupied. The otherthird is rented from the NorthernIreland Housing Executive (NIHE),housing associations or a private orcommercial landlord. The NIHE reportsan ongoing increase in homelessness,with 14,164 households presenting ashomeless in 2001/2002, an increase of 10per cent on the previous year (NIHE,2003a). These figures suggests that wellover one in three households havemissed out on a range of advantageswhich have accrued to owner occupiersover the last decade: a reasonably widechoice of housing, much of it new;increased property values; and access tobank and consumer credit. Those insocial housing or those who arehomeless have been excluded in a verymaterial sense from the benefits whichmost of the other two thirds of thepopulation have had from owneroccupation. While some people do notown their own home, the survey revealsthat some 6.5 per cent of the populationown a second home and over 2 per centof the population own other housesapart from their current residence or asecond home or holiday home.

The NIHE recently conducted a largescale house condition survey (NIHE,2003b). It shows that, while housingunfitness has declined since the lastsurvey in 1996, some 5 per cent of all

houses in Northern Ireland are unfit. Inaddition the survey found that one thirdof all dwellings in Northern Irelandrequired urgent attention. In the PSENIsurvey households reported a range ofproblems with their houses. Over 10 percent reported problems with the lack ofspace, 7.3 per cent with damp walls,floors etc, and 4.6 per cent with rot in thewindow frames or floor.

Public and private services

Respondents were asked about a rangeof different public and private services toascertain their accessibility, desirabilityand adequacy. If they did not use aservice they were asked whether thiswas because they did not want it orbecause they could not afford it. It wasthus possible to distinguish between‘collective exclusion’ where services wereunavailable to everyone in a particulararea or unsuitable, and ‘individualexclusion’ where services existed butindividuals could not access them due tolack of money. The PSEB survey askedthe same set of social exclusionquestions and the responses are noted inbrackets in Table 7.1 for comparison.

Table 7.1 shows that, like Britain, themain difficulty in relation to services isunavailability rather than not beingable to afford the service. In publictransport for instance no one wasexcluded from its use because of lack of

59

Places of worship

Pay phone

Petro station

Chemist

Corner shop

Medium to large supermarket

Banks or building societies

Bar

Cinema or theatre

Social exclusion

Use –inadequate

Use – adequate

Don’t use –unavailable or

unsuitable

Don’t use –can’t afford

Don’t useor not

relevant

Collective exclusion Individual exclusion

Libraries

Public sports facilities

Museums and galleries

Evening classes

Public community/village hall

Hospital with A&E

Doctor

Dentist

Optician

Post Office

Public transport

38 (55)

36 (39)

25 (29)

13 (17)

21 (31)

66 (75)

90 (92)

86 (83)

72 (78)

93 (93)

38 (38)

3 (16)

3 (7)

1 (4)

1 (2)

2 (3)

17 (13)

7 (6)

2 (5)

0 (3)

3 (4)

9 (15)

5 (3)

7 (5)

14 (13)

9 (5)

9 (9)

0 (2)

0 (0)

0 (1)

1 (1)

0 (0)

9 (6)

0 (0)

1 (1)

1 (1)

2 (3)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (1)

0 (0)

0

54 (36)

53 (48)

59 (52)

75 (73)

69 (56)

17 (10)

3 (2)

11 (11)

26 (17)

3 (2)

0

65 (30)

24 (37)

63 (75)

96 (93)

80 (73)

91 (92)

80 (87)

44 (53)

52 (45)

0 (2)

5 (10)

2 (2)

1 (1)

9 (8)

2 (2)

3 (1)

2 (2)

7 (10)

1 (1)

3 (10)

2 (2)

1 (3)

2 (7)

2 (4)

4 (7)

1 (4)

2 (6)

1 (0)

0 (1)

0 (1)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (0)

2 (2)

3 (5)

33 (66)

67 (41)

33 (21)

3 (3)

10 (12)

6 (2)

12 (4)

50 (37)

36 (33)

Table 7.1: Exclusion from public and private services, PSENI (and PSEB)

Private services

Public services

% cumulative %

60


money but a significant proportion,nearly a tenth (9 per cent), wereexcluded from the service because it waseither unavailable or unsuitable (forexample only accessible to able bodiedpeople). There were similar results for acorner shop and a community villagehall. Access to these kinds of facilities isparticularly important for some socialgroups such the elderly, parents of youngchildren and the disabled, for all ofwhom social participation and inclusionthrough paid work is relatively unlikely.

The survey also asked questions aboutdomestic services such as gas, electricityand telephone and whether theseservices had ever been disconnectedfrom their home or their use restricted.Overall, 5.4 per cent had had these basicdomestic services disconnected one ormore times.

Exclusion from social participation

At this stage of analysis of the PSENIresearch, exclusion from socialparticipation is reported in terms ofinability to engage in a range of commonsocial activities because of lack of money.Three activities have been includedbecause, although a majority of thepublic did not think they werenecessities, they are useful indicators ofsocial exclusion and its converse socialinclusion. The three are: ‘going out for anevening meal once a fortnight’, ‘holidayabroad once a year’, and ‘going out for

meal in a restaurant once a month’. Justover half (56 per cent) of householdscould afford to participate in all thesocial activities listed in the survey(including the three not thought to benecessities). Twelve per cent ofhouseholds could not participate in onesocial activity because of lack of money, 8per cent in two and 12 per cent in five ormore.

Personal insecurity

Personal safety and freedom frominterpersonal violence is one of thefoundation stones of a moderndemocratic society. People who are killedand injured are denied one of the mostbasic human rights as are those whofear death or injury at the hands ofothers. They can, therefore, be seen asexcluded from a ‘normal’ life in a veryreal and tangible way. Over the last 30years of conflict in Northern Ireland

Table 7.1: Number of common social activities that cannot be afforded

None

1

2

3-4

5 or more

56

12

8

11

12

56

68

76

88

100

Figure 7.3: Experience of physical injury

61

over 3,600 people have been killed andtens of thousands injured.

The survey asked a series of questionsabout the conflict. Overall, 50 per cent ofrespondents said they knew someonewho had been killed in the ‘troubles’, butthis figure falls to 30 per cent for thosewho lost close friends and/or relatives.The relatively high proportions for ‘closefriend’ and ‘close relative’ in Figure 7.2suggest that respondents may haveinterpreted these questions ratherloosely. It should also be pointed out thatthere is overlap between the categories– for instance 11 per cent said they hadlost a close friend and a close relative.

Figure 7.2 shows that over a quarterof respondents stated that a ‘close friend’had been killed and of these 45 per centhad lost two or more close friends. Inaddition, 14 per cent of respondents hadhad a ‘close relative’ killed and of theseover 20 per cent had lost two or morerelatives. Finally, nearly two fifths knew‘someone else’ who had been killed andof these over two thirds knew two ormore people who had been killed. Half ofthe ‘someone else’ category did not lose aclose friend or relative in the ‘troubles’.

Figure 7.3 shows the number of peoplewho had experienced some sort ofphysical injury either to themselves orsomeone else. In total nearly 8 per centof all respondents had been injuredduring the ‘troubles’ and of these some50 per cent had been injured on two ormore occasions. Just over a quarter had

Social exclusion

Figure 7.2: Knowing someone killed in the ‘troubles’

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Self Close friend Close relative Someone else

Three or more times

Twice

Once

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

%

Close friend Close relative Someone else

Three or more people

Two people

One person

62


a close friend who had been physicallyinjured and of these 45.8 per cent hadbeen injured on one occasion and over 53per cent a few or many times. Nearly 18per cent had a close relative who hadbeen injured and nearly 36 per centknew someone else personally who hadbeen injured. Of these two groups some60 per cent and 67 per cent, respectively,had been injured more than once.

Further evidence of widespreadexclusion from personal safety inNorthern Ireland over the last 30 yearsis shown in other data. Some 8.6 percent of HRs had had to move house dueto attack, intimidation or harassmentand 4.4 per cent had been forced to leavea job for the same reasons.

Imprisonment

A final form of exclusion considered inthe survey was imprisonment, defined interms of whether the householdrespondent or someone they knew hadspent time in prison. Nearly a quarter ofall respondents had themselves spenttime in prison or knew someone else whohad. Where they themselves had been inprison (5 per cent), some two thirds werenot now living in poor households.

Conclusion

This chapter has considered some of themain dimensions of social exclusion inNorthern Ireland. Further analysis isneeded to explore possible relationships

within and between dimensions, thecumulative impact of exclusion and thetypes of households most affected. Themain point to emphasise at this stage isthat social exclusion is extensive.

Perhaps the most significant finding isthat one in every eight households inNorthern Ireland (excluding pensionerhouseholds) has no one in paid work.This denies these households access toadequate material resources andseverely restricts their integration into arange of social and civic activities. Itimpacts on the future as well as thepresent children in the household and ithas wide-ranging social costs in terms ofill-health, relationship breakdown andother problems. Social exclusion inwhatever form has widespreadimplications which go beyond theindividual to neighbourhoods and socialorder as a whole.

63

This book has presented the mainfindings of the first ever large-scalequantitative study of poverty and

social exclusion in Northern Ireland. Ithas confirmed evidence fromadministrative social security data andfrom other research that high levels ofpoverty and social exclusion exist inNorthern Ireland. It has provided abaseline measurement of both povertyand social exclusion which can beupdated periodically in the future. Ithas also provided data across thesection 75 dimensions specified in theNorthern Ireland Act which may beused as benchmarks against which toassess the extent to which publicauthorities have carried out theirstatutory duty to promote equality ofopportunity. Finally, it has enabledcomparison of poverty rates betweenNorthern Ireland, Britain and theRepublic of Ireland.

The study has documented andexplained the most fundamentalchallenge at the heart of povertyresearch and political debate: how todefine and measure the nature andextent of poverty. As discussed inChapter 3, there are two main types ofapproaches to the measurement ofpoverty: those based on income aloneand those which combine income withother indicators of deprivation. Bothalso vary according to the incomeequivalence scale adopted andjudgements about the appropriate cut-off points for ‘poverty lines’. The secondbroad approach, combining income anddeprivation, as we have seen, hasconsisted of two variants: theconsistent poverty approach used in theRepublic of Ireland and the PSEconsensual poverty approach developedin Britain.

All measures of poverty have their

Chapter 8Conclusions

64


limitations. To summarise thelimitations of income only measures:income is an indirect measure; they failto capture the effects of publiclyprovided goods or services on standardsof living; they vary greatly over time;they provide a measure of a person’smonetary resources and not the resultof their application of those resources;the choice of one particular incomemeasure is so much a matter ofjudgement it is arbitrary. There is noscientific reason why less than 60 percent of the mean or 70 per cent of themedian should be used. Whichever ischosen reflects the personal choices ofadministrators or politicians.

Mixed income-deprivation measuresrecognise and redress theselimitations. Where they differ is in thechoice of deprivation indicators. In theRepublic of Ireland consistent povertymeasure, the items of deprivation wereselected by experts using statisticaltechniques. In the consensual povertymeasure, the indicators are chosen by asimple majority of the people in thesociety concerned. Subsequentidentification of the poverty threshold– the point which best distinguishesthe poor from the non-poor – is basedon statistical procedures. Within theseprocedures, some choices do have to bemade by the researchers, for examplethe equivalisation scale to use and howbest to deal with outliers in the income

data. Nonetheless the consensualmethod provides the most objective,democratic, independent and non-arbitrary measure of poverty devisedto date.

These first ever statistically reliablefindings on poverty in Northern Irelandare staggering. More than one hundredand eighty five thousand householdsare poor and over half a million peoplelive in poor households. There aremarked important and significantdifferences in poverty rates betweendifferent social groups. The disabled arenearly twice as likely to be in povertyas the non-disabled. The youngestgroup of households are twice as likelyto be in poverty compared with theoldest. Women are more likely to bepoor than men. The level of poverty is1.4 times as high in households wherethe household respondent is Catholiccompared with households where thehousehold respondent is Protestant.Many people however will think themost significant finding is that wellover a third (37.4 per cent) of all thissociety’s children are being brought upin poverty. The impact on thedevelopment and opportunities of these150,000 children and young peopleshould not be under-estimated. Thewider consequences and costs forsociety as a whole must also be ofconcern. These children and youngpeople occupy what Byrne (2002) has

65

Conclusions

vividly described as the ‘spaces ofdispossession’, growing up as excludedpeople in excluded families increasinglycharacterised by anti-social behaviour,insecurity and threat.

Less than two thirds of all children inNorthern Ireland have a lifestyle andliving standard regarded by arepresentative sample of all people asan acceptable basic norm. While thedivisions around religion, nationalidentity and political preferencedominate all discussions in the media,in local council chambers and in theAssembly, this study has turned thespotlight to other equally important butless visible divisions of class, gender,age and disability.

The challenge for Northern Ireland asa whole and the local politicians, inparticular, is how to reduce these deepfractures of inequality. A progressiveequality framework including Section75 of the Northern Ireland Act, NewTargeting Social Need and incorporatedhuman rights legislation is now inplace. Does the political will and socialconsensus exist to harness thatframework to the eradication of childpoverty? Local politicians face animportant constraint in that some keypolicies, namely fiscal and socialsecurity matters remain theresponsibility of Westminster not aStormont government. Taking theeradication of child poverty seriously

would involve a substantialredistribution of resources and whetherthose who would lose out would supportsuch a fundamental shift in currenteconomic arrangements must be at theheart of future political debate.

67

Bibliography

Balanda, K.P. and Wilde, J. (2001) Inequalities in Mortality, 1989-1998, A Report onAll-Ireland Mortality Data, IPA.

Bradshaw, J. (1993) Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, Avebury: Aldershot.

Byrne, D. (2001) Social Exclusion, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Civic Forum (2002) A Regional Strategy for Social Inclusion: A Civic Forum DiscussionPaper, Prepared for the Civic Forum Anti-Poverty Project Group, Civic Forum,April 2002.

Department for Work and Pensions (2001) Opportunity for all — Making ProgressThird Annual Report 2001. Cm. 5260. London: HMSO.

Department for Work and Pensions (2003a) Households Below Average Income2001/02.

Department for Work and Pensions (2003b) Measuring Child Poverty.

Dignan, T. and McLaughlin, E. (2002) New TSN Research: Poverty in Northern Ireland,Belfast: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

Dignan, T. (2003) Low Income Households in Northern Ireland 1990 - 2000, Belfast:Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

68


Eurostat (2003) Poverty and social exclusion in the EU after Laeken – parts 1 and 2,8/2003 and 9/2003, Luxembourg.

Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge:Polity Press.

Gordon D., Adelman, L., Ashworth, K., Bradshaw, J., Levitas, R., Middleton, S.Pantazis, C., Patsios, D., Payne, S., Townsend, P. and Williams, J. (2000a)Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Gordon, D., Pantazis C. and Townsend, P. (2000b) ‘Absolute and overall poverty: aEuropean history and proposal for measurement’, chapter 5 in D. Gordon andP. Townsend (eds.) Breadline Europe: The measurement of poverty. Bristol:Policy Press, pp. 79-105.

Government of Ireland (1997) Sharing in Progress: National Anti-Poverty Strategy.Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Howarth, C., Kenway, P., Palmer, G. and Miorelli, R. (1999) Monitoring Poverty andSocial Exclusion 1999. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Kaplan, G. A., Pamuk, E. R., Lynch, J. W., Cohen, R. D. and Balfour, J. L. (1996)‘Inequality in Income and Mortality in the United States: Analysis of Mortalityand Potential Pathways’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 312, April 20, pp.999–1003.

Kennedy, P., Kawachi, J. and Prothrow-Stith, D. (1996) ‘Income distribution andmortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood Index in theUnited States’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 312, pp. 1004-1007.

Levitas, R. (1998) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. London:Macmillan.

Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985) Poor Britain, London: Allen and Unwin.

69

Bibliography

McAuley, C., Hillyard, P., McLaughlin, E., Tomlinson, M., Kelly, G. and Patsios, D.(2003) Working Paper No. 1, The Necessities of Life in Northern Ireland,Belfast: School of Sociology and Social Policy, Queen’s University Belfast.

McClelland, A. and Gribbin, V. (2002) Evaluation of New TSN: Gini CoefficientAnalyses, Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, EqualityDirectorate Research Branch.

McGregor, P. and McKee, P. (1995) ‘A Widening Gap?’ in Social Exclusion, DemocraticDialogue, Report No. 2. Belfast: Democratic Dialogue.

Middleton, S. et al, (1997) Family Fortunes: pressures on parents and children in the1990s, London: Child Poverty Action Group.

Noble, M., Smith, G., Wright, G., Dibben, C. and Lloyd, M. (2001) The Northern IrelandMultiple Deprivation Measure 2001. Belfast: Northern Ireland Statistics andResearch Agency.

Nolan, B., Gannon, B., Layte, R., Watson, D., Whelan, C. and Williams, J. (2002)Monitoring Poverty Trends in Ireland: Results from the 2000 Living in IrelandSurvey. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.

Northern Ireland Executive (2001) Programme for Government, Belfast.

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2003a) Northern Ireland Housing ExecutiveHousing Agenda 02/03, Belfast: NIHE.

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2003b) Northern Ireland House ConditionSurvey, 2001, Belfast: NIHE.

Palmer, G., Rahman, M. and Kenway, P. (2002) Monitoring poverty and social exclusion2002, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Quirk, P. & McLaughlin, E. (1996) ‘Targeting Social Need’, in E. McLaughlin and P.Quirk (eds.) Policy Aspects of Employment Equality in Northern Ireland,Employment Equality in Northern Ireland Vol II. Belfast: Standing AdvisoryCommission on Human Rights.

70


Rahman, M., Palmer, G., Kenway, P. and Howarth, C. (2000) Monitoring Poverty andSocial Exclusion 2000, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Rahman, M., Palmer, G. and Kenway, P. (2001) Monitoring poverty and social exclusion2001, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Scottish Executive (2002) Annex to the Social Justice Annual Report 2002. Edinburgh:Scottish Executive.

Shaw, M., Dorling, D., Gordon, D. & Smith, G.D. (1999) The Widening Gap: HealthInequalities and Policy in Britain, Bristol: The Policy Press.

Tomlinson, M. (2000) ‘Targeting Social Need, Social Exclusion and the Use of SocialSecurity Statistics’ in N. Yeates and E. McLaughlin (eds.) Measuring SocialExclusion and Poverty, pp. 90-128. Belfast: Department for SocialDevelopment.

Tomlinson, M. (2001) ‘Unemployment and Inactivity’: Comparing Ireland, North andSouth’, in N. Yeates and G. P. Kelly, Poverty and Social Security: ComparingIreland North and South. Belfast: Department for Social Development.

Tomlinson, M. and Kelly, G. P. (2003) ‘What’s the Use of the Noble Index? Theories,Methods and Applications’, in Edging Poverty Out: Anti-Poverty Strategies inIreland, North and South. Belfast: Department for Social Development.

Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

United Nations (1995) Report of the World Summit for Social Development(Copenhagen 6-12 March). New York: United Nations.

73

This technical report was supplied bythe Central Survey Unit, NorthernIreland Statistical and ResearchAgency.

1. The Sample

A sample of 3,490 addresses was drawnfrom the Valuation and Lands Agency(VLA) list of addresses. The VLA list isthe most up to date listing of privatehouseholds. People living ininstitutions (though not privatehouseholds in such institutions) areexcluded.

The complete VLA list of privateaddresses is stratified into threeregions – Belfast, East of NorthernIreland and West of Northern Ireland.The number of addresses drawn fromeach region is in proportion to thenumber of addresses in the region. Thesample is therefore equivalent to asimple random sample of all privateaddresses in Northern Ireland.

The Valuation and Lands Agencyprovides a good sampling frame ofaddresses, but contains no informationabout the number of households livingat an address. Further selection stagesare therefore required to decide whichhousehold to interview.

Interviewers are instructed to call ateach address issued in theirassignments. If an interviewer comesacross an address, which contains morethan one household, then a decisionmust be made as to which household toselect to take part in the interview. Theinterviewer then numbers eachindividual household and uses Table1.1 to determine which one of thehouseholds to interview:

AppendixTechnical Report

Table 1.1: Household Selection Table

Number of Households 2 3 4 5 6 7

Household Selected 1 3 2 2 6 4

74


2. Information collected

The questionnaire was split into a coresection and two optional sections, one ofwhich was asked of each of therespondents. The list below shows howthe modules were asked.

COREHousehold SectionHousehold questions

Individual SectionDemographyNecessities and economisingOpinions on standard of livingIntra-household living standardsViews on poverty levelHealth and disability[Optional modules A OR B] See belowEconomic activityIncomeAssets and debtSelf completion section

OPTIONALModule A Module BArea Characteristics ActivismCommunity Support Local Services

MobilityThe Troubles

Modules A and B were randomly assigned toindividuals in the household.

3. The Fieldwork

Addresses were issued to a panel of 115interviewers. The fieldwork period was14 October 2002 to the 31st January 2003.

4. Representativeness of the Sample

In any survey there is a possibility ofnon-response bias. Non-response biasarises if the characteristics of non-respondents differ from those ofrespondents in such a way that they arereflected in the responses given in thesurvey. Accurate estimates of non-response bias can be obtained bycomparing characteristics of theachieved sample with the distributionof the same characteristics in thepopulation at the time of sampling.Such comparisons are usually made tothe current Census of Population data.

To assess how accurately the surveysample reflects the population ofNorthern Ireland the sample has beencompared with characteristics of theNorthern Ireland population from the2001 Census of Population (Table 4.1).The sample has also been compared tothe achieved sample of the ContinuousHousehold Survey (CHS).

Comparison was also made using theNoble Multiple Deprivation Index. Thetables below (Table 4.2 and 4.3) showthe figures for the random sampledrawn at the beginning of thequestionnaire and the same figures forthe achieved addresses.

Table 3.1: Response Rate

Number Relative Frequency Response Rate (Eligible Sample)

Issued addresses 3490

Eligible sample 3110 89% 100%Interview achieved

all adults 1425 57% 64% Interview Achieved

at least I adult 551Household interview only 15

Refusal 750 21% 24%

Non-contact 369 11% 12%

Non-eligible 380 11%

75

Appendix

2001 Census CHS 2001/02 Poverty study (all members of household 16+) (all members of household 16+)

Age<25 16 15 1625-44 38 38 3945-64 28 29 2965 and over 17 18 15

GenderMale 48 47 47Female 52 53 53

Base=100% 1,292,169 5,545 3,853

Table 4.1

Table 4.2: Multiple Deprivation Measure for drawn sample

Frequency Percent Valid Percent0 - 4.9 344 9.9 10.05.0 - 9.9 629 18.0 18.310.0 - 14.9 596 17.1 17.425.0 - 19.9 357 10.2 10.420.0 - 29.9 648 18.6 18.930.0 - 39.9 385 11.0 11.240.0 - 49.9 195 5.6 5.750.0 - 59.9 113 3.2 3.360.0 - 69.9 102 2.9 3.070.0 - 79.9 60 1.7 1.7Total 3429 98.3 100.0Postcode not matched 61 1.7Total 3490 100.0

Frequency Percent Valid Percent0 - 4.9 187 9.4 9.55.0 - 9.9 359 18.0 18.310.0 - 14.9 346 17.4 17.725.0 - 19.9 210 10.5 10.720.0 - 29.9 373 18.7 19.030.0 - 39.9 208 10.4 10.640.0 - 49.9 103 5.2 5.350.0 - 59.9 65 3.3 3.360.0 - 69.9 67 3.4 3.470.0 - 79.9 42 2.1 2.1Total 1960 98.4 100.0Postcode not matched 31 1.6Total 1991 100.0

Table 4.3: Multiple Deprivation Measure for achieved sample

76


The figures for the Poverty Studycompare favourably with those fromthe CHS 2001/02 with regards toemployment status as shown inTable 4.4.

Table 4.5 shows a comparison of theemployment groupings with thosecollected in the 2001 Census.

In terms of the industrial sector inwhich the respondents worked (Table4.6), the greatest proportion of therespondents worked in themanufacturing sector (14%). Again thefigures for CHS 2001/02 are includedfor comparison.Table 4.4

CHS 2001/02 Poverty Study(all members of household interviewed 16+)

Worked last week 49 53Away from work last week 2 2Waiting to take up work 0 0Looking for work 3 2Not looking for work – sick 1 1Economically inactive 41 41Government training scheme 0Base = 100% 5,545 3,104

Table 4.5

All persons aged Census 2001 Poverty Study 16 -74 in employment

Managers and senior officials 11 9Professional occupations 11 10Associate professional and technical occupations 13 11

Administrative occupations 15 14Skilled trade occupations 16 13Personal services occupations 7 9Sales and customer services occupations 7 8

Process plant and machine operatives 10 11

Elementary occupations 12 15

Base = 100% 686,644 2,674

Table 4.6

CHS 2001/02 Poverty Study(all members of household interviewed 16+)

Agriculture 3 3Fishing 0 0Mineral and ore extraction 0 0Manufacturing 13 14Electrical and gas 1 0Construction 9 6Wholesale 12 13Hotels and restaurants 4 4Transportation & communication 4 5Financial intermediaries 2 2Real estate 4 4Public administration 9 9Education 11 10Health 13 12Other community services 3 8Private household 0 0Insufficient/Dont know/Refusal 11 8Base = 100% 5,545 3,104

Table 4.7

CHS 2001/02 Poverty Study (all members of household interviewed 16+)

Professional 3 4Employer, manager 7 9Intermediate non manual 15 18Junior non manual 16 18Skilled manual 20 18Semi-skilled manual 19 20Unskilled manual 6 7No SEG, ref, etc., armed forces 14 8Base = 100% 5,545 3,104

significance (which assume randomsampling) can be applied directly to thedata.

Table 5.1 provides examples of thesampling errors and confidenceintervals for typical percentageestimates from the Poverty study, basedon the sample size for the completefieldwork period. These can be used asa rough guide when interpretingresults from the survey.

Gender n=3104

Male Female

Managing money n=1888 We mostly keep ourmoney separate

Your partner andyourself work out howto pay it together

Meals on wheels n=553Don’t use meals onwheels

StandardError of (P) (%)

0.9 0.9

0.9

1.1

0.6

(%) (P)

4753

21

64

98

95%ConfidenceInterval +/-

1.8 1.8

1.8

2.2

1.2

77

5. Sampling Error

No sample is likely to reflect preciselythe characteristics of the population itis drawn from because of both samplingand non-sampling errors. An estimateof the amount of error due to thesampling process can be calculated. Fora simple random sample design, inwhich every member of the sampledpopulation has an equal andindependent chance of inclusion in thesample, the sampling error of anypercentage, p, can be calculated by theformula:

s.e. (p) = √(p*(100 – p)/n

where n is the number of respondentson which the percentage is based. Thesample for the NI Omnibus Survey isdrawn as a random sample, and thusthis formula can be used to calculatethe sampling error of any percentageestimate from the survey.

A confidence interval for thepopulation percentage can becalculated by the formula

95 per cent confidence interval = p+/- 1.96 * s.e. (p)

If 100 similar, independent sampleswere chosen from the same population,95 of them would be expected to yieldan estimate for the percentage, p,within this confidence interval.

The absence of design effects in thesurvey, and therefore of the need tocalculate complex standard errors,means that standard statistical tests of

Appendix

Table 5.1

Bare necessities - homepage.univie.ac.at · 3 Bare necessities Poverty and Social Exclusion in...

Documents

Transcript of Bare necessities - homepage.univie.ac.at · 3 Bare necessities Poverty and Social Exclusion in...