Child deprivation rates by number of parents in household

Analysis of deprivation by the number of parents in the household shows that child-specific deprivation rates were much higher for single-parent households. One in four (24.6%) single parent households were deprived of two or more items, compared with one in twenty (4.8%) two-parent households. See Figure 3.1 and view Table SILCCD09 in PxStat.

One in ten single parents could not afford to pay for school trips or school events

Almost half (47.5%) of single-parent households could not afford a one-week holiday away from home for their child/children under 16. This compares with one in ten (11.8%) two-parent households.

More than one in ten (12.4%) single-parent households were unable to afford two pairs of properly fitting shoes for their children. The comparable rate for two-parent households was 1.0%.

Almost 10.0% (9.7%) of single-parent households could not afford to pay for school trips or school events (that cost money) for their children compared with 2.0% of two-parent households. See Figure 3.2 and view Table SILCCD10 in PxStat.

Child deprivation rates by number of workers in household

Figure 3.3 shows how the number of child deprivation items experienced by households varies by the number of workers in households. Six in ten (60.0%) households where nobody worked experienced at least one child-specific deprivation item, compared with one in ten (11.2%) households with two workers. In households where nobody worked, 34.5% experienced two or more deprivation items which is more than 10 times the rate (3.0%) for households where two persons worked. See Figure 3.3 and view Table SILCCD03 in PxStat.

One in five households with no workers were unable to afford regular leisure activities for their children

Deprivation rates for individual child-specific items were higher for households with no worker. A fifth (20.6%) of these households were unable to afford to pay for regular leisure activities (e.g. swimming, playing an instrument, youth organisations, etc.) for their children. This compares with just over 5% of households where one person worked and less than 1.0% of households with two workers.

Households where nobody worked were more likely to be deprived of shoes (15.4%), leisure equipment (12.9%), and school trips (13.6%) than households with at least one worker. The comparable deprivation rates for households with one worker were shoes (2.9%), leisure equipment (2.1%), and school trips (3.4%) and for two-worker households, shoes (1.2%), leisure equipment (0.5%), and school trips (1.8%). See Figure 3.4 and view Table SILCCD04 in PxStat.

Over half of households with no workers were unable to afford a holiday for their children

More than half (54.3%) of households with no worker were unable to afford a one-week holiday for their child/children, which was more than double the rate for one worker households (24.4%) and almost seven times the rate for two-worker households (8.1%). See Figure 3.5 and view Table SILCCD04 in PxStat.

Child deprivation rates by number of children under-16 in household

The number of child deprivation items experienced by households with children is influenced by the number of children in the household, but not to the same degree as influenced by the number of workers, or the number of parents in these households. The percentage of households with three or more children that experience no deprivation item was just over five percentage points lower than the comparable rate for one or two children households (72.9% and 78.1% respectively). See Figure 3.6 and view Table SILCCD11 in PxStat.

Although the percentage of households that experienced each deprivation item is higher in households with three or more children when compared with households with one or two children, the absolute difference for nine of the deprivation items was less than 2%. Figure 3.7 below displays results for the four deprivation items where the absolute difference in deprivation rates was greater than 2%. For example, 8.0% of households with three or more children could not afford some new (not second-hand) clothes for their children. This is more than double the rate (3.5%) for households with one or two children. See Figure 3.7 and view Table SILCCD12 in PxStat.