This release is categorised as a CSO Frontier Series Output. Particular care must be taken when interpreting the statistics in this release as it may use new methods which are under development and/or data sources which may be incomplete, for example new administrative data sources. For further information on the data sources, linking procedures, and limitations of this release, see the Background Notes section.
This release is based on linking administrative income data with those who indicated they were living in private households in Census 2022. When calculating household income, estimates for some households are underestimated, as not all income sources are included, such as undeclared employment income, inter-household transfers, and some foreign pensions. Throughout this release, the term administrative income will be used to describe the income sources covered.
Equivalised income allows for a more meaningful comparison of income across households by accounting for the number of adults and children living in the household, thus allowing for analysis at an individualised level. The term low-income threshold refers to households with an equivalised net administrative income of below 60% of the national median equivalised net income as derived from administrative data sources. In this release, the low-income threshold is deemed to be €16,271.
This release focuses on children aged under 18, living in private households with one or both parents.
A range of factors can influence whether a child is living with an equivalised net administrative income below 60% of the national median. In this chapter, we explore a number of these potential factors and their association with whether a child is living below this low-income threshold.
Logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the relationship between these factors and whether a child was living below the low-income threshold in 2022. The model looks at all the factors together, so the result for each factor shows its association with low income after taking account of the other factors in the model. Because of this, results from the model differ from the tabulations in Chapters 3 to 5, which show the share of children below the threshold in each group without taking other factors into account. Both sets of results are valid but answer different questions.
The financial circumstances of a household are influenced by many factors, not all of which can be measured in the available data, so the model does not include every factor that may affect this outcome. The results show associations rather than causes, and do not mean that a child with a particular set of characteristics will necessarily be below the low-income threshold.
The results in this chapter are presented as odds ratios. Each odds ratio compares a group with a reference group, which is named in each table. An odds ratio lower than 1 indicates that the group has lower odds of being below the low-income threshold than the reference group. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates higher odds than the reference group. An odds ratio of 1 indicates no difference.
Overall, the examination of individual factors associated with children under the age of 18 living below the low-income threshold of 60% of the median net equivalised administrative income in 2022, indicated that the working patterns of parents are important. All other factors in the model being held constant, the number of working parents within the household was the single largest differentiator of a child’s low-income status.
Compared to the baseline reference group of two working parents, which was the most common group, the odds of a child living below the low-income threshold were over seven times as high (OR = 7.566) for children in households with one working parent, after accounting for the other variables in the model. For children in households with no working parents, the odds were over 17 times as high (OR = 17.628) as those of a child with two working parents.
While controlling for other factors in the model, such as NACE industry sector, education and family type, the occupation group of the primary earning parent in the household showed a risk gradient relative to the baseline ‘professional’ reference group, which was the most common occupation group.
Sales, customer service and elementary roles corresponded to the highest independent risk factors among active labour market participants. The primary earning parent being employed in ‘sales and customer service’ had a fourfold increase in the child’s odds of being below the low-income threshold (OR = 4.033), followed by ‘elementary’ occupations (OR = 3.877).
Elevated risk compared to the ‘professional’ baseline was also seen amongst primary earning parents in ‘skilled trades’ (OR = 3.613), ‘administrative and secretarial’ (OR = 3.587), and ‘process, plant, and machine operatives’ (OR = 3.410) roles.
While categorised in the model as a control variable, the NACE economic sector reveals variation across the economic sectors. The baseline reference group ‘Public administration and defence, compulsory social security (O)’ was chosen for ease of interpretation as the Odds Ratios of other NACE groups are positive relative to it. When holding all other model variables constant, the employment of the primary earning parent in ‘accommodation and food service activities (I)’ corresponded to a fourfold increase in the odds (OR = 4.249) of a child under 18 being below the low-income threshold, compared with the baseline ‘Public administration and defence, compulsory social security (O)’. Elevated risk profiles were also observed in ‘education (P)’ (OR = 3.950) and ‘other NACE activities (R to U)’ (OR = 6.027).
In summary, this multivariable model indicates that the risk of a child being below the low-income threshold in 2022 was not explained by a single factor but was closely associated with the economic structure of the household. While parental employment patterns were the strongest protection against economic vulnerability, as shown by the considerably higher risk in households with no working parents, the model shows that simply having a job was not always sufficient. Even when controlling for the number of working parents and the number of children under the age of 18 in the household, children whose primary earning parent worked in lower-paid occupations (such as sales and elementary roles) or lower-paid sectors (such as accommodation and food services) faced a higher risk of being below the threshold than children in other working households. For further information on earnings by occupation and NACE economic sector, see Structure of Earnings Survey 2022.
These results should be read alongside the tabulations in Chapters 3 to 5, which show the proportion of children aged under 18 living in households below the low-income threshold, based on equivalised net administrative income. The two answer different questions. The tabulations show the actual share of children below the threshold in each group, while the model shows how each characteristic is associated with low income once the other factors are held constant. Some at-risk groups had high low-income rates in the tabulations but a much smaller effect in the model. This suggests that much of their higher risk reflected their household's economic situation, particularly parental employment and the type of work parents did, rather than group membership itself. However, group membership may still play a role, as it can affect access to employment and the type of work available. Together, the tabulations show which children were most at risk of low income, and the model helps explain why. Neither should be interpreted as showing cause and effect.
Learn about our data and confidentiality safeguards, and the steps we take to produce statistics that can be trusted by all.