A family’s ability to afford certain items is a measure of their material deprivation. Families may have resolved a need in one area via the Social Fund loan. However, previous research demonstrates that, in order to pay back a Social Fund loan, many people go without essential items, or buy second hand items that are more liable to break down than non users (Huby and Dix, 1992; Kempson et al., 2002). This section considers whether those repaying a Social Fund loan, compared to those without a Social Fund loan, are materially deprived - and going without certain items - or whether those without a Social Fund loan are actually worse off in this respect. In the FACS survey, respondents were asked 34 questions about individual items or activities relating to the four dimensions of expenditure: food; clothing; consumer durables and leisure activities. They had to indicate whether they possessed the item/took part in the activity, and if not, whether this was because they did not want or need the item or because they could not afford it. A family is considered to be deprived of an item or activity if they would like to have it, but cannot afford it at the moment. This combines both a desire to have an item and its affordability.
We have used the Relative Material Deprivation Score (RMDS) to identify those families who are worse off relative to their cohort. This uses ‘prevalence weighting’ which enables us to account for the value of items by assigning weights based on the proportion of the population that already owns such items. This method of measuring deprivation does not take into account the items that are considered to be socially perceived necessities, like other surveys - such as the Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey (PSE) - have done. The PSE method uses value judgements about which
items are necessities, and therefore which should contribute more to poverty (see Gordon et al., 2000). The RMDS or prevalence method is based on population consumption and assumes that it is more serious, or that people are more needy, if they go without items consumed by the majority of the population, such as a
telephone, rather than less frequently found items, such as a dishwasher (Vegeris and Perry, 2003).
In ‘prevalence weighting’ each respondent who could not afford an item is given a score equivalent to the percentage of cross-section families who owned the item. So the families who could not afford a commonly owned item, such as a telephone, score more highly compared to those who could not afford a less commonly owned item, such as a dishwasher. The weighted value for each item are then summed for each family. Therefore if a family lacked all items they would score 100, the
maximum score. If they had all of the items (or said that they did not need/want the item) they would score zero, the minimum score. Therefore the higher the score, the higher the level of deprivation (Vegeris and Perry, 2003).
In order to be able to undertake comparison across the survey years, the prevalence weightings assigned to families who could not afford an item were maintained at the 2001 cross-section levels. In other words, when calculating the 2001 RMDS, items that families could not afford were weighted by the percentage of families in 2001 who had the item. This was then applied to the 2000 data and the 2002 data. We used 2001 rather than 2000 or 2002 as the base in order to enable our data to be compared with the other studies -based on the FACS survey- that have used this measure (e.g. Vegeris and Perry, 2003).
For the deprivation index, a judgement had to be made about where to set the threshold to distinguish the most deprived families. For the 1999 and 2000 cohort, the cut-off point was the poorest 20 per cent of families on the RMDS distribution. But in 2002, the threshold was shifted to the top 7.5 per cent in the distributions in order to account for the broader range of incomes represented in the sample population (Vegeris and Perry, 2003). We used the latter.
We considered four types of item: food; clothing; consumer durables and leisure activities as well as overall deprivation.
6.5.1 Food
People were asked whether they wanted and could afford the following food items: cooked main food everyday; fresh fruit on most days; fresh vegetables most days; meat/fish every other day; roast joint every week; cakes/biscuits on most days; brand named food on most days. These were combined into a single relative deprivation index of food.
Repaying a Social Fund loan was not significantly associated with the level of deprivation in terms of food.
6.5.2 Clothing
People were asked whether they wanted and could afford the following items of clothing: a weatherproof coat for each adult; weatherproof coat for each child; two pairs of weatherproof shoes for each adult; two pairs of weatherproof shoes for each child; new, not second hand clothes when needed; best outfit for children; brand name clothes or shoes for children. These were combined into a single clothing deprivation index. This analysis (Table 6.9) showed that repaying a loan was significantly associated with a change in clothing deprivation status: 28 per cent of those repaying a loan experienced a change in clothing deprivation status compared to 21 per cent of those not repaying a loan. This change was more likely to be a move into deprivation - 16 per cent moved into the poorest 7.5 per cent of families on the RMDS distribution compared to 12 per cent who moved out of the poorest 7.5 per cent.
Table 6.9 Consumer durables deprivation by whether repaying a Social Fund loan
Column percentages
Change Not repaying a loan Repaying a loan
Moved into highest 7.5% 12 16 Moved out of highest 7.5% 10 12
No change 79 72
Unweighted base 1084 725
Base: Respondents interviewed in both years analysed and on IS in both years.
6.5.3 Consumer durables
People were asked whether they wanted and could afford the following consumer durables: colour television; cable/satellite/digital television; video recorder; music system; home computer; telephone; refrigerator; deep freeze; washing machine; tumble drier; dishwasher; microwave oven; car or van and central heating. Again, these were combined into a single index of consumer durable deprivation.
Table 6.10 shows significant differences in terms of change in consumer durable deprivation between those in receipt of a Social Fund loan compared with those not in receipt. Those repaying a Social Fund loan (26 per cent) were significantly more likely than those not repaying a Social Fund loan (21 per cent) to have experienced change in terms of the consumer durables deprivation score. However, for those repaying a Social Fund loan, the direction of this change is inconclusive.
Table 6.10 Clothing deprivation by whether repaying a Social Fund loan
Column percentages
Change Not repaying a loan Repaying a loan
Moved into highest 7.5% 13 14 Moved out of highest 7.5% 9 12
No change 79 74
Unweighted base 1084 725
Base: Respondents interviewed in both years analysed and on IS in both years.
6.5.4 Leisure activities
Leisure activities have slightly different significance from the other categories of items in the sense that a Social Fund loan cannot be used to pay for them. However, they may be first to be forgone when times are hard and income to pay for other things is low, perhaps as a result of repaying a Social Fund loan. People were asked whether they wanted to undertake, and whether they could afford, the following activities: celebration with presents at special occasions; toys an sports gear for children; money for outings, trips or gifts for parties; one week holiday away from home; a night out once a month; new friends or relatives for a meal once a month. Once again, these were combined into a single leisure activities deprivation index.
The analysis revealed no significant difference between those repaying a Social Fund loan and those not in terms of the Relative Deprivation Score Measure using leisure activities.
6.5.5 Overall relative deprivation
The 34 items which make up the four dimensions of expenditure were combined to create a single index of deprivation. Overall, there was no significant difference between those repaying a Social Fund loan and those not in terms of change in material deprivation.