Results from the Living in Ireland Surveys relating to households where the reference person is in the labour force category, ill or disabled have also
36 Possible factors underlying this difference between the surveys are discussed in Gannon and Nolan (2004). The questions themselves were different – the Living in Ireland Survey referring to “any chronic, physical or mental health problem, illness or disability”, and the
QNHS to “any longstanding health problem or disability”. Also, a much higher proportion of the QNHS individual questionnaires were answered by proxy, whereas those responding directly about themselves appear to be more likely to report a long-standing health problem or disability.
been presented in the various ESRI publications focused on monitoring poverty trends. These have often been used as a point of reference in relation to poverty and disability (for example in the Report of the Working Group on the Review of the Illness and Disability Schemes, 2003). It is clear that having the household reference person in that situation may have a marked impact on household income and poverty. However, here we are concerned with the overall relationship between disability and poverty and how best to design policies to minimise it, so it is more satisfactory to focus on all adults with a disability. (The same point applies to those in receipt of illness and disability-related social welfare payments: only a sub-set of adults with a disability will be in receipt of such payments.)
As we have seen, data from the 2001 Living in Ireland Survey show 16 per cent of those of working age reporting a chronic illness or disability; this was the case for a higher proportion of those aged 65 years or more, as would be expected, so overall 22 per cent of adults reported such an illness/disability. Table 8.1 shows that 38 per cent of these adults were in households “at risk of poverty” – that is, below 60 per cent of median equivalised disposable household income. This was more than twice the poverty risk for adults not reporting a chronic illness or disability, which was 17 per cent, and well above the overall average rate for adults in the sample which was 21 per cent.
Table 8.1: Risk of Poverty and Illness/Disability, Adults, Living in Ireland Survey 2001
% “At Risk of Poverty”
Ill/disabled 37.5
Not ill/disabled 16.7
All 21.3
Table 8.2 shows the percentage of long-term ill or disabled persons who are in households experiencing basic deprivation, and their consistent poverty rate. We see that the percentage in households experiencing basic deprivation, at 13 per cent, is nearly twice as high as for other adults. The consistent poverty rate is over 7 per cent for ill or disabled adults, compared with 3 per cent for other adults and the overall average for all adults of 4 per cent. (These figures for basic deprivation and consistent poverty in 2001 are based on the original 8 deprivation items rather than the revised/adapted set to be employed in the future.)
Table 8.2: Consistent Poverty and Illness/Disability, Adults, Living in Ireland Survey 2001 % Experiencing Basic Deprivation % Consistently Poor Ill/disabled 13.2 7.4 Not ill/disabled 7.4 2.9 All 8.6 3.9
Additional information obtained in the LII surveys on the extent to which chronically ill or disabled people reported being hampered in their daily activities provides some insight into the variation in poverty outcomes by extent/nature of disability. Table 8.3 looks at the variation in the risk of poverty and consistent poverty across the three categories used – hampered
severely, to some extent, or not at all – and shows a very pronounced and consistent relationship between degree hampered and poverty. Almost half those reporting severe hampering are “at risk of poverty”, this figure falls to 40 per cent for those hampered “to some extent”, and to 21 per cent for those who say they are not hampered at all. The poverty risk facing the “not hampered” group is still higher than those who do not report chronic illness or disability, but not by much. Turning to consistent poverty, 16 per cent of those who are severely hampered are in households in consistent poverty, which is about five times higher than the rate for those with no chronic illness or disability. The rate for those hampered to some extent is about twice that for those with no chronic illness or disability. Finally, for those who say they are not hampered at all, the consistent poverty rate is no different to that for adults with no chronic illness or disability.
Table 8.3: Poverty and Degree Hampered, Adults, Living in Ireland Survey 2001
Ill/Disabled and… “At Risk of Poverty” %
Consistently Poor %
- Severely hampered 49.4 15.7
- Hampered to some extent 39.6 6.1
- Not hampered 21.4 2.7
Not ill/disabled 16.7 2.9
We can also look at trends over time – although only up to 2001 – by comparing the results on poverty risk and consistent poverty from 2001 with the corresponding figures from the 1995 Living in Ireland Survey.37 Table 8.4 shows first that the percentage “t risk of poverty” rose sharply for long-term ill or disabled adults between 1995 and 2001, from 21 per cent to 38 per cent, whereas the poverty risk for other adults was stable over that period at about 17 per cent. This is linked to the extent to which people with illness or disability and the households in which they live rely on social welfare payments as a source of income. Social welfare accounts for most of the income accruing to households with an ill/disabled member, as we shall see shortly, and over this period social welfare payment rates, although increasing in terms of purchasing power, lagged behind the very rapid pace of increase in incomes from work. As a result, those who continued to rely on social welfare for their household incomes, which was the case for many people with a disability, saw their living standards improve but their poverty risk rise. Focusing on consistent poverty, there was only a marginal decline between 1995 and 2001 for those with a long-term illness or disability whereas other adults saw their consistent poverty rate fall from 6 per cent to 3 per cent. For those with a disability or long-term illness, the proportion experiencing basic deprivation did fall but this was offset by the rise in the proportion below the relative income threshold. A significant number of households containing adults with a chronic illness or disability and relying on social welfare went from being clustered above the income threshold to falling below it.
37 The first Living in Ireland Survey, in 1994, had slightly different wording for key questions.
Table 8.4: Poverty and Illness/Disability, Adults, Living in Ireland Surveys 1995 and 2001
“At Risk of Poverty” % Consistently Poor % Ill/disabled 1995 21.2 7.8 2001 37.5 7.4 Not ill/disabled 1995 16.7 6.0 2001 16.7 2.9 All 1995 17.6 6.3 2001 21.3 3.9
As noted earlier, results from the Living in Ireland surveys relating to households where the reference person is classified as ill or disabled in labour force terms have often been a point of reference in assessing the relationship between disability and poverty, and it is also worth noting the patterns these figures show. As the Report of the Working Group on the review of the Illness and Disability Payment Schemes (2003) brought out, both the risk of poverty and consistent poverty rates for such households were substantially above average in 2001.38 Two-thirds were below 60 per cent of median equivalised disposable income, three times the rate for all households, while over one-fifth were in consistent poverty, which was four times the rate for all households. Over the period from 1994 the “at risk of poverty” rate for these households doubled; while the consistent poverty rate declined by about one-third. This was much less rapid than the decline in consistent poverty for all households over the period.
One can also look directly at poverty rates and trends for those in receipt of illness/disability-related social welfare payments.39 In 2001, half those in receipt of such payments were in households below the 60 per cent of median income threshold, and 16 per cent were in consistent poverty. In terms of trends over the period from 1994, the “at risk of poverty” rate for this group rose very sharply indeed, from 10 per cent to just under 50 per cent, while the consistent poverty rate fell but only from 23 per cent to 16 per cent – again, much less favourable trends than those for the sample as a whole.