Children in Poverty

Home Icon for Switchboard Deprivation Icon for Switchboard Poverty Icon for switchboard Deprivation & Poverty Topics Icon for Switchboard Interactive Data Reports Icon for Switchboard
Children in low income families: local area statistics

The children in low income families (CiLIF) statistics, provide information on the number and proportion of children living in Relative and Absolute low income Before and After Housing Costs by local area across the United Kingdom.

Statistics on the number of children (by age) and the proportion of children under 16 in low income families each year are published. Figures are calibrated to the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) survey estimates but provide more granular local area information not available from the HBAI for example, by local authority, parliamentary constituency and ward.

Interactive Map: Poverty by Sub-county areas (2025)

Further details can be found on the GOV.UK website.

Note: The March 2026 HBAI release, the Department for Working and Pensions, re-based the absolute poverty measure, changing the baseline from 2010/11 median income (inflation-adjusted) to the 2024/25 poverty line. Because of the rebasing, absolute and relative poverty figures will be the same in this year’s release, limiting its usefulness for analysing trends. However, the update corrects previous under-reporting of benefit income in absolute poverty statistics for future years.

Children in low income families Dashboard After Housing Costs (AHC)

Key Messages (Children aged 0 to 16) 2024/25 – After Housing Costs (AHC)

Relative Poverty (AHC) (Provisional Estimates)

Current: 29.2% (25,700 children estimated) of children under the age of 16 were estimated to be living in relative poverty  (NECA: 28; NE: 28.9%; England: 27.1%)

        • The current release estimates that the proportion of children in relative poverty (AHC) in the county has continued to increase and, along with the North East the proportion remains above both areas, remains above national levels.
        • In the financial year 2024/25 an estimated 29.2% of children under the age of 16 were living in relative poverty after housing costs were factored in, in County Durham.  The North East was similar at 28% while nationally (England) the figure was lower at 27.1%.

The following relate to children aged 0 to 19

        • In County Durham an estimated 16.7% of all children were living in lone parent families experiencing relative poverty (AHC), compared to 10.4% in couple families. (NECA: 15.4%/11.2%; NE: 16.3%/11.4%; Eng:13.8%/12.7% respectively).
        • In County Durham an estimated 17.8% of all children were living in ‘in-work’ families experiencing relative poverty (AHC), compared to 9.4% in non-working families. (NECA: 18.1%/8.5%; NE: 18.6%/9.1%; Eng: 19.1%/7.3% respectively).

Children in low income families Dashboard Before Housing Costs (BHC) Dashboard

 

Key Messages (Children aged 0 to 16) 2024/25 – Before Housing Costs

Relative Poverty (BHC) (Provisional Estimates)

Current: 26% (23,000 children estimated) of children under the age of 16 were estimated to be living in relative poverty  (NECA: 24.4; NE: 25.1%; England: 19.8%)

        • The current release estimates that the proportion of children in relative poverty in the county has continued to increase and, along with the North East the proportion remains above both areas, remains above national levels.
        • In the financial year 2024/25 an estimated 26% of children under the age of 16 were living in relative poverty in County Durham.  The North East was lower at 24.4% while nationally (England) the figure was 19.8%. This is an increase from 23.5% in 2021/22 (20,700 children), an increase of 11.1%. Across the North East the number of children in relative poverty increased by 7.6%, while across England the figure increased by 9.4%.
      • The following relate to children aged 0 to 19
        • In County Durham an estimated 15.1% of all children were living in lone parent families experiencing relative poverty (BHC), compared to 9.2% in couple families. (NECA: 13.5%/9.9%; NE: 14.1%/10.1%; Eng: 9.9%/9.6% respectively).
        • In County Durham an estimated 15% of all children were living in ‘in-work’ families experiencing relative poverty (BHC), compared to 9.4% in non-working families. (NECA: 15%/8.4%; NE: 15.4%/8.8%; Eng:13.4%/6.1% respectively).

Absolute Poverty (BHC) (Provisional Estimates)

Current: 26% (23,000 children estimated) of children under the age of 16 were estimated to be living in absolute poverty (BHC)  (NECA: 24.4; NE: 25.1%; England: 19.8% – See the note below)

Note: The March 2026 HBAI release, the Department for Working and Pensions, re-based the absolute poverty measure, changing the baseline from 2010/11 median income (inflation-adjusted) to the 2024/25 poverty line. Because of the rebasing, absolute and relative poverty figures will be the same in this year’s release, limiting its usefulness for analysing trends. However, the update corrects previous under-reporting of benefit income in absolute poverty statistics for future years.

        • The current release estimates that the proportion of children in absolute poverty (BHC) in the county has continued to increase and, along with the North East the proportion remains above both areas, remains above national levels.
        • In the financial year 2024/25 an estimated 26% of children under the age of 16 were living in absolute poverty (BHC) in County Durham.  The North East was lower at 24.4% while nationally (England) the figure was 19.8%. This is an increase from 25% in 2021/22 (22,000 children), an increase of 4.5%. Across the North East the number of children in relative poverty increased by 1.6%, while across England the figure increased by 9.7%.
      • The following relate to children aged 0 to 19
        • In County Durham an estimated 15.1% of all children were living in lone parent families experiencing absolute poverty (BHC), compared to 9.2% in couple families. (NECA: 13.5%/9.9%; NE: 14.1%/10.1%; Eng: 9.9%/9.6% respectively).
        • In County Durham an estimated 15% of all children were living in ‘in-work’ families experiencing absolute poverty (BHC), compared to 9.4% in non-working families. (NECA: 15%/8.4%; NE: 15.4%/8.8%; Eng:13.4%/6.1% respectively).

Definitions and Links

Links

Definitions

Term Definition
Children Dependent individuals aged under 16; or aged 16 to 19 in full-time non-advanced education. Figures on the proportion of children living in low income families are derived for children under 16 as a percentage of the under 16 population.
Family A single adult; or a married or cohabitating couple; or a Civil Partnership; and any dependent children.
Equivalised income Income is gross income Before Housing Costs (BHC) and includes contributions from earnings, state support and pensions. Equivalisation adjusts incomes for family size and composition; taking an adult couple with no children as the reference point.
Relative low income A family in low income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year. A family must have claimed one or more of Universal Credit, Tax Credits or Housing Benefit at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics.
Absolute low income A family in low income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year in comparison with incomes in 2010/11. A family must have claimed one or more of Universal Credit, Tax Credits or Housing Benefit at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics.
Work status A family is defined as ‘in-work’ if they have an accumulated period of at least 26 weeks paid employment or self-employment within the 52-week tax year.
Family type Family type accounts for changes in family composition throughout the year (for example, re-partnering, multiple partners). A Lone Parent family type means the parent/guardian has had no partnerships at any point in the year.

Relative v Absolute Poverty

The 2 most common measures of poverty (produced by the DWP) are Absolute and Relative.

These are most often used together to provide a more nuanced view of poverty. Whilst both measures offer valuable insights in the economic wellbeing of our residents they do not provide a complete overview of overall poverty and should be viewed alongside other relevant measures relating to economic wellbeing. This is certainly the case in our various poverty related resources on Durham Insight. Both of these low-income measures are calculated and reported either Before Housing Costs or After Housing Costs. NB. The Department for Work and Pensions is now developing the ‘Below Average Resources’ statistic as ‘Official Statistics in Development’ to provide a new additional measure of poverty based on the approach proposed by the Social Metrics Commission in 2018.

An individual is considered to be in Relative poverty if they are living in a household with an equivalised income below 60% of the UK median income in the year in question. This is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the population as a whole. Relative poverty can help identify inequality and social exclusion within society at any given time.

An individual is considered to be in Absolute poverty if they are living in a household with an equivalised income below 60% of the (inflation adjusted) UK median income in 2010/11. This is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are seeing their incomes rise in real terms. i.e. whether the lowest income households have experienced real income growth over time. Absolute poverty helps monitor whether people’s basic living standards are improving over time.

Interpreting low-income measures

Relative poverty sets the threshold as a proportion of the average income and moves each year as average income moves. It is used to measure the number and proportion of individuals who have incomes a certain proportion below the average.

The percentage of individuals in relative poverty will increase if:

    • the average income stays the same, or rises, and individuals with the lowest incomes see their income fall, or rise less, than average income; or
    • the average income falls and individuals with the lowest incomes see their income fall more than the average income.

The percentage of individuals in relative poverty will decrease if:

    • the average income stays the same, or rises, and individuals with the lowest incomes see their income rise more than average income; or
    • the average income falls and individuals with the lowest incomes see their income rise, or fall less, than average income, or see no change in their income.

 Absolute poverty sets the low income line in a given year, then adjusts it each year with inflation as measured by variants of the CPI. This measures the proportion of individuals who are below a certain standard of living in the UK (as measured by income). .

    • The percentage of individuals in absolute low income will increase if individuals with the lowest incomes see their income fall or rise less than inflation.
    • The percentage of individuals in absolute low income will decrease if individuals with the lowest incomes see their incomes rise more than inflation.

Absolute poverty is sensitive to inflation and economic conditions. It reflects changes in purchasing power and cost of living. For local authorities, this measure provides a direct link to economic policy impacts. They can monitor how inflation affects the poorest segments of the population and adapt their strategies accordingly

A hypothetical example of this dual approach could be: Absolute poverty among pensioners drops over a decade due to inflation-adjusted pension increases and support programs. But relative poverty among working families rises due to stagnant wages and increasing housing costs, even though incomes haven’t technically fallen.

There are pros and cons of using both Absolute and Relative measures of poverty. Which is generally why they’re often used in tandem with one another.

Absolute Poverty

Pros Cons
Objective Standard: Absolute measures provide a fixed benchmark, making it easier to track changes over time. Economic Sensitivity: Absolute poverty is highly sensitive to inflation and economic conditions, which can fluctuate unpredictably.
Inflation Adjustment: Adjusting the threshold for inflation helps maintain a consistent standard of living. Static Threshold: A fixed threshold may not account for regional variations in cost of living.
Policy Monitoring: Helps local authorities evaluate the effectiveness of economic policies and their impact on purchasing power. Limited Scope: It may not fully capture the broader aspects of economic inequality beyond basic necessities.
Targeted Assistance: Facilitates the design of focused support programs for the most vulnerable populations.

Relative Poverty

Pros Cons
Economic Equality: Relative measures highlight income disparities and help address wealth distribution. Relative Benchmarks: The benchmarks change with overall income shifts, making long-term tracking more complex.
Adaptability: They adjust to changing economic conditions, providing a dynamic view of poverty. Potential Misinterpretation: Rising average incomes might mask issues faced by the lowest earners if their income does not rise proportionately.
Community Focus: Assists in pinpointing areas needing social and economic interventions by comparing median incomes. Income Disparity Focus: May overlook individuals who meet relative thresholds but still experience financial hardship.
Policy Effectiveness: Enables local authorities to evaluate and adjust social policies to promote equitable wealth distribution.