New findings on the difference that Scottish Child Payment makes to family finances and children’s well-being
Published on 11th December 2025 by Ilona Pinter
Today we publish two working papers from the Family Finances study.
In the first paper, Investing in Children: Early findings on the difference the Scottish Child Payment makes to child well-being, we share emergent findings from our comparative mixed-methods study, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evidence comes from interviews with 60 parents receiving Universal Credit in Scotland and northern England. For the quantitative analysis we take a quasi-experimental approach, comparing measures of child material deprivation and household food insecurity in Scotland and England using data from the Family Resources Survey, before and after the roll-out of the SCP. We reflect on the difference the SCP makes to childhood experiences and the implications of this payment for children’s long-term outcomes.
Both our qualitative and our quantitative evidence are consistent in indicating that the SCP is making a significant difference to family finances and child wellbeing. Our qualitative data shows that parents were able to increase spending on items necessary to children’s healthy development such as nutritious food, clothing and utilities. This is supported by our quantitative analysis which suggests that significantly more families are able to meet very basic needs as a result of the payments: our results suggest that both material deprivation and food insecurity would have been between 8 and 9 percentage points higher in Scotland without the policy, which corresponds to over 70,000 fewer children living in material deprivation and food insecurity as a result of the SCP’s introduction.
Our second paper, Does The Scottish Child Payment Weaken Work Incentives?, explores the impact of the ‘cliff edge’, the point where a small increase in earnings could take families above the eligibility threshold for Scottish Child Payment leading to an overall loss of income. Policy debates have raised concerns that this ‘cliff edge’ could act as a disincentive to parents to increase their earnings, and that any increases to the SCP value would increase the disincentive.
However, our analysis finds no evidence to suggest that the SCP has reduced labour supply. The analysis shows that only a small share of families have incomes that position them close to the cliff-edge. A lone parent or a sole earner in a couple could work at least 39 hours a week at national minimum wage before reaching the cliff-edge. Second earners in families not in receipt of housing support are most exposed: the cliff-edge falls between 9–41 hours of work for partners of full-time minimum wage earners, depending on parental age and number of children. However, a comparison of labour market participation and hours worked among families on both sides of the border finds no labour supply impact in practice, including among second earners. Therefore, the evidence suggests that concerns that the SCP creates work disincentives are overplayed.
Links to working papers
- Investing in Children: Early findings on the difference the Scottish Child Payment makes to child wellbeing can be found here and here.
- Does The Scottish Child Payment Weaken Work Incentives? can be found here.
Feedback
We welcome any feedback on either of our papers. Please send any comments or questions to: ilona.pinter@glasgow.ac.uk.
