April 2026 marks the lifting of the two-child limit – a major victory for those who fought for its removal. But poverty continues to affect people’s lives and much more remains to be done to tackle it.
The National Children’s Bureau (NCB) is proud to have campaigned to scrap the two-child limit, along with hundreds of organisations across different sectors, campaigners, and members of the public. It is estimated that there will be 600,000 fewer individuals in relative low income after housing costs because of the two-child limit removal. This includes 450,000 children and 150,000 working age individuals (Department for Work & Pensions, 2026).
We know that growing up in poverty can have negative consequences for children's wellbeing and future life prospects, such as employment, education and further opportunities.
This is a significant shift – but far from a complete solution to poverty and its impact. By the governments own calculations, over 14 million people are estimated to be living in relative low income and 4.2 million children will still be living in poverty at the end of this Parliament (2030).
Defining poverty
In the UK, poverty is typically defined as living in a household with an income below 60% of the median, known as relative income poverty. The proportion of people in deep poverty has also grown. This represents those living in a household with an income below 50% of the median, and this group now makes up the largest share of those experiencing poverty. Reports by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation offer a detailed overview of the nature of poverty in the UK, including how it is measured in policy terms.
Who is most impacted by poverty
Children and families
Children have consistently had the highest poverty rates of any age group, which is a clear indictment of our priorities as a society. The group with second-highest poverty rates is working-age adults with children.
Having children significantly affects household finances, and families with children can face additional challenges if childcare responsibilities limit their ability to undertake well-paid and high-quality work. This can often be the case for lone-parent families, families with younger children, and larger families.
Research in Practice has long drawn attention to poverty-aware practice with children and families and the links between poverty, austerity and children’s social care. The evidence offers alternative approaches to working with families affected by poverty.
The Lambeth Early Action Partnership (LEAP) led by NCB was able to reach and work alongside many families and communities living in or at risk of poverty to support better outcomes. However, support through LEAP could mitigate, not tackle, poverty. Many wider influences exacerbated deprivation for some children, such as public sector cuts, COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis.
Disabled people
Disabled people face significantly higher risks of poverty. When thinking about families, half of all people in poverty live in a household with at least one disabled person. Disabled women are likely to face even higher rates of poverty and spend a greater proportion of their life in ill health or disability. And 28% of disabled families live in poverty, compared with 18% of families where no one is disabled. Half of all disabled people living in poverty also have a long term, ‘limiting mental health condition’ (around 2.4 million people).
According to the 2024 Social Metrics Commission the disparity between poverty rates of children living in households with and without a disabled family member is stark. Having a disabled child in the household is associated with a higher rate of poverty than a disabled adult:
- 37% of people living in families that include disabled children and no disabled adults are in poverty, compared to 27% of people living in families that include one or more disabled adults, and no disabled children are in poverty.
- 30% of people living in families that include a disabled adult or child are in poverty.
Social security
Many households are struggling or going without the essentials and it has been argued that people with disabilities are experiencing poverty due to facing additional costs associated with disability and ill-health, and barriers to employment. For example, being more likely to be in low-paid or insecure work, relying on social security benefits, and facing higher living costs.
The purpose of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is to provide a contribution to the extra costs faced by disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. However, there is evidence that this is not adequate with disabled people facing extra costs depending on a range of factors, such as an individual’s impairment. A Disabled Children at the Table report found that for too many disabled children, a double disadvantage of poverty and disability denies them a fair start in life. This has been exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis that has created an even more challenging set of circumstances for families with disabled children.
Our recent work at Research in Practice has also highlighted the impact of poverty on safeguarding adults. Underscoring the need for a joined‑up, life‑course approach.
Informal and/or unpaid carers
Informal and/or unpaid carers are much more likely than those with no caring responsibilities to be living in poverty (one in in four adults) with many living in families where someone was disabled. For many their forced exit or reduced ability to work means they can face financial penalties.
A study on young carers aged between 16-18 living in the UK found that they were twice as likely to be living in the most deprived areas. More likely to be in single-parent households and four times as likely to be from homes with parents who are not working.
Families with a disabled child or health needs can also face additional barriers to work because of difficulties in organising childcare for disabled children. In a Council for Disabled Children report, 46% of parent carers stated that they could not work and were experiencing poverty as a result.
Global majority groups
Poverty rates among some ethnic groups remain higher than national average with certain groups experiencing higher rates of very deep and persistent poverty.
We know that children growing up in Black and Minority ethnic background households are substantially more likely to experience significantly higher rates of poverty that those growing up in white households. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African households are more likely to be in deep and persistent poverty compared to other groups. Exacerbating factors such as housing costs, tenure and types of housing, employment, family size, and structure accounts for some, but not all of the differentials.
There is limited public data that disaggregates poverty rates by both ethnicity and disability status. The 'double bind' of Blackness and disability refers to the way racialised assumptions influence how disability is understood, while disability labels can intensify or reinforce assumptions about behaviour, risk, and capability.
Regional variation
Another consideration is that poverty levels differ significantly across regions – such as urban versus rural communities – reflecting inequalities in employment, housing, and access to services across the UK. We also know that a young person’s socio-economic background – including the income level of their family – plays a critical role in shaping their future.
Causes and consequences of poverty
Poverty underpins every challenge that families face. When households cannot afford essentials such as food, heating, and housing, the foundations for healthy child development are weakened. Parents can also face significant structural barriers to increasing their income through work, such as transport and affordable childcare.
Growing up in poverty can have lifelong consequences. Over the course of people’s lives, they can attain poorer educational outcomes, lower incomes, and worse physical and mental health. We also recognise links between poverty and children and young people’s involvement in crime and violence. At NCB we are currently working to develop this evidence base.
With partners, NCB has recently been contributing to a major project exploring the link between financial precarity and involvement with child welfare services for families receiving household benefits. We are looking forward to sharing these findings soon.
Poverty is an intersectional issue in both its causes and consequences. It is important to consider the cycles of poverty, including various social and financial difficulties that can make it challenging to break hardship. Our Equity: Change Project resources by Research in Practice show how using the lens of intersectionality can increase equitable experiences and outcomes.
Working across the life course: Supporting children, adults and whole families
Where children are affected by poverty, their families are too. Poverty has been described as the ‘wallpaper of practice – too big to tackle and too familiar to notice’ – ever‑present, yet overlooked because of its scale and familiarity. As an organisation working across childhood, adolescence and adulthood, we recognise that poverty is the root cause of many symptoms we and other organisations are working to mitigate.
The government has launched the Timms Review with the aim of making sure PIP effectively captures the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world. The evidence above shows that if this review recommends any reduction in support for working age adults with disability, there will inevitably be a knock-on impact on children. If disabled parents get less support, their children are more likely to end up living in poverty, or in deeper poverty than before. We urge the Government to publish a fully impact assessment of its proposals following the review, including capturing how it will impact on the stated ambitions of the Child Poverty Strategy.
The government has stated that reducing child poverty is central to its Opportunity Mission, aiming to break the link between children’s backgrounds and their future success. The child poverty strategy and, particularly, scrapping the two-child limit are a good start in this regard, but it still leaves us very far from this vision.
The government must continue to build a cross-society movement for change as it moves to the implementation phase for the strategy, in particular working more closely with local authorities and with business. There are also very helpful additional policy changes that would maximise the benefit of the change on the two-child limit, such as ending the ‘five-week wait’ in Universal Credit. See our response to a recent Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into the strategy.
Supporting children and young people means understanding and supporting the adults around them – parents, carers, wider families and professionals. When we work with adults and families, we gain a richer picture of how to help children thrive. Across the NCB family we reflect this holistic approach with dedicated work on working with parents with learning disabilities, Transitional Safeguarding, kinship carers, families experiencing recurrent care proceedings, pre‑birth support, those affected by parental bereavement and more.
We hope the government will take the same life-course view in its own thinking – there is a real risk that initiatives such as the Timms Review will see reduced support for disabled adults. This would be a huge problem for the adults themselves, but looking at the evidence, it would also cut across the government’s opportunity agenda by driving children into poverty.
We want to ensure that the voices of people with lived experience – children, young people, adults and families – shape the national conversation. Their insights are essential to building a more connected and united vision of social care.
We look forward to continuing our work to support and protect people of all ages, strengthening services across the life course.
Cabinet Office. (2026). Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty. Cabinet Office.
Council for Disabled Children. (2024). Disabled children at the table. Council for Disable Children.
Extra Costs Commission. (2015). Driving down the extra costs disabled people face. Scope.
Francis-Devine, B. (2025). Poverty in the UK: Statistics. House of Commons Library.
Research in Practice. (2024). Equity: Change Project. Research in Practice.
Making the links: Poverty, austerity and children’s social care
Sophie Howes from the Child Poverty Action Group offers an analysis of the policy context surrounding child poverty and its impact on children. She reflects on research on the impact of child poverty on children and shares policy recommendations for a potential way forward.
The impact of poverty on safeguarding adults
Poverty has been described as the ‘wallpaper of practice – too big to tackle and too familiar to notice’. Rosie Buckland explores the intersecting factors between poverty and adult safeguarding, highlighting key messages from recent Research in Practice knowledge exchange sessions.
Increasing equity in social care
What practices, attitudes and actions are needed to overcome barriers, challenge oppression and increase equity? New open access learning resources support systems change by exploring intersectionality, equity, allyship and justice in adult social care.