SILC Module on Child Deprivation 2021

Child deprivation rates by household tenure status

One in five (20.1%) rented households with children experienced two or more deprivation items. The comparable rate for owner-occupied households was one in forty (2.5%).

Nine in ten (90.1%) owner-occupied households with children experienced no deprivation item, compared with 55.9% of rented household. See Figure 4.1 and view Table SILCCD15 in PxStat.

One in ten rented households cannot afford new clothes for their children

Analysis of individual deprivation items by tenure status shows that one in ten (9.6%) rented households with children could not afford some new (not second-hand) clothes for their children under 16, this compares with 1.1% of owner-occupied households.

Four in ten rented (39.2%) households could not afford a one-week holiday away from home for children under 16. This rate is five times higher than the rate for owner-occupied households (7.9%).

Just over 10% (10.4%) of rented households could not afford leisure activities (e.g. swimming, playing an instrument, youth organisations, etc.) for children under 16, compared with 1.2% of owner-occupied households. See Figure 4.2 and view Table SILCCD16 in PxStat.

Child deprivation rates by highest level of education of parent

In single-parent households the highest level of education achieved by the single-parent was assigned to the household. In two-parent households, the education level of the parent with the highest level of education was assigned to the household. Analysis by highest level of education of parent shows that deprivation rates decrease as the highest level of education increases. For example, of households where the highest level of the parent’s education was upper secondary (leaving certificate or equivalent) or lower, 16.0% experienced two or more deprivation items. This compares with 5.0% of households where the highest level of education was third level degree or higher. See Figure 4.3 and view Table SILCCD05 in PxStat.

One in three households where the highest level of parent education was secondary level or lower were unable to afford a holiday for their children

Analysis of child-specific deprivation items shows that more than one in three (35.4%) households where the highest level of education of the parent was upper secondary or lower were unable to afford a one-week holiday away from home for children under 16. This rate dropped to one in ten (10.7%) households where the highest level of education was third level degree or above.

The rate for households unable to afford school trips and school events (that cost money) for children under 16 was four times higher for households where the highest level of education of the parent was upper secondary or lower, when compared with households where the highest education level was third level degree or above (8.0% compared with 1.9%). See Figure 4.4 and view Table SILCCD06 in PxStat.

Child deprivation rates by household net income quintile

To analyse the impact of household income on child deprivation, SILC households ¹ were split into five groups (quintiles) based upon their disposable income, with the 20% of households with the lowest income in the first quintile and the 20% of households with the highest income in the fifth quintile.  

Child deprivation rates decrease as household income increase. Nine in ten (92.9%) households in the fifth disposable income quintile were not deprived of any of the child-specific deprivation items. This compares with four in ten (43.8%) households in the first quintile.

One in three households in the first quintile (35.0%) experienced two or more deprivation items compared with 1.6% of households in the fifth quintile. See Figure 4.5 and view Table SILCCD07 in PxStat.

¹All SILC households i.e. households with and without children

One in five households in quintile one were unable to afford school trips for their children

The percentage of households in quintile one that experienced child-specific deprivation is much higher when compared with households in quintile five (as shown in Table 4.1). For example, almost one in five (18.0%) households in quintile one were unable to afford school trips and school events (that cost money) for children under 16. This rate is 10 times higher than the rate for households in the fifth disposable income quintile (1.7%). See Table 4.1 and view Table SILCCD08 in PxStat for item deprivation rates for the five income quintiles.

Child deprivation rates by country of birth of parent(s)

Households with no parent born in Ireland had higher child deprivation rates with 17.5% of these households experiencing two or more deprivation items compared with 7.0% of households with at least one parent born in Ireland. See Figure 4.6 and view Table SILCCD13 in PxStat.

One in ten households without an Irish-born parent could not afford to buy new clothes for their children

One in ten (10.3%) households without an Irish-born parent could not afford some new (not second-hand) clothes for their children under 16. A similar percentage (8.9%) of these households were unable to afford two pairs of properly fitting shoes for their children. The comparable deprivation rates for households with a parent born in Ireland were 2.8% for clothes and 2.2% for shoes. The percentage of households unable to afford to pay for school trips or school events (that cost money) for their children in households with no Irish-born parent was double the rate for households with an Irish-born parent (6.3% compared with 3.1%). See Figure 4.7 and view Table SILCCD14 in PxStat.

Mental health of younger persons more negatively impacted by COVID-19

As already referenced in Chapters 2 and 3 of this publication, the CSO conducted a series of surveys throughout 2020 and 2021 on the social impact of COVID-19. In all rounds of the Social Impact of COVID-19 survey where well-being statistics were collected, younger adults were more likely to report lower well-being scores. The Social Impact of COVID-19 surveys also collected information on respondents’ compliance levels with government advice and guidelines regarding COVID-19. Results from these surveys showed that high compliance rates tended to increase with age. In February 2021, just over two in three (67.3%) respondents aged 18-34 rated their compliance as high compared with 84.7% of those aged 70 years and over. See Social Impact of COVID-19 Survey February 21-Well-being.

In March 2020, the Department of Health issued guidance on cocooning to protect people over 70 years and those extremely medically vulnerable from COVID-19.

In 2021, despite the potential negative impact of cocooning and social isolation on mental health, a lower percentage of people aged 65 and older said that their mental health had been negatively affected by COVID-19 in the 12-month period prior to interview. Four in ten (39.3%) of this age group reported a negative effect compared with six in ten (60.0%) respondents aged 16-24. The percentage of respondents in the 2023 survey that reported a COVID-19 related negative impact on mental health had fallen for all age groups. The biggest drop was seen for people aged 25-49, with 26.7% of this age group reporting that their mental health had been negatively affected by COVID-19 in the 12-month period prior to date of interview, down from 59.1% in 2021.

Results from the 2022 Census of Population show that out 644,771 people aged 15-24, just under two in three (63.9%) of this age group described their PES as student or pupil.

Secondary schools were closed in January and February 2021 and a phased return of pupils to secondary schools began on 01 March 2021, when leaving certificate students returned. First year and Transition year students returned on 12 April after the Easter holidays. Most third level courses moved to online course delivery for the 2020/2021 academic year. School and college closures during this period were likely to have impacted negatively on the mental health of students and may explain the high rate for the negative COVID-19 related mental health effect for this age group in 2021. In the Social Impact of COVID-19 Survey August 2020, more than one in two (53.3%) adults with children in senior cycle secondary school reported that school closures had either a moderate or major negative impact on their child’s social development.

In 2023 the percentage reporting that COVID-19 had a negative effect on their mental health was similar for all age groups, ranging from 24.1% for people aged 65 years and older to 28.7% for people aged 16-24. See figure 4.6 and WBB52.