Poverty, parental work intensity and child emotional and conduct problems.

Poverty is known to be associated with poorer child mental wellbeing. Relatedly, the security and quality of employment are reported to affect adult wellbeing. Less is known about how both poverty and parental employment affect children's mental wellbeing. This paper uses nine waves (2005/06-2017/18) of the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study to examine how the longitudinal trajectories of poverty and work intensity are associated with the longitudinal trajectories of mental wellbeing in a nationally representative sample of 3994 children (ages 0 to 12). This analysis was conducted via a bivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model for the widely used Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) subscales of conduct problems and emotional symptoms. Results show that unstable work intensity and poverty trajectories arising from the 2008 financial crisis are associated with substantial changes in the trajectories of conduct and emotional problems, but with key differences between the individual outcomes: increasing work intensity is associated with around a fifth of a standard deviation increase in conduct problems; decreasing work intensity over time is associated with around a fifth of a standard deviation increase in emotional problems; material deprivation is associated with an increase in both conduct and emotional problems, at around a tenth of a standard deviation; and longitudinal income poverty trajectories are associated with up to around a fifth of a standard deviation increase in conduct problems, but not emotional symptoms. These findings are discussed with the purpose of informing policies to tackle the effects of unstable and/or changing socioeconomic circumstances on children's mental health wellbeing in the context of an economic crisis, as well as its implications for the contemporary socioeconomic landscape and the devastating effects expected of the COVID-19 crisis.

How COVID-19 crisis measures reveal the conflation between poverty and adversity

The application of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in public policy and practice ignore the structural circumstances in which children and their families live;the majority of studies on ACEs do not take socioeconomic position into account. Poverty and ACEs are often conflated, which can lead to unintended consequences for children and families and for the implementation of policy and practice. Using some of the COVID-19 crisis response measures in Scotland, in particular the example of the hubs for ‘vulnerable’ children and receipt of free school meals (FSMs), this paper explores how poverty and adversity become conflated and how this can impede children's access to support and even to their legal entitlements. The sole criterion for eligibility to FSMs, outwith the universal entitlement for P1-P3s, is low income and the dignified response to an eligibility based exclusively on low income is to provide cash. Yet, many local authorities have imposed a nonmonetary approach to FSM eligibility, even when this has proved difficult, e.g. in sourcing food. By assuming that parents living in poverty will misspend monies meant for children they conflate poverty with adversity. The policy focus in Scotland should prioritise poverty, using a cash-first approach, and trust the majority of parents to prioritise their children. This would also free up resources to provide dedicated services to children who do in fact experience high levels of adversity.