1. Poverty, ethnicity and social networks - how are they related? Dharmi Kapadia, Nissa Finney & Simon Peters The University of Manchester The State of Social Capital in Britain 11 th November 2015, Society Building, London

2. Report published March 2015 http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/poverty-and-ethnicity

3. Blog published August 2015 http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2015/08/its- school-not-social-networks-that-will-get-the-poor-out-of- poverty/ http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2015/08/its- school-not-social-networks-that-will-get-the-poor-out-of- poverty/

4. Social networks as beneficial Increased interest in social networks/ social capital/ social relationships from policy perspective  potential beneficial effects E.g. increased social support/ social participation increase good health and well-being (Ferragina et al., 2013; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Smith & Layton, 2010). Can social networks be thought of in a similar way in relation to poverty? Maybe… Close ties can be a source of material support, informal loans, informal labour market access (Curley, 2008; McCabe et al., 2013) BUT potential negativity too – practice of job-seeking through informal networks might serve to keep people in poverty (DiMaggio & Garip, 2012; Hudson et al., 2013)

5. What about ‘mixed’ networks? Potential benefit of mixed networks – provide links to people in higher socioeconomic positions  improve access to knowledge about jobs, local services, resources and life chances (Blokland, 2008; Granovetter, 1973; McCabe et al., 2013) Composition of network can itself be influenced by ethnic group, socio-economic position & geographical location (Cattell, 2001; Fischer, 1982; Ryan, 2011; Vervoort, 2012). But how might these economic benefits (or disadvantages) of social networks vary for ethnic groups in the UK? Compared with majority White British, many ethnic minority groups in the UK have lower household incomes, live in more deprived neighbourhoods, have lower rates of participation in labour market, and poorer health (Clark & Drinkwater; Jivraj & Khan, 2015; Kapadia et al., 2015; Platt; 2007, 2011; Salway et al., 2007)

6. Research questions Do ethnic and income groups have different types of social networks? Are some ethnic groups and income groups more likely to have mixed social networks and larger social networks? Do mixed social networks reduce the risk of being poor? Are individuals with mixed social networks less likely than others to be living in poverty; and is this particularly the case for some ethnic groups? Does where you live affect your social networks? Does the relationship between social networks and poverty, for ethnic groups, vary across neighbourhoods in England and Wales? Are mixed social networks more beneficial for reducing the risk of being poor for individuals living in deprived neighbourhoods?

7. Data & methods

8. Data Understanding Society (UKHLS), wave 3 – social networks module UK survey of 35,000 households, including an ethnic minority boost sample (6,000)  Only national dataset allowing analysis of social networks, poverty, ethnicity and neighbourhood Cross sectional analysis (one point in time) Special User Licence for MSOA (Middle Super Output Area) linked data at household level, then individual level Clustering at household level not considered for this analysis

9. Defining ethnic group Including Gypsy/Irish Traveller 4 Mixed groups combined Chinese, Other Asian, Other Black, Arab, Other

10. Defining social networks What proportion of your friends are of the same ethnic group as you? What proportion of your friends live in your local area? What proportion of friends are employed? All the same More than half About half Less than half How many close friends do you have? [0-100]

11. Defining mixed networks Non homogenous = mixed 1.All the same 2.More than half 3.About half 4.Less than half NOT MIXED MIXED Ethnic-mix: some friends from a different ethnic group Area-mix: some friends from a different neighbourhood Employment-mix: some friends unemployed

12. Defining poverty Percentage below the poverty line Poverty line is 60% of median gross household income: £989 per month. Income obtained from gross household income, equivalised (using OECD weights) to account for household composition, then allocated to all individuals in the household.

13. Poverty and ethnicity (in Understanding Society W3) Percent in each ethnic group in a household with gross income below the poverty line (less than £989 per month). Note: unweighted. % Poor Pakistani40.0 Bangladeshi32.7 Black African27.6 Black Caribbean22.9 White Irish22.3 Other21.5 Mixed21.2 Indian21.0 White British15.6 Other White14.1

14. Results

15. 1. Ethnic and income groups have different types of social networks. Some ethnic minority groups and those in poverty are less likely to have mixed social networks. Percent with ethnic-mix friendship network

16. 10% 11% 12% 14% 15% 16% 17% 19% 22% 020406080100 % Mixed White British Other White White Irish Other Indian Black Caribbean Bangladeshi Pakistani Black African 0 or 1 friend 2 friends 3 or 4 friends 5 to 7 friends 8 or more Ethnic minority groups are more likely to have few close friends. Percent with 0-1, 2, 3-4, 5-7, 8+ close friends % WITH 0-1 CLOSE FRIENDS

17. 2. Mixed social networks reduce the risk of being in poverty…. Employment-mix: some friends unemployed Ethnic-mix: some friends from a different ethnic group Area-mix: some friends from a different neighbourhood Decreased chance of poverty

18. …but not as much as other factors Decreased chance of poverty

19. … and limited evidence of difference by ethnic group Interaction of ethnic group with: Mixed-ethnic group friendship: Added effect of network for White British  lower odds of being poor Mixed-area friendship: Added effect of network for White  lower odds of being poor Reduced effect of network for Pakistani & Bangladeshi  higher odds of being poor (this disappeared when neighbourhood deprivation was taken into account in multi- level models)

20. 3. Having 2 or more close friends reduces the likelihood of being in poverty Decreased chance of poverty More close friends

21. 4. The effects of having mixed friendship networks vary depending on neighbourhood deprivation. Decreased chance of poverty More area deprivation

22. Discussion & Conclusions

23. Discussion Mixed social networks (ethnic-mix, area-mix, employment-mix) associated with lower odds of poverty BUT not as much as other factors (e.g. education) And reduction felt most by those less likely to be in poverty (White British) People living in least deprived neighbourhoods most likely to feel benefits of ethnic-mix and area-mix networks Those in poverty gain much less from mixed social networks

24. Policy implications So, where should policy be focussed? Maybe some benefit in trying to develop people’s social networks so they can be used as a resource  especially for those more likely to be in poverty BUT… focusing efforts on improving social networks is not the answer to reducing poverty Wider structural problems of inequality in education, racism and discrimination in job market need to be tackled at a national level