Context

Previous research has shown that financial wellbeing is lower among people with a disability or long-term health condition compared with people who do not have disabilities or long-term health conditions. This study examined variations among people with different types of disabilities and conditions. Someone was considered to be ‘disabled’ if they say that:

• they have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more
• any or all of their condition(s) or illness(es) reduce their ability to carry-out day-to-day activities.

The analysis was commissioned by the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) to support its wider work to understand how financial wellbeing varies between people with different characteristics.

The study

The study involved the analysis of data from MaPS’s Financial Wellbeing Survey 2021, a nationally representative online and postal survey of 10,306 adults aged 18 and over living in the UK carried out between July to September 2021. The survey included 2,694 people with a disability.

The analysis was undertaken by The Open University and Nottingham University to try to understand:

• the extent of variations in financial wellbeing of people with different disabilities or conditions
• how restrictions imposed by disabilities interact with financial wellbeing
• which other personal characteristics, including where people live, affect the variations in financial wellbeing of people with disabilities (‘intersectionality’)
• the extent of the ‘financial wellbeing gap’ between people with and without disabilities.

Financial wellbeing was analysed using the Money and Pensions Service’s summary measure of financial wellbeing, derived from nine questions covering day-to-day money management, financial confidence and satisfaction, and longer-term financial planning, and scored out of 100. The report describes the results of bivariate and multivariate analyses including multiple and logit regression analysis.

Key findings

All figures given here are rounded to the level given in the report. Standard error (se) is given where reported. Statistical significance is given where reported.

Disabilities and restrictions

• People with disabilities had an average financial wellbeing score of 49.7 compared with 57.7 for people without disabilities, both within the ‘medium’ range of 45-65.
• People with physical disabilities had an average score of about 55.
• Those with cognitive disabilities had a score of 42 if they also had a physical impairment and 40 if they did not.
• People who said that their disabilities/illnesses affected them ‘a lot’ had a score of 46.5 and those who said ‘a little’ had a score of 49.3.

Intersections with other characteristics

• Financial wellbeing scores varied based on the characteristics of people with disabilities. They were particularly low for:
  • women (47.1, compared with 52.7 for men)
  • single parents of dependent children (44.05, se 0.92)
  • unemployed people (figures not given)
  • those living in the fifth most deprived areas (43.66. se 0.89).
• These are some of the same groups that have lower financial wellbeing among people without disabilities, suggesting intersectionality (i.e. these characteristics compound the impact of disability on financial wellbeing).
• There were also some intersections between these other characteristics.
• A score of 27.7 for a single mother with a cognitive impairment not in employment and living in a deprived area was 27.7 (compared with 35.6 for her non-disabled counterpart).

The financial wellbeing gap

• A “financial wellbeing gap” was evidenced between people with and without disabilities across demographic and socio-economic groups.
  • It was significantly higher for people with cognitive impairments (figures not given).
  • It was also present for people with disabled partners/spouses (-3.06, se 1.02, highly significant p<0.01).

Points to consider

Methodological strengths or limitations

• The authors note the limitations of the survey data to generalise to the general population, given that quota sampling methods were used.
• Noting of the statistical significance of differences and variations is not given consistently in the report, and should only be interpreted as being statistically significant where explicitly reported as such.
• The use of multivariate analysis strengthens the reliability of the results.
• The technical report from the survey noted that non-internet users were under-sampled in the data and that people completing paper-based surveys may have had a different survey experience.

Applicability

• The study should be of interest to financial services providers, government and regulators who provide the frameworks through which people live their financial lives.
• The study should also be of interest to charities and other stakeholders who offer direct support to people with low financial wellbeing, and those who serve or support people with disabilities.

Relevance

• The findings are highly relevant given the role of the Equality Act 2010 within the UK context, MaPS’s commitment to its published Equality Objectives and MaPS’s commitment to the goals set out in its 2020-2030 UK Strategy for Financial Wellbeing.

Generalisability/transferability

• The findings relate specifically to UK data. There is likely to be some learning which transfers to similar markets outside of the UK. However, the different policies and socio-historical contexts which affect people with disabilities in different countries suggests that the findings should be generalised with caution.