Family Resources Survey: financial year 2021 to 2022

Question 1

1.  Main stories

Accepted Answer

This report summarises the key findings from the Family Resources Survey for the financial year 2021 to 2022. The data in this report are from interviews conducted between April 2021 and March 2022.

This publication is the second survey year where coronavirus (COVID-19) has impacted data collection. It presents several insights into UK household incomes as the nation continued to adjust to the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

There continued to be several ways in which the effects of the pandemic might have affected the survey results in 2021 to 2022. Most of these stemmed from the data collection method and the distribution of characteristics among respondents. Government restrictions introduced in response to the pandemic were significantly eased over the course of the survey year, however the survey mode continued to be telephone-led in the vast majority of cases, as opposed to the established face-to-face mode of interviews used in years prior to 2020 to 2021.

All of these represent ways in which the 2021 to 2022 survey is different to other survey years, both prior to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and compared to the first year of the pandemic in 2020 to 2021.

The FRS achieved sample this year was over 16,000 households. This is a return towards the number expected in a normal survey year (around 20,000 households), and an increase from the achieved sample of 10,000 households in 2020 to 2021.

There remain areas where users are advised to exercise caution when making comparisons using the data from current and 2020 to 2021 survey year to other survey years. More details on how the results for the previous, 2020 to 2021 survey year were affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, can be found in the FRS 2020 to 2021 Background Information and Methodology document.

See the FRS 2021 to 2022 Background Information and Methodology document available alongside this publication for more on the issues affecting this release of the FRS.

We are seeking user feedback on this report, in terms of: the impact that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had upon FRS data collection and findings; on the presentation of the statistics; the handling of the uncertainty with these statistics; and the guidance we have provided on interpretation. Please send comments to our team email.

Income and state support

Income from employment and self employment made up 74p of every £1 of household income.

Tenure

The percentage of households in the rented sector remained broadly the same over the last five years and is now 36%.

Disability

In 2021 to 2022, 24% of people were disabled. A higher proportion of females than males were disabled, 13 in every 50 females compared with 11 in every 50 males.

Care

Seven in every 100 people are providing informal care to someone else, with nine per cent of these caring for more than one person. Five in every 100 people are in receipt of care every week, with 43% of these receiving care continuously.

Pension participation

The percentage of employees participating in a pension scheme has stabilised this year, having beforehand increased in every year since the introduction of automatic enrolment.

Savings and investment

The proportion of families with no savings was 18%. A further 29% of families had less than £1,500 in savings.

Self employment

The median net earnings for self-employed people working full time were 28% lower than earnings for full time employees. The gap between median net earnings of part-time self-employed workers and employees was smaller at 13%.

Household food security

In 2021 to 2022, most people lived in households with high or marginal household food security. A minority of households were food insecure, with either low (3%) or very low household food security (3%).

Of all UK households, three per cent had used a food bank in the last 12 months, and one per cent of all households used a food bank in the last 30 days.

Question 2

2.  What you need to know

Accepted Answer

The primary purpose of the FRS is to provide the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) with data to inform the development, monitoring and evaluation of social welfare policy.

The survey is used by many other government departments and is used for tax and benefit policy modelling by HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs. The FRS is also used extensively by academics and research institutes for social and economic research.

For further contextual information on the statistics presented, as well as detailed information about FRS methodology, see the Background Information and Methodology available alongside this publication.

Other FRS-based publications

The FRS provides the underlying data for four other DWP National and Official Statistics reports:

Additional tables and data

A comprehensive set of detailed tables complementing the results presented are available alongside this publication.

These tables are referenced throughout this report.

An anonymised version of the FRS dataset is available to download via the UK Data Archive.

Households, benefit units and individuals

Results in this report, depending on the context, are presented at

household level
family or benefit unit level
individual level

Household level definition

One person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address, who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household will consist of one or more families and benefit units.

Family or benefit unit level definition

A single adult, or a couple living as married, and any dependent children.

Question 3

3.  Income and state support

Accepted Answer

Families (benefit units) by income received from state support, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

The percentage of families receiving state support remained at 53%.

State support refers to state benefits (such as the State Pension, Universal Credit or Child Benefit) or tax credits.

The proportion of UK families receiving state support has not changed since the previous year. This year, it is estimated at 53%, with estimates for the previous two years being 53% in 2020 to 2021 and 51% in 2019 to 2020.

Twenty-six per cent of UK families received state support of less than £10,000 per year, which is equivalent to 9.3 million families. Twenty-one per cent of families received between £10,000 and less than £20,000 annually from state support, which equates to 7.4 million families. Six per cent of families received £20,000 or more per year from state support, which is equivalent to 2.1 million families.

See tables 2.14a and 2.14b for full data.

Receipt of state support by age of head of family, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

The percentage of families receiving state support varied by age of family head and type of benefit.

For working-age families, where the head was below 65, the highest percentage of state support receipt was 56% (where the head of the family was aged 35 to 44 years). This is likely to be associated with the high proportion of such households (47%) who received Child Benefit.

See table 2.11 for full data.

Nearly every family where the head was aged 65 and over received some form of state support; almost all of this group were receiving State Pension (as the qualifying age for this is 66).

Across all families, 20% received income-related benefits. For working-age families where the head of the family was aged 35 to 44 years the percentage receiving income-related benefits was 22%, the highest of all working-age groups. When the head of the family was in age groups 75 to 84, or 85 and over, 23% received income-related benefits.

See table 2.11 for full data.

Sources of total gross household income, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

The proportion of income from each different source has been broadly stable over the past decade.

Income from employment was 74% in 2021 to 2022. This is the highest proportion in the past ten years, rising from 71%, which was the lowest proportion (reported in 2015 to 2016). From 2021 to 2022, director’s dividend income has been included in the income from employment category.

The proportion of income from state support (benefits, including the State Pension and tax credits) remained at 15% in 2021 to 2022. From 2011 to 2012, to 2021 to 2022, the proportion of income from state support has been fairly stable.

The proportion of income from non-state pensions was eight per cent in 2021 to 2022. This was the same proportion as from 2011 to 2012, apart from in 2020 to 2021 when it was nine per cent.

After remaining at five per cent from 2014 to 2015 to 2019 to 2020, the proportion of income from other sources (including investments, rents received, grants and allowances) fell by one percentage point in each of the past two years, to three per cent in the most recent survey year.

Employment incomes, and within them self-employed incomes include only earnings from work and business, and do not include any reported grants received as part of the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS). Also, and for employees, all wages are treated as income from employment rather than state support, irrespective of any payments from the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) that the respondent’s employer was receiving on their behalf.

For 2021 to 2022, income from employment includes director’s income from dividends for the first time. Before this survey year the FRS did not collect data about director’s dividend incomes. Universal Credit has been included in the denominator of total household income for the first time this year. For both these reasons, percentages of income from some sources may not compare to data published in previous years.

See table 2.1 for full data and 2.1x, 2.1y and 2.1z for versions with and without the Universal Credit adjustment and with and without director’s dividend income.

Percentage of total gross household income from earnings by region, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

London had a higher proportion of income from employment than other regions.

Across the UK as a whole, income from employment accounted for 74% of gross household income. There were substantial regional variations: London had the highest proportion of income from employment at 84% and the North East had the lowest proportion at 65%.

Conversely, the North East had the highest proportion of income from state support at 23% while London had the lowest proportion at nine per cent.

The highest proportion of income from non-state pensions was 11% for the South West while the lowest proportion was for London at four per cent.

A minority of income came from other sources. The highest proportion was four per cent for each of London, the South East and the South West. The lowest proportion was two per cent for each of Northern Ireland, the North East and the North West.

These regional differences are likely to be associated with the demographic and economic variations between regions. Differences may also be partly due to the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

See tables 2.2a and 2.2b for full data.

Question 4

4.  Tenure

Accepted Answer

In 2020 to 2021, the achieved sample for Great Britain had a higher proportion of households in the Council Tax bands C and above, than was typical for survey years prior to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (5 percentage points higher than in 2019 to 2020).

This change in the accommodation mix of the achieved sample was reflected in survey year 2020 to 2021, by a higher proportion of owner-occupier properties (rather than rented); that in the 2021 to 2022 sample saw a return towards the pre-pandemic mix, with only a three-percentage point gap compared to 2019 to 2020.

Likewise, the increase in the proportion of detached houses that was observed between the survey year 2020 to 2021 (an increase from 26% to 32%) has been modified in the survey year 2021 to 2022 to 30%, with the reduction in terraced houses seen in 2021 (18%, down from 27%) has shifted up to 22% for the financial year ending 2022.

Households by tenure, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

The division of households by their tenure has remained broadly the same in the past 3 years.

In 2021 to 2022, the percentage of households which are owned outright (35%) has remained higher than the percentage of households buying with a mortgage (29%). The percentage of households in the private renting sector (19%) remains higher than that of households in the social renting sector (17%).

Over the past ten years:

the percentage of households which are renting privately has increased to 19%
the percentage of households which are buying with a mortgage has decreased to 29%
the percentage of households in the social renting sector has remained broadly the same

See table 3.6 for full data.

Median household weekly mortgage payment by region, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Repayment mortgage instalments varied greatly by region.

Sizeable regional variations remain this survey year.

The region with the highest median payment on repayment mortgages was London, which at £239 per week was £89 above the median for the United Kingdom.

In contrast, the North East had the lowest median repayment at £104 per week which was £46 below the median for the UK. The difference in median repayment between London and the North East was £135 per week.

Social sector rents for all regions, except London and the South East, were within £13 per week of the UK median social sector rent.

The median social sector rent was highest in London, at £127 per week, which was £34 greater than the median rent for the UK. The lowest median social sector rent was seen in the North East at £80 per week, which was £13 lower than the median rent for the UK.

Median household weekly private rent payment by region, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Private sector rents were higher in London compared to all other regions.

The median private sector rent for London was almost three times the equivalent figure for the North East; in London it was £295 per week which was £145 above the UK median. In the North East, the median private sector rent was £104 per week which was £46 below the UK median.

Median private sector rents were greater than median social sector rents for all regions. These differences may be partly due to social sector rents being controlled by government-set formulae. Differences may also be associated with the private rented sector having a more varied range of housing stock in comparison with the social rented sector.

See table 3.8 for full data.

Tenure type by age of head of household, FYE 2012 and FYE 2022, United Kingdom

In the past ten years, households with a head aged over 35 have seen a shift towards private sector renting.

For every age category, the proportion of private sector renting in 2021 to 2022 was greater than or equal to the proportion in 2011 to 2012. The largest increase was seven percentage points for households where the head was aged 35 to 44 years, increasing from 19% to 26% between 2011 to 2012 and 2021 to 2022.

The percentage of households that owned outright has been stable for most age groups over the past decade. The largest changes were where the head of the household was aged 55 to 64 years (falling by three percentage points) and 65 years or more (increasing by four percentage points).

The decade between 2011 to 2012 and 2021 to 2022 has seen a decrease in the proportion of households buying with a mortgage for all groups with a head of household aged over 35 years. The largest decline was seven percentage points where the head of the household was aged 45 to 54 years, to 45% in 2021 to 2022. Where the head of the household was aged 25 to 34 years there has been a one percentage point increase.

For younger working-age households, there has been a decrease in social renting over the past decade. For older working-age households, there has been an increase in social renting over the same period.

See table 3.7 for full data.

Social sector renters were more likely to receive income-related benefits than other tenure types.

Twenty-two per cent of all households in the UK receive some form of income-related benefit. For social sector renters, 67% received one or more income-related benefits. This is over three times higher than for all households.

Of all households in the social renting sector, 36% received Housing Benefit and 51% received Council Tax Reduction. This will have contributed to the larger proportion of households in the social renting sector who received income-related benefits.

See table 3.5 for full data.

Question 5

5.  Disability

Accepted Answer

Note that none of the FRS disability estimates are age-standardised (in contrast to some other sources, and the Census release).

There were again changes in the types of disability reported in the 2021 to 2022 FRS, when compared with FRS years before the COVID-19 pandemic. They may be a consequence of the continuation of telephone interviewing, as fewer participants reported impairments in hearing, memory or vision. However, we are reassured that growth in other impairment types largely corroborates external evidence on changes in the composition of the disabled population since the pandemic.

Disability prevalence by age group, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

Almost one in four people said they were disabled.

The number of disabled people rose from 12.1 million (19%) in 2011 to 2012 to 16.0 million (24%) in the most recent survey year, an increase of 3.9 million people.

There was an increase of five percentage points in the percentage of disabled children, from six per cent in 2011 to 2012 to 11% in the most recent survey year. For working-age adults, the proportion of disabled people rose from 16% in 2011 to 2012 to 23% in the most recent survey year, an increase of seven percentage points.

The proportion of disabled State Pension age adults has been between 42% and 46% in every year of the past decade.

The term “disability” follows the core definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 which states that a person is considered to have a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment that has ‘substantial’ and ‘long term’ negative effects on their ability to do normal daily activities. See the Background Information and Methodology section for more details.

See tables 4.1, 4.2a and 4.2b for full data.

Disability prevalence by gender, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

The proportion of both males and females with a disability has increased.

The percentage of females who were disabled increased from 21% (6.5 million) in 2011 to 2012 to 26% (8.7 million) in 2021 to 2022. Over the same period, the percentage of males who were disabled rose from 18% (5.6 million) to 22% (7.3 million).

For those aged 14 years and younger, there was a higher proportion of disabled males than disabled females in 2021 to 2022. More generally, there was a higher proportion of disabled females than disabled males for those in all other age groups.

See tables 4.2a, 4.2b and 4.3b for full data.

Disability prevalence by region and country, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

The proportion of people with a disability varied by region and country.

The North East had the highest percentage of disabled people with 29%, followed by the North West with 28%, five and four percentage points above the UK average respectively.

London had the lowest percentage of disabled people with 17%, seven percentage points below the average for the United Kingdom. London and the South East were the only regions to fall below the average for England.

The only country to fall below the UK average was Northern Ireland with the percentage of disabled people at 22%.

The varying demographics in each region and country could partly explain the differences in the prevalence of disabled people. For example, disability prevalence may correlate with the percentage of the population who are State Pension age adults in a particular region or country, noting that the prevalence of disabled people is nearly double amongst this age group in comparison to the overall population of the United Kingdom (45% compared to 24%).

See tables 4.1 and 4.4 for full data.

Impairment types reported by disabled people, by age group, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Impairment types reported by disabled people varied by age group.

For disabled children, the most common impairment type was social or behavioural impairments, with half reporting this. This was followed by a mental health impairment, at 30% then a learning impairment, at 26%.

For disabled working-age adults, 44% reported a mental health impairment, the most prevalent impairment type among this age group. This was closely followed by a mobility impairment, at 43%. The third most likely impairment type was to do with stamina, breathing or fatigue, at 34%.

The most common impairment type reported among disabled State Pension age adults was a mobility impairment, with 64% reporting this. The second most likely impairment type was a stamina, breathing or fatigue impairment and the third was a dexterity impairment, at 43% and 35% respectively.

See table 4.6 for full data.

Question 6

6.  Care

Accepted Answer

Following a review of the data tables in this chapter, figures published in Care data table 5.7b (and discussed in paragraph ‘Care recipients and sandwich carers, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom’) are calculated differently this year. This is to correct for observed inconsistencies: Breakdowns showing proportions of informal carers looking after care recipients have been revised, to show proportions on a consistent basis with the accompanying totals.

As a result of these changes, figures published in Care data tables this year are not directly comparable to those published in previous years. Direct comparisons can be made using FRS data published on Stat Xplore. Please see the Background Information and Methodology for further information.

Percentage of people providing informal care by age and gender, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Those aged 55 to 64 years are most likely to be carers.

In 2021 to 2022, seven per cent of people in the UK were informal carers, a return to the rate seen prior to 2020 to 2021. Females continue to be more likely to be informal carers with nine per cent being informal carers, compared to six per cent of males. In total, 3.0 million females and 1.9 million males were informal carers.

Females were at least as likely as males to be informal carers in several of the age groups. Across age groups, people aged between 55 and 64 were most likely to be informal carers. Sixteen per cent of people in this age group were informal carers:12% of men and 20% of women.

The FRS questionnaire asks if people are caring for others on an informal basis (that is, where caring is not a paid job; this contrasts with formal care, which comes from paid help, such as the local authority, district nursing or private domestic help). Examples of care include helping with shopping, preparing meals, and feeding, and other household tasks.

See tables 5.1a, 5.1b and 5.2 for full data.

Care recipients and sandwich carers, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Family members were the main recipients of informal care.

Of all informal carers, 51% provided care to someone living inside their household and 52% provided care to someone living outside their household.

Of all informal carers, nine per cent cared for more than one person, with three per cent caring both for somebody living inside their household and for somebody else living outside their household.

Sixteen per cent of informal carers were classified as ‘sandwich carers’. This category is new to this publication and is an independent category referring to people aged 16 to 70 who:

care for a child within their household or have a child dependent on them within their household; and
care for an adult relative

Figures showing proportions of informal carers looking after care recipients were revised. Previously, these figures did show breakdowns for carers looking after one person only; following this change figures include informal carers looking after one or more people, to be consistent with the totals.

The main recipients of informal care were parents. Of all informal carers, 34% cared for parents living outside their household and nine per cent cared for parents living inside their household. Outside the household, parents were by far the most likely type of person to be cared for.

When providing informal care to those living inside their household, carers were most likely to care for a partner (spouse, civil partner or cohabitee) or their child (son or daughter), with 20% of informal carers caring for a partner, and 19% caring for their child.

See tables 5.7a and 5.7b for full data.

Adult informal carers by employment status and gender, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Nearly half of male adult informal carers were also in full-time employment.

Of all adult informal carers, 50% were in employment with 34% working full-time. Male carers were more likely than female carers to be working full-time. The proportion of male carers that were working full-time was 45% in comparison with 26% for females. In contrast, female carers were more likely to work part-time, with 21% of women compared with 8% of men.

Of adult informal carers, 22% were retired and 27% were economically inactive. The economically inactive include those who are students, those looking after a family or home, those permanently or temporarily sick or disabled and those inactive due to other reasons. Those unemployed (that is, seeking work) formed a very small minority of all adult informal carers, at only two per cent.

See table 5.4 for full data.

Adult informal carers by gender and hours caring, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

At least half of informal carers provide care for up to 19 hours per week.

Of all adult informal carers, at least half provided care for up to 19 hours per week with 22% of adult informal carers providing care for less than 5 hours per week, and 29% providing care for between 5 and 19 hours per week. Grouped by hours caring per week, this latter group contained more adult informal carers than any other group. A large proportion of adult informal carers provided care for at least 35 or more hours of care per week, with 7% providing care for between 35 and 49 hours per week, 16% providing care for 50 or more hours per week, and 15% providing care for a varying number of hours per week but 35 at minimum.

See table 5.3 for full data.

Percentage of people receiving care at least once a week, by age and gender, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

The likelihood of receiving care varies by age and gender.

The proportion of people receiving care every week is five per cent, which is almost the same as it was in 2020 to 2021 and 2019 to 2020. The likelihood of receiving care every week increased with age from age group 25 to 34, with 28% of people aged 85 and over receiving care every week.

In all age groups from age 65 upwards, females were more likely than males to receive care every week. This is most clearly visible for age group 85 and over as 30% of women and 26% of men received care every week. In contrast, males are more likely to receive care every week than females at ages 24 and below.

See table 5.8 for full data.

Recipients of care at least once a week by frequency of care, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Forty-three per cent of those receiving care every week are receiving continuous help.

Of those receiving any form of care every week (paid or informal), 43% received continuous care. Of those remaining, it was more common to receive care daily than to receive care on another, less frequent basis.

There was a strong relationship between the frequency of care received and the age of the recipient. Of those receiving care every week, children up to the age of 15 were more likely to receive continuous care than any other age group, with 66% receiving care continuously. For all age groups between ages 16 and 44, care was received continuously for close to half of those receiving care every week.

Of all those receiving care every week, those aged between 65 and 74 were least likely to receive continuous care but most likely to receive care once or twice a day.

Note that the Family Resources Survey is designed to be representative of all private households in the United Kingdom. Therefore, FRS results only aim to describe inferences about private households, and not the entire UK population. Some individuals, such as those in care homes, are not included.

See table 5.9 for full data.

Question 7

7.  Pension participation

Accepted Answer

Pension scheme participation of working-age adults by employment status, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

Pension scheme participation increased substantially following the introduction of automatic enrolment for employees in 2012.

Of all working-age adults, 53% were participating in a pension scheme in the survey year 2021 to 2022, an increase of 19 percentage points since 2012 to 2013. Within this group, scheme participation among those who were employed has also seen growth almost every year of the past decade: from 45% in the financial year ending 2012 to 72% in the financial year ending 2022. This increase has followed the introduction of automatic enrolment. Automatic enrolment was introduced in 2012, and the full, nationwide rollout was completed in the financial year 2017 to 2018. The eligibility criteria for automatic enrolment are (in broad terms) that an employee has to be aged between 22 and State Pension age and earn over £10,000 annually. These criteria influence the observed differences in participation rates by age group:

employee pension scheme participation rates rose from 49% in 2012 to 2013 to 79% in 2021 to 2022
the self-employed are not eligible for automatic enrolment. Their participation rates have not followed the same upward trend as employees since automatic enrolment was introduced: Instead, this group’s participation rate has been relatively flat over the past decade, at between 16% and 22%.

See table 6.5 for full data.

Pension scheme participation for working-age adults by pension type and gender, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Pension participation rates were lower for women than men.

In the survey year 2021 to 2022, the overall pension scheme participation rate was slightly lower for women than men among working-age adults.

Of all working-age men, 55% were contributing to a pension, compared with 52% of working-age women.

For employer-sponsored pensions, participation rates were slightly higher for men (51%) than for women (49%) among working-age adults.

For individual pensions (personal pensions, including stakeholder pensions), participation rates were also higher for working-age men (7%) compared with working-age women (4%).

Some working-age adults participated in both types of scheme.

See table 6.1 for full data.

Pension scheme participation of adults by age and economic status, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

The percentage of adults participating in a pension scheme varied by age and economic status.

Of all adults, 28% of those aged 16 to 24 participated in a pension scheme, in contrast with 62% in both the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups.

Rates of pension scheme participation in the employee group were high amongst those aged 25 to 59 (82% to 83%), but lower for those aged 16 to 24 (50%).

Rates of pension scheme participation of self-employed adults were the highest in the 55 to 59 age group, with those aged 45 to 54 closely behind (26% and 23% respectively).

See table 6.2 for full data.

Question 8

8.  Savings and investment

Accepted Answer

Levels of savings for families in 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

In 2021 to 2022:

the proportion of families (benefit units) with no savings was 18% in 2021 to 2022
a further 29% of families had less than £1,500 in savings

The group most likely to have no savings or investments was single working-age adults. Among single working-age adults without children, 28% of males and 25% of females reported having no savings or investments. Lone parents were most likely to have less than £1,500 in savings: 52% reported this level of savings and a further 26% reported no savings.

Pensioner couples had higher levels of savings and investments than other kinds of family. Thirty-six per cent of pensioner couples had savings and investments of £30,000 or more, compared to the UK average of 16%.

See table 7.10 for full data.

Bank accounts and ISAs

Ninety-five per cent of UK households reported having a current account.

Among households, current accounts were least common in the North West and Northern Ireland, where 92% of households had a current account. The North West was also the region where households were most likely to report having no account of any type.

Most adults reported having a current account: In most age groups, between 92% and 93% of adults reported having a current account. The exceptions were the youngest and oldest age groups. For those aged 16 to 24, 85% reported having a current account and for those aged 85 and over, 88% reported having a current account.

Among families, single males without children were most likely to report having no accounts: Twelve per cent of this group reported having no accounts compared with an overall average of six per cent of UK families.

Lone parents (12%) were the least likely family type to have an Individual Savings Account (ISA). Pensioner couples were most likely to hold an ISA, with 40% doing so.

See tables 7.1, 7.5 and 7.7 for full data.

Holdings of stocks and shares, and premium bonds

A minority of adults said that they held stocks and shares (8%).

For those aged between 25 and 34, five per cent held stocks and shares and this rose to 14% for those over 85. Men were also more likely to invest in this way than women.

A minority of adults said they held Premium Bonds (12%). As with other assets, the percentage holding them increased with age, with the exception of those in the over 85 age group. For those aged 25 to 34, five per cent of adults said that they held Premium Bonds. This rose to 21% for those aged 65 to 74 and was 26% among those aged 75 to 84.

See table 7.7 for full data.

Question 9

9.  Self employment

Accepted Answer

The statistics for 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 suggest a materially lower number of self-employed people when compared to prior survey years. FRS saw an increase in the numbers of self-employed people in 2021 to 2022 whereas Labour Force Survey (LFS) saw a further reduction in the number of self-employed people when compared with 2019 to 2020 and earlier years.

The overall numbers of self-employed people reported by the two surveys are now closer than ever, with only a 0.3 million difference. The proportions by gender in 2021 to 2022 are once again consistent across the two surveys (as they were in years prior to 2020 to 2021).

For further information and comparisons to the LFS, please refer to the Background Information and Methodology document.

Details on how the FRS handles incomes from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS), and the interaction to profits reported during the period that SEISS payments were made are also included in this document.

Percentage of self-employed working full-time and part-time by gender, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Self-employed men were more likely to work full-time than self-employed women.

Of all self-employed men, more than four out of five were working full-time (81%). Self-employed women were more equally distributed between full-time and part-time work.

See table 8.1 for full data.

Self employment by age group, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

Overall, the number of self-employed people rose from 3.6 million in 2011 to 2012 to 3.9 million in 2021 to 2022. The number of working-age self-employed people increased by 0.3 million between 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022, to 3.5 million, but this is still below the numbers reported prior to 2020. Of this 0.3 million increase, 0.2 million were men and 0.1 million were women.

The number of self-employed individuals of State Pension age remained at 0.4 million which is a similar level to previous years.

See tables 8.4a and 8.4b for full data.

Median net earnings of working-age employees and the self-employed, by part-time and full-time, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

Median self-employed earnings continue to be lower than those of employees.

Median net employee earnings remain above those of self-employed individuals which is consistent with the trend of the previous decade. Median net earnings for full-time employees were £23,900 in the 2021 to 2022 financial year while for the full-time self-employed they were £17,300.

Median net earnings for the part-time self-employed were 14% below those of part-time employees, where the median annual figure was £10,900.

Median net earnings for full-time self-employed workers increased between 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022. Part-time self-employed workers’ earnings increased over the FYE 2020 to FYE 2022. The extent of the year-on-year change for both part-time and full-time self-employed should be treated with caution, owing to the effect of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the FRS, and the difficulty in capturing self-employed incomes data generally. For more on this, see the Background Information and Methodology which accompanies this publication.

See table 8.2a for full data.

Median net earnings of the self-employed, by gender and by part-time and full-time, FYE 2012 to FYE 2022, United Kingdom

Median net earnings for self-employed men have been consistently higher than those of self-employed women.

Median net earnings for self-employed men remained higher than self-employed women in 2021 to 2022; the difference between men and women working full-time is greater than that between men and women working part-time.

For men who worked full-time, median net earnings were £18,000 which is higher than the £14,200 of full-time women. For men who worked part-time, the median net earnings were £8,600 compared to £7,400 for women who worked part-time.

See table 8.5 for full data.

Question 10

10.  Household food security

Accepted Answer

Introduction

The household food security question block was added to the FRS in the 2019 to 2020 survey year. These questions measure whether households have sufficient food to facilitate an active and healthy lifestyle.

From April 2021, the FRS added further questions on food bank usage.

Food banks can be visited by those who have difficulty purchasing food to avoid hunger. A referral can be required before using a food bank. These referrals could be from Citizens Advice, a GP, housing association or social worker. Food banks can provide other support, such as financial advice or mental health support, but the FRS records “usage” as visits to a food bank for the purpose of getting emergency food supplies only. The FRS does not collect data on the number of visits that respondents make; for households that report using a food bank, the FRS records that a food bank has been used at least once, but further information on the number of visits cannot be inferred.

Questions about household food security and food bank usage are asked of the person in the household who knows the most about buying and preparing food. These survey estimates therefore relate to the household as a whole, not to individuals within the household, nor single benefit units within multi-family households.

In common with the rest of the FRS, the household food security block of questions asks about the time period immediately before the interview (30 days). For household food bank usage, questions ask about two separate time periods:

usage within the 30 days before the interview, as with household food security
usage within the 12 months before the interview

Only households that report using a food bank in the last 12 months are then asked about 30-day usage.

Caution is needed when comparing household food security status with 12-month food bank usage. The effect of household food security upon food bank usage, cannot be fully deduced because the former only asks about the household’s circumstances in the last 30 days.

There is no standard approach to either household food security or food bank usage. The questions used by the FRS are similar to those used by other public bodies in the UK, and also internationally, but there are some differences in their application via interview. Further information on the approach and alternative sources is available in the Background Information and Methodology.

These statistics should be treated with caution when interpreting them:

where a household is food insecure, information about the individual experiences of food insecurity within the household is not available. A young child’s experiences in a food insecure household may be very different from their parents’ experiences, for example
household food security statistics do not directly measure hunger. They instead explore the financial situation of households and how that affects their access to food
with both measures of household food bank usage captured in the FRS, caution should be taken when comparing with other sources, which may use different time periods

Household food security status of all households, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Most households in the UK were food secure

Most households were food secure, with high household food security (88%) or marginal household food security (6%). A minority of households were food insecure, with low household food security (3%) or very low household food security (3%).

Geographically, there were differences in the reporting of household food security. Northern Ireland was most food secure (90% high; 5% marginal), Wales and Scotland were equally least food secure at 92%, with Scotland having more households in the high food security category (87% high; 5% marginal) than Wales (85% high; 7% marginal).

Within England, the rate varied to a larger extent between regions:

households in the North East (83% high; 7% marginal) were the least likely to be food secure
households in Outer London (90% high; 6% marginal) were the most likely to be food secure

See table 9.1 for more data.

Household food bank usage, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

3% of households used a food bank within the last 12 months.

Of all UK households, three per cent used a food bank in the last 12 months, and one per cent of all households in the last 30 days.

Geographically, there were small differences in the likelihood of household food bank usage. Households in Scotland were most likely to have used a food bank overall (2% within last 30 days; 4% within last 12 months), in contrast to Northern Ireland (1% within last 30 days; 2% within last 12 months). Usage in England and Wales was the same for both measures (1% within last 30 days; 3% within last 12 months).

Within England, rates in northern regions were higher than southern regions:

households in Outer London were the least likely to have used a food bank (negligible proportion within last 30 days; 1% within last 12 months)
households in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber were equally the most likely to have used a food bank (1% within last 30 days; 4% within last 12 months)

There were also differences in household food bank usage between areas with different Rural Urban Classifications (note that different countries have different classifications):

in England and Wales, households in Urban areas were most likely to have used a food bank (1% within last 30 days; 3% within last 12 months) compared to Towns and Fringes, or Villages, or Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings
in Scotland, households in a Small Town were most likely to have used a food bank (2% within last 30 days; 5% within last 12 months) compared to Urban areas, and Rural areas
in Northern Ireland, households in Belfast City were most likely to have used a food bank (1% within last 30 days; 6% within last 12 months) compared to other Urban areas and Rural areas

See tables 9.12 and 9.21 for more data.

Household food bank usage by household food security status, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Food bank usage is more prevalent in food insecure households.

Household food bank usage is more likely as a household becomes less food secure.

for high food security households, a negligible proportion used a food bank within the last 30 days (and 1% within the last 12 months)
for very low food security households, 14% used a food bank within the last 30 days and 33% within the last 12 months

See table 9.11 for more data.

Household food security status and food bank usage by total gross weekly income, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

As income increases, households are more likely to be food secure.

Households with higher incomes were also less likely to have used a food bank.

households with gross weekly incomes of less than £200 per week were the least likely to be food secure (76% high; 7% marginal), and the most likely to have used a food bank (4% within last 30 days; 7% within last 12 months)
households with gross weekly incomes of £1,000 or more per week were the most likely to be food secure (96% high; 2% marginal), and the least likely have used a food bank (negligible proportion within last 30 days; 1% within last 12 months)

See tables 9.8 and 9.19 for more data.

Household food security status and food bank usage by state support receipt, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Household food insecurity and food bank usage rates were greater for households in receipt of Universal Credit than households overall.

Households on any income-related benefit (10% low; 12% very low) were more likely to be food insecure compared with all households (3% low; 3% very low). Similarly, food bank usage was more likely for those on any income-related benefit (3% within last 30 days; 11% within last 12 months), compared with all households (1% within last 30 days; 3% within last 12 months).

Of households in receipt of state support:

households receiving Universal Credit and those receiving Income Support were equally the least likely to be food secure, at 69%. However, Universal Credit recipients had a lower proportion of households with high food security (54% high; 15% marginal), compared with Income Support recipients (58% high; 11% marginal)
five per cent of households receiving Universal Credit had used a food bank within the last 30 days, and 16% within the last 12 months, compared with 1% and 3%, respectively, for UK households overall

See tables 9.7 and 9.18 for more data.

Household food security status and food bank usage by age group of head, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Households with a younger head were the most likely to be food insecure.

Food bank use was also more prevalent in households with younger heads.

Households where the head is aged 25 to 64 have similar levels of food security. The proportion of food secure households is greater where the head is aged 65 and above. Household food bank usage also decreases as the age of the head increases.

households where the head was aged 16 to 24 years were the least likely to be food secure (73% high; 9% marginal), and most likely to have used a food bank (4% within last 30 days; 10% within last 12 months)
households where the head was aged 85 and over were the most likely to be food secure (98% high; 2% marginal), and the least likely to have used a food bank (none within last 30 days; and a negligible proportion within last 12 months)

See tables 9.3 and 9.14 for more data.

Household food security status and food bank usage by tenure and age group, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Households in the social renting sector were most likely to be food insecure and to have used a food bank.

Food bank usage varied by tenure; households in the social renting sector were more likely to have used a food bank (3% within last 30 days; 11% within last 12 months) than private renters (1% within last 30 days; 5% within last 12 months) and all owner-occupier households (negligible proportions).

For households in the social renting sector, the likelihood of using a food bank increased for households with a working-age head (4% within last 30 days; 14% within last 12 months). For private renting households, there was only a minimal difference.

See table 9.20 for more data and table 9.9 for household food security figures.

Household food security status by educational attainment of head, 2021 to 2022, United Kingdom

Where the head of household had a lower educational attainment, the household was generally less food secure.

The likelihood of a household having high food security generally increased with the level of educational attainment, except for households with a level 1 or level 2 qualification which show similar food security levels.

households where the educational attainment of the head is Entry Level (such as Entry Level Awards and Entry Level Functional Skills) were the least likely to be food secure (74% high; 19% marginal)
households where the head had a qualification of Level 4 or higher (higher education qualifications, such as degrees) were the most likely to be food secure (93% high; 4% marginal)

For information on how education levels are harmonised between Scotland and other parts of the UK, see the GSS harmonised standard on Qualifications

See table 9.5 for more data on household food security and table 9.16 for food bank figures.

Differences in household food security status and food bank usage were found by other characteristics, including ethnicity of head of household and household composition. Further details can be found in tables 9.6 and 9.17 for ethnic group breakdowns, and tables 9.2 and 9.13 for household composition breakdowns.

Question 11

11.  About these statistics

Accepted Answer

The regulatory arm of the UK Statistics Authority, the Office for Statistics Regulation, has designated the Family Resources Survey as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

National Statistics status means that official statistics meet the highest standards of trustworthiness, quality and public value and comply with all aspects of the Code. The Office for Statistics Regulation has undertaken this assessment to consider whether the statistics meet the required standard.

It is DWP’s responsibility to maintain compliance with the standards expected of National Statistics. If DWP becomes concerned about whether these statistics are still meeting the appropriate standards, we will discuss any concerns with the Office for Statistics Regulation. National Statistics status can be removed at any point when the highest standards are not maintained, and reinstated when standards are restored.

Read further information about National Statistics.

DWP considers that all Family Resources Survey statistics in this publication are “Fully Comparable at level A” of the UK Countries Comparability Scale across countries.

Other national and official statistics

Read about other DWP statistics.

DWP announce the release dates of National and Official Statistics, in accordance with the Code.

Status and development

These statistics underwent a full assessment against the Code of Practice for Statistics in 2011 and were confirmed as National Statistics in November 2012 by the Office for Statistics Regulation.

Since this latest review by the Office for Statistics Regulation, we have continued to comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics, and have made a number of improvements which are described in the Background Information and Methodology section.

For the 2021 to 2022 survey year we have also made these improvements:

the addition of new information on food bank usage, to accompany the Household Food Security chapter, for the 2021 to 2022 publication
review of the presentation and content of the Care chapter tables to ensure consistency across categories and improve clarity for users
introduction of a Sandwich Carer category for the first time, in some of the Care chapter tables
review of the construction of Income and State Support tables and revisions to the denominator for income-related components, such that it now correctly includes income from Universal Credit
the survey question set has been adapted where directors are receiving income from dividends and to identify doctors and dentists explicitly given their pay arrangements differ from those of most working individuals

Additionally, and in a major development, it is possible to go beyond the Excel or ODS tables in this publication, and create customised statistics from the Stat-Xplore online tool. This release includes a long back series of FRS data, going back to the 2002 to 2003 financial year, and a very wide range of FRS amount variables and categories.

Question 12

12.  Using the FRS for analysis

Accepted Answer

The Family Resources Survey is designed to be representative of all private households in the United Kingdom. Some individuals are not included, for example, students in halls of residence or residents of nursing homes.

There remain areas where users are advised to exercise caution when making comparisons using the data from current and 2020 to 2021 survey year to other survey years. More details on how the results for the previous, 2020 to 2021 survey year were affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, can be found in the FRS 2020 to 2021 Background Information and Methodology document.

Sample design and size

The Family Resources Survey uses a stratified, clustered, random sample. This is designed to produce robust regional estimates. The data is not suitable for analysis below regional level.

The achieved sample in the 2021 to 2022 survey year was well over 16,000 households. This is an increase from 10,000 achieved in survey year 2020 to 2021, though still below a typical FRS year, when the achieved sample is normally between 19,000 and 20,000 households. However, it is still a relatively large sample when compared to other household surveys.

Following a review of the acceptable threshold for suppression, as the sample size in survey year 2021 to 2022 has not returned to pre-pandemic level, this has been kept at 30. This is in broad alignment with other survey-based publications, and great care has been taken ensure that there is no risk of disclosure from this lower threshold.

Sampling error

Results from surveys are estimates and not precise figures. In general terms, the smaller the sample size, the greater the uncertainty of the estimates. Results in this report are subject to a margin of error which can affect how changes should be interpreted, especially between groups and in the short term.

This year, although the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic are still present, we have observed fewer differences in sample composition compared to pre-pandemic level. These differences suggest a continuation of the mode effect, following a change from a face-to-face to telephone interview.

Similarly to last year, we believe some changes observed in the data can be due to sample bias resulting from those differences. This is because we are unable to explain some of the changes in the sample with reference to changes in the real world.

For example, we continued seeing lower numbers reporting other types of impairment such as in hearing, memory or vision, compared to previous years. This was likely a consequence of the change in mode rather than a real-world reduction in prevalence.

Non-sampling error

Non-sampling errors are systematic inaccuracies in the sample when compared with the population. For example, people may give inaccurate responses, or certain groups of people may be less likely to respond.

Non-sampling error is minimised in the Family Resources Survey through effective and accurate sample and questionnaire design, active fieldwork management, the use of skilled and experienced interviewers and extensive quality assurance of the data.

However, it is not possible to eliminate non-sampling error completely, nor can it be easily quantified. Relative to administrative records, the Family Resources Survey is known to under-report benefit receipt.

Where to find out more

Further outputs and tables can be accessed from the Family Resources Survey home page, together with:

Other relevant material includes:

A guide to the different definitions of earnings and income, with information on alternative sources of data, is available.
A guide to contrasting income and earnings statistics to help identify the most appropriate statistic, describing the source data, output data and availability, the concept being measured, its main strengths, limitations and uses.

If you would like more information on these statistics, then please visit the income and earnings interactive tool where you can filter by government department and country of interest to find relevant statistics.

Lead Statistician: M A Vaughan

ISBN: 978-1-78659-492-1