By Sally Kah, Ming Lim, Dave Cliffe, Navajyoti Samata, Chris Hill
—
Poverty is everywhere on our streets, yet it is increasingly difficult to see.
This statement might seem contradictory, but within it is a truth: not everything we see is as it seems. It is a contradiction that sits at the centre of what invisible poverty means. A type of poverty experienced by people at work, living in homes but struggling with their everyday human needs – a highly nuanced economic hardship.
People who experience ‘invisible poverty’ (or hidden poverty) ‘appear’ to be doing fine because they earn an income. Still, even with that income, it is difficult to meet their living costs, such as food, transport, energy, heating, and even internet connectivity. Several industry studies have emerged showing the growing dynamic of invisible poverty in the UK, as noted below:
- 19% of households in Leicester were classified as fuel-poor, compared to 13.1% in England (Leicester City Council, 2023).
- 14% of UK households (7.3 million) struggle with food insecurity (Trussell Trust, 2025).
- 1 in 2 older adults in the UK are in digital poverty, according to a 2023 digital poverty report by Deloitte.
- An estimated 5 million people are in transport poverty. 44% of households with the lowest income have no access to a car (Social Market Foundation, 2023).
- 4.8 million adults are in furniture poverty; 55% of them have a disability (End Furniture Poverty, 2023).
In this sense, invisible poverty could be understood as a pandemic. Not a new pandemic as such, but a pandemic that is widespread whilst remaining politically and economically difficult to measure. We argue, however, that the pandemic metaphor needs to be studied critically. A pandemic is often an external threat that spreads and requires scientific intervention. It affects large numbers of people and communities, and permeates daily life. Unlike a pandemic, invisible poverty is different because it has no external pathogen to trace, no single source to lock down and no obvious curve to flatten. Invisible poverty is driven by many factors, from political conditions to economic forces, and in some cases a combination of both, resulting in severe social implications. This complexity therefore raises important questions about how to develop a standardised measure to identify the causes of invisible poverty. Even more important is whether standardised metrics or indicators are appropriate for measuring invisible poverty. These questions are exactly what makes it hard to trace who lives through this form of hardship. Unlike relative, absolute, and deep poverty, regional measures alone will not suffice because invisible poverty is fundamentally about income being insufficient to meet people’s needs. Therefore, the type of job people do, how secure it is, and where they live contribute immensely to how we begin to understand not just the hardship itself, but the people affected by it.
Our research titled Who Lives Invisibly Poor? Mapping Invisible Poverty in Leicestershire and Rutland, funded by the Collaboratory Research Hub, highlights an important paradox. The people in employment and with high levels of education experience significant material poverty, yet are not identified as poor by others. This is because, as a society, we associate poverty only with what is visible, such as homelessness (Edmiston, 2023) and begging (Gill, 2015). This cultural idea of poverty overlooks the hidden financial struggles many people face.
We collected data using a questionnaire, which was shared on social media platforms, including LinkedIn and Meta. We also distributed the questionnaire at Leicester Library and at a County Hall event in November 2025. The only selection criteria were that respondents be employed, because invisible poverty concerns those ‘in-work’ but struggle to meet their living costs. In addition, the study used voluntary response sampling because respondents chose to participate based on information about the research. The sample comprised n=40 respondents, of whom 72.5% were based in Leicestershire and 27.5% in Rutland. Respondents were White (90%), Asian (7.5%), and Black (2.5%). Women make up 62.5%, while men make up 37.5%.
For many years, ‘good education and employment’ were the arguments set out in the UK government’s poverty policy as reliable routes out of poverty (see, for example, Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty: Monitoring and Evaluation – Baseline Report – GOV.UK). But our study complicates this argument. For instance, respondents have some level of education: A-levels (35%), an undergraduate degree (25%), and a postgraduate degree (20%). The majority (90%) are aged 25-64 and in full-time employment (60%), unable to work (12.5%), in part-time employment (7.5%), or retired (7.5%). 5% are unemployed, but we recognise that this option should not have been captured, as invisible poverty concerns those in work who face financial hardship.
This evidence suggests that education and employment do not necessarily guarantee economic security, nor do they protect households from experiencing poverty. What is particularly disturbing about the results is that respondents are contending with their basic human needs, not essentials versus luxuries. As noted in the image below, the majority (65%) were often concerned about food, heating, transport, and hygiene (i.e., health matters). As a result, 53% occasionally choose between eating and heating, and between rent and bills, while 25% rarely do so. 65% often delay buying what they need, and 23% sometimes do. 85% go without social activities, 38% without heating or electricity, 35% without a dental check, 33% without personal hygiene and 25% without a three-balanced meal a day.
Image source: Authors’ own created using Canva
The greatest challenge, therefore, is how this evidence could stretch what is considered ‘basic human needs’ in future economic study of material and immaterial needs, and how the government’s plan will address present needs and offer a breathing space, in the words of Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Ultimately, we argue that poverty is not always obvious, and that, culturally, we need to shift our understanding of the nuanced financial hardship facing many households. Sometimes poverty exists behind closed doors. Shame (50%), fear of judgement (46.4%) and lack of trust in community services (21.4%) are the main reasons respondents felt they could not seek support. Sadly, 85% exclude themselves from social activities, which could have significant implications for health and wellbeing. This evidence points to a pandemic, one that has been hidden in plain sight for too long.
For more information about this research, please contact sally.kah@dmu.ac.uk
Keywords: Invisible poverty; Hidden poverty; Poverty; Leicestershire; Rutland
