Poverty and Crime in Britain (2020–2025): Trends, Austerity Impacts, and Interventions

Introduction

From 2020 onward, Britain has faced significant socioeconomic challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a cost-of-living crisis, has influenced both poverty levels and crime rates. This report examines national trends in poverty and overall crime in the UK since 2020, highlighting the impact of recent government austerity measures – such as welfare reforms, changes in housing policy, and employment trends – on these issues. It also explores the relationship between poverty and crime, and considers interventions (like the GAME Plan, a holistic model for sustainable livelihoods) that could help alleviate poverty and thereby contribute to reducing crime.

Poverty Trends in Britain (2020–2025)

Overall Poverty Levels: After a long period of stagnation, poverty in the UK remains high. In 2020/21, about 13.4 million people (20% of the population) lived in poverty. This marked a slight dip in the poverty rate during the first pandemic year, which surprised many analysts. That temporary improvement is attributed to unusual conditions: average incomes fell (lowering the relative poverty threshold) and the government deployed emergency supports like a £20/week increase in Universal Credit. However, as those supports were withdrawn and economic activity resumed, poverty rebounded. By 2021/22 the rate was back to 22% (14.4 million people) – essentially “more than 1 in 5” Britons in poverty, close to pre-pandemic levels. Official data for 2023/24 show a similar picture: 21% of individuals were in relative poverty after housing costs, indicating little sustained progress in reducing poverty. Table 1 summarizes recent poverty indicators:

Table 1: UK Poverty Indicators (2020–2024)

Year (Financial Year)	Poverty Rate (Relative, After Housing Costs)	Number of People in Poverty (millions)	Note
2019/20 (pre-pandemic)	~22% (approx.)	~14.0 (est.)	(Pre-COVID baseline)
2020/21	20%	13.4	Rate fell due to temporary COVID supports.
2021/22	22%	14.4	Returned to pre-COVID level as supports ended.
2023/24	21%	~14.0 (approx.)	Little change; cost-of-living pressures persist.

Sources: Department for Work and Pensions (Households Below Average Income) and JRF analyses.

Poverty Depth and Demographics: Not only have poverty rates stayed high, but poverty has deepened in recent years. As of 2021/22, 6 million people were in “very deep” poverty (with incomes <50% of the poverty line), a figure that has grown over the past decade. Destitution – the most extreme form of poverty – is also on the rise, with 3.8 million people (including ~1 million children) experiencing destitution in 2022, more than double the number in 2017. Certain groups are disproportionately affected: for example, nearly 43% of children in families with 3+ kids were in poverty in 2021/22, a situation exacerbated by welfare policies like the two-child benefit limit and benefit cap. Housing costs contribute heavily to financial strain – in 2021/22, about one-third of private renters were in poverty after accounting for housing costs, and roughly half of those would not be poor if rents were lower. Similarly, despite high employment levels, in-work poverty is pervasive: around 8.1 million people in working households lived in poverty in 2023/24, 1.8 million more than in 2010. In fact, about two-thirds of working-age adults in poverty are in households where someone is employed – underscoring that having a job is not always enough to escape poverty when wages are low or insecure.

Impact of the Cost-of-Living Crisis: The surge in inflation during 2022–2023 (especially for energy and food) further eroded living standards. Benefit levels and wages did not keep pace with rising prices, pushing more households to rely on food banks and fall into arrears. By 2023, 15% of people were in “absolute” poverty (a measure fixed against 2010/11 incomes) before housing costs, or 18% after housing – essentially unchanged in recent years. Looking ahead, forecasts are worrying: the Resolution Foundation projected in 2024 that, absent policy changes, relative poverty would climb from 22% in 2024/25 to 23% by 2029/30, meaning an extra 1.5 million people in poverty. Recent policy decisions may add to this – for instance, the government’s own impact assessment in 2025 acknowledged that newly announced welfare cuts would push ~250,000 more people into poverty by 2030 (including 50,000 children).

Crime Rate Trends in Britain (2020–2024)

Overall Crime Levels: The early 2020s have seen dynamic shifts in crime patterns, heavily influenced by the pandemic and its aftermath. During the 2020 COVID lockdowns, many “traditional” crimes plunged. With people largely confined at home, offences like burglary, robbery, and shop theft dropped markedly. Police data show that total recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 13% in the year ending March 2021 (excluding fraud). The largest decline was in theft offences, which fell by about one-third amid lockdowns. Table 2 illustrates the drop and rebound in crime:

Table 2: Crime in England & Wales – Total Incidents and Recorded Offences

Year (12 months ending)	CSEW* Estimated Total Incidents	Police Recorded Offences**
Mar 2019 (pre-pandemic)	~11.2 million	6.0 million
Mar 2020 (pre-pandemic)	~10.2 million	6.1 million
Mar 2021 (pandemic year)	N/A (survey suspended)	5.4 million (▼ ~10% vs 2020)
Mar 2022 (restrictions eased)	N/A (survey suspended)	6.3 million (▲ rebound)
Mar 2023	~8.7 million	6.7 million (▲ higher than 2019)
Mar 2024	~8.8 million	6.7 million (≈ same as 2023)
Dec 2024 (latest data)	~9.6 million	~6.6 million

CSEW: Crime Survey for England & Wales (estimates include unreported crime). **Police-recorded crime includes all notifiable offences (England & Wales). Sources: ONS and Home Office.

As shown above, crime levels fell sharply in 2020/21, then rebounded by 2022. By the year ending March 2023, police-recorded crime (6.7 million offences) slightly exceeded the pre-COVID level, driven in part by a resurgence in theft and other property crimes. Crime Survey data – which capture a broader range of incidents – still indicated overall crime was somewhat lower than pre-pandemic (8.7 million incidents in 2022/23 vs 10.2 million in 2019/20), suggesting some pandemic-era changes in behavior might have had lasting effects on crime. For instance, ONS analysis found theft in mid-2022 was ~19% below 2019 levels, possibly reflecting more people working from home or improved security habits post-lockdown. Conversely, fraud and cybercrime that spiked during the pandemic (as criminals exploited increased online activity) have started to normalize; by mid-2022 fraud had retreated to pre-pandemic levels.

Recent Crime Trends and Cost-of-Living Impacts: In the past two years, the cost-of-living crisis has coincided with notable increases in certain crimes. Most striking is a surge in shop theft: police data recorded a 29% jump in shoplifting offences in the year to June 2024 compared to the previous year. Over 469,000 shoplifting incidents were recorded in that 12-month period – the highest annual total for shop theft since current records began in 2003. Retail industry sources and law enforcement have linked this spike to economic hardship, with some thefts driven by basic needs or by organized theft gangs exploiting lax enforcement during the crisis. Indeed, retailers report more incidents of customers stealing essential goods, and even a rise in first-time offenders such as pensioners shoplifting food.

Other crime categories show mixed trends. Burglary and vehicle theft remain relatively subdued (still below pre-2020 levels), likely reflecting improved security and behavior changes. However, violent and high-harm crimes have shown concerning patterns. Police figures indicate violent crime in 2022 exceeded 2019 levels in some areas, particularly in more deprived communities. For example, London’s murder rate and knife crime incidents have fluctuated but remain a focus of concern in socioeconomically disadvantaged boroughs. Drug-related offences also rose above pre-pandemic levels in certain localities, possibly tied to economic disenfranchisement and the disruption of support services. It’s important to note that changes in reporting and police practices (e.g. better recording of sexual offences or domestic abuse) have contributed to increased recorded crime in those categories, apart from any austerity effects. Overall, the crime picture post-2020 is complex: while total crime (especially property crime) fell during COVID and has only partly rebounded, specific crimes linked to economic stress have climbed.

Impact of Austerity Measures on Poverty and Crime

Government policies on welfare, housing, and employment since 2020 – many shaped by a broader austerity agenda – have had profound effects on poverty, which in turn can influence crime rates. Below we examine each area:

• Welfare Reforms and Cuts: The UK’s social security system underwent significant changes in the past decade, and some key measures since 2020 have tightened support for low-income groups. A critical example was the withdrawal of the £20 per week Universal Credit uplift in October 2021, which had been introduced during the pandemic. This was the largest overnight cut to basic welfare in modern UK history, affecting millions of claimants. Anti-poverty organizations and even government advisors warned that removing this uplift would plunge hundreds of thousands into poverty – analysis suggested around 800,000 people (including 290,000 children) could fall into poverty as a result. The uplift had briefly reduced poverty (it kept an estimated 840,000 people above the poverty line in mid-2021), so its removal reversed those gains. Other ongoing welfare policies continue to drive hardship: the benefit cap and the two-child limit on benefits disproportionately hurt larger families, contributing to a 43% poverty rate for children in families with 3 or more kids. Additionally, until 2023 the main working-age benefits had seen years of sub-inflation freezes or rises, eroding their real value. By 2022, the basic level of Universal Credit had fallen below destitution levels for many households. The cumulative impact of these welfare reforms has been to increase financial strain on the poorest families. Research on the last major package of cuts (the 2012 Welfare Reform Act) found that areas more exposed to welfare cuts experienced higher crime rates, especially violent crime. Crucially, this study noted the rise in crime was driven by new entrants to crime rather than repeat offenders, implying that economic desperation pushed previously law-abiding people toward illegal activities. In short, austerity-driven welfare cuts not only raised poverty but also produced a measurable uptick in social harm in affected communities.

• Housing Policy and Homelessness: Affordable housing remains a linchpin of living standards in Britain. Recent policies, however, have often lagged behind need. Housing benefit (Local Housing Allowance), which helps low-income renters, was reset to reflect local rents in early 2020 but then frozen thereafter, even as rents surged in 2021–2023. This effectively reduced support for many, forcing poorer renters to cover growing shortfalls. The consequence is evident in poverty stats – a large share of people are “pushed into poverty” once housing costs are included. In 2021/22, over 1/3 of social renters and 1/2 of private renters in poverty only fell below the poverty line after paying housing costs, underscoring how rent burdens exacerbate poverty. Social housing construction has not kept pace with demand, and the continued Right to Buy policy (allowing sale of council homes) has reduced the stock of low-cost housing. Meanwhile, homelessness indicators have been troubling. After a pandemic-era effort that temporarily housed many rough sleepers (“Everyone In”), numbers of people in temporary accommodation or sleeping rough began rising again by 2022 as emergency funding waned. Homelessness and inadequate housing can intersect with crime both as cause and effect – for example, rough sleepers are more vulnerable to victimisation and sometimes drawn into petty offending (or survival theft), and areas with high homelessness can see more public order issues. Cuts to local government funding under austerity also meant reduced support services for those at risk of homelessness or struggling with addictions, which can indirectly feed crime rates (through increased street-level disorder or unmet mental health needs). In summary, housing policies that fail to ensure affordable, secure homes have contributed to poverty, and by extension can create conditions conducive to crime (from acquisitive crimes by those facing destitution to social unrest in deprived housing estates).

• Employment Trends and Labor Market: The period since 2020 saw dramatic shifts in the labor market. After the initial COVID shock (which was mitigated by the furlough scheme, preventing a huge unemployment spike), the UK entered a phase of record job vacancies and low headline unemployment (around 3.5–4% by 2022). On the surface, high employment should reduce poverty and crime – indeed, work is often touted as “the best route out of poverty.” However, the quality and reward of work are crucial. During the pandemic, many low-paid workers faced loss of hours or jobs, and although many later returned to work, wage growth lagged far behind inflation in 2022–24, meaning real incomes fell. The result has been a rise in in-work poverty: by 2023/24, 8.1 million people in working households were in poverty. Stagnant or insufficient wages (and the spread of gig economy or insecure jobs) left many families unable to make ends meet even with someone employed. The geographic distribution of new jobs has also been uneven – regions like the North East and Midlands, which have the highest poverty rates, often have concentrations of lower-paid jobs and higher unemployment than the national average. When employment does not lift households out of poverty, its crime-reducing benefits are undermined. Additionally, there is evidence that economic downturns and unemployment spikes can lead to more crime; conversely, in this unusual post-pandemic case, unemployment stayed low but the erosion of real wages and household purchasing power created similar economic stress. A person working full-time on minimum wage who suddenly can’t pay bills may resort to theft or the informal economy, much as an unemployed person might. The strain on young workers and recent entrants to the job market is also a factor – youth unemployment remains higher than average, and a lack of opportunities can push some youth toward illicit paths. It is notable that the previous era of austerity (2010–2015) coincided with substantial cuts to youth services, education maintenance, and other supports; some analysts link those cuts to rises in youth crime (such as knife crime) later in the decade, as disadvantaged youth had fewer positive outlets. In short, employment trends in the 2020s have been a double-edged sword: plenty of jobs available, but not all providing a decent living, leading to a workforce that in many cases still struggles with poverty. That ongoing struggle can translate into higher crime – whether through financial desperation or decreased social cohesion in hard-hit communities.

Summary of Austerity’s Effect: Recent austerity measures – reduced welfare benefits, inadequate housing support, and a failure to protect incomes of the poorest workers – have kept poverty elevated. High poverty, in turn, is linked with higher crime rates. This link is evident both in research and on the ground. A University of Southampton study of the 2010s austerity found “unambiguous evidence” that welfare cuts led to increased crime, concentrated in deprived areas. Notably, violent crime rose in areas hit hardest by benefit reductions, suggesting that economic stress can fuel not only theft but also aggression and social disorder. The authors concluded that the social harm caused by these cuts – including the cost of extra crime – far outweighed the immediate budget savings. Geographical analysis in 2024 further shows that the most deprived neighborhoods suffer far more crime than affluent ones: in London, for instance, the most income-deprived 10% of areas saw 41% more crimes than the least deprived decile, with rates of violent and sexual offences more than double in the poorer areas. This disparity underscores how poverty and area deprivation go hand-in-hand with crime problems. While crime is a complex phenomenon with many drivers (including policing, drug markets, etc.), austerity’s role in widening poverty and weakening social safety nets appears to have indirectly contributed to an uptick in crime, or at least to keeping crime rates higher than they might otherwise be.

Poverty–Crime Relationship: Data and Drivers

Decades of criminological evidence support a correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage and crime. The recent UK data we’ve reviewed reinforce this: poverty can both motivate certain crimes and reduce community capacity to control crime. Financial strain increases the incentive for economically motivated crimes (theft, burglary, fraud). It can also exacerbate stress, mental health issues, and family conflict, which are risk factors for violent crime. Areas of high poverty often experience social disorganization – characterized by factors like unemployment, family breakdown, and low trust in authorities – which can lead to higher crime and gang activity. The cost-of-living crisis of 2022–2023 provides a case study: as household bills spiked and more people struggled to afford basic necessities, shoplifting and petty thefts rose markedly (with a 26–30% surge in retail theft noted across many areas). Police and retailers observed that some offenders were stealing items such as food, baby formula, or toiletries – items of need – while organized criminal gangs also exploited the situation. Simultaneously, police data showed public order incidents and low-level violence increasing, which some link to the frustrations and tensions of economic hardship.

However, correlation is not simple causation. Many people in poverty do not commit crimes, and not all crime is driven by poverty. Other factors (like drug addiction, policing levels, or cultural norms) mediate the poverty-crime link. For instance, drug trade-related violence can plague poor neighborhoods, but the drivers include the drug economy and lack of opportunities, not poverty alone. That said, poverty is a fundamental underlying condition that can worsen other crime drivers. High poverty often means underfunded schools, fewer youth programs, and more strained policing – creating an environment where crime can flourish. The stark regional differences within Britain illustrate this: the North East of England has had the highest poverty rate in recent years and also struggles with above-average rates of certain crimes (such as theft and drug offences). In contrast, regions with lower poverty (e.g. parts of the South East) generally see less crime. Even within cities, as noted, neighborhoods in the bottom tenth for income have double the violent crime rate of the most affluent neighborhoods. Poverty can also increase victimization – poorer individuals are more likely to be victims of crime, creating a vicious cycle of vulnerability.

In summary, the evidence since 2020 in Britain points to a reinforcing cycle: austerity measures increased poverty, and high poverty contributed to upticks in crime, especially economic crimes. Conversely, areas or periods with better social support and lower poverty tend to enjoy lower crime. Breaking this cycle requires addressing the root causes of poverty alongside traditional crime-fighting.

Reducing Poverty and Crime: Potential Interventions and the “GAME Plan”

Given the intertwined nature of poverty and crime, policy responses that improve economic well-being can have crime reduction benefits. Conversely, policing and justice strategies alone are unlikely to solve crime in deprived areas if underlying poverty remains unaddressed. Here we discuss approaches to mitigate poverty’s impact on crime, including an example of a holistic intervention model – the GAME Plan – that could form part of the solution.

Government Initiatives: The UK government has, belatedly, recognized the need to tackle poverty as a means of social improvement. In 2024, a Child Poverty Taskforce was established to develop a strategy (due in 2025) for reducing child poverty. This suggests a policy shift acknowledging that current benefit levels and supports for families are insufficient. If the strategy leads to higher child benefits, expanded free school meals, or better childcare support, it could lift many children out of poverty – which research shows can yield long-term crime reduction, since poverty in early life is linked to higher likelihood of offending in youth and adulthood. On the employment front, efforts to raise the National Living Wage and promote secure contracts (for example, via an Employment Bill) may help reduce in-work poverty. The data clearly indicate that “everyone who works for a living should earn a decent living”, as the Trades Union Congress put it, highlighting that during the 2010s poverty in working families surged despite economic growth. Reversing that trend (through fair wages and strengthening worker rights) should alleviate poverty and can reduce economically driven crimes. Furthermore, reversing some austerity-era cuts – for instance, investing in youth services, mental health support, and addiction treatment – would address social issues that often accompany poverty and lead to crime. Communities that regained youth clubs and outreach workers, for example, have seen improvements in youth crime rates in the past. Similarly, increasing the supply of affordable housing and assistance with rents would ease housing-induced poverty, likely reducing crimes of desperation and the instability that can lead to criminality (such as frequent relocation, school dropout, etc., due to evictions).

The GAME Plan – Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: Aside from broad policy, community-level and individual-level interventions are crucial. The GAME Plan is one such intervention model that has gained attention. Standing for Goals, Actions, Means, and Execution, the GAME Plan is a holistic, self-directed framework designed to help individuals build sustainable livelihoods and financial resilience. Originally developed to empower victims of financial crime, its principles are widely applicable to anyone facing economic hardship or exclusion. The program emphasizes: setting personal Goals that provide purpose and motivation; concrete Actions and step-by-step plans to move from “survival mode” to stability; identifying and developing Means – essentially one’s own skills, talents, and entrepreneurial ideas – to create sustainable income; and finally, Execution with support and mentorship. In practice, the GAME Plan might involve career counseling, small business coaching, peer support groups, and financial education to help individuals take control of their economic futures. It “doesn’t just focus on recovery—it empowers individuals to build a future of autonomy, purpose, and financial resilience.” By unlocking human capital and helping people find dignified work or business opportunities, such a model addresses one of the root causes of crime: lack of legitimate economic opportunities.

How the GAME Plan Could Reduce Crime: Interventions like the GAME Plan could contribute to crime reduction in several ways. First, by lifting individuals out of poverty or precariousness, they reduce the financial incentives for criminal behavior. Someone who, for example, starts a small catering business through GAME Plan coaching or finds stable employment aligned with their talents is far less likely to need to steal or engage in illicit trade to survive. Second, the GAME Plan’s focus on personal agency and goal-setting can have positive side-effects on crime prevention. Participants often gain self-esteem, a sense of purpose, and hope for the future. This can steer those at risk (especially young people in deprived communities) away from gangs or anti-social behavior, as they become invested in a legitimate pathway toward success. Third, the holistic nature of the approach means it doesn’t only address income – it fosters emotional resilience and community support. Participants work in groups, share experiences, and often form pro-social networks. This community-building can strengthen social cohesion in high-crime neighborhoods, making it easier to resist and combat criminal elements. In essence, the GAME Plan and similar “sustainable livelihoods” models treat people as assets to be developed, not problems to be punished. By doing so, they align closely with modern understandings of crime prevention which stress tackling underlying risk factors (poverty, unemployment, lack of skills) rather than only increasing policing and punishment.

It should be noted that the GAME Plan is relatively new and initially aimed at victims of scams and financial crime, so direct evidence of its impact on crime rates is still limited. Nonetheless, it draws on proven strategies in social policy. For instance, microenterprise programs and vocational training for at-risk youth have shown success in reducing property crime and re-offending in various countries. The GAME Plan’s innovation is packaging these ideas into a self-directed, motivational framework – effectively empowering people to be the agents of change in their own lives. The early results are promising: participants report improved financial habits, new income streams, and a restored sense of control over their future. Scaling up such interventions (with government or philanthropic support) could complement macro-level policies. Imagine, for example, a partnership where Jobcentres or probation services refer individuals to a GAME Plan program – helping those exiting prison or the unemployed to set goals and build livelihoods. This could directly target the cohort of people who might otherwise drift into crime out of economic necessity or hopelessness.

Conclusion

In the years since 2020, Britain’s experience has underscored a fundamental reality: poverty and crime are intertwined challenges. Data from this period show that poverty remained persistently high – worsened by austerity measures and a cost-of-living crisis – and that areas and groups afflicted by poverty often endured higher crime rates. Government austerity in welfare and housing not only increased material hardship but also, inadvertently, generated conditions conducive to crime (as evidenced by spikes in theft and research linking benefit cuts to crime rises). Tackling crime, therefore, cannot be separated from tackling poverty. Sustainable reductions in crime will likely require investing in social safety nets, decent housing, quality jobs, and community programs that address the needs of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Programs like the GAME Plan represent a forward-thinking piece of this puzzle. By focusing on sustainable livelihoods and personal empowerment, such interventions strike at the heart of the poverty-crime cycle. They help individuals find legitimate pathways to economic security, reducing the lure of crime. Of course, a comprehensive strategy would also involve robust policing, criminal justice reform, and targeted interventions (like mental health services and youth engagement in high-crime areas). But as this report has detailed, economic policy is crime policy: austerity that increases poverty can ultimately increase crime, whereas anti-poverty initiatives can be powerful crime prevention measures. In sum, a Britain with lower poverty – supported by fair welfare provisions, affordable housing, and opportunities for all – would likely be a Britain with lower crime. Addressing material deprivation and desperation is not just a social justice imperative but a pragmatic approach to building safer communities. By combining broad policy change with on-the-ground empowerment programs like the GAME Plan, Britain can aspire to break the poverty-crime link and ensure a more secure and prosperous future for all.

Sources: National statistics, government reports and independent research were used in this analysis. Key references include Office for National Statistics bulletins on crime and poverty, the House of Commons Library briefing on UK poverty, Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s UK Poverty 2023 and 2024 reports, Home Office crime data, academic research on austerity and crime, and policy analyses from think-tanks and charities. The GAME Plan information is drawn from the Academy of Life Planning’s description of the model. These sources collectively paint a consistent picture of the interplay between economic conditions and crime in recent Britain.

All evidence is cited in-text with bracketed source references for verification.