The data from the Survey for Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2020 reports income and work conditions concerning 2019, before the covid-19 pandemic. Figure 1 shows that, in 2019, the at-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers in Portugal continued to decrease, with 100 thousand fewer people in poverty than in 2018. However, it increased to 18.4% in 2020. In 2019, 5.1% of people lived in a household with very low work intensity, 1.1 percentage points lower than in 2018. This share increased to 5.2% in 2020. The rate of severe material deprivation decreased to 4.6% in 2020 (1 percentage point below 2019). However, the survey was conducted at the beginning of the year and is therefore unlikely to capture the full impact of the pandemic. Finally, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate aggregates the previous three indicators, and it had also improved until 2019, when it was 1.8 percentage points lower than in 2018, and 2.2 percentage points below the EU average. In 2020, it increased to 22.4%, reflecting the impact of the pandemic. 

The material deprivation rate also had a recent positive evolution. Table 1 shows that, in 2020, 13.5% of people experienced material deprivation, and 4.6% experienced severe material deprivation, 1.6 and 1 percentage points less, respectively, compared to 2019. Bear in mind that data was collected at the beginning of 2020, and it fails to capture the full extent of the pandemic crisis. The dimensions with the greatest deprivation are the affordability of at least one week of vacation away from home (38%), the difficulty in meeting unexpected expenses (30.7%), and energy poverty, i.e., not being able to keep the home adequately warm (17.4%).

Children (aged 0 to 17) and older adults (aged 65+) are two of the most affected groups. In 2020, 1 in 4 children and older adults lived in a dwelling with a leaky roof and/or damp walls, floors, or foundation, and 11% of children and 24% of older adults in homes without adequate heating. For those who are poor, more than 26% and 43% could not keep the house adequately warm, respectively. Almost 10% of poor older adults, and 1.8% of poor children, could not afford to have a meal with protein (animal or vegetable) at least every two days.

Table 2 shows important regional disparities in the incidence of poverty, material deprivation, and inequality in income distribution.
•    In 2019, the Autonomous Region of Azores was the region with the highest at-risk-of-poverty rate (28.5%, a decrease of 3.3 percentage points compared to 2018), followed by the Autonomous Region of Madeira (26.3%). Provisional data from Statistics Portugal indicates that, in 2020, Madeira was the region with the highest at-risk-of-poverty rate, with 24.2%, while in the Azores the at-risk-of-poverty rate was 21.9%. On the mainland, the Algarve and the North were the poorest regions in 2020 (21.6 and 21.1%, respectively).
•    The Algarve and the North were the mainland regions with the highest rate of severe material deprivation, with 6.7%, in 2020.
•    Inequality in the Azores decreased (from a Gini coefficient of 37.9 in 2018 to 34.5 in 2019 and 33.0 in 2020). The Centre is the region with the highest Gini (33.3), overtaking the Azores as the most unequal region in the country.

The closing of schools on March 16, 2020, implied a reorganisation of teaching activities. Full in-person teaching activity returned the following academic year, in September 2020. However, the increase in cases at the beginning of the second term led to the closure of schools in January 2021. Table 3 shows the results of the assessment exam given in July 2021 two second graders by the Institute for Educational Assessment (IAVE). Students tested lower in both math and Portuguese, compared to the last available year for each exam (2019 and 2018, respectively). Another study conducted in January 2021 with third graders concluded that failures in the acquisition of skills were more pronounced in beneficiaries of school social action.

According to data from the Employment Survey of the Instituto Nacional de Estatística, in the first quarter of 2021, a period of lockdown and school closures, families with children reduced the number of hours worked, especially women. Figure 3 shows that, in a family with children, men worked, on average, 0.7 hours less, while women worked 1.2 hours less, between the first quarters of 2021 and 2019. This does not mean that women wanted to work fewer hours. Among those who did not work full-time, there were 47% more women than men who would have liked to work longer hours but could not. In addition, the need to take care of children, older adults, or other dependents, was invoked by women seven times more frequently to explain the inability to work longer hours.