Household structure: The lowest in-work poverty rate is observed for households comprising a couple without children (4.8 percent), followed by a couple with child(ren) (6.3 percent) and single adults (6.4 percent). Higher rates exist for single-parent (12.3 percent) and multi-family households (9.6 percent). Single-parent households make up one-tenth of all working households. Additional earner: Having a second worker in the household reduces the in-work poverty risk substantially. For example, for couples with children and only one adult working, the in-work poverty rate is 13.5 percent. This falls to 1.9 percent if there is more than one adult working. Education: The in-work poverty rate is strongly associated with educational attainment of the household. The in-work poverty rate for households without any qualification is 10.7 percent – but it is only 4.9 percent for households with a bachelor’s degree as the highest educational level. Occupation: The in-work poverty rate is negatively associated with occupational hierarchy (an indication of a role’s level of educational requirements, social status, and income). The strength of this relationship is stronger if the occupation is associated with the main earner of the household. The occupational groups with the highest likelihood of belonging to a household that experiences in-work poverty are labourers (+2.7 percentage points compared with the average) and the group encompassing community and personal service workers (+3 percentage points). Industry: Working in agriculture, forestry and fishing, and in the accommodation and food service industry is associated with elevated in-work poverty rates. The two industries with the highest rates of in-work poverty are: accommodation and food services (+4.7 percentage points compared with the average) and agriculture, forestry and fishing (+2.8 percentage points). Benefit receipt: Benefit receipt plays a greater role for single parents with children, for two or more family households and for one-person households relative to couples with or without child(ren). In-work poor households are more likely to be in in receipt of a benefit (at least once in a year) relative to their in-work non-poor counterparts (28.7 versus 10.3 percent). Home ownership: The in-work poverty rate for homeowners is 5.2 percent, while this rises to 9.2 percent for renters. Moreover, when working poor households were renting, they spent (on average) every second dollar of their disposable income on rent, compared with every fourth dollar for in-work non-poor households. After housing costs: For renters, the in-work poverty rate is 12.8 percent after accounting for housing costs (based on self-reported rent costs in the 2013 Census). Poverty duration: Exploring within-year variation in poverty status, we find that as at March 2013, 20 percent experience at least one month of poverty in the twelve months preceding March 2013, and 1 percent experience poverty in all of the twelve months. Geographical spread: Canterbury and Nelson exhibit the lowest values for in-work poverty prevalence (at 5.7 and 6 percent respectively), whereas Northland and Gisborne exhibit the highest values (at 10.2 and 9.3 percent respectively). There is substantial sub-regional variation in the Bay of Plenty and Wellington. 24 Human Rights Responses to Poverty in Working Households