EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines the prevalence of, and characteristics associated with, in-work poverty in New Zealand. It is important to note from the outset that the relevant international literature is characterised by varying definitions and approaches to measurement aspects of in-work poverty, which means that cross-country estimates may not be directly comparable with the findings in this report. The analysis within this study draws primarily on linked data from Inland Revenue and the 2013 Census, as well as supplementary information provided by the Household Labour Force Survey. Working status is derived from employment information over the year ending March 2013, and poverty status is derived from income information for March 2013. Key findings are as follows: 1. Headline estimate: Amongst working households, the proportion of households in poverty is 7.0 percent as at March 2013 (based on a 60 percent before housing costs poverty threshold). This is equal to 50,943 households. 2. Working status: More than four out of five New Zealand households (82.9 percent) with at least one working-age adult is classified as working (i.e., at least one adult in the household receives positive wages and salaries income for at least seven months in the year). 3. Poverty rate: The overall average poverty rate across in-work and non-work households is 17.1 percent, with the rate of poverty close to 66 percent for non-work households. 4. Definitions and thresholds matter: Sensitivity analysis illustrates that if the poverty threshold is dropped from 60 percent to 50 percent of median household income, the prevalence of inwork poverty drops to 4.7 percent. Additionally, if the population of interest (working-age households excluding pensioner and self-employed households) is used for the reference income distribution for deriving the poverty threshold, then the prevalence of in-work poverty rises to 12.4 percent. 5. Role of Working for Families (WfF) tax credits and the Accommodation Supplement (AS): Inclusion of these two income sources makes a sizable impact on in-work poverty prevalence. Without both income sources, the in-work poverty rate rises from 7.0 percent to 9.2 percent. The impact is largest for single-parent households, where the in-work poverty rate rises from 12.3 to 21.6 percent when WfF and AS are not included in the analyses. 6. Gender: 7.7 percent of adult females are associated with an in-work poor household, while for men this number is 6.6 percent. The in-work poverty rate is also substantially higher if the main earner in the household is female (compared to male), regardless of household structure. 7. Children: 10.0 percent of children living in working households are poor (compared with 7.2 percent of adults). 8. Over time: There has been very little change in in-work poverty rates between 2007 and 2017. 9. Region: 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. 10. Ethnicity: Households with at least one adult with prioritised ethnicity of Māori (8.6 percent), Pacific peoples (9.5 percent), Asian (9.4 percent) and MELAA (9.5 percent) experience an