Growing Support
9. Poverty and anti-poverty measures
Trends in child poverty
Poverty is a multi-faceted phenomenon but for the purposes of this review it is discussed in relation to social and material deprivation and exclusion. It is also measured in relative rather than absolute terms, as there is strong evidence to indicate that it is not simply having the means to survive that is important, but the ability to participate in society. Therefore poverty is defined relative to the prevailing living standards of society (Oppenheim 1995; Long 1995). In order to participate in society people require the means to be involved in social customs, activities and obligations, which for some are unaffordable or greatly restricted, resulting in high levels of social exclusion.
In the UK there is no official poverty line, but recent evidence based on 'socially perceived necessities 7' indicates that rates of poverty amongst households in the UK have risen sharply in the last 20 years. In 1983 14 per cent of households were classified as residing in poverty as they lacked three or more necessities due to lack of money. In 1999 the figure had increased to 26 per cent of households. In addition to these figures it has been estimated that 9.5 million people in the UK cannot afford adequate housing; almost 7.5 million are too poor to engage in common social activities; about 2 million children go without at least two things they need, such as meals, toys, out of school activities and clothes; and 17 per cent of the population considered themselves and their families to be living in absolute poverty as defined by the United Nations (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1999). Previous studies carried out by Huby and Dix (1992) showed that out of 1,700 people who applied to the social fund in 1990, 87 per cent had not been able to find the money for essential items such as food, clothing and footwear for their children. Similarly a study carried out in 1991 by NCH showed that one in five parents and one in 10 parents in the preceding month had gone hungry, and a healthy diet for children was not achievable (Long 1995).
In the past most studies on poverty have been based on households and/or families. They have identified that early parenthood is a life-stage especially vulnerable to poverty, since household incomes tend to reduce while expenditure rises (Alcock 1993). However, children themselves have not been used as a unit of analysis. This has largely been due to the view that children have an effect on the welfare of the household, while their welfare as a result of poverty has been largely ignored until recently. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates that poverty rates for children are highest amongst the following:
- households without any workers;
- lone parent families;
- families with a larger number of siblings;
- families where there was chronic illness;
- minority ethnic families; and
- families in local authority housing.
The study carried out by Gregg et al (1998) used children as the unit for analysis and examined the trends in child poverty rates and the relationship between childhood disadvantage and subsequent economic and social outcomes. The study showed that over recent decades (1968-1998) the number of children living in households with below the average income has tripled, even though there has been a general rise in living standards. The reasons for this have been attributed to the increase in workless families, especially among lone parent families.
The Impact of poverty on families and children
It is evident from the information provided that poverty is an ever-increasing factor in society. However, it is not simply important to examine the rates of poverty but the effect poverty has on those who experience it. For families living in poverty it is both children and adults who are affected. For parents poverty is destructive in terms of self-respect, it is socially excluding and a source of anxiety and depression. These factors have an affect on children, but children suffer in their own right as a result of poverty. They are more likely to experience ill health, they do less well at school and have lower expectations.
It has been well documented that health is adversely affected by poverty (Wilkinson 1994). More specifically for children, there is evidence to indicate that child mortality and morbidity rates are higher for those coming from the poorest backgrounds as a result of poor diet, accidents and poor social and environmental conditions (Cole-Hamilton 1991; CPRU 1994). The health consequences of poverty often extend into adulthood resulting in lower life expectancy for these groups of the population (Long 1995, Watt and Ecob 1992).
Negative long-term outcomes on other dimensions were documented by the National Child Development Study, which assessed the characteristics and progress of children born in 1958 at several subsequent points well into adulthood (Ferri, 1996; Gregg et al 1998). Allowing for various other factors, the study demonstrated that childhood poverty was the factor that had most impact on future social and economic outcomes for the individuals in the study.
Support for families in poverty
Policies to combat family poverty have often been developed at national level. They include some of the cornerstones of the welfare state, notably child benefit, as well as various forms of family benefits and tax credits, whose precise forms have varied greatly over the last five decades (Wasoff and Dey 2000). The present government's policies on social inclusion and exclusion have a strong emphasis on enabling more parents to work so that reliance on benefits is reduced and incomes increased (Burden 2000). The new Integrated Child Credit represents a major change in the way financial support is provided for children, too.
Neighbourhood and community development programmes have a long history of seeking to help individuals and families, through a range of measures including credit unions and food co-operatives. The effects of such projects have rarely been evaluated (Henderson 1999). One kind of success has been the multi-purpose family centre, which among its purposes may include enabling women to enhance their skills and improve their income or employment prospects (Cannan and Walker 1997). This may sometimes be linked in to wider community development, income generation or employment initaitives (Smith 1999). Long (1995) provides a description of such work carried out by Save the Children in a highly deprived area in the North East of Glasgow. Besides childcare, the Centre offered training for women, general support and opportunities for participation. Long's account focuses mainly on the training opportunities provided for women in line with an anti-poverty strategy.
A further measure to prevent poverty in the long-run is to promote children's educational achievements and skills, so their long-term prospects for securing an adequate income through earnings are increased. While this evidently requires input throughout childhood, we noted in Chapter 4 how intensive, structured pre-school programmes can lead to long-term gains for children with disadvantaged family backgrounds (Macdonald and Roberts 1995).