Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Anne Marie Carrie

GET UPDATES FROM Anne Marie Carrie
 

Debating How Child Poverty Is Measured Must Not Distract From Urgent Action Needed to Tackle It

Posted: 15/11/2012 00:00

Today marks the start of a 12 week government consultation looking at how child poverty is measured and defined in the UK. The question at the heart of the consultation is likely to be whether or not money truly makes a difference to the most deprived families.

Barnardo's believes that the scandal of child poverty in this country will only be tackled when action is taken to improve both the income and the access to services that the poorest families have. We lobby and campaign in order to represent the voices of the families and children we work with - to make the government aware of the need for change when it comes to helping families with childcare costs and early years education.

We know that money matters to the poorest families - especially when rising living costs, stagnating wages, a weak labour market and spending cuts are placing more pressure on them than ever before. Many families in poverty in the UK live on just £12 per person per day after housing costs. That £12 has to stretch to cover everything: food, electricity, water, gas, bus fares.

We also know the value of services, which is why we work in partnership with education, health and therapeutic services, the police, youth offending teams and local authorities. We provide a range of support services including more than 80 Sure Start children's centres that reach the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, provide drop in sessions for parents, and home visit support to families.

The voluntary and statutory sector must continue to work together to establish intensive multi-agency support for the most deprived and excluded families, to help them deal with issues early on. But when it comes to the life chances of the 3.6 million children in the UK who live below the breadline, it is both money and services that will make a difference.

Services will do what they can but there is no quick fix, no magic spell to stop children getting ill when they live in families who are priced out of heating their homes. The reality is unrelenting: the effects of growing up in poverty can not only destroy long term health but crush childhood aspiration, result in low educational outcomes and remove any opportunity a child may have had to successfully enter the world of work.

Money is the ability for a family to afford expenses like repairing a fridge, so that their children can eat fresh food. It is what stops families from resorting to high-cost credit lenders and being plunged into a downward spiral of debt when it comes to one-off costs like replacing worn school shoes, buying a new school uniform or sending their children on a school trip. Three-year-olds in households with incomes below £10,000 per annum are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000.

So it is with the direct correlation of money to life chances in mind that Barnardo's is convinced of the importance of defining and measuring child poverty by income. Of course, child poverty income targets should sit alongside the development of other key policy areas such as early years and childcare provision, health and family support and health and housing advice. It would be wrong if one were at the expense of the other and it is of the utmost importance that the government looks to tackle child poverty on all fronts, in a holistic and realistic way. The Child Poverty Act 2010 already sets out a robust framework for doing this: with four UK wide income measures to be achieved by 2020 as well as progress on a range of other indicators such as parental employment and skills.

Barnardo's is concerned that the government is seeking to change the definition of poverty and the way it is measured because it knows how far off it is from meeting the 2020 target to end child poverty. Changing the way that child poverty is defined is not an acceptable scapegoat for facing the facts: the Institute for Fiscal Studies projections show that by 2020 a further 1 million children will be pushed into poverty unless action is taken now.

If this consultation is an attempt to distract from the lack of tangible measures put in place to meet the existing target of ending child poverty by 2020, it is simply smoke and mirrors. Moving the goal posts will do absolutely nothing to help those who are languishing in poverty right now, nor will it help future generations.

Too much time has gone by with too much rhetoric and too little action. Even while this consultation is ongoing, the government has a chance to take actions that can begin to make a difference. They can start tackling debt by providing all families with clear access to a bank account and low interest loans ahead of the introduction of universal credit. They can ensure benefit take-up by educating families on what they are entitled to and how to claim it. They can make addressing fuel poverty a priority, so that families are no longer priced out of heating their homes.

Barnardo's urges the government to remain committed to income as a central tenant of the way child poverty is measured in the UK. If we are to give our nation's children any chance of climbing their way up and out of poverty we need to start with honesty about where we are right now and what the options are for moving forward. We need a clear strategy against which we can measure results when it comes to tackling child poverty. It is about time we cut the rhetoric and focus in on the actions and efforts required to provide equal opportunities for the next generation.

 

Follow Anne Marie Carrie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/barnardos

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
Today marks the start of a 12 week government consultation looking at how child poverty is measured and defined in the UK. The question at the heart of the consultation is likely to be whether or not ...
Today marks the start of a 12 week government consultation looking at how child poverty is measured and defined in the UK. The question at the heart of the consultation is likely to be whether or not ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:55 PM on 11/16/2012
EUGENICS .put bromide in the water supply .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
humphry
The Voynich Manuscripts.
12:44 AM on 11/16/2012
Thank god at least one charity is focusing on our own needs, as we are bombarded day in and day out with charity requests for overseas aid...We need to put our own house in order first, it has long been overlooked, and could be fixed quite quickly with the right measures...Then we can concentrate on the overseas problem.......
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:13 AM on 11/16/2012
Poverty. Now that's one of the most misused words in Britain. Politicians, officials and charity representatives are all happy to spout all sorts of nonsense using the word poverty as cover and are given the media headlines they're looking. It's used as both a shield and a sword. If you wield the word, you seem to be able to say what you want, and are never questioned.

I don't believe there's poverty in Britain. I do believe there's a political belief in poverty. But in a country with our benefits system, it's impossible to be in poverty. There does seem to be a determination to insist that poverty exists, even if the definition has to be tweaked to prove it.

There are violent, uncaring parents, there are social services departments who either don't care or see themselves as political activists or just aren't any good at their jobs. Which leads to exploitation of and abuse to, children. Which then gets lumped under the poverty umbrella.
08:29 PM on 11/15/2012
About time the focus was on poverty in the UK and ways to tackle it. Instead of funnelling our taxes to third world despots and fat cats spend it usefully at home. Prioritise the way we allocate funds on actual mandates from the voters not from deals made by the Whitehall Mandarins, Participatory Democracy now, where we prioritise what money is spent on, we know better than the government where it should go, we couldn't do a worse job.
07:01 PM on 11/15/2012
the answer lies here, people with no or little
money should not be allowed to have children
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
loulou11
12:42 PM on 11/15/2012
Now please correct me if I am wrong but I cannot see how a child of 3 years old can be in a house with an income of under £10,000 per annum. I know I am going to be villified if I am way out here but I will also learn something valueable too if I am wrong.

I just did a quick check using the benefits calcualtor on the gov website stating I had a 3 year old and was a lone parent. I claimed my rent was £85 per week to the local authority and my council tax was £1200 per year. I claimed I was not working, so this would be the minimum.

My income based on that came out at £261.47 per week which if you times it by 52 = £13606.84.

Now I apprecaite the rents in areas may be different as will the conucil tax but I still struggle to see why an example of a 3 year old on an income of under £10,000 would be used in such a way.

Its not a true representation of the facts, its just really misleading.
01:19 PM on 11/15/2012
On one level you are quite right, a three year old child should be living in a family with a least £10,000, but sadly this is not always the case. Many parents living in deprived areas have not for different reasons had the best education, sometimes this is their own fault, sometimes it is not. I work with many parents who have limited literacy skills and limited language skills,(this includes those who are white indiginous British). This means that many do not end up claiming all they are entitled to. Often these families live in states of permanant chaos making the work voluntry services such as the local church- these are often the only agencies who try to really help- doubly difficult. Then there are families of asylum seekers. Contrary to popular belief, these people are entitled to nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
loulou11
02:05 PM on 11/15/2012
I do see what your saying about people accessing benefits however how was a study done in the first place as no child in the UK should be in a household of under £10,000.

'Three-year-olds in households with incomes below £10,000 per annum are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000.'

So whoever did the study stood by and allowed those kids to sit in poverty needlessly so they could collate some figures.

It doesn't sit well with me and I am sorry Anne Marie Carrie, to say I am shocked at you being the Chief exec of Barnados and not having looked into this yourself is an understatement,

Either the facts and figures are simply not true or whoever collated the study is barbaric, either way, its not good.
11:54 AM on 11/15/2012
How about donating a portion of your very large salary Carrie to some of your very poor service users...and I agree with you that rhetoric will not do...it's actions that count now...as we at war....so instead of "pimping" on the misery of millions by drawing a very large and unjustified salary, that is dependent on that misery and human suffering, why not show us how committed you are to equality by giving some of that dosh away
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Fowler
I try....I really do!
08:28 AM on 11/15/2012
This comes at a time when we as a nation need to take a step back and look at ourselves, the systems of support we have and take a hard look at how we manage this country, its people and its future.

Can a welfare system created out of the 1930's great depression, built to give BASIC short term support for the unemployed and weakest of society really be the best way to cope with 450,000 two year plus unemployed? Is our open door policy on immigration a benefit to our nation or a drain? Do we really need to spend £20 BILLION on a new nuclear deterrent in a Europe at peace for 70 years? How we educate all the youth of this nation and why do we need to measure and grade them from 5 years old?

You and I both know; NO child in this country should be in "poverty", no matter how its measured; NO pensior should EVER have to choose between heating a home or eating a meal.

We need a national, wide and totally open debate on how we face the next 100 years and how we can support and pay for ALL this nations social needs and support its hard working men and women; and we need it NOW!
09:53 PM on 11/14/2012
The biggest predictor of child poverty is to be born to a single mother who drops out of school. Government programs are not good at addressing those 2 issues. Unless we force people to take birth control and have abortions, we cannot stop single motherhood with legislation. What we need is to do is to shift the culture that has begotten this situation. I don't think a government program can do that.

We, as a society, need to stress to young ladies that they are worth more than hooking up with a guy. If she does end up pregnant we must encourage her to complete her education. We must stress the dignity of work, any job which begins the ladder of success. We must show our men that respect comes from being responsible, for your children, for your wife, and in your job. Having children by multiple partners you never marry, is not the way a true man behaves.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:18 PM on 11/14/2012
So, it remains Multi-Agency Methodology as the key to delivering solutions?

You ever been at a Multi-Agency Case conference and counted the number of middle-class jobs the poor have created?

In my area we need a place where we can cook decent food, teach basic cooking skills and feed some who need it.

Instead we get multi-agency meetings.