Memorandum submitted by Professor Ruth
Lister into Child Poverty (CP 01)
1. Progress has been made towards meeting
the Government's child poverty targets but further measures are
necessary, if they are to be achieved.
2. The current, future-oriented, emphasis
on children as an investment and on their future development needs
to be complemented by greater recognition of the importance of
childhood and of the impact of poverty on childhood.
3. Development of a new measure of child
poverty should be based on a clear and focused definition.
4. Children's poverty cannot be divorced
from the poverty of the families in which they live and in particular
from that of their mothers.
5. The DWP's decision to do further work
on a "tiered" measure of child poverty is sensible.
Income should remain central to the measure. For all its weaknesses,
the "relative" 60% of median income measure should be
retained. It is, though, regrettable that the DWP has rejected
the proposal to develop a research-based income measure through
use of minimum income standards.
6. Particular attention needs to be given
to a number of pressure points: large families, minority ethnic
families (including asylum-seekers) and the transition into paid
7. The child poverty strategy needs to balance:
child tax credits and child benefit; help for those in and out
of paid work; improvements to financial support for children and
8. In addition to improvements to benefits,
the social fund and tax credits, there needs to be a transformation
in the social infrastructure, including child care.
9. A higher profile, unequivocal and consistent
anti-poverty government message, integrated into a vision for
a fairer society, is necessary to create the political support
for the further steps necessary to eradicate child poverty.
10. The Government should build on the steps
it has begun to take to involve those with experience of poverty
in the development of policy.
1. The Government deserves praise for its
pledge to eradicate child poverty in two decades and its commitment
to interim targets for reducing child poverty by a quarter and
by a half. The policies it has introduced are beginning to have
an impact on the numbers of children in poverty but there is a
general consensus that further measures will be needed, if it
is to meet its 2004 PSA target of reducing the numbers by at least
a quarter and its 2010 target of halving the numbers. The Chancellor's
welcome announcement of a "Child Poverty Review", which
"will set out what further action is required to halve
child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020", suggests
that the Government itself recognises that more needs to be done.The
Committee's inquiry therefore comes at an opportune moment.
2. The main argument put forward by the
Government for the priority it gives to tackling child poverty
is that "our children are our future and the most important
investment that we can make as a nation is in developing the potential
of all our country's children".
This is a powerful argument and it is supported by the growing
body of evidence of the effects of poverty on children's educational
and health development and their future life chances. There is
a danger, though, that such arguments take on an instrumentalist
tone, as in the statement that "support for today's disadvantaged
children will therefore help to ensure a more flexible economy
There is a growing concern that this kind of future-orientation,
which constructs children as citizen-workers of the future, is
losing sight of children qua children and the importance
Childhood is only lived once and for a limited time span; the
impact of poverty on childhood, particularly of longer term poverty,
is therefore important in its own right.
3. This submission does not attempt to address
all the issues raised in the Committee's call for evidence. It
focuses on three main areas: measurement, particular pressure
points and strategy.
Measures and definitions
4. A recent parliamentary question asked
when the "new definition of poverty will be announced".
The answer referred to the consultation on measuring child poverty
and stated that "we will announce our definition of child
poverty by the end of the year".
This exchange illustrates the tendency to conflateor confusedefinition
with measurement. Despite the consultation on measurement of
child poverty, there remains a lack of clarity as to what it is
the Government wants to measure in terms of a definition of
5. Measures are the means of operationalising
definitions. The starting point should, therefore, be a clear
and focused definition of child poverty. This should capture the
essence of what distinguishes the state of poverty from that of
not-poverty. There was no such definition in the measuring child
poverty consultation document. Instead, there and elsewhere in
official statements about poverty, there is a tendency to list
conditions associated with poverty as a substitute for definition.
In a number of cases, most notably the annual poverty report Opportunity
for All, some of the indicators of child poverty are better
understood as indicators of lack of "well-being" or
"capability deprivation", which, while important in
its own right, is a broader condition than poverty, as conventionally
To conflate the two is unhelpful and potentially misleading.
Child and family poverty
6. A working general definition of poverty,
which reflects much of the literature, would be on the lines of
"an inability to participate in society and to enjoy a standard
of living consistent with human dignity and minimum standards
of social decency due to lack of resources". However, given
the particular focus on child poverty there may be a case
for amplifying this. For example a definition of adult and
family poverty could be complemented with a notion such
as the "inability, because of lack of resources, to enjoy
the kind of childhood taken for granted in the wider society and
advocated by experts on childhood". Both are necessary because
ultimately childhood poverty cannot be divorced from family poverty
and to do so could lead to an underestimation of the extent of
child poverty relative to adult poverty. In countries such as
the UK, where childhood poverty rates are higher than adult rates,
this would be the effect of suggestions that we should compare
children's incomes and living standards only with those of other
In other words, while we need to be sensitive to the specific
experiences and perspectives of children, this is not the same
as arguing that the incomes and living standards of children and
the families in which they live should be compared only with those
of other children/families. To do so would be to understate the
rate of child/family poverty in countries where this is higher
than the overall poverty rate.
7. This does, though, raise the question
as to whether what is at issue is the extent of poverty among
children or among households in which children live. The former
would require examining poverty at an individual rather than household
level, which would also have the advantage of opening to the public
gaze, the extent of hidden poverty among women. In terms of deprivation,
though, a measure of child poverty, which focused only on children,
would camouflage the extent to which parents, and in particular
mothers, sacrifice their own living standards in an attempt to
protect their children from the worst effects of poverty. Thus,
while I am in favour of measuring adult poverty at the level of
the individual (difficult as that would be), the measurement of
child poverty cannot be separated from that of the families in
which they live.
8. Ideally, a definition of child/family
poverty, which combines low income and both parental and childhood
deprivation, is what needs to be captured in any long-term measure(s)
used for monitoring progress in tackling child poverty. This/these
can then be complemented by:
a broader notion of well-being/lack
of well-being or capability/capability deprivation, which implicitly
underpins some of the indicators currently presented as indicators
of poverty in Opportunity for All;
a broader conceptualisation of poverty
rooted in people with experience of poverty's own understandings
of what poverty means. This would embrace the kind of relational
and symbolic meanings of poverty that have emerged from participatory
approaches undertaken in the global South and which are beginning
to be developed in the UK.
Examples from the South, which are echoed in reports from organisations
such as ATD Fourth World and the UK Coalition Against Poverty,
include: lack of voice, powerlessness, disrespect, shame and stigma,
denial of rights and diminished citizenship.
The role of income in measuring poverty
9. The attempt to develop a new measure
of child povertyincluding a "headline" measurefaces
a dilemma. On the one hand there is a growing consensus in the
academic literature that no single measure is adequate to capture
the extent and depth of poverty and its relationship to deprivation.
On the other hand a headline measure implies a single measure.
Moreover, as the majority of those who responded to the consultation
document argued, low income is widely seen as "being central
to any poverty measure".
The decision to do further work on a "tiered approach"
therefore makes sense. I would argue for the following in this
Consideration should be given to
including both a poverty gap measure and some specific childhood
A clear distinction needs to be made
between indicators of poverty and indicators of capability deprivation
or lack of well-being.
In addition to drawing on "measurement
expertise" for the more technical aspects of developing a
tiered approach, it is important that there is continued involvement
of parents and children with experience of poverty. The growing
recognition within the DWP of the value of the expertise that
derives from experience is very welcome.
10. Another issue arises in relation to
the nature of the income measure(s) adopted. The current "headline"
measure of 60% of median income is an arbitrary measure. Nevertheless,
for all its conceptual and technical weaknesses, it is simple,
it provides historical continuity and it allows for international
comparison especially within the European Union. Moreover, so
long as the Government itself retains responsibility for the compilation
and publication of the poverty statistics, to jettison this headline
measure could open it to accusations of "moving the goalposts".
11. Indeed, such fears are currently being
voiced in relation to the post-2004 PSA targets. In particular,
there is some anxiety that the fixed "absolute" measure
will replace the current "relative" measure as the basis
for the child poverty targets. If poverty is understood as a relative
phenomenon, it does not make sense to measure it using a poverty
line that does not reflect changing living standards and expectations.
There may be a case for retaining the fixed measure as a "bottom
line measure" but it should not be substituted for the "relative"'
measure currently widely used as a headline measure.
12. There is also a case for the longer
term development of an income measure grounded in empirical research,
drawing on minimum income standards. This case was made by the
former Social Security Select Committee on more than one occasion.
It is therefore regrettable that it was dismissed in the Preliminary
Conclusions to the Consultation.
13. Within the overall statistics, there
are some groups of children with a particularly high risk of poverty.
These include children in large families and children in minority
14. Larger families are at disproportionate
risk of poverty. The DWP estimates that "by 2004 over half
of those children in low income will be in large families".
Recent research published by the DWP found that "greater
hardship was associated with families of three or more children
. . . Couple families with three children were twice as likely
to be in hardship compared to families of two children, although
the degree of hardship was concentrated at the moderate level.
Severe hardship (three or more problems) was substantially greater
for families of four or more children".
This applied to both lone and two parent families. A study by
the Centre for Research in Social Policy, carried out for Save
the Children, found that children in families with three or more
children were more likely to be in severe and persistent poverty.
Although the analysis suggested that family size was not the cause
of that poverty, the researchers point out that the structure
of benefits for children in the UK disadvantages larger families.
The child benefit differential in favour of the first child has
been increased significantly under the present government. As
I argued in my evidence to the Social Security Select Committee's
inquiry into child benefit, we need an evaluation of the available
evidence in order to assess whether the current structural bias
in favour of smaller families is justified.
Minority ethnic families and asylum-seekers
15. The Households Below Average Income
report observes that individuals in households headed by a
member of a minority ethnic community "were skewed towards
the bottom of the income distribution. This pattern was particularly
marked for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi group, with approximately
three out of five individuals in these families having incomes
in the bottom quintile of the income distribution".
Analysis of the depth, as opposed to the extent, of poverty also
indicates that minority ethnic children "are likely to be
further below the poverty line".
Not surprisingly, there is also greater deprivation among minority
ethnic children than among the white majority, with "an extraordinary
level of concentration among Pakistani and Bangladeshi children".
Within this overall context of disadvantage, both the diversity
of experience between minority ethnic groups and what has been
described as the "shocking"' position of Pakistani and
Bangladeshis, for whom "poverty is their most common experience"
16. The accumulating evidence of the greater
risk of child poverty among minority ethnic groups, particularly
those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, means that it is essential
that the ethnic dimension is "mainstreamed" within the
analysis of child poverty and within the Government's child poverty
17. In addition, attention needs to be given
to the position of child asylum-seekers. The fact that they are
not included in the poverty statistics does not mean that they
should be excluded from the commitment to tackle child poverty.
Policies to combat child poverty must be inclusive of all groups
of children resident in the country.
Transitions into paid work
18. Although movement into paid work (supplemented
by tax credits) is usually associated with an improvement in income
and living standards, this is not necessarily the caseespecially
in the short term. A number of policy changes have been introduced
designed to ease the transition from benefits into paid work and
to protect people if a job does not work out or is short-lived.
These have been very welcome. Nevertheless, these changes may
not have been sufficient to overcome the problems revealed by
research. Two recent studies, in particular, highlight how the
transition into paid work can represent a pressure point.
19. A study by the National Centre for Social
Research for the DWP found that a combination of low pay and higher
costs (especially childcare), and sometimes former debts, meant
that some households described themselves worse off after a move
into paid work. Money management was more difficult than when
on benefit. Although "some `worse off' families were determined
to remain in work and off benefits, others found that the impact
of being worse off financially, and psychologically too, became
too much over time. Ultimately some households felt forced to
leave their jobs and return to benefits as they saw this as being
the better option".
The children, in particular, suffered because any discretionary
spending while on benefits had been directed towards them.
20. One of the most significant findings
of the CRSP study for Save the Children, mentioned earlier, was
that persistent and severe child poverty was associated with income
volatility, measured as two or more transitions between benefit
income and work or other income as the main source of income.
"Children whose households underwent two or more such transitions
were much more likely to be in persistent and severe poverty than
children who did not experience these transitions".
The authors point to the need for policy to provide greater protection
during periods of transition between benefits and paid work and
vice versa and to do more to prevent people falling back
on to benefit or moving on to benefit in the first place. This
last point, which implies the importance of prevention,
deserves emphasis in its own right.
21. As stated in the Introduction, there
has been real progress in the reduction of child poverty since
the Government came to power but more needs to be done, if that
progress is to be maintained and targets are to be met. This section
considers the question of strategy from three perspectives: questions
of balance; the broader policy context; and the politics of child
Questions of balance
Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit
22. The Government has adopted a principle
of "progressive universalism", which means "supporting
all families with children, but offering the greatest help to
those who need it most through a light touch income test".
There is growing support for a further increase in the child tax
credit (CTC) in order to meet the 2004 PSA target. Such an increase
is needed but it should be complemented by an increase in the
real value of child benefit, if the commitment to universalism
is not to start looking rather hollow. The administrative problems
associated with the introduction of the new tax credits system
underline the importance of a benefit that is reliable and cheap
to administer. Although the acceptance of the case that benefits
for children are best paid to the caring parent is very welcome,
a caring parent's entitlement to CTC is still affected by a partner's
income. Where income is not shared fairly in the family, this
could still mean that some mothers are not getting the money they
need. Under the new CTC structure, a payment of child benefit
will, like CTC, be of equal value to children in families in or
out of paid work.
23. In its 1999 report on Child Benefit,
the Social Security Committee endorsed child benefit's multi-purpose
role and welcomed the Government's commitment to its continuation
as "the foundation for the future support for children".
That foundation might start to look rather shaky, if child benefit
is frozen in real terms while CTC grows in value. It would therefore
be very helpful if the Committee could reiterate its support for
child benefit as a key element in the strategy to end child poverty.
In and Out of Paid Work
24. "Work not welfare" has been
the central plank of the Government's child poverty strategy.
The increase in employment has contributed to the reduction in
child poverty. Nevertheless, there continues to be a real problem
of poverty among those in paid work, which tax credits are only
partially addressing. As End Child Poverty and the Work Foundation
have argued, more attention needs to be given to what happens
to people once they have made the move from benefits into paid
work in order to ensure that they do not get trapped in low-paid
work subsidised by tax-credits.
25. Despite an initial antipathy to improving
out-of-work benefits, the Government has increased the real value
of the children's income support/income-based jobseeker's allowance
rates so that, for younger children, they have virtually doubled
in real terms over the lifetime of the Government. This is very
welcome. The big reduction in the incidence of severe hardship
among non-working families and their children in the panel study
conducted for the DWP by the Policy Studies Institute would appear
to vindicate the decision to improve out-of-work benefits for
26. Nevertheless there remains a significant
proportion experiencing moderate or severe hardship; indeed the
increase in the proportion experiencing moderate hardship suggests
that many of those no longer experiencing severe hardship continue
to experience real difficulties. Further improvements are therefore
necessary. Concerns that improvements in out-of-work benefits
will adversely affect work incentives need to be weighed against
the evidence that the greater the hardship, the lower morale and
self-confidence are likely to be, to the detriment of job-seeking.
Getting by on inadequate benefits involves hard work that can
sap the energy needed to seek ways out of poverty. The ill health
experienced by many parents and children in families on benefit
makes the task harder and can act as a barrier to movement into
It is therefore unhelpful and demeaning to characterise benefits
as a "passive" form of welfare in contrast to "active"
forms of welfare designed to activate people to find work. Adequate
benefits are necessary to support parents in their struggle to
get by and bring up their children.
27. Urgent reform of the social fund is
also necessary as part of the child poverty strategy.
It is already two years since the Committee reached its verdict
that the inadequacies of the social fund were undermining the
Government's child poverty strategy and indeed that they were
exacerbating the poverty experienced by families with children.
It declared this "unacceptable".
The position continues to be unacceptable.
28. There needs to be sensitivity to the
tensions that the emphasis on paid work can create for lone mothers
in particular. For instance, a small UK study reveals the strain
and time squeeze that conflicting policy pressuresto take
paid work and to be more involved in their children's educationcan
place on lone mothers.
An ethnographic US study found that the move to paid work can
have a detrimental effect on mothers' efforts to help with their
Thus, a short term improvement in financial position might have
perverse longer term consequences for their children's ability
to get out or stay out of poverty. The evidence on parental help
with homework from the DWP Families and Children 2001 survey
does not show a clear pattern as between low income parents in
paid work or on benefit ;
more researchboth qualitative and quantitativeon
the issue would be helpful.
Children and Adults
29. Although there has been a significant
real increase in out-of-work benefits for children, particularly
younger children, there has been no real increase in the standard
adult rates. While it made sense to prioritise the children's
rates, which research had shown were particularly low relative
to needs, the time has come to consider whether this is sufficient.
A qualitative study carried out for the DWP into how low-income
families with children spend an increase in household income decided
to exclude households who remained on benefit because those in
the pilot "found it hard to perceive any increase".
Some of these families contained under-11 year old children and
therefore will have benefited from the significant phased improvement
in these rates. However, a significant real increase in what was
a very low amount to start with may not always make sufficient
difference to the finances of hard-pressed families. Parents will
judge the amount of benefit on the total amount they receive,
not the amount provided for each family member. For the increase
in the total amount to make a real perceptible difference to the
recipient may require an increase in the adult as well as the
30. As argued above, child poverty cannot
be divorced from the poverty of the family in which they grow
up and in particular the poverty of their mothers who tend to
manage poverty in the family and to act as shock-absorbers in
an attempt to protect their children from its full effects. Poverty
is, for this and other reasons, a gendered phenomenon.It
is important therefore to combine a children's perspective (including
their perspective on the effects of poverty on their childhood)
with a broader concern with family and women's poverty. Families
need sufficient income to participate in society and to enjoy
a standard of living consistent with human dignity, as called
for by the European Commission.
Children should be able to enjoy their childhood and to "fit
in" and "join in" with their peers.
The broader policy context
31. In addition to thinking about immediate
policy decisions, it would be helpful to look at those countries
that have achieved very low child and family poverty rates, most
notably the Scandinavian countries, in order to see whether there
are any policy lessons that can be learned. Of course, it is not
a simple question of just importing policies from different kinds
of welfare regimes. It is nevertheless telling that, as a report
from the Innocenti Research Centre has pointed out, "no country
with a high rate of gross social expenditure has a high rate of
child poverty". The report also concludes "it is clear
that state provision for poor families is an important factor
in all countries that have succeeded in reducing child poverty
rates to low levels".
32. Other evidence suggests that it is also
the support provided for children and families generally which
is important, including, in particular the social infrastructure
of services and parental leave provisions that help parents combine
paid work and child-rearing. Despite the very welcome child care
strategy launched by the Government, and the Government's recognition
of child care's crucial role in its child poverty strategy, provision
remains woefully inadequate. Child care is a key policy not just
in terms of enabling parents to participate in the labour market
but also for its potential contribution to enhancing children's
quality of life and development. Overall, the goal should be the
kind of social infrastructure, which is necessary for the long-term
elimination of child poverty and to improve the quality of life
of families with children generally. Given the years of neglect,
during which child care was regarded as a private responsibility,
this will require not just marginal improvements but a transformation.
The politics of child poverty
33. The success of the Government's strategy
to combat child poverty will not depend simply on its choice of
policies. There is still a huge mountain to climb and in order
to climb it the Government has to be able to carry the general
public with it. There therefore has to be a political as well
as a policy strategy. There are times when the Government appears
to be pursuing such a strategy. But much of the time it keeps
quiet about what it is doing. "Doing good by stealth"
needs to give way to a higher profile, unequivocal and consistent
anti-poverty message across government.
34. The anti-poverty message should not
stand alone but should be integrated into, and presented as part
of, a broader strategy to create a fairer society, and one in
which children are genuinely valued. Engagement of the general
population is necessary to combat the residualisation of the issue
of poverty and thereby to build public support. A similar point
was made in the New Policy Institute/Fabian Society report on
a national strategy for social inclusion.
35. Finally, the strategy should reflect
the Government's commitment to revitalising democracy. The debate
about the future direction of anti-poverty policy needs to include
those most affected. The voices of those living in poverty can
help to bring the debate alive to the wider population. The development
of anti-poverty policy can benefit from the expertise borne of
experience, as the Government is beginning to acknowledge at national
as well as local level.
It needs to build on the steps it has begun to take to draw on
Professor Ruth Lister
29 August 2003
1 HM Treasury Press Release (82/03), 7 July 2003,
emphasis added. Back
Gordon Brown, Foreword to Pre-Budget Report, Tackling Child Poverty:
Giving every child the best possible start in life, HM Treasury,
Budget Report 2003, para 5.4, HM Treasury, 2003. Back
See, for instance, T Ridge, Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion:
From a Child's Perspective, Policy Press, 2002; R Lister, "Investing
in the citizen-workers of the future: transformations in citizenship
and the state under New Labour", Social Policy and Administration,
37(5), 2003 (forthcoming); L Adelman, S Middleton and K Ashworth,
Britain's Poorest Children: Severe and Persistent Poverty and
Social Exclusion, Save the Children, 2003. Back
House of Commons Hansard, col 603W, 7 July 2003. Back
The notion of "capability deprivation" comes from A
Sen, see, for instance, Development as Freedom,
Oxford University Press, 1999. Back
See, for instance, B Bradbury, S P Jenkins and J Micklewright
"Conceptual and measurement issues" In B Bradbury et
al (eds), The Dynamics of Child Poverty in Industrial Countries,
Cambridge University Press, 2001; J Micklewright, Social Exclusion
and Children; A European view of a US debate, CASE, 2002. Back
See F Bennett with M Roberts, forthcoming report for Joseph
Rowntree Foundation. Back
These ideas are developed in greater depth in R Lister, Poverty,
Polity Press, forthcoming. Back
Measuring Child Poverty Consultation: Preliminary Conclusions.
Department for Work and Pensions, 2003, p 31. Back
See, for instance the United Kingdom National Action Plan on
Social Inclusion 2003-05, DWP, 2003. Back
Opportunity for All. Fourth Annual Report, DWP/Stationery Office,
2003, p 18. Back
S Vegeris and J Perry, Families and Children 2001: Living standards
and the children, DWP Research Report 190, Corporate Document
Services, 2003, p 93. Back
Adelman et al, op cit. Back
Households Below Average Income 1995-95/2001-02, DWP/National
Statistics, 2003, p 19. Back
L Adelman, "Childhood poverty: how much or how many?"
Benefits 29, 2000, p 12; see also Adelman et al, op cit. Back
L Platt, Parallel Lives? CPAG, 2002, p 59. Back
R Berthoud, "Poverty and prosperity among Britain's ethnic
minorities" Benefits 10(1), 2002, p 8. Back
C Farrell and W O'Connor, Low Income Families and Household
Spending, DWP Research Report 192, Corporate Document Services,
2003, p 36. Back
Adelman et al, op cit. (pre-publication copy, p viii). Back
The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefits System, HM Treasury,
2002, para 2.11. Back
Fourth Report of the Social Security Committee, Child Benefit,
HC114, 1999, para 12. Back
T Blackwell, Work and Child Poverty Briefing Paper, End
Child Poverty/The Work Foundation, 2003. Back
Vegeris and Perry, op cit. Back
See, for instance, A Marsh, "Helping British lone parents
get and keep paid work" in J Millar and K Rowlingson (eds)
Lone Parents, Employment and Social Policy, Policy Press, 2001;
A Marsh and K Rowlingson, Low and Moderate Income Families in
Britain: Changes in 1999 and 2000, DWP Research Report No 165,
Corporate Document Services, 2002. Back
See, for instance, Marsh, op cit; D Kasparova et al, Families
and Children 2001: Work and childcare, DWP Research Report 191,
Corporate Document Services, 2003. Back
See M Howard, Lump Sums. Roles for the social fund in ending
child poverty, National Council for One Parent Families/CPAG/FWA,
Third Report of the Social Security Committee on The Social
Fund, HC 232, Stationery Office, 2001, para 124). Back
K Standing, "Lone mothers and parental involvement",
Journal of Social Policy 28(3), 479-495, 1999. Back
K S Newman and M M Chin, "High stakes: time poverty, testing
and the children of the working poor", Qualitative Sociology,
26(1), 3-34, 2003. Back
Vegeris and Perry, op cit. Back
Farrell and O'Connor, op cit, p 1. Back
J Bradshaw et al, Gender and Poverty in Britain,
Equal Opportunities Commission, 2003. Back
J Veit-Wilson, Setting Adequacy Standards, Policy Press,
1998; "Policy priorities for social inclusion: the case for
EU minimum income standards", paper given at EU Greek Presidency
conference on the Modernisation of the European Social Model,
Ridge, op cit. Back
Innocenti Report Card No 1, "A league table of child
poverty in rich nations". UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,
June 2000. Back
C Howarth, P Kenway and G Palmer, Responsibility for All,
NPI/Fabian Society, 2001. Back
See the UK National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2003-05,
DWP, 2003. Back