House of Commons - Work and Pensions

Select Committee on Work and Pensions Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Save the Children (CP 07)

SUMMARY

Introduction

Save the Children works actively in the UK to bring about positive changes for children and young people. Child poverty needs to be to be understood and approached in its broadest sense capturing not only income but also access to basic services and full participation in society. We would urge that the Committee considers ways of involving children and young people as active participants in this inquiry.

Key issues

1. Severe child poverty

Data on the extent of child poverty according to official figures is well known and in the public domain. However very little is known about the extent of severe child poverty or about the children who are affected. New research commissioned by Save the Children provides new important data on the extent of severe child poverty, its persistence and the overlaps between childhood poverty and social exclusion. Save the Children welcomes the current cross-cutting Child Poverty Review and in light of our new research on severe child poverty urge that Government prioritise measures on severe and persistent and in particular:

— Incorporate the aim of eliminating severe child poverty into official targets and ensure that this is monitored.

— Increase emphasis on initiatives to address social exclusion of severely poor children.

— Introduce a more flexible benefits system to improve financial protection for children during times of change. For example, reduce delays in re-starting benefits after temporary work, and improve benefit take-up by families with changing circumstances.

— Explore ways to improve the financial protection of families experiencing the unemployment of one or both parents.

Unless Government understands and considers the extent and nature of severe child poverty in the UK, it will not be able to design and evaluate policies and initiatives that effectively respond to this group. This in turn will undermine the Government's commitment to eradicating child poverty by 2020.

2. An outcomes framework

The Opportunity for All framework could be supplemented by the comprehensive monitoring of outcomes for children. This could include a number of outcomes associated with poverty and for which data is available at the national levels such as child mortality, low birth weight, obesity, self-esteem, homelessness and proportion of children living in poor housing.

3. Devolution

With respect to child poverty policies, we would urge the Select Committee to take account of the impact of devolution on the four countries of the UK. Although key areas of government activity such as tax and benefits are reserved to Westminster, the administrations across the UK also have a remit in terms of child poverty. There is the need to not only compare and share good practice across the four nations of the UK, but also to continuously monitor who has responsibility for different areas of policy and to ensure that anti-poverty action taking place across the UK is consistent.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Save the Children works actively in the UK to bring about positive change for children and young people. We work in different communities, exploring with children and young people how best to promote and protect their rights, to overcome marginalisation and discrimination, and to tackle the challenges of education, work and citizenship. Our work brings together the key components of hands-on experience, through policy analysis and a child-centred approach. (for an overview on our community work in the UK please see Appendix 1).

1.2 Save the Children's approach to child poverty takes as its starting point the definition of "Overall Poverty" that was agreed at the World Summit on Social Development in 1995. This expanded the definition beyond income poverty to include aspects such as lack of access to basic services, social discrimination and exclusion.

"Poverty has various manifestations, including lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by a lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life." (UN, 1995)

1.3 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which underpins our work also provides a basis for our approach to child poverty. Article 27(1) in particular states that:

"States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development." (CRC, 1989)

1.4 And Article 4 states that:

"States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation." (CRC, 1989)

1.5 These two universally accepted sources provide Save the Children with the following definition of child poverty:

Child Poverty is when a child has a standard of living inadequate to ensure his or her rights to survival and physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. An adequate standard of living is dependent on access to human, economic and organisational assets and resources that are controlled by the child and/or those responsible for him/her—his/her immediate family, community, state and international community.

1.6 Consequently, we believe that child poverty needs to be understood and approached in its broadest sense capturing not only income but also access to basic services and participation.

2. INVOLVING CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AS PARTNERS IN THE WORK AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO CHILD POVERTY IN THE UK

2.1 As enshrined in article 12 of the UNCRC, children have the right to express their opinion and to have their views taken into account in matters affecting them. Consultations conducted by Save the Children as well as other agencies and researchers repeatedly show that children and young people can and want to contribute to finding solutions to child poverty both at local and national levels.

2.2 We would urge that the Committee considers ways of involving children and young people as active participants in this inquiry. This would not only fulfil their rights as stipulated in the UNCRC but would also provide much needed evidence from those with direct knowledge and experience of exclusion and disadvantage.

2.3 Save the Children has extensive expertise across the UK in consultation methods and would be willing and able to help the Committee in facilitating the participation of children and young people as appropriate.

3. THE MEASUREMENT OF CHILD POVERTY AND THE GOVERNMENT'S ANNUAL POVERTY REPORT, OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL

3.1 Save the Children submitted a response to the Department for Work & Pension's Measuring child poverty: A consultation document (April 2002). In our submission we argued that the best summary or headline measure to track long-term progress on child poverty was an income based measure; specifically the percentage of children living in households below 60% of contemporary median income (after housing costs). Income based measures and in particular relative income measures have a long tradition in the UK and are likely to remain the lead indicator in the European Union. Given the 2004 PSA's target of reducing the number of children living in households below 60% of contemporary median income by a quarter, we said that it was important that the Government retained this measure in order to gauge success in meeting its child poverty targets.

3.2 Nevertheless, we recognise that there are many problems with relying solely on relative income measures. Such measures do not show depth or persistence of poverty nor do they take into account aspects of poverty other than income. It is therefore important to supplement relative income measures with other poverty measures. The tiered approach recommended in the consultation offers a useful method of measuring progress against child poverty and was the option we supported.

3.3 We believe that any measure of child poverty needs to be based not only on income but also deprivation and social exclusion. This is why Save the Children commissioned CRSP as Loughborough University to carry out a study that looked at the persistence and depth of child poverty as well as overlaps between income, deprivation and social exclusion. The recently published research Britain's Poorest Children[87] highlights that:

— Deprivation-based measures of poverty need to be included in longitudinal surveys in order to understand the circumstances under which income becomes inadequate to provide necessities and, in turn, when income becomes adequate to do so.

— Including child-based measures of poverty (and social exclusion) is crucial for an understanding of children's circumstances.

— Childhood poverty and social exclusion are multi-dimensional and their manifestations need to be measured in the same survey in order to understand their inter-relationships.

3.4 We welcome the twin-track approach of measuring incomes and social exclusion as adopted in the Government's Opportunity for All and in the similar documents for Scotland and Wales.[88] One limitation to the Government's approach however is that the relationship between incomes and social exclusion is not explored. In addition the headline indicators are, perhaps inevitably, limited and do not adequately capture different aspects of poverty. For example:

Opportunity for All

Britain's Poorest Children,

— Some indicators, for instance hospital admissions, are susceptible to local policy and can be manipulated by local practice.

— Some of the indicators are only concerned with Sure Start areas, which fails to capture pockets of poverty in more affluent areas.

— Some but not all of the indicators in Opportunity for All are applicable to the whole of the UK. This can give rise to confusion about which indicators are applicable to different parts of the UK.

— Scotland and Northern Ireland have developed their own indicators in addition to the ones that are UK wide in Opportunity for All. It is therefore difficult to make comparisons across the UK.

— It is not possible to compare the indicators internationally.

3.5 Opportunity for All could be supplemented by the comprehensive monitoring of outcomes for children. In 2002, Save the Children published The Well-Being of Children in the UK.[89] It covers 22 child well-being domains ranging from poverty, health and education to crime and the environment. It highlights the need for the collation of country level monitoring of child well-being into a routinely produced comprehensive report on the well being of children in the UK. All of the following outcomes are associated with poverty and have data available at a national level. These could be used as supplement social exclusion indicators. (For more details on each of these indicators please see Appendix 2).

— Child mortality and child morbidity.

— Fatal child accidents on the roads and in the home.

— Low birth-weight.

— Dental cavities.

— Obesity.

— Self-esteem.

— Teenage birth rate.

— Leaving school at 16.

— Passing exams with higher grades.

— Homelessness.

— Proportion of children living in poor housing.

— Satisfaction with neighbourhood.

4. THE EXTENT OF CHILD POVERTY IN BRITAIN AND THE CAUSES OF IT

4.1 Data on the extent of child poverty according to official figures is well known and in the public domain. Latest official statistics show that for 2001-02, 3.8 million children in Britain were living in poverty (ie living in households that had an income below 60% of the average income after housing costs).[90]

4.2 However very little is known about the extent of severe child poverty or about the children who are affected. This has important implications for the government's child poverty reduction policies as different policy measures may be required to lift children out of severe poverty. New research commissioned by Save the Children and carried out by the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Britain's Poorest Children (as referred to above), investigates the extent of severe child poverty, its persistence and the overlaps between childhood poverty and social exclusion. Key findings include (copy of full report is enclosed):

— Relatively large proportions of British children experienced severe poverty. Using the Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain (1999), 8% were found to be severely poor (that is poor on all three of the following measures: Child materially deprived AND Child's parents materially deprived AND Household income below 40% of median). Using the British Household Panel Survey (1991-99), it was found that 9% of children were estimated to have experienced severe and persistent poverty during various five year periods of the study.

— There was a clear association between receiving Income Support (IS), or Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and experiencing severe poverty. In 1999, 87% of children in severe poverty were receiving these benefits.

— At the time of the survey, almost all non-poor children lived in households with at least one worker and approximately 70% had two or more workers. Over a five year period, around 20% of children in persistent poverty (with or without an experience of severe poverty) had lived in a household without workers in every year. This shows that paid work therefore provides the best protection from poverty.

— However, the research also found that over a five year period, 81% of children in persistent and severe poverty had a worker in the household in at least one year. Therefore work did not always protect from poverty, particularly in households where there was only one worker.

— Transitions between having workers and no workers in the household, and between receiving and not receiving benefits were associated with children experiencing persistent and severe poverty. For example, over a five-year period, 57% of children in persistent and severe poverty and 42% of those in persistent poverty only had made at least one transition between receiving and not receiving IS or JSA, compared with only 21% of children who experienced no poverty. 65% of children in persistent and severe poverty had experienced at least one transition between having workers and no workers in the household, compared with 53% of children in persistent poverty only and 5% of children who experienced no poverty.

— Family transitions were also associated with children experiencing persistent and severe poverty. Five years spent with a lone parent increased a child's chances of persistent poverty only. But experiencing change, from living in a couple family to a lone parent family for example, was particularly associated with persistent and severe childhood poverty.

— Social exclusion is associated with severe poverty. Severely poor children were less likely to have access to local services such as mother and toddler groups, after-school clubs lived in poorer quality housing and experienced more problems in their local area. For example:

— Severely poor children could not afford to participate in children's social activities at a much higher rate than their non-severe poor and non-poor counterparts. The average non-participation rate for severely poor children was 25% compared to 7% for non-severely poor children and just 2% for all children;

— Severely poor children were less likely to be able to afford, or did not have access to, local services. 11% of severely poor children did not have access to local services compared with 8% for non-severely poor children and 5% for all children; and

— Severely poor children were more likely to experience problems with their local area. 35% of severely poor children experienced problems with their local area compared with 21% of non-severely poor children and 11% of all children.

— A large proportion of parents were going without but not allowing their children to be deprived. When they became severely and persistently poor parents were less able to protect their children—this is the point where children themselves then go without, for example, missing meals or being unable to join in social activities with other children.

5. POVERTY AND THE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF CHILDREN'S LIVES

5.1 Impact of child poverty on children and families "Britain's Poorest Children[91]" found that there was a clear overlap between social exclusion and severe poverty in childhood. See Section 4.

5.2 Recent research by Ridge, Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion: from a child's perspective sought to explore the question of what were the realities of child poverty and how did poverty impact on a child's perception of their own life? The research found that poverty and disadvantage permeated every aspect of children's lives, "from the material and more quantifiable aspects of their needs, to the social and emotional requirements so important for children, both in childhood and beyond[92]". Issues identified ranged from lack of pocket money or any personal income and the problems associated with this, to lack of access to affordable transport. In terms of the children's and young people's perceptions of the impact poverty had made on their lives, the majority felt strongly that their lives had been changed significantly by living on a low income. Many linked their personal problems to family circumstances and/or felt their friendships had been compromised, and some were particularly fearful of the stigmatisation of poverty. Consultations with children and young people conducted in recent years by Save the Children about their experiences and views of poverty and social exclusion also reveal a number of key issues many of which reinforce these findings.[93]

5.2.1 Many young people talk about not being able to participate in social activities associated with childhood, such as having to go without toys, trips to the swimming pool, and birthday parties. Young people in particular stressed the need for children and young people to stay active, linking this to positive self-esteem:

"people need to live in a home and they need things that will keep them going instead of sitting around the house like"

"And when people get outside and do things that's really, really good and they are proud of themselves"

"when you play you get exercise which is very good"

"I want to play outside, I want fresh air"

5.2.2 At the same time, young people also identify the barriers to accessing and participating in social and leisure activities:

"If people have got money they can enjoy their life by going on adventures, climbing up mountains, going to Alton Towers and other trips. But if people that haven't, they can't enjoy their life that much"

"If you don't have much money on your birthday you can't buy good stuff"

5.2.3 Children and young people often describe how they have restricted access to leisure and social facilities and activities citing costs of transport as a major barrier.

"No transport. No leisure activities."

"If you haven't got a car you have to get a bus over but you need money to catch a bus."

5.2.4 Young people also talked about how not having much money affected their experience at school. One consultation conducted in Wales[94] for example found that young people felt they were missing out and were stigmatised because

— They could not afford the proper school uniform;

— They have free school meals;

— They cannot buy essential items they need for school; and

— They cannot pay for so-called extras—social activities in school, school trips, books.

5.2.5 Children and young people who do not have much money also highlighted bullying as a major issue. Many young people talk about being routinely bullied because of their clothes or where they live.

"You're branded as a lower status than others—there's a lack of respect"

5.2.6 While highlighting important issues as defined by children and young people themselves, these consultations also reveal the value and importance of young people being involved in anti-poverty work. These young people have made real contributions to thinking on what policies and practice work at local and national levels as demonstrated in our anti-poverty work involving young people including young people-led projects (see Appendix 1).

6. SPECIFIC GROUPS AFFECTED BY POVERTY IN WHICH SAVE THE CHILDREN HAS AN INTEREST

In terms of particular groups that are affected, in the UK our work with children and young people has revealed some of those groups which are more susceptible to poverty namely refugee and asylum seeking children and Gypsy and Traveller families. We also work in deprived neighbourhoods showing how children in these areas are more at risk of service and participation poverty.

6.1.1 Refugee and asylum seeking children.

Asylum seeking and refugee children in the UK face unacceptably high levels of poverty and social exclusion and experience extensive violations of their rights. This is exemplified by lower levels of support and problems faced particularly by those children and young people that have become separated from their families.

(1) Support rates for asylum seeking children in families

Asylum seeking families within the UK have tended to be more susceptible to poverty as the total support available for them has traditionally been 90% of income support levels. While more recently, and leading up to April 2003, asylum-seeking children in families were receiving 100% of the income support rates received by citizen children, in April 2003 with the introduction of the Child Tax Credit system (whereby child benefit is paid in addition to support under tax credit), increased levels of support for citizen children have not been matched for asylum seeking children. Asylum-seeking children in families are not eligible for child benefit and therefore now receive just 90% of support rates (this is for payments made to the family as a whole and includes "in-kind" support.)[95] In Scotland, a consultation conducted by Save the Children with Glasgow City Council Education with asylum-seeking children and young people found that many cited restrictions on play and access to leisure due to lack of money as a major issue.[96]

(2) Support for separated, refugee and asylum seeking children

The amount of financial support received by asylum seeking children separated from their families varies significantly between local authorities. Research conducted by Save the Children[97] found that a number of local authorities issued vouchers or a combination of vouchers and cash for 16 and 17 year olds placing restrictions on how they could spend their money (eg vouchers were not accepted on public transport). In two areas young separated refugees placed in full-board accommodation were not provided with any financial support at all. The transition which separated children have to undergo at the age of 18 years from social service support to National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is also a cause of severe hardship. Evidence shows that for some young people it can take months for NASS to acknowledge their change in status leaving many destitute and without support for months at a time. Many have to rely on support from charitable donations for basic survival while they wait for their asylum claim to be processed.

6.1.2 Gypsy/Traveller children.

Gypsy/Traveller children in the UK have been identified by Save the Children as a particularly vulnerable group not only in terms of income poverty but particularly service and participation poverty including lack of access to education and health services. Limited access to formal education is a key issue for Gypsy/Traveller children and has implications for their wider participation in society.[98] In Northern Ireland for example, there continues to be major concern about standards of health and education among Traveller children. 50% of the Traveller population in Northern Ireland is under 16 years of age, yet access to education is a major difficulty for Travellers. Many families live on the roadside, and the few official sites that exist are inadequate. Poor sanitation and the lack of clean drinking water mean that some of these sites are themselves a public health hazard. Death rates for Traveller children in Northern Ireland aged under 10 years are ten times that of non-Traveller children and Travellers have an adult life expectancy 11-15 years below that of adults in the settled community.[99]

6.1.3 Children living in deprived neighbourhoods.

Poverty in neighbourhoods has been the focus of much research in the UK. Ghate and Haxel, for example, in their research of parenting in poor environments, explored community level poverty and its relationship to family and individual problems such as low income and child behavioural problems. It found that parents and children in poor environments were subject to higher levels of adversity than the wider population, including worse physical and mental health, families were more likely to be headed by lone parents and living environments were more prone to crime.[100] Save the Children's work with children and young people in deprived neighbourhoods also highlights that problems of poverty can lead to crime and a poor living environment, which can result in places and people who live in them being stigmatised; the areas being seen as "problem neighbourhoods" or "no-go areas". Regeneration is the key mechanism to tackle poverty, deprivation and economic failure and the need to involve children and young people as active participants in regeneration processes is paramount. Save the Children has been facilitating the involvement of young people in a number of regeneration projects.[101] Young people through these projects have identified a number of issues such as poor local environment, lack of clean, safe places to play and lack of facilities including leisure. These are documented in a study conducted by Hugh Matthews and published by Save the Children: Children and Community Regeneration, Creating Better Neighbourhoods.[102]

6.2 Finally, in terms of children living in severe and persistent poverty, the research Britain's Poorest Children published by Save the Children found that:

103

104

105

7. THE EXTENT AND CAUSES OF REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN CHILD POVERTY

7.1 In response to growing evidence of the geographical concentration of poverty, tackling area deprivation has been a core part of the Government's social inclusion policy agenda along side tackling worklessness and making changes to the tax and benefit system. Government has introduced a number of area-based initiatives and in 2001 launched the neighbourhood renewal strategy aimed at to reducing the gap between 88 of the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country.[106] A more comprehensive regional economic policy has so far been elusive but is now emerging as a government priority.[107]

7.2 In terms of what we know about the extent and nature of regional variations the DWP's Family Resources Survey as part of the Household Below Average Incomes data includes regional data for England and Wales. Most recent figures (before housing costs) for 2001-02[108] show that children living in Inner London face the highest risk of low income, followed by children in Wales and the North East. But high levels of risk are also found in the West Midlands (as well as the North West and Merseyside, Yorkshire and the Humber).

7.3 In terms of administrative statistics the Oxford Social Deprivation Unit's index on multiple deprivation shows significant variations in child poverty rates between electoral wards. According to 1998 data for example, there were some wards that had child rate poverty rate below 1% compared with others which exceeded 90%.[109]

7.4 The Welsh Office in 1999 commissioned its own Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, which highlights pockets of "income" deprivation throughout Wales. The most deprived authorities were those in the South Wales Valleys. Merthyr Tydfil had the highest proportion of children living in households reliant on benefits. Monmouthshire, the lowest proportion of children living in households reliant on benefits.[110]

7.5 In Scotland it is also the case that child poverty is not uniformly distributed with Glasgow having a disproportionate share of children living in child poverty in Scotland. While the children of Glasgow make up just 12% of the overall population in Scotland, they account for 20% of those living in poverty. According to 1999-2000 figures, in Social Inclusion Partnership areas (where Scottish Executive funding on regeneration is targeted), twice as many of children were living in income poverty (51%) compared to elsewhere (25%).[111]

7.6 In terms of severe and persistent child poverty, less is known about extent and regional variation. Britain's Poorest Children published by Save the Children was not able to look at regional differences in detail and numbers were too small for Wales and Scotland. However for England it was surprising to find that children living in the Midlands and South of England appeared to be at highest risk of severe poverty. Although the government is already pursing an area-based anti-poverty strategy these findings remind us of the challenges facing the government's regional economic policy. Clearly more research is needed to explore these findings.

8. COMPARISONS BETWEEN CHILD POVERTY WITHIN THE UK AND OTHER COUNTRIES

8.1 Child poverty is an issue for all countries of the UK. Official data sets, however, such as the Family Resources Survey and the BHPS are only just beginning to enhance their samples for the Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales making it difficult to make country comparisons. According to what information there is available there do appear to be some differences between countries in terms of rates and patterns of poverty. According to the Family Resources Survey data, which currently only has data available for GB not Northern Ireland (NI was only included from 2002) there is very little variation between England, Wales and Scotland at the 40% threshold before housing costs (1999-2000). However after housing costs Scotland has a lower rate than England and Wales. At the other thresholds (50% and 60%) Wales has the highest child poverty rate both before and after housing costs. According to the most recently available official figures, for 2000-01, using 50% of mean income after housing costs, Wales still had had a higher child poverty rate (33%) than Scotland and England.[112] In Scotland, the 2000-01 figures from the Scottish Executive indicate that 30% of children were living in relative low income households.[113] This accounts for 320,000 children under the age of 16 in Scotland.

8.2 For Northern Ireland, data has been collected via different sources. According to Research carried out for the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), Northern Ireland has significantly higher levels of children living in poverty than any other part of the UK. It found that 38% of children live in households, which are in the bottom 30% of equivalised household income after housing costs.[114]

8.3 Department of Social Development statistics show that 32% of children in Northern Ireland live in households whose only income derives from benefits.[115] This compares with 19% of children in Britain living in families totally dependent on benefits.[116] A further 18% of children in Northern Ireland live in households that claim Working Family Tax Credit (WFTC).[117] However, the OFM/DFM research found that half of all children living below the poverty line were living in families where at least one adult was in employment[118] This compares unfavourably with overall UK figures.[119] The causes of the high levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland are complex but inter-related. They include unemployment, low pay, a higher cost of living and slightly larger families. For more information on these please see Appendix 3.

8.4 Particularly in light of the above, we would urge the Select Committee to take account of the impact of devolution on the four countries of the UK. Although key areas of government activity such as tax and benefits are reserved to Westminster, the administrations across the UK also have a remit in terms of child poverty. There is the need to not only compare and share good practice across the four nations of the UK, but also to continuously monitor who has responsibility for different areas of policy and to ensure that anti-poverty action taking place across the UK is consistent.

8.5 In terms of UK child poverty in the European context, in a report published by Save the Children in 2002, The Well being of Children in the UK, Bradshaw emphasised how Britain had the third highest child poverty rate in 25 countries in the Luxembourg Income study and the highest rate in the EU during the 1990s. Across the EU a consistent definition of poverty is applied based on the level of household income and it is a relative measure—50% of median income. Various International reports have consistently revealed high and growing levels of relative poverty in the UK over the last 20 years of the 20th century.

8.6 OECD reports show that amongst developed countries the UK has had one of the widest gaps between the richest 10% population and the poorest 10% population. In the late 1980s 15% of the UK population was living on or below 50% of average income levels, but by the late 1990s this had risen to 25%. Whilst one in four adults was living in conditions of relative poverty thus defined, the proportion of children was significantly higher at one in three. The official figures estimated that 4.3 million children in the UK were living in poverty in the mid-1990s. Since 1997, the Labour Government, at a time of falling unemployment, has introduced measures to promote employment and fiscal measures affecting tax and welfare benefits. While this raised the incomes of many families with children living below the poverty line (the numbers of children in poverty has fallen by 0.5 million since 1995), figures published in March 2003 show there are still 3.8 million children living below the poverty line.

8.7 The Well-Being of Children in the UK shows how differences in child poverty rates between countries in Europe can be explained by different policy measures. For example, it is possible to see that that the poverty rate for children living in workless families is much lower in some countries than in others. This would suggest that the system of social protection for workless families is much better in those countries—it protects children more effectively. Similarly it is clear that the poverty rate for children living in families with one or even two earners is much lower in some countries than in others. This is partly a function of variation in the level of earnings. However it is also the consequence of variations in the level of the tax and benefit package, which exists in each country to support the incomes of families raising children. Research conducted elsewhere shows that there are major variations in child tax/benefit packages between countries which has direct implications for levels of child poverty.[120]

8.8 For example, the fact that Britain starts with a pre-transfer poverty rate that is the highest in industrialised countries can be explained in terms of our particular demographic pattern, in particular the large number of children in lone parent and workless households. After the impact of transfers the study shows that the child poverty rate in Britain falls by 43% showing that Britain's transfer package is more successful at reducing pre-transfer poverty than say the US and Italy. However, the UK tax and benefit systems are much less successful in preventing child poverty than for example Finland and Sweden, which reduce their pre-transfer child poverty by 88% or France with a 73% reduction. This indicates the value of comparing anti-poverty measures across countries; lessons can be learnt on what policies work and in what contexts.

9. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CHILD POVERTY AND WHETHER THE CHILD POVERTY TARGETS WILL BE MET. IS ENOUGH BEING DONE ACROSS GOVERNMENT AND ARE FURTHER INITIATIVES NEEDED?

9.1 The UK government has set targets for the reduction of child poverty in the UK (ie to halve child poverty by the end of the decade and to eliminate it by 2020). As part of this commitment it has developed an approach through its Opportunity for All strategy of measuring social exclusion and income measures. It has also introduced significant tax and benefit changes, most recently the Child Tax Credit, as well as put in place a raft of locally targeted social inclusion interventions. However after decades of growing inequality progress on reducing child poverty has been slower than expected. The Government itself has set up a formal review of its child poverty strategy acknowledging that even more yet may need to be done.

9.2 We welcome the Treasury Child Poverty Review currently underway, which provides an important framework for Government to assess and seek views on progress to date on its child poverty and social exclusion policies. It intends to set out the policies necessary to:

— increase employment opportunities, raising incomes for those who can work;

— increase support for those who cannot work;

— improve the effectiveness of public services that tackle material deprivation, for instance housing and homelessness;

— improve those public services that can contribute most to increasing the future life chances of children in households suffering low income, for example education, and ensure public services and the welfare system work well together when families face crisis points in their lives; and

— improve services for children and their families living in deprived areas, including targeted programmes.

9.3 These are obviously key areas for review and development. However we also feel that it is important that the Treasury also considers:

— Children living in severe and persistent poverty.

— Material deprivation beyond housing and homelessness such as quality of local neighbourhood and financial exclusion.

— Services for deprived children living in affluent areas.

— Low income and unstable work as a cause of poverty.

— The active engagement of children and young people themselves in the review.

9.4 Our research, Britain's Poorest Children, suggests in particular that some changes in policy may be required in order that policies reach children in severe and persistent poverty. As part of the Treasury's current Child Poverty Review leading up to the 2004 Spending Review, Save the Children is therefore calling on Government to prioritise measures on severe and persistent child poverty. In particular we urge that Government:

— Incorporate the aim of eliminating severe child poverty into official targets and ensure that this is monitored.

— Increase emphasis on initiatives to address social exclusion of severely poor children.

— Explore ways to improve the financial protection of families experiencing the unemployment of one or both parents; investigate why some families are living below Income Support levels and carry out an urgent review of the Social Fund.

9.5 Unless Government understands and considers the extent and nature of severe child poverty in the UK, it will not be able to design and evaluate policies and initiatives that effectively respond to this group. This in turn will undermine the Government's commitment to eradicating child poverty by 2020.

87 Laura Adelman, Sue Middleton, Karl Ashworth Britain's Poorest Children: Severe and persistent poverty and social exclusion, Save the Children, September 2003. Back

88 For Wales, annual reports are published by the National Assembly for Wales and for Scotland, the Scottish Executive publishes annual Social Justice reports. Back

89 Jonathan Bradshaw, The Well-Being of Children in the UK, Save the Children, 2002. Back

90 Department for Work and Pensions, Households Below Average Income 1994/5-2001/02, March 2003: London. Back

91 Laura Adelman, Sue Middleton, Karl Ashworth Britain's Poorest Children: Severe and persistent poverty and social exclusion, Save the Children, September 2003. Back

92 Tess Ridge (2002) Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion, Bristol: Policy Press, p 131. Back

93 For example, C Willow, Bread is Free, CRAE & Save the Children, 2001; A Crowley and C Vulliamy, Listen Up! Children and Young People Talk about Poverty, Save the Children, 2002; Nevison, C, Barna, D, and Barna, S, What do we think? A youth consultation exercise with children and young people regarding youth provision in Pennywell, Ford and South Hylton; Howarth, R, 1997 If we don't play now when can we? Report of the research into the Play and Leisure needs of Bangladeshi Children in Camden. Hopscotch Asian Women's Centre, 1997; Bentley, T, and Oakley, K, 1999 The Real Deal What young people really think about government, politics and social exclusion. Back

94 A Crowley and C Vulliamy, Listen Up! Children and Young People Talk about Poverty, Save the Children, 2002. Back

95 Save the Children's calculations based on current rates form April 2003: Asylum Support (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2003 (SI No 755/2003) available at: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?156-2103-3548+news. Back

96 Save the Children, Starting again . . . 2002. Back

97 Kate Stanley, Cold Comfort: Young Separated Refugees in England, Save the Children, 2001. Back

98 See The UK chapter in Denied a Future? The right to education of Roma/Gypsy and Traveller Children in Europe, Save the Children, 2001. Back