Memorandum submitted by Dr Lucinda Platt
(CP 31)
SUMMARY
I. This submission focuses on child poverty
among minority ethnic groups. Poverty among children from minority
ethnic groups is greater than overall child poverty. Over half
of black African children and over two-thirds of Pakistani or
Bangladeshi children are in poverty compared with under a third
of white children. The differences in poverty rates between children
from different ethnic groups are cause for grave concern.
II. Worklessness is a major cause of poverty
in households with children. Unemployment rates are much higher
than the average for Caribbeans, black Africans, Bangladeshis
and Pakistanis and above average for Indians. In addition, economic
activity rates are very low for Bangladeshi and Pakistani women.
They are also low for Bangladeshi and Pakistani men.
III. For children from some minority ethnic
groups income may be a poor measure of well-being. For example,
Caribbeans are more likely than the rest of the population to
make remissions to relatives abroad. They are also more likely
to suffer from debt and financial anxiety. There is also evidence
that some of the poorest minority groups, notably Bangladeshis,
cluster around the poverty line. This makes a single poverty line
particularly arbitrary.
IV. Minority ethnic groups are found to
be relatively disadvantaged when measures of material deprivation
are used. This is so even when comparing similar income levels.
This suggests the impacts of long-term poverty and limited assets
within groups. Measures of material deprivation may therefore
give greater insight into the poverty of minority ethnic groups.
On the other hand, deprivation measures can be quite crude. They
and "consensual" measures of poverty or social exclusion
may not be sensitive to different cultural practices.
V. Many children from minority groups tend
to spend an extended period in education. This can be both "catching
up" for qualifications not gained in school and gaining further
qualifications. This should result in positive future labour market
outcomes. However, it also has immediate implications for the
probability of poverty among those remaining in education and
for their siblings. In addition, "catching up" maybe
be regarded as a necessary response to failures in schooling;
and the enhanced achievement of further and higher qualifications
may be compensatory for a labour market in which minority groups
need to be more highly qualified than the majority to obtain an
equivalent probability of employment.
VI. Both the duration and timing of poverty
in childhood have been shown to be critical to their impact on
children's outcomes. In addition, an extended period of poverty
in childhood is damaging for children's experience of childhood
itself. There would seem to be variations in duration of poverty
by ethnic group, though research findings in this area are currently
limited.
VII. Social security impacts on ethnic groups
in different ways. For example a high proportion of the incomes
of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis derives from means-tested benefits,
which makes their welfare highly sensitive to the delivery and
value of such benefits. Some changes, such as the equalisation
of income support rates for all children under the age of 19 has
been of particular benefit to such groups. However, the structure,
coverage and delivery of the social security system may disproportionately
disbenefit particular groups. The social security system should
be evaluated for its differential impact on those from different
ethnic groups.
VIII. Minority groups tend to be geographically
concentrated; and there is a tendency for minority group concentrations
to occur in deprived areas. Children growing up in such areas
benefit from neighbourhood-based initiatives, such as the New
Deal for Communities. However, given that neighbourhoods contain
individuals with different degrees of deprivation and from different
ethnic groups, the initiatives may not impact on the most deprived
inhabitants to the degree envisaged. Differences within areas
as well as between areas need to be taken account of.
EVIDENCE
Extent of poverty among minority ethnic groups
1. Poverty among children differs with ethnic
group. While rates of poverty among children are higher than those
among all individuals for all groups, the actual rates vary such
that over 90% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children are found
in the bottom two-fifths of the income distribution compared to
50% of children overall.[530]
In relation to the 60% of the median poverty line, around three
quarters of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children are in poverty
by this measure, along with over 60% of black African children
and roughly 45 and 40% of Indian and Caribbean children respectively.
This compares with around 30% of white children being in this
position. The very high rates of poverty among children from minority
ethnic groups are a cause for grave concern.
2. Demographic factors mean that children
from minority ethnic groups are making up an increasing proportion
of the child population. According to the 2001 Census 15% of children
in England and Wales were from a minority ethnic group (compared
with 9% of the total population).[531]
This share is set to increase such that by 2010 one in five schoolchildren
will be from a minority group background.[532]
To the extent that their relative risks of poverty remain higher
than those of the majority, this raises concerns about the possibility
of achieving the government's targets to reduce child poverty.
3. In addition, to the extent that disadvantage
is intergenerationally transmitted, minority ethnic groups, particularly
the poorest minority groups, such as Bangladeshis, Pakistanis
and black Africans, risk being consigned to long-term position
of economic marginality. The relative success of Bangladeshi children
in receipt of free school meals, along with the noted achievement
of the Chinese and Indian ethnic groups indicate that such a bleak
outcome cannot be assumed.[533]
Nevertheless, children from minority ethnic groups face a range
of obstacles to future success as well as higher risks of poverty
in the present. These include the apparent failure of the education
system in relation to Caribbean children.[534]
4. A related issue in consideration of future
prospects is the ownership of assets which can be transmitted
between generations and impact on future welfare or provide protection
against risks. In the population as a whole, only 28% were without
any savings but this increased to 54% among black groups and 60%
among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.[535]
Housing can also be seen as an asset with potential to be realised
by future generations, and there is also substantial inequality
here. Bangladeshis have the lowest proportion of any group in
owner occupation, with Caribbeans also have rates of owner occupation
below the average.[536]
While rates of owner occupation among Pakistanis approach the
average, the poor quality of much of this housing has been noted.[537]
Consideration should then be given to the possibilities for children
to protect themselves against future risks as well as to their
current situation.
5. Large families have been highlighted
as a particularly vulnerable type of household. The proportion
of large households is much higher among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis,
making them more susceptible to poverty. In such instances, both
pay (discussed in Paragraph 10), and the rates of social security
benefits (discussed in Paragraph 20) are pertinent. On the other
hand, the high rates of lone parenthood among Caribbean families
has been shown to be associated with greater risks of poverty
among children from this minority group.[538]
Though Caribbean lone mothers are more likely to be in employment
than other lone mothers, there remain substantial proportions
of them in receipt of income support.
Employment, Unemployment and Economic Activity
6. Worklessness is a major cause of poverty
in households with children. Unemployment rates are much higher
than the average for Caribbeans, black Africans, Bangladeshis
and Pakistanis and above average for Indians.[539]
The Department for Work and Pensions PSA target to reduce such
employment differentials is to be welcomed, but is proving hard
to achieve. Local labour markets where minority groups are concentrated
may form part of the explanation. For example, inner London has
high unemployment rates, and black Africans are very heavily concentrated
in inner London, as are, to a slightly lower degree, Caribbeans
and Bangladeshis. However, the unemployment rates of black Africans
in inner London are still double those of inner London white groups.[540]
7. Another issue relevant to unemployment
rates is the effectiveness of New Deals for minority group participants.
Parity of outcomes across ethnic groups is welcomed as now being
a specified aim of the programmes. This can be seen as a result
of outcome statistics revealing variation by ethnic group.[541]
8. Discrimination in the Labour Market will
also impact on the employment probabilities of parents and therefore
on the poverty of their children. The Race Relations Amendment
Act 2000 has substantially strengthened race relations legislation,
especially in its positive requirements on public bodies. However,
private employers are not subject to such duties to monitor their
activities. Given extensive evidence of an "ethnic penalty"
in employment,[542]
the strength of anti-discrimination law is clearly an issue for
the poverty of minority ethnic group children.
9. In addition, economic activity rates
are very low for Bangladeshi and Pakistani women. This is particularly
the case for Bangladeshi and Pakistani women with families. But
they are also low for Bangladeshi and Pakistani men. This means
that overall employment rates among these two groups are lower
even than the unemployment figures indicate.[543]
With such high levels of inactivity, households are limited in
the number of potential workers available and therefore in the
possibilities of avoiding poverty through work, especially in
large households.
10. Levels of pay are also an issue for
minority groups. Ethnic minority groups were identified by the
Low Pay Commission as being one of the groups likely to be benefited
by a minimum wage;[544]
and while the introduction of the minimum wage seems to have had
some positive effects,[545]
it is not at such a level to necessarily raise working families
out of poverty. Strong levels of occupational segregation in low-paid
occupations raise challenges to reducing poverty in households
in employment. For example of half of working Bangladeshi men
are employed in the restaurant sector and one in eight Pakistani
men are either driving cabs or working as chauffeurs.[546]
Tax credits may offer possibilities for increasing the incomes
of families in with low paid employment or where the prospects
of employment are in low-paid sectors—but it may also raise
problems for minority ethnic groups (see Paragraphs 21-23).
Measurement
11. There are a number of measurement issues
raised by poverty among minority ethnic group children. For children
from some minority ethnic groups income may be a poor measure
of well-being. For example, Caribbeans are more likely than the
rest of the population to make remissions to relatives abroad.[547]
They are also more likely to suffer from debt and financial anxiety.[548]
This could well mean that income suggests a higher standard of
living than that actually achieved.
12. There is also evidence that some of
the poorest minority groups, notably Bangladeshis, cluster around
the poverty line. This makes a single poverty line particularly
arbitrary. Clustering round the poverty line or movements in and
out of poverty may itself be indicative of a more generalised
financial insecurity. Certainly, analysis of movement in and out
of benefit indicates that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis both cluster
round the poverty line and experience substantial insecurity in
living and working that causes the fluctuations between receipt
and non-receipt.[549]
Insecurity in living and working may be as potentially difficult
to manage as a fixed low income level. There is both a need to
understand more about the actual income dynamics of minority ethnic
groups and about the impacts of income variation.
13. Minority ethnic groups are relatively
disadvantaged when measures of material deprivation are used.[550]
This is so even when comparing similar income levels. Where child
deprivation has been studied by ethnicity, this also reveals greatest
deprivation among Bangladeshi children followed by black African,
Pakistani and Caribbean children.[551]
The evidence of deprivation suggests the impacts of long-term
poverty and limited assets within minority ethnic groups, particular
Pakistanis, black Africans and Bangladeshis. Though the evidence
on ethnic minority children's poverty using income-based measures
is consistent with that derived from deprivation measures, measures
of material deprivation may nevertheless give greater insight
into the poverty of minority ethnic groups than income measures
alone.
14. On the other hand, deprivation measures
can be quite crude. They and "consensual" measures of
poverty or social exclusion, such as those used by the Poverty
and Social Exclusion Survey,[552]
may not be sensitive to different cultural practices, or to different
understandings of deprivation or participation across ethnic groups.[553]
15. Housing conditions are a further measure
of deprivation or hardship. Damp and cold may impact particularly
severely on the health of children. All the evidence indicates
that those from minority ethnic groups live in worse housing conditions,[554]
with some groups, notably Bangladeshis, particularly susceptible
to overcrowding.[555]
Housing stress is greater for most minority groups even when measured
across comparable tenures,[556]
and even in areas of great pressure on housing.[557]
Length of childhood
16. Many children from minority groups tend
to spend an extended period in education. This can be both "catching
up" for qualifications not gained in school and gaining further
qualifications.[558]
This should result in positive future labour market outcomes.
However, it also has immediate implications for the probability
of poverty among those remaining in education and for their siblings.
In addition, "catching up" maybe be regarded as a necessary
response to failures in schooling;[559]
and the enhanced achievement of further and higher qualifications
may be compensatory for a labour market in which minority groups
need to be more highly qualified than the majority to obtain an
equivalent probability of employment.[560]
17. The rolling out of the Educational Maintenance
Allowance is a promising development in this respect, a development
which may well benefit minority group members from poorer families
and support them in their educational choices. However, approaches
to schooling and developments in higher education are not necessarily
moving in the direction of greater equality of opportunity.[561]
And we already know that the experience of higher education is
not equitable across minority ethnic groups.[562]
The welfare of children and young people as they are completing
their education and the opportunities for the future provided
by that education therefore both deserve attention.
18. Moreover, the experience of children
from minority ethnic groups cannot be divorced from wider labour
market inequalities, both those experienced by their parents and
those which they are at risk of experiencing themselves.
Duration and timing of poverty
19. Both the duration and timing of poverty
in childhood have been shown to be critical to their impact on
children's outcomes.[563]
In addition, an extended period of poverty in childhood is damaging
for children's experience of childhood itself. There would seem
to be variations in duration of poverty by ethnic group, though
research findings in this area are currently limited. We need
to have a greater understanding of the length of time children
from different ethnic groups spend in poverty and how that relates
to their outcomes.
The role of social security
20. Social security impacts on ethnic groups
in different ways. For example a high proportion of the incomes
of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis derives from means-tested benefits,
which makes their welfare highly sensitive to the delivery and
value of such benefits.[564]
Some changes, such as the equalisation of income support rates
for all children under the age of 19 will have been of particular
benefit to such groups.[565]
21. However, the structure, coverage and
delivery of the social security system may disproportionately
disbenefit particular groups. For example the greater reliance
on means-tested benefits may result in greater stigma and lower
take-up; the interaction between immigration and social security,
and differences in checks or implementation has produced mistrust
as well as unjustified refusals; the complexity of claiming processes
may be particularly difficult for those whose first language is
not English; and claiming in-work benefits is particularly difficult
for the self-employed, who are much more highly represented among
minority ethnic groups.[566]
Moreover, some of the poorest children from minority ethnic groups
may be living in families that are not entitled to means-tested
support.[567]
22. The nature of benefits claimed and the
ease or difficulty of claiming them for people in different circumstances
will therefore be important for the extent to which poverty among
minority ethnic group children is alleviated by the social security
system. It is too early to know what the impact of a change to
tax credits for in-work benefits has been. The greater generosity
of tax credits should benefit those minority group families on
low pay—or unable to move into work through low pay. However,
there may be issues of take-up and responsiveness of the system.
23. In addition, tax credits interact with
the housing benefit system in such a way that those with high
rents will gain less benefit from the credit. This is a particular
issue for London which has high housing costs; and certain minority
groups—black Africans, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis—are
heavily concentrated in London, as, to a lesser extent, are Indians
and Chinese.
24. The social security system therefore
has the potential for alleviating some of the poverty experienced
by children from minority ethnic groups; however, it also has
the potential for not benefiting them equally with other children.
The social security system should therefore be evaluated for its
differential impact on those from different ethnic groups. We
need to know more about take-up of benefit by different ethnic
groups and a clearer understanding of the impact on minority group
families of changes in the structure and delivery of benefits.
Geographical variation and concentration
25. Minority groups tend to be geographically
concentrated; though this is more the case for some groups than
others, with Bangladeshis being the most concentrated and Chinese
being the most dispersed. Geographical concentration of minority
groups may bring benefits; but when concentration coincides with
highly deprived areas, or when it is the potentially more disadvantaged
members of the group who are concentrated, then the benefits may
not be so evident.[568]
In addition, concentrations of minority ethnic group families
in deprived areas may have long-term consequences for future generations
of the groups.
26. There is a tendency for minority group
concentrations to occur in deprived areas. There is increasing
recognition of the particular issues that face multiply deprived
areas and their residents, with the establishment of the Neighbourhood
Renewal Unit and an array of programmes to tackle area-based issues,
including Action Zones and the New Deal for Communities. Children
growing up in areas of such targeted areas are therefore likely
to benefit from them; and the New Deal for Communities explicitly
incorporates recognition of an ethnic dimension. However, even
the most deprived neighbourhoods contain individuals with different
degrees of deprivation, and these can be seen to vary additionally
by ethnic groups.[569]
27. The history of urban programmes has
been ambiguous and has not necessarily indicated that it is those
individuals who are the most vulnerable who benefit most directly
from area-based interventions. It is therefore important that
area-based programmes can be shown to be effective in their targeting.
It is also important to recognise and take account of differences
within areas as well as differences between areas.
Lucinda Platt
11 November 2003
530 L Platt, Parallel Lives? Poverty among Minority
Ethnic Groups in Britain, London: CPAG, 2002. Back
531
Census 2001, National report for England and Wales, Table
T12, available at www.statistics.gov.uk. Back
532
Department for Education and Skills, Aiming High: Raising the
Achievement of Minority Ethnic Pupils, March 2003. Back
533
ibid. Back
534
D Gillborn and HS Mirza, Educational Inequality: Mapping race,
class and gender, OFSTED, 2000; D Gillborn and D Youdell, Rationing
Education: Policy, practice, reform and equity, Open University
Press, 2000. Back
535
Office for National Statistics, Social Trends 31, ONS,
2001. Back
536
H Green and others, Housing in England: A report of the Survey
of English Housing, HMSO, 2000. Back
537
D Phillips, "The Housing Position of Ethnic Minority Group
Home Owners" in V Karn (ed) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census:
Volume four: employment, education and housing among the minority
group populations of Britain, ONS, 1997. Back
538
R Berthoud, "Family Formation in Multi-cultural Britain:
Three patterns of diversity", Paper 2000-34, Working Papers
of the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University
of Essex, December 2000. Back
539
B Twomey, "Labour Market Participation of Ethnic Groups",
Labour Market Trends, January 2001. Back
540
F Sly, T Thair, A Risdon, "Trends in the Labour Market Participation
of Ethnic Groups", Labour Market Trends, December 1999. Back
541
Department for Work and Pensions, "New Deal for Young People
and Long-Term Unemployed People aged 25+: Statistics to December
2001", Statistics First Release, February 2002. Back
542
A Heath and D McMahon, "Educational and Occupational Attainments:
The impact of ethnic origins" in V Karn (ed) Ethnicity in
the 1991 Census: Volume four: employment, education and housing
among the minority group populations of Britain, ONS, 1997; R
Berthoud, "Ethnic employment penalties in Britain",
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26, 2000; DH Blackaby
and others, "White/Ethnic Minority Earnings and Employment
Differentials in Britain: Evidence from the LFS", Oxford
Economic Papers 54, 2002. Back
543
L Platt, Parallel Lives? Poverty among Minority Ethnic Groups
in Britain, London: CPAG, 2002. Back
544
Low Pay Commission, The National Minimum Wage, First Report,
The Stationery Office, 1998. Back
545
Low Pay Commission, The National Minimum Wage: The story so far,
Second Report, The Stationery Office, 2000; Low Pay Commission,
The National Minimum Wage: Making a difference, Third Report,
The Stationery Office, 2001. Back
546
B Twomey, "Labour Market Participation of Ethnic Groups",
Labour Market Trends, January 2001. Back
547
R Berthoud, "Incomes and Standards of Living" in T
Modood, R Berthoud and others, Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity
and disadvantage, Policy Studies Institute, 1997. Back
548
L Platt, Poverty and Deprivation in Newham. A report prepared
by ISER for the London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Newham,
2003. Back
549
L Platt, "Ethnicity and Inequality: British Children's Experience
of Means-Tested Benefits". Journal of Comparative Family
Studies 34.3: 357-377, 2003. Back
550
R Berthoud, "Incomes and Standards of Living" in T
Modood, R Berthoud and others, Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity
and disadvantage, Policy Studies Institute, 1997; L Platt, Poverty
and Deprivation in Newham. A report prepared by ISER for the London
Borough of Newham, London Borough of Newham, 2003. Back
551
R Moore, "Material Deprivation amongst Ethnic Minority and
White Children: the Evidence of the Sample of Anonymised Records",
in J Bradshaw and R Sainsbury (eds.) Experiencing Poverty,
Ashgate, 2000. Back
552
D Gordon and others, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000. Back
553
R Cohen and others, Hardship Britain: Being poor in the 1990s,
CPAG, 1992. Back
554
P Ratcliffe, "`Race', Ethnicity and Housing Differentials
in Britain" in V Karn, Ethnicity in the 1991 Census: Volume
four: employment education and housing, ONS, 1997. Back
555
E Kempson, Overcrowding in Bangladeshi Households: A case study
of Tower Hamlets, Policy Studies Institute, 1999. Back
556
A Bowes and D Sim, "Patterns of Residential Settlement among
Black and Minority Ethnic Groups" in P Somerville and A Steele
"Race", Housing and Social Exclusion, Jessica
Kingsley, 2002. Back
557
L Platt, Poverty and Deprivation in Newham. A report prepared
by ISER for the London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Newham,
2003. Back
558
R Berthoud, Young Caribbean Men and the Labour Market, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 1999. Back
559
S Pathak, Race Research for the Future, DfEE Research
Topic Paper RTP01, March 2000. Back
560
T Modood, "Employment" in T Modood, R Berthoud and
others, Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage,
Policy Studies Institute, 1997. Back
561
Department for Education and Skills, Schools-Achieving Success,
White Paper, 2001; Department for Education and Skills, The
Future of Higher Education, White Paper, 2003. Back
562
T Modood and M Shiner, Ethnic Minorities and Higher Education:
Why are there differential rates of entry? Policy Studies Institute,
1994. Back
563
MS Hill and SP Jenkins, "Poverty among British Children:
Chronic or transitory?" in B Bradbury, SP Jenkins and J Micklewright
(eds.) The Dynamics of Child Poverty in Industrialised Countries;
K Ashworth, M Hill and R Walker, "A New Approach to Poverty
Dynamics", Working Papers of the Scientific Network on Household
Panel Studies. Paper 52, University of Essex, 1992. Back
564
R Berthoud, The Incomes of Ethnic Minorities, Institute
for Social and Economic Research, 1998. Back
565
L Platt, "Ethnicity and Inequality: British Children's Experience
of Means-Tested Benefits". Journal of Comparative Family
Studies 34.3: 357-377, 2003. Back
566
L Platt "Social Security in a Multi-ethnic Society"
in J Millar (ed) Understanding Social Security: Issues for Policy
and Practice, Policy Press, 2003. Back
567
L Platt, Poverty and Deprivation in Newham. A report prepared
by ISER for the London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Newham,
2003. Back
568
G J Borjas, "Ethnic Capital and Intergenerational Mobility",
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992; G C Galster and others,
"Neighbourhood Opportunity Structures and Immigrants"
Socioeconomic Advancement, Journal of Housing Research, 10, 1999;
R Dorsett, Ethnic Minorities in the Inner Cities, Policy Press,
1998. Back
569
L Platt, Poverty and Deprivation in Newham. A report prepared
by ISER for the London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Newham,
2003. Back
| 
