Closing the gap: child poverty

How likely is the Government to hit its target for ending child poverty? asks Wendy Wallace

As the conspicuous consumption surrounding the birth of the new millennium dies away, the social landscape lies unaltered around us. Just under a year ago, Tony Blair pledged to set in motion measures to end child poverty within the next two decades. But new research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that child poverty has not yet decreased. Worst-off are 2.2 million children living in households where no adult has any paid work - almost one sixth of all children living in the UK.

Britain has the worst incidence of child poverty in Europe, and despite a generally improving economy and falling levels of unemployment, persistent inequalities between work-rich and work-poor households are having a disproportionate impact on children. 'To end child poverty, the Government would have to address levels of income support,' says poverty researcher Professor Jonathan Bradshaw of the University of York. 'Raising them would require increases in taxation, and that is certainly not going to happen in this parliament.'

The campaigning charity Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) welcomes the Government's willingness to recognise the problem of early disadvantage but believes the 20-year target is too soft. 'We believe the Government should have set a ten-year limit for eradicating child poverty. We're a rich enough society to achieve that target faster,' says Geoff Fimister, CPAG's head of public affairs.

The most widely used definition of poverty - and one recognised by the Government - is a household income of less than half the average for the nation. Adjusted for family size and composition, this currently equates to a family income of below 200 per week after housing costs for a couple with two children, and below 105 per week for a single parent with one child. By this definition another sixth of UK children, in addition to those in workless households, are also growing up in poverty, making a total of 4.4 million. In other words, one in three British children are living in poverty.

Concerned not only over the social injustice of the current situation, but also its costs in welfare and health care, the Government has made important policy changes designed to tackle poverty. A Treasury spokesperson said Government spending on children and families will total an extra 6bn per year by the year 2002, making seven million families over 740 per annum better off.

But halfway through its first term, how much difference is New Labour already making to the lives of children? Matt, like the current Government, is two and a half years old. Born to unemployed parents in a rural part of the West Country in the summer of 1997, he was brought home to live in a caravan while the family awaited permanent housing. Matt developed a series of severe chest infections in his first winter. The damp, draughty caravan, warmed by paraffin heaters, did little to help him regain his strength. Under the strain of having a new and sick baby, combined with a benefits income of just 122 per week, a hyperactive toddler, and poor accommodation, his mother developed clinical depression and left Matt and his father.

Now father and son live on income support of 85.50 per week, an amount which must cover not only food, bills, nappies and clothes but having a car which is essential for those living miles from shops or services.

The local playgroup, which Matt will start attending this year, costs 4 per session and its survival is under threat as schools scoop up local four-year-olds. Over the weekend, before the benefit cheque is cashed on Mondays, the fridge in Matt's kitchen is often empty except for milk and bread; his father lives mainly on the child's leftovers. Almost all his toys and clothes are secondhand and finding enough money to pay the bills is a source of constant anxiety to Matt's father. There is little work available locally and even if he were able to get a job he does not want to leave his son, already disturbed by the loss of his mother. This is Matt's one great advantage - being loved and cared for by a devoted parent.

Every child who lives in poverty does so differently. But the effects - on mental and physical health, educational achievement and general well-being - are predictably similar. A number of research studies show that economic disadvantage in early life has a wide range of effects likely to last for a  whole lifetime.

Children whose parents are unskilled or partly skilled are 20 per cent more likely to be born underweight than those whose parents are professionals or  managers or have other work skills. They are also twice as likely to die in an accident. Later on in life, a person's likelihood of having had a prison sentence, for men, and of becoming a young lone mother, for women, are influenced by childhood disadvantage.

Researchers have found that parents often make sacrifices for their children, going without food and new clothes for themselves. But even after such sacrifices, a 1998 study by the New Policy Institute defined over three per cent of children as 'severely poor' on the basis of going without five or more necessities, and more than 10 per cent of children as 'poor' on the basis of lacking three or more necessities.
The 'necessities' in the definition include a warm coat, properly fitted shoes, three meals a day and money to allow a child to participate in a school trip.

National figures conceal enormous regional differences, with children in parts of Liverpool and Manchester far more likely than those in the affluent southern home counties to experience early deprivation. The situation in Scotland is even worse than the national average, with 41 per cent of all Scottish children aged under five living in poverty.
The CPAG criticises the definition of poverty being used, calling it a 'blunt instrument'. It is lobbying for a poverty yardstick which seeks to establish a minimum living income for families, adjusted for household composition. 'Identifying what is half the average income doesn't tell you whether it is going to keep you out of poverty,' says Geoff Fimister. In the early 1990s, the CPAG researched the actual costs of providing children with 'modest but adequate' food, clothes, warmth and entertainment and found that a family with two children would need an extra 34 per week above income support levels to achieve a low-cost budget.

The Government, however, is emphasising parental employment as the means to lifting children out of poverty. Measures to improve the lot of working parents on low incomes include the Working Families Tax Credit, giving more than a million low-income families a tax credit intended to guarantee a minimum income higher than the minimum wage of 3.60 per hour and worth an extra 23 per week to a family with two children. This tax credit also enables eligible parents to claim 70 per cent of childcare costs up to a maximum of 100 per week.

Child benefit has risen over and above the level of inflation since New Labour came to power. But a top-up benefit for lone parents has been cut for new applicants, although it has been retained for existing ones. In the last budget, Chancellor Gordon Brown announced plans to simplify the disparate elements of child and family benefits and tax schemes into one 'Integrated Child Credit'.

An allocation of 540m has also been made to the Sure Start scheme, aimed at children aged under three who are at risk of social exclusion (see Nursery World's special report on Sure Start next week).
While there is wide support for many of the Government's moves to counter poverty, the jury is still out on their effectiveness. Guy Palmer, co-director of the New Policy Institute, says, 'While some indicators are clearly getting better, there is no general pattern of improvement. Inequalities in health and education are, if anything, getting worse.'