Child poverty remains one of the biggest barriers to improving outcomes for children and young people in the United Kingdom today. According to recent survey, 27% of children (3.6 million) were poor in 2011, In other words, living in household with incomes less than 60% of the median income after housing costs (Moore et al, 2010). Thus, there is a high probability that a large number of children missed out a decent childhood, lacking essentials such as appropriate housing, a nutritious diet and sufficient food. Teachers have recently reported that they were seeing more children arriving at school hungry (Richard, 2012). It is therefore important to study the approaches to child poverty especially the coalition government approach so as to explore the best of the approaches to avoid such incidents in the future of the a UK’s child. This dissertation will examine various approaches of child poverty used in the UK and the rest of the world. The progress made using each of the approaches will also be thoroughly investigated and find its correlation to ending child poverty. This study will also center on the progress made so far by the UK’s earlier governments and what could have improved their results in fighting child poverty (Richard, 2012).

The most recent UNICEF report, which looked at the percentage of children living in households with incomes below 50 percent of the national median, ranked the UK only 22^nd out of the 35 richest nations for child poverty rates. In 2001, the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) estimated that 400,000 more children will be living in relative poverty by 2015-2016, half of this increase resulting from the government’s tax and benefits policy changes (Save the Children 2012). More recently, the government has acknowledged that a further 200,000 children will move into poverty as a result of its decision, for the next three years, to increase certain family benefits by one percent per year, rather than in line with the cost of living (Hansard,2013). Despite this predicted rise, it should not be forgotten that the number of children living in poverty is at the lowest level since the 1980s. Child poverty in the UK more than doubled between 1979 and 1997, a growth attributed to a steep rise in unemployment, changing demographics and welfare policy that reduced the real value of state benefits (Tarki, 2010). While the most recent fall in relative child poverty is alleged to have been mostly influenced by the downward move in median household income and a decline in the real value of earnings linked to the prevailing economic climate, welfare policy was also a critical factor (DWP, 2013).

The Labour government’s focus on measures of financial redistribution, such as increases in Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit had a significant influence (Brewer et al, 2010). The Coalition clearly stated in its 2010 programme for government that it is committed to its goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020 (HM Government, 2010). A strategy was published last year, and the government will be assessed on progress by the independent Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission when it publishes its first annual review later this year. The question remains, however, whether the government is taking the most effective approach and what more could it be doing to tackle the issues of child poverty (HM Government, 2010).

1.1 Importance of studying child poverty in the UK

Child poverty has been a concern in the UK for many years now with its highest peak being in the 1990s (Moore et al, 2010). The previous New Labour government set goals to wipe out child poverty in the UK. They made some evident progress in reducing child poverty. The Coalition Government has promised to continue with this New Labour’s goal of ending child poverty in the UK and the coalition government is pledging to bring child poverty to its lowest figures in the last 40 years by 2020 (HM Government, 2010).

However, the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies), in their forecasts shows that the child poverty rates are going to escalate to such high levels as in the 1990s if the coalition government continues with its current policies without considering some amendments (ECP, 2012). Thus, there is a contradiction between what the Coalition government believes it will achieve and what the researchers (IFS) have forecasted.

This study is designed to review the policies, the facts, the achievements and the progress made in tackling child poverty in the UK. This will help in establishing the method that has proved to work in the UK or a combination of strategies that shows to work best in eradicating child poverty. This study is therefore important since its findings can be useful in establishing the vital and the most effective strategies and approaches to child poverty in the UK.

1.2 The scope of this study

In studying child poverty, this paper will examine the various approaches to child poverty. An examination of various approaches used by the UK governments- both the previous and the present will also be examined. This will involve investigating their achievement and challenges they faced in the course of ending child poverty. The paper will also focus on professional and scholarly views of child poverty in the UK. The paper will majorly centre on the income approach that had been extensively used by the New Labour government. The study will culminate by examining the current multidimensional approach to child poverty by the coalition government and its achievability on ending child poverty. The study will seek to uncover if the coalitions approach to child poverty is justified or not.

2.0 An Overview of how child poverty is measured

In measuring child poverty, Gordon & Nandy 2013, states that; it is impossible to actually produce an absolutely valid and a reliable measure of anything without referring to its basic theory and its definition. Therefore, the validity of a measure will largely be assessed on a basis of its theoretical framework; else the measure will just be an opinion of its advocators. This implies that in order to accurately produce a measure of child poverty, then it is essential that one understands the theory behind it and its definitions. The United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) defines children poverty as experiencing deprivation of material, emotional or spiritual resources that are necessary for survival and development of the child hence making them vulnerably unable to take pleasure in their rights as children, unable to realize their chock-full potential, and unable to participate as equal members of their society (The State of the World’s Children 2005). This applies a multi dimensional approach that child poverty measurement is a combination of social, cultural, economic, emotional, physical and environmental factors.

2.1 The Income approach

Income approach is one of the methods to measure child poverty. In this approach, an absolute or a relative financial threshold is set. Any family that cannot manage to live above the set threshold is said to contain poor children (Brewer et al 2011). Absolute poverty threshold is normally a fixed value and represents the money that is needed to acquire a definite set of goods and services for family consumption. It normally reflects the lowest earnings required to purchase the necessities of life for the family (Campbell, 2008). The relative poverty threshold is generally developed using the country’s average income of the population as a reference. The UK uses 60% of the average income as the relative monetary threshold. This relative value may not necessarily imply that a child lacks anything but it reflects the inequality in the society. Thus, a family that lives below this set standard may not actually have a poor child hence this is not a first-rate measure of child poverty (HM Government 2012). However, the main advantage of using this approach is that the government can identify the least income able to sustain a family with children and using this apportions some stipend to cater for the needy households (Campbell, 2008). Therefore, using income approach singularly as the threshold overlooks the multidimensional measurement of child poverty. The multidimensional aspect includes that access to resources, consumption requirements, as well as the ability to be accepted in the society and interacting with others safely, effusive and devoid of partiality. However, when this approach is coupled with other approaches, then it is more effective in measuring child poverty since income plays a major part in meeting the needs of the children (Brewer et al 2011).

2.2 The Deprivation approach of measuring child poverty

This approach presents a scientific basis to quantify severe deprivation in child poverty. This is based on adequacy levels of safe water, nutrition, shelter, health, decent sanitation, access to information and education. To each of these indicators, a measureable value was ascribed and then used to investigate the number of children living in poverty (Nolan, 2010). Deprivation is analogous to a scale which starts at one end with no deprivation then through mild, moderate deprivation and to the other extreme is severe deprivation.

Figure 2.2a. Shows the continuum of deprivation, from No deprivation to the Extreme deprivation. Source (Nandy S, 2008).

In establishing absolute child poverty, the Bristol researchers first set the poverty threshold measures for severe deprivation of each of the needs mentions above (Nandy , 2008). The figure below shows the percentage of the world’s children who are severely deprived of their basic human needs as per the 2003 research findings.

Percent of the world’s children severely deprived of basic human needs (2003 report)

Figure 2.2b. Shows Percent of the world’s children severely deprived of basic human needs (2003 report). Source: (Nandy S, 2008).

2.3 Measuring child poverty using Subjective approach

Several studies have used subjective approach in child poverty measurement. In this approach, the researchers have asked the respondents if they view themselves as being poor. They also ask if they feel that their income is way below or a lot more below the needed income. They go ahead and ask questions like how much increment to the current income would make the respondent avoid poverty in their own view. This approach asks individuals to give an estimate of the minimum income needed to avoid poverty (Lipina, et al, 2011). This approach is quite effective since it will clearly show how people feel about their social status as poor or not and how much to set as a threshold can be obtained from the average of the response values given (Murray, 2006). The poverty threshold is not set by experts but by actual members of the society, hence it is a socially realistic method. However, people may tend to give figures which are either higher or lower than actually meant to. This is because the approach is based on the questions asked by the experts and the threshold is dependent on the feedback received. Thus, some people may not actually reveal their true feeling in regard to poverty and others may state their expected income higher than the actual amount (Murray, 2006).

2.4 Consensual approach in child poverty measurement

This is also referred to as “perceived” deprivation approach of poverty measurement. It centers on the “necessities” or the direct measures that form the standard of living rather than focusing on indirect income measures. The Breadline Britain study, 1983, pioneered this approach of measuring poverty by examining public’s perception on the bare minimum needs. The study tries to answer the question of “how poor is too poor?’’ (Mack, 1985). The study identifies the lowest tolerable way of life and those falling below this minimum line are assumed to be in poverty. The first step in consensual approach is to test a variety of items from a broad array of aspects that formulate our living standard to distinguish which items does the majority of people perceive as “necessities” or something which all and sundry should afford and to which nobody should lack. These items comprise the social and the material aspects of life. They include clothing, housing, food, health, personal possessions, household goods, leisure activities, financial security, and relationships with friends and family (Mack, 1985). This approach offers a complete quantification of relative deprivation of the necessities that a family is enforced to do without just because they cannot afford to obtain it with their income. In calculating a poverty threshold, the quantity of necessities lacking in a family is related to the family’s income but excluding the voluntary deprivation. The household size and composition is also taken into account (Nolan, 2010).

2.5 Poverty: Child verses adult perspective

Poverty is distressing at whichever age one is. Nevertheless, it is much more poignant in children than in adults because there is the probability that, its harmful effects can last a lifetime even past escaping the state of poverty itself depending on the circumstances of child poverty. For instance, undernourishment hampers healthy growth of a child. Also a child who has been left far behind educationally as a result of childhood poverty cannot easily catch up with the age mates. Furthermore, it is difficult to develop a sense of self worth in a child who hasn’t had the experiences of feeling loved especially if their parents were never there for them as they left the children unattended in search of an income (HM Government, 2012). Furthermore, children cannot escape poverty independently unlike adults. Therefore, the child in poverty has to just accept the unkind circumstances of poverty. It is actually difficult for an adult to escape poverty on their own, but it is much more difficult and almost impossible for a child to escape poverty using their own effort. Thus, child poverty puts the child in a vulnerable state at the present and even in their future. The society has to input more of its resources to help a child in poverty. In this respect, child poverty is more significantly different from the adult poverty (Doyle, 2007).

2.6 Children’s well being

The children’s Well-being is sometimes referred to as the children’s welfare. This is defined as the fulfillment of children’s human rights and privileges and the attainment of the opportunity for each child to maximize their potential and their skills and abilities (Bradshaw et al. 2007). The extent to which this is accomplished can be quantified in terms of constructive and positive child outcomes. A child is entitled to a decent shelter, a decent meal, good education, good medical care and positive family relationship. Thus, children’s well being ensures that all the children are given equal chances to participate as equal members of the society without discrimination whatsoever. Depressing outcomes and dispossession are associated with the neglect to the children’s rights and privileges (Bradshaw et al. 2007).

2.7 Measurement of poverty

In the measurement of poverty two distinct problems must be faced. One of them is to identify the poor among the total population; the other is to construct an index of poverty using the available information on the poor. The former problem involves the choice of a criterion of poverty (eg.the selection of a “poverty line” in terms of real income per head), and then ascertaining those who satisfy that criterion and those who do not. In the literature on poverty significant contributions have been made in tackling this problem (Rowntree (1901), Weisbord (1965), Townsend (1954), and Atkinson (1970)). The most common procedure for handling problem seems to be simply to count the number of the poor and check the percentage of the total population belonging to this category. This ratio, which we shall call the head-count ratio, is obviously a very crude index. An unchanged number of people below the “poverty line” may go with a sharp rise in the extent of the short-fall of income from the poverty line.

The debate over poverty is concerned with different potential causes of poverty and ways in which poverty can be measured and compared nationally and internationally. The monetary approach is the most broadly used approach to identify and measure poverty and it focuses on poverty diminution strategies by increasing individual’s incomes. In spite of the extensive use of the monetary approach, several other development organizations perceive poverty as an observable fact that cannot be defined fully only by using the monetary terms (Minujin et al, 2006). They recognise that poverty is multifaceted and cannot be measured and resolved only through monetary means. In particular, organizations that work on child poverty issues view poverty as a multi-faceted problem that requires comprehensive strategies to address its many aspects (Minujin et al, 2006).

2.8 Income definition of child poverty

Child poverty is generally conceived as the poverty that children and young people experience. It differs from adult poverty in that it can have different causes. It can also have different effects and these effects may have a permanent impact on children. Even short periods of deprivation can affect children’s long-term growth and development. UNICEF’s definition also suggests that economic security is only one of the many components in addressing child poverty. “Other aspects of material deprivation, like access to basic services, as well as issues related to discrimination and exclusion that affect self-esteem and psychological development, among others, are also central to the definition of child poverty.” ( Minujin, 2005 pp 490 )

The Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) has also endeavoured to define child poverty in concrete terms that can guide policies to reduce child poverty. In 2002, it commissioned a study on the experience and impact of poverty on children. (Boyden, 2003) As part of this effort, CCF consulted with children and their families to learn directly from them how children experienced poverty. CCF has found that poverty is a deeply relational and relative dynamic and a multi-dimensional experience for children. In developing a conceptual framework for understanding how poverty affects children and how to improve actions towards alleviating their situation, CCF defines three different but interrelated domains that provide a holistic and comprehensive understanding of ways in which poverty affects children. These definitions suggest child poverty is multidimensional, relative to their current and changing living conditions and complex interactions of the body, mind and emotions are involved (Minujin et al, 2006).

2.9 Income poverty

According to the general definition, poverty is typified as a lack of income when compared to the median income of a particular society. In other words, it may be defined as the excessive form of social inequality. Poverty is measured by use of poverty lines usually drawn in relation to that particular median equivalent of net income in a society. The EU uses the 60% line to define those at a risk of being poor; poverty threshold is set at 50% while severe poverty threshold is set at 40% of the national household’s median income. In order to compare different households, their total income is usually divided by its equivalised size, with the assumption that the larger households will need more income but also considering that they are more economical with their money (Graham, 2012).

2.10 Measuring child poverty

The advantage of measuring child poverty is that it is already ubiquitous in regional, national and transnational statistics and comparable. The necessary data can be easily obtained and is usually disaggregated for age and gender, and often available as longitudinal data. On the other hand it is argued that poverty-lines related to the median income do measure social inequality rather than poverty. Relative poverty depends on the distribution of income. In a growing economy relative poverty may rise in spite of falling absolute poverty rates. And in societies with a high grade of equality relative poverty rates are lower than in those with more inequality, even if absolute poverty rates are higher. “Accepting the notion of relative poverty means accepting that poverty may be worsening even if the absolute living standards of the poor are rising since relative poverty is about inequality; its premise is that what constitutes an acceptable quality of life changes over time, and that falling behind the average by more than a certain amount means effective exclusion from the normal life of society” (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2000, pp 6). Against this background poverty thresholds are quite arbitrary. Many households manage to struggle through and stay out of poverty. The life-situation of these people who permanently fight against poverty is not so different from that of people below the poverty line, but still the poverty line is drawn between them (Beisenherz, 2002). Because of this poverty thresholds shouldn’t be too low but rather mark the risk of poverty or low income, as it is done with the 60% threshold used by Eurostat.

Monetary approach can be as the measurement of poverty. Yet there are some reasons why the monetary approach is not appropriate to measuring child poverty. For example, it gives little consideration to household structure, gender and age. It ignores the fact that children’s needs are different from those of adults (Minujin, 2005). The standard monetary solution of increasing the individual income level ignores the fact that some household members are discriminated against and may not be given a proportional share of household income. For instance, when children work, a family’s income often rises above the poverty line. These children are deprived, yet according to the traditional income approach, they would not be considered poor. Also, numerous studies have shown that within households, “. . . the burden of poverty [is] being unequally heaped in accordance with age and gender biases that adversely affect women and children in particular.”(Boyden, 2003 pp 201).

Furthermore, the monetary approach neglects to note that children’s well-being also depends on non-market-based goods. Access to basic services and a safe environment for play is generally more dependent on the level of local provision than on household income. Thus, individuals cannot purchase these goods even if they have sufficient income. Not only do these non-monetary aspects affect children’s well-being but they also tend to have a disproportionate effect on children. Children under five, for instance, experience more than 80 per cent of the diseases related to the inadequate provision of water and sanitation – diseases that remain a major cause of both death and illness for all age groups (Minujin et al, 2006). Europe and many other developed countries use a relative poverty threshold, typically 50% of the countries’ average income. Relative poverty does not necessarily mean the child is lacking anything, but is more a reflection of inequality in society. Measures of child poverty using income thresholds will vary depending on whether relative or absolute poverty is measured and what threshold limits are applied. It is argued that using income as the only threshold ignores the multidimensional aspect of child poverty, which includes consumption requirements, access to resources and the ability to interact in society safely and without discrimination.

However, it should be noted that, despite all the arguments whether income is actually relevant in defining child poverty, low income is the major cause of poverty. Increasing a family’s incomes is directly helpful in elevating children from their poverty. Therefore, an income rise is important because of its immediate effect that it has on advancing the standards of living and also the long-standing impacts that it has on the outcomes (Graham 2012).

3.0 Policy Background

3.1 The New Labour’s approach to child poverty

Since the New Labour government came to power in 1997, it was set about transforming the key elements of the UK’s welfare state. New Labour government gave more priority to reducing child poverty, and addressed this through a progression of reforms. It boosted the national income’s share provided by transferring cash to children, and also increased the amount of cash transferred to children relative to the poverty line. On the contrary, spending on extra transfers to working-age adults fell as a share of national income from the level Labour inherited, while benefits for those without children fell further below the poverty line (Hills, 2013). According to Hills (2013), being a child or a pensioner does not any longer carry greater risks of living in poverty than it does for other age groups. In its extensive vision, the family fundamentally has a central place. In addition, Daly (2010) states that the remarkable range of measures initiated by New Labour suggest a considerable change. These actions address the children’s early schooling and care, services to make stable and better the quality of family relationships particularly in the low-income segments of the population, also parental employment as well as better flexibility in work and in family life. The Labour’s policy background is based on continuous reform. The governments of Blair and Brown can be accredited with putting employment as central to social policy in the UK. Families were also the focus of significant policy attention. New Labour technique and approach to child poverty is majorly based on six lines: care and welfare of children, the education, financial support for poor households with children, parental employment, the services for families, family functioning, and family/work reconciliation (Daly, 2010).

It is evident that the New Labour government concentrated more on the reduction of child poverty and also reducing pensioner’s poverty. According to Hills (2013), the New Labour government became so selective in their plans for poverty and inequality reduction in that they just concentrated on their ideology of ‘equality of opportunity’ and neglected the idea of ‘equality of outcome’. Thus increasing the value of cash transfers, provided for the poor children and pensioners and consequently increasing the allotted national income for this docket (Hills, 2013).

Several policy changes affected the cash incomes of children and pensioners during the New Labour’s regime. Among them were the changes that directly affected the transfer of cash to children, which included the introduction of policy on tax of credits; the pension reforms. Also the change of the direct tax systems was introduced and also the wider changes were introduced such as the launch of new national minimum wage (Hills, 2013). There was a reform from the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) to the new Working Tax Credit in 2003 and the families with younger children were given some additional amount of income. Also those working for longer hours (more than the set threshold of hours) were also given some compensation in what the government referred to as ‘making work pay’. All these changes meant that in the international terms, the UK governments spending on the cash transfers stayed put at a low level (Hills, 2013).

Examining these structural changes of the benefits, the tax credits and the general taxes, the most outstanding effects appeared with the initial wave of tax credit transformation in 1999, which enhanced the net earnings relative to the set poverty line for households with children and at the same time in low paid work. The out of work earnings for those families that have children increased to some degree at this same time and this income continued to get higher gradually relative to the poverty line. However, pension restructuring took lowest earnings for pensions up to the poverty line or sometime even above it, but the working age benefits meant for those without children and at the same time them being out of work decreased even further below the poverty line (Hills, 2013).

3.2 Investment in child education and care

The UK has discovered something of a new policy domain in early childhood education and care. New Labour worked hard to add substance to a policy field that when it came to power consisted of a fragmented set of early childhood services, bifurcated between a limited and diminishing stock of publicly funded child day care, which had strong overtones of welfare and stigma, and a growing private sector (Lewis, 2003; Penn and Randall, 2005). Successive New Labour governments oversaw a wide-ranging reform of childcare and early learning services, which attended inter alia to matters of supply, affordability, quality, governance, and diversity of provider. Some £21 billion was invested between 1997 and 2006 (HM Government, 2007). The first ever national childcare strategy was issued in 1998, and revised in 2004 (DFEE, 1998; HM Treasury, 2004). In terms of supply, the stock of childcare places doubled in the period since 1997 (HM Government, 2007: 34). The affordability of childcare was another big issue, especially as the UK has some of the highest childcare costs in the EU (Himmelweit and Land, 2007).

A number of measures were put in place to address this. New Labour continued and extended the Conservative-introduced childcare voucher scheme which subsidizes childcare for parents, at the time of writing to the value of £55 a week. More widely, parents were assisted with costs associated with purchasing childcare through the Childcare Tax Credit. Introduced in 2003, some 450,000 families received the Credit in 2006 (Adam et al., 2007). It is a targeted benefit; the level of support depends on means, the number of children in day care, and the type of childcare used. It can technically cover up to 80 per cent of the costs of childcare, subject to a maximum total subsidy of £140 per week for one child and £240 for parents with two or more children in registered childcare. Plans to pilot full coverage of childcare costs through the Childcare Tax Credit scheme were announced in January 2009.

3.3 Financial support in families with poor children

This fed into a second area of reform. Under New Labour the system of financial support for families with children in the UK saw several changes in structure and a significant increase in generosity since 1997. In terms of structure, financial support for children was shifted decisively towards tax credits making for a more integrated set of supports. Starting in October 1999, the benefit for families on low wages – Family Credit – was replaced by Working Families’ Tax Credit. This was a ‘refundable’ tax credit, payable even if it exceeded the family’s income tax liability. It was targeted at the families with children whose parents were on low to moderate incomes and working for 16 or more hours a week (Adam et al., 2007: 117). Significantly more generous than the benefit it replaced, one of its overall effects was to increase the numbers of families subject to means testing.

In April 2003 the system was further reformed with the introduction of Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit, in what has been said to be the biggest change in support for children since the introduction of Child Benefit in 1977 (Adam et al., 2007: 117). The Child Tax Credit merged several parts of the tax and benefit system that supported families with children, while the Working Tax Credit extended in-work support to adults without children, as well as providing subsidies for childcare expenditure for some working parents (Adam et al., 2007: 117).

3.4 Increase the child-related payments

Other reforms in the child-related payments altered whether they are paid to the main earner or the main care in couples, the volume of support to families with children and aspects of the institutional structure. With the tax credits in particular, New Labour transferred payments for couples from the earner to the main care, a change that by the 2004–5 tax year was estimated to have increased mothers’ incomes by about 10 per cent (Campbell, 2008: 462). In terms of generosity, the UK average child-contingent support per child per week increased from £24.13 in 1997 to £38.92 in 2006–7. In the UK as a whole, spending on child-contingent support was 61 per cent higher in 2006 than it was in 1997. The increased priority of children and the politicization of child-related provision and well-being also led to institutional change. A new department of state for children was set up in 2003 and in 2007 this was integrated into a new Department for Children, Schools and Families (Daly, 2010).

Another line of innovation was in readdressing and expanding the services focused on households with poor children. The New Labour introduced a Sure Start program shortly after it came to office in 1997. This significant innovation included an early intervention program which was intended to streamline the existing services to the poor households with children and introduce new services where necessary so that make available an integrated policy for child and family centered services in poor areas. In short, this was envisaged as a one-stop ‘hub’ for the services of the underprivileged 0 to 3year-old children as well as their families (Daly, 2010). Sure Start established the principles of community improvement in family-oriented services and targeting families in low-income neighbourhoods. Its origins are diverse: a growing legitimacy of children’s development and human capital acquisition as a focus of policy activity, improved governance as a general objective, worries about employment degeneration among low-income sectors, declining social order especially in inner-city communities, and as a response to cases of major failure in services for children. While offering a set of core services, each local program was designed, in theory anyway, to meet local need on the basis of community development principles, which enable local people to participate in determining the content and management of the programs. Funding was on a grant-in-aid basis, ‘ring-fenced’ for ten years and by UK standards generous: equivalent to roughly 1000 per child over the program’s planned seven- to ten-year lifetime. The program had a universal cast to the extent that the services were available without a test of means to all families living within prescribed catchment areas. However, the fact that the program was limited only to particular areas made for rigidity in accessibility and a coverage rate of only around 30 per cent of poor and needy families as a whole (La Valle and Smith, 2009). Over the course of time, however, the nature of the program changed, with generalization of the service model being traded for local diversity and participation. The Children’s Centre program, which served to reframe Sure Start from 2004 onwards, was strongly oriented to childcare services, aiming for universal provision in some 3500 centres by 2010. A concentration on integrated services by a multi-disciplinary team remained but childcare and parental employment were placed at the centre of the program.

3.5 Child poverty strategy 2010

New Labour’s aims for child poverty and social inequality were selective. Child poverty even when measured in relative terms was the key priority. This is alongside the broader objectives for children’s life chances and their social inclusion. Equality has been discussed in terms of opportunity and not outcomes; hence very little emphasis has been put on the inequalities of the distribution (Hills, 2013). Cash transfers from the state were not seen rhetorically, at least as being the central instrument for achieving these objectives, by contrast with public services such as education, health care, child care, and tackling other aspects of disadvantage, such as neighbourhood deprivation. When cash transfers were discussed, the aim for families and the working age population was described as ‘progressive universalism’ – something for all, alongside more for the poor – aimed at attempting to ensure that ‘work pays’, at the same time as creating a less stigmatised system of transfers through the use of ‘tax credits’, described as part of the income tax rather than benefit system. This contrasted, however, with the initial strategy for incomes for current pensioners, which concentrated on means tested benefits. Labour’s strategy was not explicitly framed in terms of its effects on income smoothing over the life cycle, although, as we shall see, that was an important side-effect of its emphasis on early and later life.

4.0 Coalition’s Approach to Child poverty

The Child Poverty Act 2010, introduced by the previous government but with cross-party support, placed a duty on the UK government to eradicate child poverty by 2020. It introduced a number of statutory child poverty targets, required the UK government and the devolved nations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to publish a strategy for tackling child poverty, and established in law the Child Poverty Commission to advise the government and hold it to account on progress in meeting child poverty targets. The coalition government’s national child poverty strategy, a new approach to child poverty: Tackling the causes of disadvantage and transforming families’ lives (Department for Work and Pensions & Department for Education, 2011), was published in April 2011. This followed the Frank Field Review of Early Intervention (Field, 2010). In the child poverty strategy, the government emphasizes the importance of going beyond income to consider the family, home environment, housing, early years, education and health in tackling poverty and its unfavourable effects. It focuses on:

Supporting families to achieve financial independence: removing financial disincentives to work, improving financial management and supporting people into work.
Supporting family life and children’s life chances: providing support and removing barriers in relation to attainment, health, housing, early years and environment, among other factors to enable children to achieve their potential.
The role of place and transforming lives: supporting and encouraging local communities and local partners to identify and support families in a long lasting way (Field, 2010).

Certainly we can not discount the absolute importance of increasing family’s incomes and reducing their expenses as levers to reduce child poverty. Also critical, however, are policies that aim to mitigate the deleterious impact of child poverty on children’s health and well-being, particularly given the long-lasting influence of poverty on children’s outcomes. Thus, our recommendations include proposals to take forward these policies (Field, 2010). Leaving the issue of child poverty firmly on the table for the incoming government was one part of the Labour legacy. The Child Poverty Act was passed with cross-party support in 2010, committing future administrations to act to reduce relative child poverty below 10 per cent by 2020/21. In practice, while the coalition government published its first Child Poverty Strategy in 2011 as mandated by the Act, it is clear that reducing income poverty for today’s children (or indeed preventing increases in poverty) is not a current policy priority. The Child Poverty Strategy accuses the previous government of pouring money into short-term fixes because of a narrow focus on income, and emphasises instead the importance of tackling worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown.9 Coalition budgets have cut resources to low-income households with children (including many working households) through changes in the rules for claiming child tax credit, reductions in the childcare element of working tax credit, caps on overall benefits and changes to the local housing allowance. The IFS projects annual increases in relative child poverty between 2010/11 and 2013/14, despite a falling poverty line.

The coalition does pledge to measure and act on a wider set of indicators of children’s wellbeing and opportunities, but given what we know about the importance of income to wider child outcomes, it is difficult to see how children’s prospects can be improved against this backdrop. An effective child poverty strategy needs to tackle low income and other causes of disadvantage, not one or the other. Of course, these are very different times to those a decade ago, and any government in office today would face tough choices. But there are still choices, nonetheless. To date, a disproportionate burden of deficit reduction has been placed onto households with children, and families on the lowest incomes have been hit hardest of all. This is both unfair and short-sighted, and the government should be encouraged to rethink its strategy and to see spending on children as an investment in the future, with long-run consequences for the children themselves (who will not get another shot at childhood in happier economic times), and for the health and prosperity of society as a whole (Field, 2010).

Public debate seems frequently to suggest that poverty is more or less a permanent state, with the use of terms such as ‘the poor’ and occasionally ‘the underclass’. The reality is that most spells of poverty are comparatively short. Official analyses show that 32 per cent of people who are in poverty one year are not so the next, but even these statistics overstate the persistence of poverty because short spells of poverty starting and ending between the survey dates are ignored.

Nevertheless, the official analyses are the best available and they indicate that the chances of escaping poverty are uneven. Whereas 45 per cent of couples without children leave poverty between years, only 26 per cent of lone parents and 22 per cent of pensioners manage to do so. Moreover, the chances of people leaving poverty after three years of poverty are much reduced, effectively halving for most groups except those in households in which all adults are employed where the fall is noticeably less, from 40 per cent to 28 per cent (Field, 2010).

This Coalition Government is devoted to end child poverty but it is aware of the fact that income measures and its associated targets do not accurately enlighten or tell the full story concerning the causes of childhood poverty and the consequences of childhood destitution ( DWP & DfE, 2011).

According to the coalition government, they believe that the previous New Labour Government’s was focusing so much on narrow the income targets, which meant that they poured so much resources into fixing the short-term symptoms of child poverty instead of truly focusing on the existing causes of childhood poverty ( DWP & DfE, 2011). “We plan to tackle head-on the causes of poverty which underpin low achievement, aspiration and opportunity across generations. Our radical programme of reform to deliver social justice will focus on combating worklessness and educational failure and preventing family and relationship breakdown with the aim of supporting the most disadvantaged groups struggling at the bottom of society” ( DWP & DfE, 2011 pp 8).

The Coalition government believes that they will effectively address the root causes of childhood poverty and not to be fooled into tackling just the symptoms. This means that the government is aware of the significance of the background in which a kid is brought up, alongside other factors like education and parental income (DWP & DfE, 2011). “That is why we are committed to supporting strong families. We also know that effective parenting is critical to enabling children to flourish” (DWP & DfE, 2011 pp 8). As a component of this Government’s goals and objectives, it will make this society to be a more family-friendly, a strategy which also clearly shows how this government will enhance family relationship and parenting support ( DWP & DfE, 2011). This will be coupled with the drive to have a higher social mobility in the working world and help the poor families elevate from poverty and heave them up the ladder hence eradicating child poverty permanently. The government is also set to measure the success of its new approaches to child poverty through its several sets of indicators as will be described in the sections below (DWP & DfE, 2011).

4.1 Comparing the new labour’s approach with the coalitions approach

The coalition government published its strategy for improving social mobility-Opening doors, breaking barriers (HM Government, 2012), saying that breaking the transmission of disadvantage from one generation to the next was the principle goal of the coalition’s approach to social policy. The strategy brought together a range of policy initiatives the government was undertaking including those affecting young children, schools and young people moving into adulthood. While the UK coalition government has its own distinct approach to the most effective means of fighting child poverty and has chosen to emphasize particular policies, there is surprising consistency across the developed world in terms of the types of policies used to tackle child poverty, such as lone parenthood, low parental educational attainment, lack of affordable and accessible childcare, poor health and health behaviours, abuse and neglect and residence in deprived neighbourhoods or in substandard housing (Hansard, 2013; HM Government, 2012). The three key types of policies can be summarized as follows:

Those that aim to increase families’ financial resources through employment (notably work that ‘pays’) and cash transfers. Particular policies and programmes may focus on job creation, work incentives (e.g. tax credits), minimum wages, tax exemptions, cash assistance, benefits and allowances and debt reduction.
Those that aim to reduce families’ expenses including ‘in-kind’ benefits, such as children allowances, access to subsidized housing, food assistance and public health insurance.
Those that promote child well-being and early intervention and prevention including child protection services, specialist services and support (e.g. early intervention, parenting support), high-quality education and positive activities (Hansard, 2013).

4.2 Child outcomes; the outcomes of child poverty

According to (Fauth, et al, 2012), Outcomes are the final upshots of an action. They are also defined as the state of wellbeing. For instance, being safe, being healthy, being secure and being happy. (Fauth, et al, 2012) states that, from various researches, it is very clearly discovered that poverty affects children outcomes negatively. Poor children physically experience somewhat diminished health as quantified using indicators of physical wellbeing and outcomes. There is a relationship of poverty to many other essential measures of child health. These include infant mortality, low birth weight, stunted growth and diseases. Cognitive and School achievement outcome is also limited by the poverty levels. The poor child is unable to access the required information or early education unlike the rich. The rich are in a better position to attend the best schools and access all the books they need for early school use unlike the poor (Fauth, et al, 2012).

4.3 Better outcomes in children and young people

Better outcomes are those results that are more positive than we are actually getting. This involves improving the outcomes of the children through provision of better goods, facilities and services needed for their wellbeing. It involves meeting most of the deprived needs of the children (DfE, March 2012).

4.4 Relationship between income and ‘better’ outcomes for children

In tackling child poverty, the support to the family’s finances is a huge step that needs to be taken to improve and maximize the children’s chances of life. Government’s expenditure must therefore be focused on family incomes to ensure that as many children as possible are able to have their needs met without having to be deprived of their rights and privileges (Graham, 2012).

Long term and future outcomes are vital in development but also dealing with the present poverty is important. Thus, directly enlivening children out from poverty, assuaging the monetary strain on little income families as well as improving the standards of living for such families in paucity should still remain a major endeavor for the policy makers (Graham, 2012).

For a developed nation like the UK, relative income poverty appreciates a fundamental principle that each child and family ought to be equipped with all the necessary material resources to fully and actively participate in the society and consequently access the full array of opportunities that the community presents (Graham, 2012). Generally, income matters a lot for the reason that it is a major influence to the experiences of either the wellbeing or poverty. There is a strong correlation between surviving on a low income and poor children outcomes for that particular household. There is a crystal clear causal-effect link between a low income household and its children’s educational achievements. Thus, if families are getting poorer with time, this presents a serious threat to the children outcomes in such households (Graham, 2012; Brewer, 2011).

In the government’s consultation paper, it is suggested that income plays a minor role in child poverty, though it actually has some effects. The facts now confirm that income poverty has a contributory impact on children’s learning and educational outcomes, parental quarrels and the child’s welfare. Conversely, the scale of the consequences is still not clear-cut (JRF Response 2011). It is not effusively understood at exactly what age income makes the most difference in a child. However, the indications have shown that it is most significant in the kindergarten and over 14 years age groups. The complete range of outcomes above which family income matters is also uncertain. For instance, it is not evidently conclusive whether a household’s income affects health outcomes of a child and later their risky behaviours just in the same manner it impacts for relationships and educational attainments (JRF Response 2011; Brewer, 2011). Thus, whilst taking into account to intervene in such childhood areas as these, one major difficulty is the lack of any other set of rated tools that are established to be more helpful than income at this juncture. As a result, intervention in such instances of a highly dysfunctional household will be in terms of raising their income (JRF Response 2011). Another action that may possibly work without huge costs is to increase access to best universities for those children hailing from poor families. Also allowing schools in underprivileged regions to pay some higher salaries to their exceptional teachers and supporting such schools could be another solution to achieving better educational outcomes (Graham, 2012; JRF Response 2011). Childhood poverty has revealed to have immediate as well lasting harmful effects to a child’s present and future. This is evident in the aspects of health, education and economic security. Children living in poor families are more probable to experience schooling difficulties and more likely to become parents in their teenage. As adults, such children are more likely to earn less or to be unemployed when compared with children from wealthy families. The children whose present life conditions are hard may also have futures that are potentially bleak owing to their household’s low income (Brewer 2011).

4.5 Use of income approach in the UK to measure child poverty

The income approach of measuring child poverty was utilised by the New Labour government since 1997 when it came to power. This approach focused on improving the income of the unprivileged households that have children. This was mainly achieved through tax credits and increasing the parental income of the poor households. This approach by the New Labour government reduced the numbers of the children living in poverty from its highest in the 1990’s to about 27% (3.6 Million children) in the year 2011 (Richard, 2012).

However, over the years, it has been noted with concern that children from underprivileged backgrounds unlikely to excel in GCSE results. The February 2012 published statistics showed that in the year 2011, of all the pupils who had qualified for free meals at schools, approximately 35% of them attained 5 GCSEs which included Mathematics and English at A* to C. this is compared to the 62% of the rest of the pupils who never qualified for free meals (DfE & DWP 2013). It is evident that through these years, children’s success at school has largely been determined by the child’s social status. The UK government is now striving to elevate levels of success for all underprivileged pupils so as to bridge the gap of social-economic attainments between poor children and their well-heeled peers. The commitment by the government is aimed at ending child poverty by the year 2020 through supporting and helping needy children not only at school but also outside the school set up (Couch, 2010).

4.6 Income approach versus other approaches to child poverty

There are extensive social inclines in many areas of life chances. However, in responding to the government’s issue of public consultation on better ways of measuring child poverty, the JRF focused majorly on more economic aspects of education, work as well as that of wages. Their response cited that at adulthood, 32% of calculated income-based disparity is normally descended from the parents to children in the poor household. This reflects the long-term effect of family background. It is also factual that in most cases, the full proceeds from education, training and learning aren’t totally realised in the working set up they get to 40s (JRF Response, 2011). Facts from the UK and from other developed countries show that around 50% of socio-economic inequality among the poor and the rich is normally passed on from one generation to another. It is also known that almost 50 percent of these intergenerational transmissions of income transpire through education via acquisition of cognitive skills quantified by means of standardised assessments (JRF Response, 2011). Such cognitive skills are acknowledged and highly rewarded they come to the labour market. These educational cognitive skills are an important element of intergenerational disparity continuing from generation to the other especially in the extremely unequal cultures because of their social inclines in gaining them and also in terms of their high rewards. Simply stated, the subject matter of economic opportunity for a child reflects who gets a job and how much this job will pay (Couch, 2010).

A more elementary matter is that redistribution alone cannot practically aid in bridging the income gap that separate rich children and their peers in poverty. Nevertheless, policy instruments that minimise parental joblessness and earnings disparity will have a high impact on social mobility (JRF Response 2011). In a culture where a high inequality in income exists, it is awfully difficult to realize high social mobility hence people tend to practically stagnate in their social stratum. Thus, huge investments educationally and high family support through intervention is required to attain such a blend. The rising evidence here is that the preceding government’s anti-poverty campaign and its extensive efforts elevate the achievements of the poorer children actually made some difference (Couch, 2010). On critical point, the big query is whether this was essentially and cost effectively the best set of interventions to be employed or it is possible to attain more using the same resources. For instance, the educational incline actuated by social surroundings surfaces very early in a child’s life and afterwards broadens during childhood. This is more predominantly between three and eleven years of age and then in post-16 years (JRF Response, 2011).

4.7 From income approach to a multidimensional approach

The battle against child poverty has been a sturdy one and the strategies to fight this have been sought for a while. In June 2010, the prime minister commissioned Frank Field to avail an independent review and an assessment of poverty before that year ended. The main objective of this review was to initiate an expansive debate as concerns the nature and level of poverty in the UK. The review also was aimed at examining the possibilities to reform poverty measures so as to include nonfinancial measures as appropriate. There was a dire need to explore the effects that a child’s background has on their chance of schooling. Frank was also expected to put down some recommendations of potential actions that the government and other relevant institutions needed to take in order to reduce poverty and improve life chances amongst the underprivileged (Field, 2010). The review was to tackle the challenge of how to prevent deprived children from carrying on this devastating condition to their adulthood. The review by Frank recommended that the UK government needed to address child poverty issues in an essentially different perspective from the earlier one in order to succeed in fighting the progression of childhood poverty to adult life (Field, 2010). The research revealed that children’s outcomes were in most cases envisaged in their early five years of development. Thus, besides money, the future potential of a child was also determined by family background, good parenting, parental education and early years of learning and development. The UK government has decided to centre on a multidimensional approach rather than just the income approach. To realize the benefits that this approach brings, it is important to review both approaches and see which one is more plausible in the case of the UK (Field, 2010).

4.8 The progress made by UK’s earlier governments using the old income approach

In the year 2011, approximately 1.9 million children were still growing up in families where no one was working. This in a proportion is about one sixth of the children population representing a higher value than in other European Union countries notwithstanding that UK is among richest countries globally (DWP & DfE 2011). In the previous decade, the Government tried their best to strike the set child poverty targets and ended up paying approximately £150 billion, a record amount in welfare payments so far which was spent only on tax credits through the years 2004 to 2010. Majority of this expenditure went to families with children. However, by the year 2009, the progress on child poverty targets was utterly mired (DWP & DfE 2011). In addition, it is also noticed that child poverty dropped between 1999 and 2010. This was as a result of tax credits used to increase financial support to the poor families and also the efforts put to ensure parents are put to work so as to earn some living. Children’s life chances were also improved successfully during this period (Save the Children, 2012).

4.9 What the UK coalition government has now proposed

The coalition government has proposed a multi-dimensional approach to child poverty rather than focusing on just one aspect of income approach as the previous government did. The coalition government is the view that child poverty is an intricate phenomenon in which no single measure can fully depict the lived experiences of child poverty. Thus, other than income, there are also other factors which come into play including social, spiritual and emotional factors (Demos, 2012). However, this coalition government should also remember that “poverty is a condition marked by a lack of adequate resources, some of which may not be financial. Nonetheless, an inadequate income remains the decisive characteristic of poverty and must remain central to any poverty measurement and any measure that is not sensitive to changes in income cannot be regarded as a robust measure of poverty” (CPAG’s Response, 2013 pp 6). The coalition government, in what it has referred to as a multidimensional approach to child poverty, has decided to consider not only income but also the child’s health, their early year’s outcomes, the training and advice, child’s educational attainment, home learning environment for the child, engagement and aspiration as young adults and their parenting relationships. In tackling unemployment problems among the parents and caregivers of poor children, the government is to create more jobs for lone parents and poor families to enhance sustainable self reliance and improve their income (Demos, 2012). The new multi-dimensional child poverty approach has its own practical limitations when compared to the current child poverty income approach. To begin with, it will be extremely difficult to interpret a change in the overall poverty index especially when the constituent indicators that make it up are moving in many different directions. Thus, this may not be necessarily of great help to the policy makers unless laid down procedures are put in place for accurate measurements (Cannan, 2013).

Unfortunately, it might be quite difficult to obtain data for the multi dimensional index especially in the earlier years since this has not been in use. It is also difficult to compare with other nations which are using the old procedures and approaches. However, with the exiting income approach, we can easily track the long term progress in ending child poverty and compare the results with other nations around the globe to see how we are fairing (Demos 2012).

Finally, the individual indicators and also the overall index will necessitate setting of their threshold values. Thus, these values might be arbitrarily set and to some extent unjustifiable hence it may prove difficult to win public support (Demos 2012). The government has set both short term and long term goals towards the reduction of child poverty. The short term goal ranges from 2011 to 2014 and the long term goals extend up to the year 2020. This can be done while maintaining a clear focus on the progress made to reduce child poverty. For short term goals, monitoring can include the assessment of the effects of the policies affecting household income presently. Thus, for the next few years, it will be prudent to assess the developments in all dimensions of child poverty. Any area that will prove to still be affecting life chances should be given more attention to ensure that this will not go on to influence adult poverty occurrences (JRF response, 2011).

In the government’s consultation paper, the argument is that increase in a family income will not necessarily make a much difference in the life chances of children. Instead, the areas with substantive impact on a child’s life chances include educational attainment, health, training and advice, home learning environment, early year’s outcomes, engagement and aspiration as young adults as well as parenting and family relationships hence to them poverty is multifaceted phenomenon and cannot be defined using income only (Cannan, 2013; JRF response, 2011). Therefore, child poverty as a condition is generally marked by inadequate supply of resources both financial and non-financial. Inadequate income will still stand as the descriptive characteristic of poverty and very essential in poverty measurement. Relative poverty measure, just like any other measure, has some limitations but it is very useful in informing about how fortunate are the children living in the UK. Thus, relative poverty measure should be used alongside material deprivation, persistent poverty and absolute poverty in measurement of poverty (JRF response, 2011). The UK’s coalition government is very ambitious to create a meritocratic and a fair society in which people take full responsibility of their lives to reach their maximum potential. This will be greatly enhanced with the strategies set in social mobility and social justice. The government will work hard under the social justice strategy to ensure that it is easier for people to find jobs and work while they take own responsibilities for their lives (JRF response, 2011). As a limitation to income measures, relative poverty does not show how it is for a child growing in a household where parents are workless and weighed down by debts, with no one to help with homework or living in a damp house or even the reality of attending a failing school (Demos, 2012).

4.10 Family level explanations

In regard to the reduction of child poverty the New Deal for Lone Parents is of particular interest. About a quarter of all families in the UK are lone parent families of which 53% are in some kind of employment, according to the Department for Work and Pensions an increase of 6% over a period of six years. The government’s target is an employment rate of 70% though. Lone parents claiming Income Support have to take part in a work-focused meeting with a personal advisor to discuss work opportunities, to get information about services offered and to be referred to the New Deal for Lone Parents. This programme is designed to encourage lone parents to enter the labour market by enabling them to reconcile work and the care of their children. Besides the provision of affordable childcare the programme offers comprehensive support through a personal advisor. This can include counseling training courses related to work or personal development but also financial support, including funds to cover costs for taking up employment, e.g. appropriate clothing (Adviser Discretion Fund), or – to be introduced in 10/2004 – transitional costs in the first month in work, e.g. for tiding over housing costs (Job Grant). To reach lone parents on a voluntary basis the DWP is about to introduce “Discovery Weeks” in six metropolitan districts to win them for participation in the New Deal. Main issues are information and career guidance. To avoid barriers to participation the events take part outside official buildings and during school hours, providing childcare and giving some incentives (e.g. a hair dress) (DWP 2003c, DWP 2003d, oral information from the DWP 2003).

Wellbeing is conventionally understood as multi-dimensional. Many things influence the lives of children – not just their material circumstances, but also their education, health, relationships with parents and friends, home and living environment, and their own behaviour. What they think and feel about their lives – their subjective wellbeing – is also important and, indeed, may be the result of the other dimensions of wellbeing.

At the beginning of the 2000s the wellbeing of children in the UK was poorly rated. Child poverty had increased nearly threefold in the 1980s, and a series of comparative studies representing wellbeing in similar, but not identical, ways found that the UK was not doing well. The UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7, using data from around 2000, ranked the UK at the bottom of 21 countries – and in the bottom third of countries on all domains except for health and safety.1 A later comparison, using data from around 2005 of 29 European Union countries, had the UK placed at 24, in the bottom third on all domains except relationships, risk behaviour and housing.2 In the same year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published its league table of child wellbeing, which had the UK placed 20 out of 30 OECD countries and in the bottom third on education, health and safety, and risk behaviour.

Partly in response to this evidence, the government invested heavily in children throughout the 2000s. There was the Child Poverty Strategy, which resulted in real improvements in the level of in-work and out-of-work incomes for families with children. Sure start was launched in 1998 and early education was extended to three- and four-year-olds and later, in 2009, to two-years-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. There were big increases in public spending on health and education, and later childcare. In schools, the standards agenda sought to improve literacy and numeracy and to improve performance at key stages and at GSCE. Policies were introduced to encourage staying on and to expand opportunities in tertiary education. In addition, there was an institutional transformation with children’s commissioners appointed, a new Department for Children, Families and Schools, a Children’s Plan, and equivalent developments in the devolved administrations and in local government. The high point was the Child Poverty Act 2010.

5.0 How important is income in child poverty measurement?

Household income is one of the central tools in measurement of child poverty. Income is a major part of that understanding of child poverty and who is affected by it. There is a big difference between any two children growing up in poverty. Some will cope with the unending difficulties while others may be so vulnerable to such conditions. Some can even make it through all such difficulties and be later become independent and successful (Save the Children, 2012). Low income has been the major cause of child poverty and is central to the poor outcomes that many living in poverty are experiencing. Sometimes, some characteristics like poor educational attainment and poor health are as a result of low income and insufficient resources. Lack of income is one of the most common experiences to all poor households. The presence of child poverty is a proof that a child’s basic rights are being denied and the child is lacking the resources they need to live a happy life (Save the Children, 2012).To end poverty, it is fundamental to clearly understand what really lies behind poverty and how do children get entrapped there. It is also vital to understand how worklessness, poor housing, debts and family instability impact the child’s present conditions and their life chances (Save the Children, 2012). However, the government is so engrossed in the development of a multidimensional approach to child poverty measurement which pays attention to various elements that make a child experience poverty. It is a bit deeper than income approach and reflects on all dimensions touching on both current poverty and life chances measures (CPAG, 2013).

5.1 Other income measures in the children poverty Act 2010

The measure of poverty using the relative income will remain relevant in every place. However, this alone cannot reflect exactly what is happening with children living in poverty. Thus, the government has set targets which must be reached and then sustained by 2020 (DWP, 2012). One of the targets is aim at reducing the proportion of children who are experiencing long periods of relative poverty and the specific target of this measure (Persistent poverty) is to be set in the near future (DWP 2012). Another target is aim to reduce the number of children, to less than 5 percent, of those who are actually living in absolute low income (Absolute poverty) of less than 60 per cent of the nation’s median household income stabilised at 2010/2011 level (DWP, 2012). Even amongst the poor, there are those who can be referred to as the poorest of them all. In severe poverty, the poverty measure combines both the material deprivation and the relative income to come up with a measure. However, there are those far below 50 per cent of the nation’s median income and then they are still experiencing deprivation materially (Field, 2010). Relative income is the best way of measuring poverty by comparing how a household fares in relation to the average income so that they are able to obtain the necessary resources for their livelihoods and are able to participate fully in the society as full members without being discriminated (DWP, 2012). This is also relevant to the child poverty in that, every child is entitled to participate as a full member of the society so as to realize their potential and access all the opportunities that the society offers which include a decent home, educational opportunities and a healthy diet (DWP, 2012).

5.2 Challenges in using Relative income measures

The main disadvantage of using this measure is that relative measure of income does not inform about everything. Measuring poverty using relative income does not inform us of the experiences these poor are facing. It does not show us the poor outcomes they are experiencing. This strategy is more focused on the income and expenditure and excludes the most important part which is the experience of poverty itself. The outcomes are what really matters (Field, 2010). Another challenge is in measuring of extreme poverty. Sometimes the poverty report is recorded for those below the fixed median per cent age. Whereas this is informative, one would like to know how poor that person is as compared to the average income person. This may lead to dig deeper and see how far below the set standard is such a person. Thus, it will be clearer when details are given of how far the person is from the average median percentage (CPAG, 2013). Another serious challenge is when the median income levels fall. When median income falls, it is possible that some of the children who initially were below the median level may find themselves above that median line whereas nothing has really changed in their lives. Such an occurrence may be misleading because the incomes of these families have not risen and they can still not afford what they could not afford earlier. Thus, using relative income measure would be somehow misleading especially when the median income falls. This was the case when the UK citizens were going through tough economic times (DWP, 2013).

5.3 The Future of Child Poverty

According to the projected values done by IFS, the projected child poverty is expected to increase in the coming years. This is as a result of the current policies on tax and benefits. The government is not going to meet their targets both for absolute and for relative income measures.

Source : (Save the Children, 2012).

The figure above shows the child poverty trend and progress between the years 1999 and 2010 based on the actual figures which have mainly been influenced by the tax and credit policies in use during this period (Save the Children, 2012).

Source: (Save the Children, 2012).

The graph above shows the projected figures of child poverty for the coming few years (2011-2016) based on the current policies on taxes and credits (Save the Children, 2012). From the projections, by the year 2020, Relative Child Poverty (Before Housing Costs) is expected to rise to 24.4 per cent which is around 2 Million children off the target. Likewise, Absolute Child Poverty is going to rise beyond 3.1 Million (Before Housing Costs) and beyond 3.7 million (After Housing Costs) (Save the Children, 2012).

5.4 Why this pessimistic projections of Future of Child Poverty

These results are based on the tax-credit policies by the coalition government. The up rated benefits with consumer price index instead of retail price index. Those with low incomes will be left behind since benefits cannot easily keep up with increased standards of living. Further, unfavorable Child tax credits will increase child poverty in the coming years (Save the Children, 2012). Therefore, the projected child poverty targets may be difficult to achieve if the government does not change some of its policies on tax and credits. In addition, the coalition government should couple income child poverty with other dimensions of child poverty and find a balance between them so as to achieve better results (Save the Children, 2012).

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 Discussion

It is important to focus on relative income poverty and income in general to address child poverty. Poverty is as a result of low income. Child poverty has poor outcomes in education, health and future employment as adults. Income will always count when it comes to tackling child poverty, improving the living standards, and in reducing financial pressure in households (Brewer, 2011). It is evident that significant strides have been made in reducing child poverty since 1999. This clearly shows that the policies in place were working and all that was needed here is to do some audit on such policies and improve on them. It is therefore crucial to consider what worked so far and augment that with a few more policies (NCB, 2013).

Focusing on life chances is also a great step since it will tackle poverty not only in childhood but also as the kids grow to adulthood. Tackling of intermediate outcomes is also a great step and will noticeably improve on better outcomes in the future of the children. However, this should not be at the expense of the presently suffering children. A more sustainable solution is the one that focuses on meeting the needs of the children now and in the future (NCB, 2013).

The coalition government is committed to tackle children poverty through social mobility and social justice. According to them, poverty is much more than just income. It is a deficiency in aspiration, opportunity and stability (DWP & DfE, 2011). Growing up in workless households will lead to a high possibility of being workless. This has proved to push childhood poverty to adulthood and later they become poor parents. This grip that poverty has on families and communities cannot be eliminated only by giving them incomes. The lasting solution is to create opportunities and empower such individuals to fight and overcome poverty (DWP & DfE, 2011).

The new approach to tackling this problem is where the government focuses on the causes of the poverty and the intermediate outcomes that threaten life chances. Some of the better ways to tackle the long term intergenerational cycle of poverty includes, tackling worklessness, tackling debts, tackling educational failures, tackling poor health and strengthening families in relationships and parenting (CPAG, 2013). To eliminate poverty, the government will be committed to its strategies in social justice, social mobility and ending child poverty strategies. Some of these include moving parents to work, helping those who cannot work by giving financial support, and for those who have started working will be pushed up the ladder through social mobility and appropriate rewards (DfE and DWP, 2013).

6.2 choosing the best approach to child poverty

The best of the approaches to child poverty is using a multidimensional approach, where the government focuses not only at income but also other factors that can lead to poor child outcome as mentioned in the coalitions approach to child poverty. Nevertheless, in as much as the coalition government is so much focused on a ‘multidimensional approach’ to ending child poverty, it is not a guarantee that this can actually work excluding income approach considerations. There are those children and parents who are destitute and are in dire need of the help that the government can give (ECP, 2012). To my opinion, income handouts are a medium term solution to child poverty while focusing on aspiration, opportunity and stability is a long term sustainable approach to ending child poverty. Thus, a combination of the two will be more effective in dealing with child poverty.

Therefore, the coalition government is justified to move away from a single approach of monetary or income method to a more diversified and robust multidimensional approach. However, the government should not do away completely with the income poverty definition since it has had its own benefits to the UK and also most other dimensions are normally dependent on income.

References

Adam, S., Brewer, M., Browne, J. and Phillips, D. (2007) An Analysis of Children in Northern Ireland, Government Financial Support for Children across the UK: How Does Northern Ireland Compare? London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Atkinson, A. B.( 1970). Poverty in Britain and the Reform of Social Security. Cambridge University Press

Beisenherz, H. Gerhard (2002): Kinderarmut in der Wohlfahrtsgesellschaft. Das Kainsmal der Globalisierung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Boyden, J. , & Feeny, T.(2003). Children and Poverty: a review of contemporary literature and thought on children and poverty. Children and Poverty Series, Part I, Christian Children’s Fund, Richmond. http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/7659_Poverty%20Pt,201

Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P. and Richardson, D. (2007), ‘An Index of Child Well-being in the European Union ‘, Social Indicators Research 80: 133–77

Brewer, Browne & Wenchao,2011 Universal Credit : A Preliminary Analysis, Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Briefing Note 116.

Brewer, M., Browne, J., Joyce, R., & Payne, J. (2011). Child and working-age poverty from 2010 to 2020. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/poverty-benefits/josephrowntreefoundation/128681children-adult-poverty-welfare-summary.pdf

Campbell, M. (2008) ‘Labour’s Policy on Money for Parents: Combining Care with Paid Work,’ Social Policy & Society 7(4): 457–70.

Cannan, C., & Warren, C. (Eds.). (2013). Social action with children and families: a community development approach to child and family welfare. Routledge.

Couch, K., Smeeding, T. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Fighting poverty: Attentive policy can make a huge difference. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 401-407.

CPAG. (2013).Ending child poverty: a right or a responsibility?

Daly, M. (2010). Shifts in family policy in the UK under New Labour. Journal of European social policy, 20(5), 433-443.

Demos (2012), Poverty in Perspective

DfE and DWP. (2013). Raising the Achievement of Disadvantaged Children

DfE. (January 2012). Intervening to improve outcomes for vulnerable young people: a review of the evidence

DfE. (March 2012). Outcomes for children looked after as at 31March2012

Doyle, O., Harmon, C., & Walker, I. (2007). The impact of parental income and education on child health: Further evidence for England.

Duncan, G.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P.K. Economic deprivation and early-childhood development. Child Development (1994) 65,2:296–318.

Duncan, G.J., Yeung, W., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Smith, J.R.(2001). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, in press.

DWP & DfE. (2011). A New Approach to Child Poverty: Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives

DWP. (2012). Households below Average Income: An analysis of the income distribution

DWP. (2013). measuring child poverty consultation, http://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/downloads/keyofficialdocuments/Measuring%20child%20poverty%20preliminary%20conclusions.pdf

ECP. (January 2012). End Child Poverty. Child poverty map of the UK. http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/files/childpovertymap2011.pdf

Fauth Becky, Rachel Blades and Chloe Gill, (October 2012). Child poverty outcomes models http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/892283/child_poverty_outcomes_models_international_review.pdf

Field, F. (2010). The Foundation Years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults

Gordon & Nandy. (2013). Measuring Child Poverty http://www.equityforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/4.GordonandNandyMeasuringChildPoverty-1.pdf

Graham, W. (May 2012). The Importance of income in measuring and tackling child poverty,http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/The_importance_of_income_FINAL.pdf

Hansard, House of Commons Official Report, (15 January 2013)., vol.556 no.96, col.715W.

Haveman, R., and Wolfe, B. (1994).Succeeding generations: On the effect of investments in children.New York: Russell Sage Foundation,

Haveman, R., and Wolfe, B. The determinants of children’s attainments: A review of methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature (1995) 33,3:1829–78.

Hills, J. (2013). Labour’s record on cash transfers, poverty, inequality and the lifecycle 1997-2010.

HM Government, (November 2012). Measuring Child Poverty. A Consultation on Better Measures of child poverty, accessed August 21, 2013, https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Measuring%20Child%20Poverty%20Consultation%20Document%20final.pdf

HM Government. (2007). Building on Progress: Families. London: Cabinet Office.

HM Treasury. (2004). Choice for Parents, the Best Start for Children: Ten Year Strategy for Childcare. London: HMSO.

Brooks-Gunn, eds.( 1997). New York: Russell Sage Foundation

JRF Response .(2011). to the UK Government’s consultation on Tackling Child Poverty and Improving Life Chances.

La Valle, I. and Smith, R. (2009). ‘Good Quality Childcare for All? Progress towards Universal Provision’, National Institute Economic Review 207: 75–82.

Lewis, J. (2003). ‘Developing Early Years Childcare in England, 1997–2002: The Choices for (Working) Mothers’, Social Policy & Administration 37(3): 219–38.

Lewis, J. and Campbell, M. (2007). ‘Work/Family Balance Policies in the UK since 1997’, Journal of Social Policy 36(3): 365–81.

Lipina, S. J., Simonds, J., & Segretin, M. S. (2011). Recognizing the child in child poverty. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 6(1), 8-17.

Mack, J. (1985). ‘How poor is too poor? Defining poverty’ in Mack, J. and Lansley, S. Poor Britain, London, George Allen & Unwin.

Minujín, A., Delamonica, E., Davidziuk, A., & Gonzalez, E. D. (2006). The definition of child poverty: a discussion of concepts and measurements. Environment and Urbanization, 18(2), 481-500.

Minujin, Alberto. (2005)., “Constructing a definition and measurements of children living in poverty”, GPS contribution to IRC meeting on Child Poverty in CEE/CIS, 24 January 2005, Florence, Italy. Rowntree. B. S.( 1966). Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan,

Moore, S. N., Tapper, K., & Murphy, S. (2010). Feeding strategies used by primary school meal staff and their impact on children’s eating. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23(1), 78-84.

Murray, C. A. (2006). In our hands: A plan to replace the welfare state (pp. 116-17). Washington,DC;: Aei Press.

Nandy S, (2008). Measuring Child poverty for Policy Purposes, http://www..unicef.org%2Fsocialpolicy%2Ffiles%2Fmeasuring_child_pov_for_policy_purposes.ppt&ei=EKEUUsvMCavH7Aat_YCICA&usg=AFQjCNEkJK8jnNRicmRr92OicqF4qD0PKg

NCB. (2013). Tackling child poverty and promoting children well-being; lessons from abroad.

Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2010). Using non‐monetary deprivation indicators to analyze poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 305-325.

Richard G, (27 April 2012). More children go to school hungry, accessed September 2, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/more-children-go-to-school-hungry-warn-teachers-7682545.html

Save the Children. (2012). Ending Child Poverty: The importance of income in measuring and tackling child poverty

Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 219-231.

Smith, A. (1904). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Fifth edition edited by Edwin Cannan and published by Methuen &Co Ltd).

Tarki. (2010). Child poverty and child well-bing in the European Union. Report prepared for the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commsion. Budapest: Tarki Social Research Institute.

Teachman, J., Paasch, K.M., Day, R., and Carver, K.P. Poverty during adolescence and subsequent educational attainment. In Consequences of growing up poor. G. Duncan and

The State of the World’s Children. (2005). http://www.unicef.org/sowc/archive/ENGLISH/TheStateoftheWorld’sChildren2005

Townsend, P. (2008). ”Measuring Poverty”, British Journal of Sociology, ,130-137.

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2000): A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Countries. Innocenti Report Card No. 1, June 2000. Florence.

Vandemoortele, J. (2000),“Absorbing social shocks, protecting children and reducing poverty”, UNICEF, New York (2000), accessed 2 September 2013 at http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/ Global_2000_Absorbing_Social_Shocks.pdf.

Weisbrod, B. A. ED.(1965). The Economics of Poverty. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Last Completed Projects

topic title	academic level	Writer	delivered

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]