Comprehensive spending review 2007
What it needs to deliver on child poverty

Provide most for those children at greatest risk of poverty

CPAG's recent publication, At Greatest Risk, identified those various groups of children who were at greatest risk of child poverty and looked at how to tackle the particular issues that most affect them. The challenge for the spending review is to drive overall policy to deliver most for the most vulnerable children and families. Each of the different policy recommendations in this document suggests ways of achieving this aim.

Large families

Studies have consistently found that children in large families are at far greater risk of poverty than children from small families. According to the latest data from the Family Resources Survey, 50 per cent of children in families with four or more children in 2004/05 were poor,14 compared with 23 per cent in one-child families. As our publication Child Benefit: fit for the future points out, there is an overlap between large families and other groups at risk of poverty (such as younger children, minority ethnic groups, those living on benefit and social tenants). Nevertheless, being in a large family is still a specific driver of living in poverty. The increased risk of poverty for large families is not inevitable. For example, in Norway there is no linear connection between the number of children in a family and living on a low income, with a link only for families with five children or more.

Figures show that child poverty in large families has been falling since 1998/99.15 This is likely to be as a result of both rising employment and tax credit increases. We welcome this, but much more still needs to be done, for example, by addressing the first-child bias in child benefit, the tax credit family element and childcare subsidy.

Children with disabilities

According to the Government, there are 770,000 disabled children in the UK.16 While not all disabled children will experience poverty, they are more likely than their non-disabled peers to live in poverty as a result of lower incomes (because parents need to look after disabled children and so cannot work) and the impact of disability-related additional costs. A re-analysis of the OPCS Disability Surveys calculated that in 1985 almost 55 per cent of families with a disabled child were living in poverty or at its margins.17 Other research has also shown that, despite changes in disability benefits, disabled children and young people are still more vulnerable to poverty,18 with those living in lone-parent families and black and minority ethnic families at particular risk.19

We welcome the focus given to this group in the spending review and, to answer this in detail, CPAG's latest report, Out of Reach,20 explores ways of improving the effectiveness of current policy and its administration - by, for instance, maximising the take-up of disability living allowance - to improve the circumstances of disabled children.

Children with disabled parents

Children with disabled parents face a significantly higher risk of living in poverty than those of non-disabled parents. It is estimated that over 650,000 children of disabled parents were living in poverty in 2004/05 before housing costs and 840,000 after housing costs.21 The main reason for this is the key role that work plays in keeping families out of poverty. Disabled parents are much less likely to be in paid work, and also suffer the impact of additional disability-related costs which sap family budgets. Although the benefit system provides higher support for disabled parents than for non-disabled parents, spells of poverty are likely to be much longer for children of disabled parents. And, when the parents of disabled children move into work, the risk of in-work poverty is higher than for non-disabled parents. One reason for this is that disabled parents are more likely to have to take relatively low-paid, parttime and insecure work compared with non-disabled parents.

CPAG supports government policy to increase the opportunity and support (through Pathways to Work) for those workless disabled adults who are able and willing to work. However, we have considerable concerns about the approach being taken to reform incapacity benefit and, in particular, the use of sanctions around employment programmes and non-state contracted providers making and enforcing decisions. The key to increasing the employment rate of disabled adults is to offer effective support and engage with employers to ensure adequate jobs are available. Attempting to force disabled adults into work risks undermining good will, leaving people in unsustainable employment and increasing stress, while doing nothing to reduce poverty.

Black and minority ethnic children

Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics show that children living in households headed by someone from a minority ethic group are more likely to be living in a poor household. This is particularly the case for those households headed by someone of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, where around half the children (47 per cent) are living in poverty on the before housing costs measure, and around three-fifths (57 per cent) on the after housing costs measure.

At Greatest Risk 22 points out that the greater likelihood of povertyamong minority ethnic groups is the consequence of a number of factors, including: higher than average unemployment levels; minority ethnic communities largely concentrated in inner cities where recession and industrial restructuring have weakened or destroyed older industrial sectors; racism in the selection of people for jobs or redundancy; the greater likelihood of being in low-paid work; inadequate health and housing provision; and, more recently, restrictions on financial help for refugees and asylum seekers.

Traveller and gypsy children

There is a severe lack of robust quantitative data on gypsy and traveller families, including that on poverty, reflecting their general exclusion and 'invisibility'. For example, the DWP has no separate data on gypsy and traveller work patterns or unemployment rates. And, until recently, successive governments have failed to include gypsies and travellers in national anti-poverty social exclusion/inclusion agendas. Also, they have tended to be sidelined in local anti-poverty strategies.23 However, since 2003/04 there have been some positive moves including Social Exclusion Unit engagement with 'frequent movers', the work of the Institute for Public Policy Research24 on site provision and the targeting of anti-gypsy and traveller racism as urgent priorities in equalities debates by the Commission for Racial Equality.25

It is clear that many gypsy and traveller children are 'poor' in multiple and different ways. Many are financially poor and there are many dimensions to the 'poverty' faced by such groups. One disturbing statistic on health is that only 10 per cent of gypsies and travellers in England and Wales are over the age of 40 and less than one per cent are over the age of 65.26 In education, one recent Department for Education and Skills study found that at least half of gypsy and traveller children in England and Wales drop out of school between Key Stages 1 and 4. The same study also showed very high rates of exclusions.27 Despite the paucity of robust data on the income of gypsy and traveller families, both anecdotal information and other studies show that some families have few financial resources. Moreover, there has been a decline in previous economic outlets for gypsy and travellers, particularly in the crowded urban environments.28 And, restrictions on travelling and on working activities on official sites have undermined aspects of the traveller economy.29 Many find that simply being a gypsy or traveller, and lacking basic literacy skills, prevents them from accessing mainstream wage labour jobs or training. Because of this, access to social security benefits is important for some families. However, research has shown levels of discrimination and disadvantage in accessing the benefit system for those who are frequently nomadic.30 One writer31 has referred to specific surveillance directed towards gypsies and travellers on the assumption that they commit benefit fraud, with the result that families can be denied benefit where there is little, if any, evidence of actual fraud.

Children leaving care

Young people leaving care are one of the most disadvantaged groups of young people in society. Many have experienced abuse, neglect or difficulties at home, and being in care has often failed to compensate them, so by the time they leave - often at a far younger age than other young people leave home - their life chances are very poor. Research has shown that many are likely to face multiple disadvantages, including poverty.32 This is a consequence of their pre-care, in-care, leaving care and after-care 'life course' experiences including: their poor family backgrounds and damaging intra-family experiences, including abuse and neglect; the failure of care to provide stability and compensate young people in care; low levels of educational attainment and post-16 participation; leaving care at a younger age than other young people leave home; being a young householder; moving often and experiencing homelessness; and being a young parent.

Since the introduction of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 there is evidence of progress in three areas: young people leaving care later; improved qualifications; and improved participation in further education.33 But there is still a substantial gap between care leavers and other young people in respect of these and other areas. CPAG, therefore, welcomes the Government's commitment to address this problem - including in the spending review and many of the proposals for change set out in the Green Paper Care Matters: transforming the lives of children and young people in care.

Asylum seekers

CPAG believes that the Government's asylum policy directly conflicts with policies on child welfare, social inclusion and anti-discrimination principles. The difference in treatment of asylum-seeker families is highlighted in a recent report from researchers at the London School of Economics.34 It found that while poverty had been alleviated for some vulnerable groups over the last seven years, asylum policies have led to a reduction in rights for this group in employment, health services, income and housing. According to the report, policies introduced by the Government have helped to make asylum seekers the most socially excluded group in Britain.

Notes

14 Using the poverty threshold of 60 per cent of median income after housing costs. See J Bradshaw, N Finch, E Mayhew, VM Ritakallio and C Skinner, Child Poverty in Large Families, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006
15 See note 14
16 Cabinet Office, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, 2005 (a joint report with the Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Health, Department for Education and 30 Notes Comprehensive spending review 2007 Skills, and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)
17 See note 16. See also D Gordon, R Parker, F Loughran and P Heslop, Disabled Children in Britain: a reanalysis of the OPCS Disability Surveys, The Stationery Office, 2000
18 N Sharma, Still Missing Out? Ending poverty and social exclusion: messages to government from families with disabled children, Barnardo’s, 2002
19 E Emerson, ‘Mothers of Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disability: social and economic situation, mental health status, and the self-assessed social and psychological impact of their children’s difficulties’, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47: 4/5, 2003, pp385-99
20 G Preston with M Robertson, Out of Reach: benefits for disabled children, CPAG, 2006
21 See note 2
22 G Craig, ‘Poverty Among Black and Minority Ethnic Children’, in G Preston (ed), At Greatest Risk: the children most likely to be poor, CPAG, 2005
23 Social Exclusion Unit, Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal, Cabinet Office, 2000
24 H Crawley, Moving Forward: the provision of accommodation for Travellers and Gypsies, Institute for Public Policy Research, 2004
25 Commission for Racial Equality, Gypsies and Travellers: a strategy for the CRE 2004-2007, Commission for Racial Equality
26 Judicial Studies Board, Equal Treatment Bench Book, 2004, section 1.5.8, available at www.jsboard.co.uk.
27 Department for Education and Skills, Ethnicity and Education: the evidence on minority ethnic pupils, 2005
28 C Power, Room to Roam: England’s Irish Travellers, Action Group for Irish Youth/Community Fund, 2004
29 C Kiddle, Traveller Children: a voice for themselves, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1999
30 C Clark, ‘Race, Ethnicity and Social Security: the experience of Gypsies and Travellers in Britain’, Journal of Social Security Law, 6:4, 1999, pp186-202; L Webster and J Millar, Making a Living: social security, social exclusion and New Travellers, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2001
31 See note 28, p7
32 R Lister, ‘Citizenship on the Margins: citizenship, social work and social action’, European Journal of Social Work, 1, 1998, pp5-18; P Kemp, J Bradshaw, P Dornan, N Finch, and E Mayhew, Routes out of Poverty: a research review, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2004
33 B Broad, Improving the Health and Well Being of Young People Leaving Care, Russell House Publishing, 2005; J Dixon, J Lee, J Wade, S Byford and H Weatherley, Young People Leaving Care: an evaluation of costs and outcomes, Report to the DfES, University of York, 2004; AS Allard, A Case Study Investigation into the Implementation of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000: the experience of eight London boroughs, National Children’s Bureau, 2004
34 J Hills and K Stewart (eds), A More Equal Society? New Labour, poverty, inequality and exclusion, The Policy Press, 2005

Comprehensive spending review 2007
What it needs to deliver on child poverty

Contents page
Introduction
The Government’s record
What should the spending review deliver?
Provide most for those children at greatest risk of poverty
Work towards better jobs, not just more jobs
Ensure the safety net protects families against poverty
Maximise the contribution of child benefit within family support
Introduce free at the point of delivery good-quality childcare
Make the reduction of child poverty central to the new child support policies
Make education truly free at the point of delivery
Provide benefit entitlement to all UK residents equally, irrespective of immigration status
Reduce the disproportionate burden of taxation on poorer families
Improve the quality of delivery and gear it to the needs of the poorest families
Notes

Print the entire document