Addressing Child Poverty in the UK - Essay Example

?Addressing Child Poverty in the UK Introduction Critical examination of the evolution of social policy reveals that the wellbeing and education of citizens, families, and children is interwoven with cultural, political, and economic considerations. In the United Kingdom, ever more biased mass media, academia, and judiciary have advocated legal steps that restrict social privileges and rights for some children and families. This limiting of considerations and change in social policies is not simply a development in UK’s guiding principles toward families and children within its frontier, but is applied to promote a specific political objective across the globe. The child poverty program of Labour is driven by the broadening of inequality and increase in social exclusion in the UK throughout the past two decades and specifically the worsening in the conditions of UK children in comparison to other vulnerable groups. This has shown that the main social objective of the government of the UK has increasingly turned into addressing child poverty. The UK government is viewing and treating poverty not only as a symptom of socioeconomic disparity, but as a force producing resource deficit and hampering the educational achievement and growth of children. Social policy refers to the study of the structure and provision of public services, security, and welfare within countries. Its emphasis is on the means in which various countries interpret and address the demands and needs of their citizens (Micklewright & Stewart 2000, 89). Basically, social policy is an applied discourse which tackles the provision and organisation of resources for the fulfilment of social needs. This paper will analyse and discuss the development of UK government’s social policy since 1997, particularly in relation to child poverty, along with two other related policy areas, namely, child abuse and low educational attainment. There have been substantial disparities in child poverty between countries over the past two decades. In some societies, particularly the UK, the extent of child poverty broadened significantly, whereas in other European countries it did not (Hills 1998, 8). Rather, different types of welfare state safeguarded revenue and expenses flowing to children. This refers to the mutual connection between children’s citizenship or political representation and their cultural and social representation. This demands both reassessing the segregation and exclusion of children from the society and re-evaluating the commonplace but negative stereotypes of children that govern political discourse (Dobrowolsky 2002, 45). Nevertheless, there is a vital link between children’s influence in policymaking and political discussion and the culturally and socially constructed paradigms in which children are viewed. Moreover, several studies have emphasised the connection between child poverty and a number of forms of child abuse, particularly physical and emotional maltreatment, and neglect (Devaney & Spratt 2009, 2). There is no major research that explicitly studied the nature of the connection between child poverty and child abuse in the UK, yet the widespread assumption focuses on the stress variables related with social exclusion and poverty, which are aggravated if mental health problems and substance abuse come about (Devaney & Spratt 2009, 2). Hence, in order to successfully support and protect vulnerable families and children, there should be more understanding and knowledge of the effects of material and social deprivation, and the various kinds of difficulties that families and children are confronting have to be acknowledged if their demands and needs are to be successfully addressed. Furthermore, aside from child abuse, child poverty in the UK is now being felt in the education sector. For instance, there are empirical reports of behavioural and psychological disparities by socioeconomic standing, in at least 2-year-old children (MacBeath, Gray, Cullen, et al. 2006, 82). Alongside supporting the growth and development of children, available and financially reasonable childcare is a vital initiative in encouraging parents to enter the labour force. Children are able to progress better in environments with experienced and highly trained staff and professionals and where there are healthy (MacBeath et al. 2006, 82), amiable bond between children and employees. The analytical tools that will be used in this paper are the perspectives of (1) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and (2) children’s rights. The author prefers to focus only on these two perspectives because of the main thrust of the current social policies of the incumbent UK administration. This will be elaborated in the later sections. Conventionally, child poverty is viewed and treated as a direct outcome of family poverty. In contrast, the perspective of children’s rights views the child as the focus of study in their own right and concentrates the observation on a wider assumption of resources to elaborate children’s welfare (Ridge 2002, 149). It sees children as people that behave and decide without any help from their parents. Children’s rights are defined in the articles and codes of the UNCRC. Importantly, these comprise rights of involvement in public life and the provision of services, aside from care and protection rights (Ridge 2002, 149). The UNCRC will be used in the later analysis since the instrument acquire its capacity to control policy and impose obligations by being legally rather than morally binding, although it is founded on moral and ethical principles. These are primary ideals that a rights-based perspective introduces to protective, caring, and public health policies to alleviate the pervasiveness and impacts (Henricson & Bainham 2005, 58) of child poverty. This paper will first discuss the New Labour’s political philosophy, which is the Third Way approach, as well as its ‘social investment’ agenda and its effects on vulnerable children and families in the UK. The next section will focus on the problem of child poverty in the UK, as well as its relation to two policy areas, namely, child abuse and low educational attainment. These three related policy areas will be analysed in terms of their theoretical and political perspectives and the social construction of child poverty and the development of child protection system in the UK. A thorough policy analysis will be conducted on these three policy areas. The Third Way Approach and Social Investment The 1997 Labour government has viewed the welfare state transformation to be its primary mission. Its major instrument to attain this has been referred to as ‘the Third Way’ approach, which is perceived to be a novel and unique perspective that deviates from the new right and the old left (Powell 1999, 287). It is claimed that this approach is fittingly characterised by ‘populism’ and ‘pragmatism’ (Powell 1999, 287). According to Walker (1999, 148), it seems to be old and common, right-oriented, and having some origins in the Beveridge’s welfare and the New Poor Law. Rhetorically, the Labour government has been transparent about its objective of repealing forms of inequality and discrimination witnessed in the 1980s. Tony Blair had proclaimed in 1996 that “I believe in greater equality. If the next Labour Government has not raised the living standards of the poorest by the end of its term in office, it will have failed” (Shaw 1999, 171). Blair, in the initiation of the Social Exclusion Unit in 1997, further claimed that the main thrust of the Third Way approach was national restoration (Shaw 1999). However, as stated by Ruth Lister (2006, 317), the actual dedication of the government to these goals has been criticised, especially as an outcome of its negative response towards raising the standard levels of social security provisions and the reduction in single-parents’ benefits. The Government responded to the criticisms by stating in its initial ‘Annual Report’ that it is building a different model, overcoming the time-honoured discourse between those who argue that the solution is to improve the granting of benefits and provision of services and those who claim that the way out is to restrict privileges (Hills 1998, 30). Theoretically, the Third Way approach is more evidently dedicated to mitigating inequality than its precursors, and a large number of its strategies are in harmony with this goal. Government has promoted discourse that it is conforming to Third Way. This is apparent in its Green Paper welfare reorganisation which states that the welfare state at present confronts different alternatives towards the future: first is the ‘third way’ which creates independence, with a welfare state supporting majority of the population; second is the status quo, yet with additional privileges; or a privatised future where in the most disenfranchised and the poorest are protected by the welfare state (Hill 1998, 33). These all sound good, but thorough analysis indicates that the Labour Government has actually made its alternatives remarkably broad, without providing sufficient indications as to the direction of the ‘third way’. A great deal of media publicity enclosed the evaluations of the welfare approach (Hill 1998, 37). Analysing what has surfaced as policy, the outcome is quite simply predictable. In terms of pragmatic strategies which influence the welfare and lives of majority of the population, this will be taken as a relief by numerous people. Nevertheless, within the traditional welfare system “children played no central role in the priorities and social programmes of the welfare state” (Frost & Parton 2009, 162). According to Lister (2006, 319), the welfare system placed importance on male-providers who were guarded from the usual threats of wage employment and who will be facilitated to provide for their family’s material needs. This is reflected as well in the distribution of social costs: Although the biggest percentage of the social expenditure was allocated to retirement funds, unemployment indemnity, and the health care benefits, social allocations for families and children take a comparatively negligible position (Dorling 1999, 60). There was a basic modification in the welfare system recently, which has brought about a change in the status of families and children under the ‘responsibility mix’ (Walker 1999, 13). According to Frost and Parton (2009, 73), by fine tuning contemporary welfare systems to an evolving social and economic context, not to say surpassing the practical weaknesses of the earlier welfare regime, novel insights and models will have to be proliferated. The new policies and objectives for the reform of welfare ‘infrastructures’, according to Giddens (1998, 102), originate either from the insights and notions of the social investment approach. The fundamental premise of this notion is that the state should not only safeguard the social statuses of certain ‘vulnerable’ groups in a thoughtless way, like giving social security privileges, but should instead develop social or human capital by prioritising groups or individuals (Giddens 1998, 102-103). Thereby making social policies an empowerment mechanism for vulnerable groups or individuals to cope with their own issues independently, and hence overpower lower social position or risks through their own ability. III. Child Poverty in the UK A. Identification of Social Problem/Need The definition of poverty given by the European Union (EU) is the most recognised far and wide. It characterises people in poverty as: “individuals or families whose resources are so small as to exclude them from a minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State in which they live” (Callan 1996, 25). ‘Resources’ was described as: “goods, cash income, plus services from other private resources” (Callan 1996, 25). More specifically, The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) sees child poverty as interconnected and multifaceted dispossessions (Minujin 2009, 2). Child poverty concerns emotional, spiritual, and material resources. The growth and development of children living in poverty are hampered because of obstacles to the realisation of their rights as individuals and as members of society (Minujin 2009, 2). Numbers of children living in poverty in the UK had worsened during the Conservative government. The table below summarises this fact (Brewer, Clark, & Goodman 2002, 16): *image taken from Brewer et al. (2002, 16) The percentage of children within the poverty threshold in the UK increased from ‘1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998’ (End Child Poverty 2011, 1). The Government proclaimed a momentous oath in 1999 to eliminate the chronic problem of child poverty by 2020 and prepared a number of provisional goals such as reducing child poverty by half by 2010 (Frost & Parton 2009, 174). From then on, the government has been successful in several aspects, pulling out 700,000 children from poverty to begin with (Frost & Parton 2009, 174-175). Inopportunely, the redistributive policies from this successful period were cut off and the population of children who have been removed from poverty has decreased by 200,000 since 1999 (Brewer, Clark, & Goodman 2002, 18). The government tried one more time to concentrate resources on child poverty in Budget 2008 (Brewer et al. 2002, 18); yet it is generally believed that this will not be sufficient for the government to achieve their objective by 2010. Furthermore, although standards have been increased on a national scale, with at least 600,000 poor children in the UK having been removed from poverty, the problem of child poverty still affects the life chances, education, and well-being of large numbers of children, condemning them to stay in a poverty cycle which runs from childhood to parenthood (Frost & Parton 2009, 175). This intergenerational impact seems to be spiralling; children in the UK confront greater vulnerability to longer-term unfavourable consequences of child poverty (Powell 1999, 114) than in numerous other societies. Tony Blair avowed, “And I will set out our historic aims that ours is the first generation to end child poverty forever, and it will take a generation. It is a 20-year mission but I believe it can be done” (Walker 1999, 125). The Labour Government prevailed in 1997 after almost two decades of Tory regime. The pledge made in 1999 to end child poverty conformed to a cluster of previous policies to deal with poverty and unemployment (Ridge 2002, 27). Blair, in his pledge, summarised his idea of a globally competitive nation, in which the government would collaborate with the private and nongovernmental organisations to financially support welfare, ascertain that employees obtained the needed knowledge and abilities, and ensure “employment for those who can, security for those who can’t” (Walker & Howard 2000, 41). Blair validated the 20-year mission by making a reference to Chancellor Gordon Brown: “children are 20 percent of the population but they are 100 percent of the future” (Parton & Frost 2009, 23). These statements formed the cornerstone of Blair’s pledge to end child poverty by 2020. B. Policy Proposals The Children Act 1989 endowed all children the right to inquiries to protect their wellbeing. Its major premise is traditional or leaning towards state paternalism: children are normally best protected within their immediate family. The Act aspired to make sure that children’s wellbeing was supreme, collaborating with parents to shelter children from negative forces, like poverty (Henricson & Bainham 2005, 81). According to Micklewright and Stewart (2000, ii), the Act was designed to reinforce the legal status of the child; to grant the child equal rights, voice, and influence; and to make sure that children were conferred with and regularly informed. On the other hand, the Children Act 2004 conforms to the perspective of UNCRC and children’s rights. The Act tries to further advance the lives of the children. There have been several compositional changes as a reaction to the Children Act 2004 which implied that, since 2006, social care and education provisions for children have been consolidated within an administrator of local children’s services (Henricson & Bainham 2005, 83). The Children and Young Person Act 2008 has been launched as well. Its primary objective is to implement proposals made in the White Paper ‘Care Matters: Transforming the Lives of Children and Young People in Care (Frost & Parton 2009, 95). It is also a component of the policy of the Government to make sure children obtain needed assistance and care. C. Evaluation of Policy and Effects Throughout the initial years of the New Labour government there has been an actual whiteout of novel policies and proposals originating from every agency that has even a fleeting concern for children. One of the most remarkable of these is the National Childcare Strategy, comprising Quality Protects, Children’s Centres, and Sure Start. However, it is the Every Child Matters of the Green Paper, discussed by the Prime Minister at its commencement as the major policy concerning child poverty for more than three decades, and the Children Act of 2004 that is probable to have the greatest effect on transforming the structure and culture of UK’s children’s services (Frost & Parton 2009, 41). According to Frost and Parton (2009, 41), the Green Paper successfully acted in response to rigorous lobbying by proclaiming the appointment of England’s commissioner for children’s rights, corresponding to appointments in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. There were varied findings on the initial impacts of the 1989 Children Act. In a statistical perspective, the notion of a modest ‘state paternalistic’ model initially seemed to be backed up by a continuous decline in the employment of mandatory powers and shrinking population of children under care and protection (Standing 1999, 484). Nevertheless, several investigations portrayed a more discouraging image on the growth of services for vulnerable children (Brewer et al. 2002, 23). It becomes apparent that the persistent focus on child protection agenda was hampering the focus of the Children Act’s on collaboration and family involvement and support. Nevertheless, such a policy does not weaken parents’ rights. The UNCRC lucidly declares that parents have major rights and obligations to give needed guidance and support in the realisation of children’s rights, as stated in Article 5 (MacBeath et al. 2006, 72). It highlights the obligation of the government to furnish needed assistance to parents to aid them in accomplishing their duty for the nurturing and growth of the child. Nevertheless, acknowledgement of the natural of human rights of children (MacBeath et al. 2006, 72-74) transforms the traditional paradigm of the relationship between parents and children and how parents ought to respond in order to aid children in realising their rights. IV. Child Poverty and Abuse A. Identification of Social Problem/Need Child abuse is defined as “parents unable to cope at a level assumed to be reasonable by the society in which they reside” (Reading et al. 2009, 332). Child abuse is primarily characterised in terms of sexual, emotional, and physical maltreatment, or neglect committed by parents or individuals immediately related to the child. It has been reported that the social construction of child abuse in the UK reveals the more extensive supervision of families living in poverty (Reading et al. 2009, 332). Nevertheless, there is compelling proof to indicate that the social construction of child abuse is linked to the impacts of parents’ social condition and their capability to parent successfully. According to several UK studies (Devaney & Spratt 2009, 2), children living in poverty were more prone to be placed on child protection than children of the higher social class. B. Policy Proposals After Victoria Climbie’s murder in 2000, the UK government initiated a strategy of “... fundamental transformation of the culture of children’s services to shift the emphasis from child protection to a wider concern for all children” (Devaney & Spratt 2009, 2). This complemented the widespread development of UK social policy over the leading years that had tried to curb the incidence of child maltreatment while trying to better safeguard children living in poverty. The Children Act of 1989 and the Children Order 1995 expanded the responsibility of legal social provisions, providing an unambiguous responsibility on local officials to give aid to children ‘at risk’ (Reading et al. 2009, 334), hence curtailing the probability of family poverty and abuse, while making sure that children needing protection from harm were safeguarded. The UK government then launched the Every Child Matters intended to enhance the quality of services given to every child, but particularly children living in poverty. According to Devaney and Spratt (2009, 2), New Labour has shifted to an ever more focused policy for child welfare in the recent decades, from a broad emphasis on social inequality and integrity focused on family and socioeconomic standing, through a more limited emphasis on social deprivation and at present to a more practical or functional emphasis on social investment. C. Evaluation of Policy and Effects So far the conventional model of observation and intervention with incidences of child maltreatment and abuse has been flourishing in fulfilling several of the goals of UK’s child protection system. Nevertheless, it should also be taken into account that there is increasing substantiation to strengthen the assumption that although children may be sheltered, they may not constantly be supported to cope with the impacts of the poverty or abuse they have experienced. Particularly, it is important to make sure that children in poverty and abusive relationships are recognised in an early age and furnished with the needed kinds of assistance to mitigate the most unfavourable impacts of these difficulties. In this sense varied actions are needed at both practice and policy levels to attain more favourable results for these children. By identifying the intricacy of the connection between child poverty and abuse it is less probable that crude proposals will be put forth, that are absolutely prone to fail with implications for the families, children, and social service organisations. V. Child Poverty and Low Educational Attainment The finding that poor children have low educational performance was initially emphasised in the study of Rowntree at the latter part of the 20th century (MacBeath et al. 2006, 25). After a century, disparities in educational achievement between poor and affluent children remain persistent which spurred social policies for child poverty and low educational performance. The White Paper ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools for All’ recognises that ‘a child’s educational achievements are still too strongly linked to their parents’ social and economic background- a key barrier to social mobility’ (MacBeath, Gray, & Cullen 2006, 25). Nevertheless, the disagreement persists about whether the present path of UK social policy towards enhanced competition and option is the most suitable one for shrinking the educational achievement disparity and reinforcing the educational attainment of the poorest (Ridge 2002, 58). Poverty can hamper the emotional, social, and intellectual growth of children. B. Policy Proposal The Government has avowed to reduce by half child poverty by 2010 and totally eradicate it by 2020. This grand pledge has to make sure that poor children nowadays do not stay poor as they become adults. A significant aspect in this attempt will be education since poverty determines educational performance in the UK. Reducing the education disparity is fundamental if the UK government is to enhance poor children’s life chances and realise the goal of the 2020 pledge. C. Evaluation of Policy and Effects UNCRC’s Article 27 defines the right of children to live in an environment that will sufficiently promote their social, moral, cognitive, and physical growth. UNCRC, in its final statements about the UK in 2008, reported that child poverty remains a major promoting low educational achievement in the UK (Frost & Parton 2009, 142-143). The next three years is likely to be ruled by expenditure constraints and attempts to reduce the structural shortfall. Nevertheless, the policy should involve a sequence of major improvements, of school accountability and financial support to enhance the educational performance of children living in poverty. Ultimately, the final analyses of UNCRC in 2008 revealed the presence of severe educational disparities in England and claimed that the UK administration should put in substantial resources (Frost & Parton 2009) to make sure children living in poverty obtain an inclusive and comprehensive education. Conclusions It was the pledge to absolutely eliminate child poverty by 2020 that drawn the attention of the public, media, academia, and policymakers. Prior to 1997, child poverty had been a prohibited term in the government and even the assumption that the government has the ability to eradicate it was mocked and discouraged. Tony Blair pledged to end child poverty and dedicates the government’s effort to a programme that could possibly become a part of the endless generation of Labour ‘welfare infrastructure’. This current policy objective was not selected arbitrarily; it is in agreement with the premise of social justice and welfare. A needed prerequisite for attaining the objective of eliminating childhood poverty could also have major repercussions for the provision of welfare and the position assigned to welfare beneficiaries. Welfare may turn out to be the apparatus for cultivating social solidarity through the mechanism of social inclusion. Achieving social inclusion has been the cornerstone of the UK government’s social policies for child poverty since 1997. References Brewer, M., Clark, T. & Goodman, A. (2002) “The government’s child poverty target: how much progress has been made” The Institute for Fiscal Studies, pp. 2-38. Callan, T., Nolan, B., Whelan, B.J., Whelan, C.T., & Williams, J. (1996) Poverty in the 1990s: Evidence from the 1994 Living in Ireland Survey. London: Oak Tree Press. Devaney, J. & Spratt, T. (2009) “Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems” Children and Youth Services Review, pp. 1-7. Dobrowolsky, A. (2002) “Rhetoric versus Reality: the Figure of the Child and New Labour’s Strategic ‘Social Investment State’” Studies in Political Economy Autumn, pp. 43-73. Dorling, D. (1999) Widening Gap: Health Inequalities and Policy in Britain. London: Policy Press. End Child Poverty (2005) Ten Policies to Take One Million Children out of Poverty by 2010. London: End Child Poverty. End Child Poverty (2011) “Why End Child Poverty: Key Facts”, p.1 Frost, N.P. & Parton, N. (2009) Understanding Children’s Social Care: Politics, Policy and Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Giddens, A. (1999) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. UK: Polity. Henricson, C. & Bainham, A. (2005) The Child and Family Policy Divide. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Hills, J. (1998) “Thatcherism, New Labour and the Welfare State” Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, pp. 1-35. MacBeath, J., Gray, J., Cullen, J., et al. (2006) Schools on the Edge: Responding to Challenging Circumstances. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Micklewright, J. & Stewart, K. (2000) The Welfare of Europe’s Children. Bristol: Policy Press. Minujin, A. (2009) “Making the Case for Measuring Child Poverty” Social and Economic Policy UNICEF Policy and Practice, pp. 1-2. Lister, R. (2006) “Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender” Critical Social Policy 26(2), 315+ Powell, M. (1999) New Labour New Welfare State: The ‘Third Way’ in British Social Policy. London: Policy Press. Reading, R., Bissell, S., Goldhagen, J., et al. (2009) “Promotion of children’s rights and prevention of child maltreatment” Lancet, pp. 332-43. Ridge, T. (2002) Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion: From a Child’s Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press. Walker, R. (1999) Ending Child Poverty: Popular Welfare for the 21st Century. London: Policy Press. Walker, R. & Howard, M. (2000) Making of a Welfare Class: Benefit Recipient in Britain. London: Policy Press. Standing, K. (1999) “Lone Mothers and ‘Parental’ Employment: A Contradiction in Policy?” Journal of Social Policy 28(3), 479-95. Read More