Policies to Fight Child Poverty in the UK - Research Paper Example

Policies to Fight Child Poverty in the UK Policies to Fight Child Poverty in the UK The 1997 general elections in the UK turned out to be a defining moment in the lives of the people. A legislative majority led to the conservative rule losing power to the Labour party in the UK. Poverty was rife especially among children and new administration had to design with strategies to deal with the issue at hand. According to Kirton (2009) Social policy for the government meant designing policies to uplift the lives of these children and give them the opportunity to succeed. This stemmed from the realization that children brought up in poverty often lead a disadvantaged life even in their adulthood, thereby continuing the poverty cycle (HM Government, 2011). In 1999, Tony Blair, the then prime minister pledged to concentrate government efforts in suppressing child poverty by 2020. In Western Europe, the UK was leading in child poverty at the time. Child poverty is a leading cause of other problems facing children, such as mental health and child abuse. This has been a challenge for the government of the UK even as it seeks to better the lives of the future generations. It is the purpose of this essay to explore the issue of child poverty, its relationship to child abuse and the measures taken by the government to better the lives of destitute children. This essay will analyze the progress made by the government to eradicate child poverty and abuse since 1997. We shall look at the child as a form of social investment and the child as an independent actor in the social arena. In the latter case the rights and freedoms of the child are paramount to those of the society. We shall look at the implementation of policies adopted by the government to fight child poverty. These include: promotion of work among adults, better financial support by the government to families with children and investment in childcare services, particularly on health and education (Fitzgerald, 2008). The starting point of the New Labour was the adoption of the “third way approach” that sought to combine economic competitiveness with decency and humanitarianism in the society (Powell, 2002). This approach sought to strike a balance between Neoliberalism and socialism. Rather than insisting on the demand aspect of labour like the old left, the “third way” approach centered on the supply of labor. According to Frost & Parton (2009) this new approach focused its efforts on employability as opposed to job security. The New Labour argued that if every adult got employed, then both the economic and social life in the UK would improve significantly (HM Government, 2011). Accordingly, the citizens were urged to perform their responsibilities with as much vigor as they demanded for their rights. Human capital was now seen as a sure way of improving the economic state of the impoverished people in the country. Those living below the breadline were encouraged to seek employment rather than wait for social security from the state. Child Poverty A child is categorized as being in child poverty if they start life in a family where nobody works and there is no permanent source of livelihood (Frost & Parton, 2009). Characteristically, such households experience poor housing, malnutrition and lack of access to proper healthcare and education (Lister, 2006). When the New Labour came into power, one in every four children in the UK was living in poverty (Hirsch, 2009). The issue of child poverty was finally taking center stage and being rightfully addressed by the new government. Statistics from Hirsch (ibid) show that the level of child poverty stood at 4.5 million in 1998 as compared to 1.4 million in 1979. Up until 1997, UK had been led by conservative rule. According to Platt (2005) the main policy for conservatism was to decrease taxation and public spending. Ironically, high levels of joblessness meant that social security disbursement increased. The number of people living below the poverty line increased to 24% during conservatism (Platt, ibid). Statistics also show that child poverty was at a third of the entire population. In 1997, the new government acknowledged the rampant poverty in the UK, previously ignored by conservatism. In 1999, Tony Blair delivered the speech aimed at curbing child poverty at a public lecture in Beveridge. He promised to institute policies that would see child poverty reduced by a third by 2004. By 2011, he pledged to have reduced by half and decreased to below 10 percent in 2020, child poverty levels in the UK (Hirsch, 2009). The issue on child poverty was a very serious one for the government and it attracted much political attention. A unit on social exclusion was formed to deal with people affected by combined problems, such as ill health, unemployment, poor housing, dysfunctional families, and high crime rates. Frost & Parton (2009) are of the opinion that Social policy for the government, therefore, meant the government’s willingness to fight poverty and increase the opportunities for a better life. Specifically, the government saw the issue of rampant poverty as one that was undermining the opportunities for success for millions of children in the UK. Statistics revealed that adult poverty stemmed from disadvantageous childhood (Maynard & Thomas, 2009). Here, the future of a child was determined by the status of their parents, rather than by the child’s talents and abilities. Paternalism and Social Investment Approaches Work Welfare People in the UK have this notion that a child is a weakling who needs constant help and support from adults (Petrie & Moss, 2002). In some theories of developmental psychology, a child is born “tabula rasa” meaning that they are unable to make decisions for themselves (David et.al, 2011). Proponents of this theory argue that children are made by the society, without society the former would be non-existent. This theory further holds that the survival of children into adulthood depends on how much control is exercised over them by parents and guardians. The UK government understood this notion and set out to help adults attain financial independence, hoping the same would be reflected on their children (Commission on families and the wellbeing of children, 2005). Under this policy, the government hoped to generate work opportunities that would see people with children get economically uplifted (Powell, 2002). In 1997, the original “New Deal” programme was introduced to provide employment for youth between 16-25 years of age (Maynard & Thomas, 2009). The programme was of great help as it enabled most people in this age bracket find employment. In succeeding years, other New Deal programmes were initiated to cover people such as, single parents, people who have been out of work for long periods of time and their partners and the disabled (Powell, 2002). The New Deal policy has significantly reduced the number of unemployed people and has had a direct impact on the reduction of child poverty. Taxes and Benefits Apart from providing employment for people taking care of children and the population in general; the government also came up with measures to fund child benefits (Fitzgerald &Kay, 2008). Every child is entitled to reimbursement regardless of the status of their parents. When the programme was beginning in 1997, every child was worth approximately 11 pounds. In 1999, treasury came up with a document in which it pledged that by 2010, child poverty would be reduced by half. Lister (2005) writes that in 2003, the credit tax for children system was extended to cover all parents, working or not. Lone parents were and still are major beneficiaries of the taxes and benefits schemes. Childcare Services In an effort to protect the future of children particularly those living in poverty, the government has ensured the provision of fundamental learning and healthcare services (Lister, 2005). Studies have shown that a family’s income directly establishes the level of education attained by a child from that family. According to Strelitz & Lister (2008) the government hopes to lessen the inequality of educational products between children from impoverished locales and those from reasonably secure families. According to Ridge (2005) the “sure start” programme aims to ensure that each child gets access to quality schooling in their earliest steps of life. One of the ways in which the government has done this is by ensuring free nursery school is a guarantee for all 3-4 year olds. For example, a strategy for childcare was established in 1998 to ensure that every neighborhood had access to worthy, yet inexpensive childcare services (Petrie &Moss, 2002). Children Wants and Rights The problem with the social investment methodology is that it does not consider the wants of the child. All the above policies focus on the future of the child while ignoring the present individual desires of the child. Such policies fail to notice that children have personal views about their own live. Children are not simple passive elements of the society waiting for their future to be determined; they too deserve to give their opinions. There has been little research on what children feel are essential requirements. Most research has been focused on what adults deem to be essential necessities for children. For example, in psychology, play is an essential part of child development. Although the curriculum recognizes this, the implementation of play into educational practice is wanting. According to childcare services guidelines, children get educated so as to guarantee them future employment (Prout, 2005). A child is not meant to enjoy education. Rather, they are supposed to look at what they can achieve from being educated. The current form of education does not cater for the development of faculty and skills. Lister (2006) writes that children in the UK are bombarded with tests and exams, depriving them of any fun in learning, as well as social interaction. There is no emphasis that has been placed on the creation of recreational activities for children. According to Ridge (2005) the government seems oblivious of the fact that the policies it has put in place need to be child-centered. Policies on the reduction and eventual eradication of child poverty seem to focus more on the family as opposed to the child’s wellbeing. The short term effects of poverty in children are sidelined in preference for the long term effects. Some of the short term effects according to Prout (2005) include poor mental development, low self worth, and poor medical health. Child maltreatment can both be long-term or short term effect of child poverty, with severe effects on the wellbeing of a child. Child Abuse Prevalence studies have shown that there is a correlation between child abuse and paucity (Fredrick & Goddard, 2007). Here, child abuse means the treatment of a child in a manner that is likely to cause physical or emotional harm to the child. Child abuse comes in four major forms; bodily harm, sexual assault, emotional abuse, and neglect (Kassem, 2010). Recent literature has documented a rise in cases of child abuse among households faced with poverty world over and in the UK in particular. Research statistics from NSPCC in 2000 showed that a majority of youths in the UK who claimed to have suffered abuse in their childhood came from backgrounds. Majority of the respondents revealed that they suffered emotional torture, while the remaining had experienced neglect and physical ill-treatment (NSPCC, 2008). Statistics from UNICEF reveal that children are more probable to suffer abuse at the hands of their immediate family than at the hands of strangers (Commission on families and the wellbeing of children, 2005). In such homes, children witness domestic violence mainly against their mother and sometimes the violence is also directed at them (Hester, 2007). Cases of child neglect have often been associated with poverty. Patron (2006) states that some, not all poor parents fail to bear the pressure of raising children in poverty and end up neglecting them. A perfect example is that of Sam (BBC, 2011) who was abandoned by his mother at the age of two due to poverty. According to Rutter et.al (2011) such children suffer from ill psychological health, developmental needs, corporal harm and cognitive underdevelopment. Rutter (ibid) feels that parents with low income are likely to mistreat their children. Such parents are less involved in the lives of their children and lack affection towards their children. Such children end up in foster homes or care institutions. Instances of physical abuse on a child coupled with neglect are reported in socially disadvantaged families. Bodily abuse against the child may begin in its infancy, where the parent is unable to meet the baby’s demands. Parents may, thus met their frustrations on the baby by hitting it. This cycle may prolong well into teenage, where parents give severe punishments to their children for slight mistakes. Sometimes, parents are incapacitated and end up placing their children in care facilities. This is the second most common place where children experience maltreatment. For example, Kassem (2010) perceives looked-after children as susceptible to abuse. He argues that poverty leads to these children being separated from their parents and going into foster or residential care. Cases have been reported of caregivers bodily and sexually attacking children handed over to them. Children living in neighborhoods where opportunities are rare and social life is filthy often suffer from maltreatment (NSPCC, 2008). Such neighborhoods lack decency and suffer from intense social disorganization. Accordingly, children living here are more at risk to suffer abuse at the hands of neighbors or even parents, some of whom are substance abusers. Incidents of sexual exploitation are reported highest in areas where social structures are non-existent (Parton, 2006). This is in contrast to neighborhoods with better social services and social organization. This does not mean that the latter neighborhoods do not experience child maltreatment cases, just that statistics in poor neighborhoods are higher. From all that has been said about child abuse, it is clear that poverty continues to be a leading factor for majority of cases on child maltreatment. Reutter et.al (2011) observes that children who are abused have very low chances of succeeding in life, even if the socio-economic forces are controlled. Essentially, the policies that have been adopted by the UK government to combat child poverty are all commendable. However, if the issue of child abuse is not looked into, then all these efforts will go to waste. In as much as the Labor government is encouraging people to work, providing funds to poor families and improving childcare services, more needs to be done. This encompasses coming up with units to address problems faced by children and how best to handle them. Although it is a signatory to the UNCRC, the UK does not have an active child commissioner to ensure the rights of children are upheld (HM Government, 2011). Evaluation Since the Labor government assumed power in 1997, a lot has been achieved in the eradication of poverty among children in the UK. The different policies put in place by the government to fight child poverty have yielded some positive results for the most part and some negative results as well. Between 1997 and 2004, the policies on reduction of child poverty seemed to be a complete success. For instance, the percent of children living in poverty fell from 34 percent in 1997 to approximately 28 percent in 2003. By the close of 2010, about 2.6 million children were living in poverty, a significant drop form the 4.5 million in 1997 (Waldfogel, 2010). Measures taken under the policy for provision of affordable childcare under the “sure start” programme have seen many children get access to basic education (Frost & Parton, 2009). By 2004, around 34 per cent of children aged between 3-4 years in the UK had access to nursery school education under the sponsorship of the government. Kirton (2009) states that similarly, the budget for the programme had increased to 500 million Euros. However, this upward trend in curbing child poverty was reversed beginning 2005, when child poverty started rising. By 2008, about 4 million children were living in poverty (Waldfogel, 2010). It is important, however, to acknowledge that the government saw the reduction of child poverty by 16 percent between 1998 and 2008 (Waldfogel, ibid). Between 1999, when Tony Blair made the promise to fight child poverty and 2004, there was a lot of investment in the tax and benefit credits. This saw the government come close to achieving its first target of reducing by 25 percent the rate of child poverty. However, between 2004 and 2010 there was stagnation in government expenditure on benefits and taxes that saw the number of children living in poverty rise again (Waldfogel, 2011). This was occasioned by economic decline among other political factors such as lack of support from conservatism. Currently, the coalition government seeks to cut on the benefits, a move that will see an increase in child poverty. The initiative to have more parents from poor households get work was successful. Today, the UK is at the lowest unemployment level in 30 years (Waldfogel, 2011). The “New Deals” have seen many people get employed and their standards of living have been significantly raised. However, with the current wave of recession, the economic sector is slowly becoming inactive and the number of jobless households is starting to rise again (Waldfogel, ibid). The original impact of New Deals is slowing down and the number of workless youths between 16-17 years is still high (Waldfogel, ibid). The government has however not been keen enough in addressing child abuse as it has been with child poverty (Platt, 2005). The number of children being abused is on the rise in the UK. Officials charged with the responsibility of ensuring the rights of children are upheld are sleeping on their job. The case of the murder of Vitoria Climbie, an eight year old girl from Ivory Coast drew a lot of emotion in 2000. While in London, Victoria was tortured to death by her aunt, yet no one did anything to stop it. The police and the NSPCC all testified to having noted the signs of violence (NSPCC, 2008). This case led to the government’s formation of an initiative dubbed “Every Child Matters” and the Children Act of 2004. It is a pity that the government had to wait till a child died in order to look seriously into the issue of child abuse. If current images in the media on the levels of child poverty are anything to go by, then the UK really needs divine intervention. In the documentary “eyes of a child (BBC, 1999)”, it is appalling to note that there is a family of twelve in Bradford where no adult works and none of the eight children goes to school. Drugs and alcoholism are the routine of the neighborhood, with a majority of parents being addicts. The children are left to suffer and try to justify the actions of their parents. Kylie, one of the twins feels that only the government can help her parents out of addiction. Cases of abuse against children are also rife in Leicester. For example, David and his siblings have suffered violence by the countless stepfathers they have had. In Sheffield, the youth are just bored and use their leisure time to steal cars and peddle drugs. There are no youth clubs to keep them busy. Many youths have been in and out of jail for juvenile offences, something that the UK government has reinforced. In another documentary, “poor kids” from BBC (2011) we meet Sam an eleven year old whose mother walked out on him when he was just two years of age. His father has to feed him and his siblings on 80 pounds a week, while desperately looking for an elusive job. Another child also talks about the high levels of drug use in the community and how she has even stumbled upon hypodermic needles in the streets. Both documentaries depict children at great risk, some of whom have even contemplated or tried committing suicide. All this is happening right under the governments watch. Conclusion From the essay it is evident that the Labor government under Tony Blair was totally committed to reducing up to 10 per cent, child poverty in the UK. Government policies included; work welfare, government provision of benefits and taxes to parents and provision of childcare services. The use of these policies has seen a significant reduction in child poverty. However, the rules being introduced by the coalition government to reduce the taxes and benefits could reverse all the gains. If the UK is to achieve its vision of stamping out child poverty by 2020, then the coalition government needs to come up with better policies. Such policies should be child-centered and should focus on the rights of children, rather than those of parents. Politics of paternalism should not overtake the personal wants and needs of that child living in poverty. In addition more stringent measures need to be taken to curb child maltreatment. The eradication of child poverty will mean nothing if children continue to be mistreated. Such children will grow up with social disorder and will not attain their full potential in life. The work is clearly cut for the coalition government to replicate the gains made up to 2005 and make the UK a haven for children. References Commission on families and the wellbeing of children, 2005. Families And The State: Two Way Support And Responsibilities: An Inquiry Into The Relationship Between The State And The Family In The Upbringing Of Children. Policies Press: Bristol. David, S., Bruce, H., Dowdney, L. & Mrazek, D., 2011. Child Psychology and Psychiatry: Frameworks for Practice. John Wiley and Sons: London. ‘Eyes of a child’ (BBC, 1999). Retrieved 13 June 2012. Available at: http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/festival/play/5075/Eyes-of-a-Child Fitzgerald, D. & Kay, J. 2008. Working Together in Children’s Services. Routledge: Abingdon. Frederick, J., & Goddard, C., 2007. Exploring the Relationship between Poverty, Childhood Adversity and Child Abuse from the Perspective of Adulthood. Child Abuse Review vol, 16, no. 5, pp.323-341. Frost, N, & Parton, N 2009, Understanding Children’s Social Care. London, Sage.  Hester, M., 2007. Making An Impact: Children and Domestic Violence: A Reader. Jessica Kingsley publishers: London. Hirsch, D., 2009. Ending Child Poverty in a Changing Economy. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: New York.  HM Government, 2011. A New Approach to Child Poverty: Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives. Retrieved 13 June 2012 from: http://uelplus.uel.ac.uk/webct/urw/lc838804968011.tp838807028011//RelativeResourceManager?contentID=838808172011 Kassem, D., 2010. Key Issues in Childhood and Youth Studies. Routledge: Oxon. Kirton, D., 2009. Child Social Work: Policy and practice. Sage: London.  Lister, R., 2005. ‘Investing in The Citizen-Workers Of The Future’, in Hendrick, H (ed.) Child welfare and social policy, An essential reader. Policy Press: Bristol. pp. 449-461.  --------------- 2006. Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender. Retrieved 13 June 2012. From: http://csp.sagepub.com/content/26/2/315.abstract Maynard, T., &Thomas, N., 2009. An Introduction to Early Childhood Studies, Sage Publications: London. Moss, P. & Petrie, P., 2002. From Children Services to Children’s Spaces: public policy, children and childhood. Routledge Falmer: London. NSPCC, 2008. Poverty and Child Maltreatment. Retrieved 13 June 2012. From www. nspcc.org.uk Parton, N., 2006. Safeguarding Childhood. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.  Platt, L., 2005. Discovering Child Poverty. Policy Press: Bristol.   ‘Poor kids’ (BBC, 2011). Retrieved 13 June 2012. From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pzDclniQzg Powell, M., 2002. Evaluating New Labour’s welfare reforms. Policy Press: Bristol. Prout, A., 2005 ‘Children’s Participation: Control and Self-Realization In British Late Modernity’, in Hendrick, H (ed) 2005. Child welfare and social policy. An essential reader. Policy Press: Bristol. pp. 463-473.  Ridge, T., 2005. ‘The Challenge of Child Poverty: developing a child-centered approach’, in Hendrick, H (ed.), Child Welfare and Social Policy. An essential reader. Policy Press: Bristol. pp.107-125.  Rutter, M et.al, 2011. Rutter’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. John Wiley and Sons: London. Strelitz, J., & Lister, R. 2008. Why Money Matters: Family Income, Poverty and Children's Lives. Save the Children: London. Waldfogel, J., 2010. Britain’s War on Poverty. The Russell Sage Foundation: New York. Read More