UK Strategy for Tackling Child Poverty - Literature review Example

Running Head: UK Strategy for Tackling Child Poverty UK Strategy for Tackling Child Poverty Name Course Lecturer Date UK Strategy for Tackling Child Poverty Introduction Child poverty may be defined as the total number of kids living in families that have income that is below 60 percent of middle income before deducting housing expenditures. Reduction of child poverty in the United Kingdom has been for over a decade an important concern to the UK government. The Labour Government of the UK promised to eliminate child poverty in 1999 followed by announcement of instant aims of lessening poverty among children by 25 percent by 2004/2005 and by 50 percent by 2010/2011 (Clery, 2009). This research paper will critically analyse UK strategy to handle child poverty, the way it applies global and national conventions and frameworks, its ability to engage and include affected individuals, source of finances and legitimacy, type of practices it needs of involved professionals as well as its limitations in attaining its goals. Components of the strategy The UK government’s dedication to bring an end to child poverty is shown in a number of programs. The government’s strategy consists of four wide goals which are; providing work for people who can work, financial backing for families, excellent public services which enhance children’s life opportunities and break cycles of poverty as well as support parents in parenting responsibility (Minoff, 2006). Restructured Tax Rules The government has executed several amendments to the country’s tax and benefit structure which include creation of Working Tax Credit, setting up minimum wage level as well as Childcare Tax Credit. The amendments intend to ensure sufficient financial inducements to work, to boost financial backing for families and lessen child poverty. Work Tax Credit supplements the salaries of low-income employees. The credit also embraces low-income employees who do not have kids or a physical challenge. In formulating this tax credit, the UK government took into consideration tax and gains’ structures of Canada and Australia and also America’s practice with the received revenue tax credit (Minoff, 2006). The combined consideration of the tax structures’ ideas from many countries by the UK government is a good idea since it makes its strategies to be extensive in terms of their applicability and development of possible solutions to child poverty in UK. However, UK should not just copy what other countries are doing. The structures from peer countries should only be used to give basic knowledge on how to go about the issue. Therefore, the UK government still has a task to devise more specific strategies that well suit their situation. Kassem (2009) alleges that, families that have kids and employees with a physical disability are entitled to the work tax credit so long as they work for a minimum of 16 hours in a week. To keep up the inducements for the concerned families up to full-time work, an applicant who works a minimum of 30 hours is paid a 30-hours component. Employees aged 25 years and above and neither have kids nor have a physical disability and works for 30 hours and above per week are also entitled to the credit. Fixing the minimum amount of hours that a worker should work is a good way of ensuring that lazy workers do not take advantage of the provision by not working and expecting to qualify for the credit. It also ensures that workers contribute to the economy since it is the same economy that gives the funds to those families. Nevertheless, the inclusion of people without kids and disabilities in the credit is very questionable and imposes doubts on the effectiveness of the strategy. From the definition of child poverty, such a group is not affected and thus the government should not include them in the strategy. It is sad to know that, such people benefiting from the credit while there are needier people out there who do not have access to the credit. Childcare Tax element is intended to assist balance child care expenses for couples or single parents that work for a minimum of 16 hours in a week. The Childcare Tax component adds up to $532 in one week in qualified child care expenses for parents with two and above kids or $310 per week for those with one kid. These provisions are expected to rise with time. The credit slowly declines with an increase in family income but continue giving assistance to families that have income which is beyond the poverty level until they reach an income level that can sustain them totally (Kassem, 2009). According to Walker & Wiseman (2003), tax credits operate together with a state minimum wage in order to present each working household with a minimum earnings guarantee. This idea was introduced by the Labour Government which instituted a minimum wage rate of $6.40 per hour for workers aged 22 years and above and has now gone up to $9.50. The increases of the minimum wage have surpassed the increases in the country’s aggregate incomes as well as the price indices (HM Government, 2011). This is a significant way for the UK government in dealing with child poverty because once the income of poor families goes up; their living standards will also go up. As a result, although the level of poverty in these families may not be eliminated instantly, with time it may be gotten rid of completely. Nonetheless, providing for a minimum wage only ensures that people are not paid low salaries. The government has not put in place a way of assesing whether the above minimum wage level pay is in a position to sustain all the affected households. Families are of different sizes hence, have different needs. Consequently, certain salary levels cannot equally satisfy the needs of different family sizes. Children programs According to Invernizzi & Williams (2011), Sure Start local curricula are established in various locations to improve the health and welfare of poor children and augment the chances of such kids to enter schools set to learn so as to be academically, socially and occupationally successful when they grow up. Other programs have also been set up to assist older kids and parents. Children Fund supports kids aged between 5 and 13 years with the aim of encouraging education achievement with an interest in supporting parents in matters like domestic violence and health awareness. Other programs include extended schools and education maintenance payments. This is an effective strategy since it takes care of kids from the early age until they grow up. Nevertheless, there are those kids who are already grown up and did not get basic education thus these programs may not benefit them. In its strategy, the UK government does not define a set of programs which involve such children. International and national conventions and frameworks In the UK policy to deal with child poverty, it draws on conventions of the United States. According to the Child and Youth Well-being Indicator in the United States, child poverty has insinuations not simply for short-run suffering but as well for health and growth in the long-run. Children that experience poverty especially in the early age or for a lengthened period are vulnerable to a number of adverse health and growth outcomes. The outcomes inflict costs both for the kids who undergo poverty and the other members of the society (Waldfogel, 2010). According to Brewer, Browne, & Joyce (2011), child poverty is habitually believed to be an intractable issue in the US. Evidently, the grounds for child poverty are intricate and complex and thus there is no a single solution that can instantly eradicate it or its negative impacts. However, there is a proof that strategies that increase household incomes may result in enhanced child as well as family well-being. In addition, there is proof that early childhood, home visiting, social programs and nutrition may result in enhanced outcomes for disadvantaged kids especially if they are of elevated quality. Policymakers should thus consider carefully the strategies that are most likely to reduce or eliminate child poverty and distribute their limited resources wisely. The adoption of these strategies by the US has had positive outcomes in tackling child poverty. Therefore, drawing on the same strategies by the United Kingdom government is relevant in its efforts to eliminate child poverty because increasing family incomes has a potential in dealing with the matter. On the contrary, there is no guarantee that what works for United States will work for United Kingdom since both countries have different systems. The UK government does not present specific strategies which it will adopt and that are different from those adopted by the US. Capacity to involve and include affected people UK government ability to involve all the affected people is high. A big percentage of those affected are children from single parents and poor family backgrounds. In its tax and work policies, the government involves low-income households and goes further to give a special provision for single parents. Besides there are programs such as education opportunities that aim at giving disadvantaged kids a chance to build their future. From here, it can thus be said that, the strategy has fully involved the affected individuals (Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009). Funding sources and sources of legitimacy House of Commons (2008) suggested that, the UK government relies on its reserves as a source of finances. The fact that, child poverty has become rampant in the country does not mean that the government has no sufficient funds to undertake policies to control the matter. Child poverty is more prevalent in families with low incomes and the strategies will target such families. Another sources of funds for the government is taxation. This forms the major source of government revenue. Therefore, the taxes collected mainly from people with higher incomes will be used to execute the tax credit policies. This is a stable source of funds for implementing the strategy. However, the government has not clarified whether people with low-incomes will be taxed because if that is the case, the strategies may not benefit them much. According to Kennedy & Townsend (2009), the UK strategy of eliminating child poverty is based on the Child Poverty Bill whose purpose is to define achievement in eradicating poverty as well as develop a framework to check progress at local and national level. The Bill sets up four earning poverty goals to be realized by 2020/21, requires Northern Irish and Scottish ministers to make public their child poverty policies and institutes a child poverty Board to give advice on developing the child poverty policies. Additionally, the Bill obliges the publishing of UK child poverty policy by the UK government which ought to be reviewed after three years. It also assigns roles on local authorities as well as other delivery associates in England to collaborate to handle child poverty. Kinds of practices required of professionals involved Drawing from Tullo (2010), in executing the strategies that the UK government has put in place to help eradicate child poverty, professionals such as the State Secretary and Scottish Ministers have some practices that they are expected to undertake. To start with, the State Secretary must publish and present to the Parliament the initial UK strategy before one year ends starting from the day of the imposing of the Child Poverty Act. The secretary should also evaluate and print and present to the Parliament an amended strategy prior to the termination of the era that the strategy relates to. The Secretary is also required to reflect on the measures that should be taken in areas like giving financial back up to kids and parents, endorsing and facilitating the hiring of parents or enhancing the parents’ skills, physical and psychological health, childcare, education and social services as well as providing parents with information, assistance and advice (Great Britain Parliament, 2009). Scottish ministers are required to publish and give the initial strategy to the Scottish Parliament before a 12-months period ends from the day the Act is enacted. The ministers are expected on or prior to every report date concerning a Scottish strategy present to the Parliament, a statement that defines the ministers’ measures in relation to the strategy as well as the impacts of the measures in meeting child poverty eradication targets (Levy, Lietz, & Sutherland, 2008). State Secretary and Scottish Ministers’ conformity to all the requirements will ensure an efficient and systematic execution of the various strategies that have been set up by the UK government to child poverty. On the contrary, things may not happen as expected since the Secretary and the Ministers are somehow forced to work under pressure. If that is the case, they may end up doing a shoddy work just for the sake of meeting the given deadlines. As a result, stating the required practices of these professionals does not guarantee effectiveness in implementing the poverty elimination strategies. Limitations in achieving objectives According to Ridge (2004 ), in achieving its objectives, the UK government has experienced several limitations. In the first place, Sure Start local curricula’s early appraisals shows little proof of both positive and negative impacts of program on households and kids in the targeted areas although the assessors stress that the findings are interim. Hence, the government has to make sure that it has a consistent tactic and an apparent focus on enhancing child outcomes in its move toward setting up Sure Start kids centre. Additionally, the system for tax credit keeps on having problems with its automatic compensation and deduction structure. For instance, a current audit has established that error and scam resulted in an estimate of 2 billion dollars in overpayments. Moreover, despite there being a substantial rise in employment amid single parents, the new work policies only benefits a small percentage of the single parents in income back up. It is apparent that advancement ought to be faster if the United Kingdom government is to reach its goal of increasing the employment level of single parents. All the limitations faced by the UK government revolve around tax systems and implementation of programs. These are things that ought to have been rectified a long time ago since rectifying tax systems is something that can be easily done. About the lone parent deal, it is apparent that little awareness has been done on the same especially in the remote areas so there is a probability that some are not even aware of the policy. Conclusion The UK strategy to handle child poverty was first introduced by the Labour government in 1999. The strategy consists of work tax credit, childcare tax credit, and minimum wage and education programs. In its strategy, the UK government has drawn on conventions and frameworks for United States. The policy has fully included the affected individuals. The government depends on funds from reserves and taxation to implement the strategy. The child poverty eradication policy draws its legitimacy from the Child Poverty Bill. The State Secretary is expected to present the UK strategy and reflect on the concerned children and parents and organisations working with them. The limitations in attaining objectives are little impact of programs, inaccurate tax systems and less coverage of single parents’ population. References Brewer, M., Browne, J., & Joyce, R. (2011). Child and working-age poverty from 2010 to 2020. London: The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Clery, E. (2009). Child poverty. National Social Research , 163-172. Great Britain Parliament. (2009). Legislative scrutiny : Child Poverty Bill : twenty-eighth report of session 2008-09 : report, together with formal minutes and written evidence. London : Stationery Office. HM Government. (2011). A New Approach to Child Poverty: Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives. United Kingdom: Crown. Invernizzi, A., & Williams, J. (2011). The human rights of children : from visions to implementation. Farnham: Ashgate. Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2009). Children's rights : report, minutes and evidence. London: TSO. Kassem, D. (2009). Childhood and Youth Studies:Critical Issues. London: Taylor & Francis. Kennedy, S., & Townsend, I. (2009). Child Poverty Bill. United Kingdom: House of Commons. Levy, H., Lietz, C., & Sutherland, H. (2008). Alternative Tax-Benefit Strategies to Support Children in the European Union: Recent Reforms in Austria, Spain and the UK. London: CEPS. Minoff, E. (2006). The UK Commitment:Ending Child Poverty by 2020. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Parliament House of CommonS. (2008). The best start in life? alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility, and eradicating child poverty. London : TSO. Ridge, T. (2004). Childhood poverty and social exclusion : from a child's perspective. Bristol : Policy Press. Tullo, C. (2010). Child Poverty Act 2010. United Kingdom: The Stationery Office Limited. Waldfogel, J. (2010). Tackling Child Poverty & Improving Child Well-Being:Lessons from Britain. Columbia: First Focus. Walker, R., & Wiseman, M. (2003). The welfare we want? : the British challenge for American reform. Bristol: Polity Press. Read More