Social and Public Policy
Question One
This essay will define poverty and show how social work services users’ lives are affected by poverty. Current UK government responses to poverty will be discussed and the impact these polices have on the lives of two groups of service users will be discussed.
Poverty can be defined as absolute or relative. According to the World Health organisation (WHO), absolute poverty is a lack of the basic necessities of life. Although absolute poverty exists among very few in the UK, the more common type of poverty, relative poverty affects groups of social work service users. WHO describes those living in relative poverty as those much poorer than the rest of society, living on less than 60% of the national average income. (WHO Social Determines of Health, 2003).
There are particular groups of social work service users more likely to live in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) report Work Rich and Work Poor: Three Decades of Change (2007) found those whose life chances have decreased most over the past 30 years are disabled men with a poor education and no working partner. Families where there is no-one in employment are mostly dependant on benefits and are more likely to be poor. During the period studied the number of children who lived in poverty due to no working parent rose from 8% in 1974 to 12% in 2003. The UNICEF report An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries (2007) ranked the childhood wellbeing in the UK as the lowest in 21 countries studied.
Research by the JRF has found that children who grow up in poverty have limited life chances and are more likely to continue to suffer poverty into adulthood. When Tony Blair made a commitment to “end child poverty in a generation” in 1999 (Westminster Briefing), the Labour Party introduced polices to facilitate this. The Working Families Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits aimed to half the number of children living in poverty by 2010 (Baldock, Manning and Vickerstaff, 2003:121). Working family tax credit aims to help reduce child poverty by supporting families on low incomes and attracting families not in work into the labour market. As working families tax credits are only available to families where someone was in work for more than 16 hours per week the Government hoped to make it more attractive to work than to be on benefits. According to the JRF 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty in 2004/5 by the tax credits. However, in the same period the number of children living in poverty increased to 2.8million despite tax credits. This would suggest that the Government is failing in its strategy to eradicate child poverty and the root causes of poverty are not being tackled. The ninth annual JRF Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion Report (2006) argue that there is an “acceptance of gross inequalities of rates of pay” therefore unless these issues are tackled future poverty is inevitable and the gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. Children living in lone parent households are at particular risk of poverty as there are a lower percentage of lone parents in work (JRF Informing change 2006). The parents who do work tend to have low paid, part time jobs to fit in with child care commitments. The government has set targets of getting 70% of lone parents into work by 2010, through its New Deal for Lone Parents which offers support, advice and training to lone parents who have a child under the age of 16. However although the scheme does appear to be having a positive effect, with more than half of participants either getting work or increasing the hours worked (University of Bath Six Years of the New Deal for Lone Parents 2005), it is unlikely that it will have an overall affect on the levels of child poverty. This may be partially due to the rise in inequalities of income across the UK. In 1979 9% of the population were living on below average income, by 1999 this had risen to a quarter of the population. However in the same period incomes for the richest 10% rose by 60% and incomes for the poorest 10% of the population fell by 8%. (Baldock, Manning and Vickerstaff, 2003:121). The New Deal for Lone Parents policy may reduce the choices for lone parents, forcing parents to seek work who would rather stay at home with their children. It will not solve the issues surrounding child poverty unless the underlying problems of poverty and disadvantage are tackled.
