In 1999, UNICEF released statistics suggesting that Britain's levels of child poverty were among the worst in the developed world. In May 2001 the Organisation for Economic Development pointed out that our levels of child poverty were still unacceptably high. Around 30 per cent of children in the UK live in poverty, compared with 5 per cent in some other European countries.
Who is poor? David Piachaud, a highly respected professor from the London School of Economics, maintains that poverty is distributed across family types. Some of the poorest are conventional two-parent families, where the father is employed on a very low wage. Poverty is linked to being without work, but in some cases, where people are on a minimum wage and/or employed on a casual basis, they are only marginally better off being in work, even after tax and benefit reforms. If they took a job where they ceased to claim benefits, they would only gain 6p with every additional pound earned. In Piachaud's view the major cause of poverty is low income, whether or not people are in work, and the most direct way to address it is through tax redistribution.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which researches the impact of poverty, says in its recent report Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion that the Government is still a long way from its target for reducing child poverty, and it has probably under-estimated the number of children still on the breadline.
The Government claims it is dealing with child poverty in three main ways:
* Promoting paid work * Implementing policies to alter income through the tax and benefit system * Tackling long term disadvantage.
The Government has indeed produced a culture change in attitudes towards women working, so much so that, in contrast to even ten years ago, it is regarded as irresponsible not to work. However, being able to work depends on the availability of jobs.
As David Piachaud points out, 'it remains a matter of controversy how far jobs are available in the poorest areas' - although not to Treasury officials, apparently. Recently I was at a meeting with officials from the DfES and Treasury, where I raised the question of child poverty and jobs. I was assured that there were no regional differences in job availability. I find this hard to believe. Perhaps it depends on the definition of 'regional' and on assumptions about people's mobility. I have worked in areas in the north-west and the north-east where there were very few jobs apart from shift work at supermarkets and casual labour in cleaning or catering. Being able to access these jobs depended on the availability and reliability of local buses, and on street safety after dark, as well as (non-existent) affordable childcare. If you are poor and live in a rural area, it is even more difficult.
But even if the jobs are there, and the public transport is there, what about the childcare? The latest Statistical Bulletin from the Department for Education and Skills, up to 31 March 2001, suggests there is an overall decline in the number of childcare places. Since March 2000, more than 20,000 day nursery places have been created, but there are also 30 Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) that have logged a loss of day nursery places. Similarly, there are 11,500 more out-of-school places, yet 46 EYDCPs show an overall loss of out-of-school places. It is mostly EYDCPs in poorer areas that appear to be losing day nursery and out-of-school places. In addition, there has been a drop of 37,500 in the number of playgroup places and an 11,000 drop in the number of childminding places in England since March 2000. A majority of EYDCPs report a drop in both playgroup and childminding places.
Slim chances
In 1997, there was a general viewthat childcare was a lottery, and that whether you got a place depended on where you lived. In 2002 all four-year-olds now have an entitlement to nursery education, although again the DfES figures show that most of these places are in infant classes in primary schools and not in nursery provision. In terms of childcare places, the lottery is as great as ever. The DfES figures show that in some parts of the UK - the poorer parts - you may have as little as a four in 100 chance of getting a day nursery place. In other parts - mostly the wealthiest - you may have an 18 or 19 in 100 chance of a day nursery place. In the City, the business heart of London, your chances rise to 27 in 100.
During 2002/2003 the Government plans to spend more than 102m on EYDCPs in order to stimulate the private and voluntary sector to provide more childcare places. An alternative strategy would have been to spend that money on direct services in poor areas. For example, supporting nursery schools in poor areas to extend their services and provide integrated education and care may have been a more efficient and effective way to support poor families.
The DfES has put a trickle of money into nursery schools, but not enough to stop them closing. The DfES Statistical Bulletin has now stopped recording the number of children who attend nursery school, but the number of nursery places (nursery schools and nursery classes combined) has also declined.
What about tackling long-term disadvantage? The Sure Start programme aims to do that, but it is too early to judge its success. At present, like EYDCPs, most of the money for Sure Start appears to have been spent on support structures and personnel.
In your neighbourhood
The Government has acknowledged the lack of childcare places in poor areas by launching the Neighbourhood Nurseries initiative. But again, instead of directly funding services, it persists in trying to stimulate more partnership activity with the private and voluntary sector. 'Neighbourhood' does not even mean neighbourhood. EYDCPs are required to increase the number of nursery places, and negotiate subsidies in the private and voluntary sector for poor children, but these places do not necessarily have to be on the same street or same estate where the poor families live.
The terms of the Neighbourhood Nursery initiative require that the new places created will become self-financing after three years. As more mothers move into the workforce, it is assumed that they will be able to meet the fees charged. However, in a new book, Nurseries for Neighbourhoods, just published by the National Children's Bureau, Doreen McCalla Chen, Chris Grover and I show how difficult it has been for community and voluntary nurseries in poor neighbourhoods to survive without subsidies, because people's incomes are so low and jobs so precarious. Even where childcare tax credits are available, this has still not guaranteed the nurseries' financial viability. Private nursery businesses are also unlikely to invest directly in poor neighbourhoods because property portfolios underwrite investment in the private sector. Buying or siting buildings in areas with low property values is a risk for investors.
The Neighbourhood Nurseries initiative also ignores issues of training and recruitment of staff. Wages in the nursery sector are low and staff turnover high. Insecure job prospects in nurseries dependent on short-term, one-off funding are unlikely to improve an already dire situation.
If other countries with similar economic profiles to the UK can reduce their child poverty levels to 5 per cent, why do we tolerate such shameful inequalities? If income inequality is the main cause, why is it unacceptable to redistribute wealth by taxing the most wealthy, as most other developed countries do? If we are short of childcare places, why not provide more as a public service, the way other countries with low child poverty rates do? The National Childcare Strategy, according to DfES statistics, is failing to reach its original target of 250,000 new childcare places every year. In fact, it is so off target that, like the NHS and public transport, only massive Government intervention can now change the situation.
Let us hope that the cross-cutting review of early childhood services now being carried out by the Cabinet Office Performance and Review Unit recognises the problems. Let us hope, even more optimistically, that ministers then act on them. Poor children suffer most from inequalities, but the consequences of living in such an unequal society affect all of us.
NW
Dr Helen Penn is professor of early childhood at the University of East London Present policies
