UK child well-being has improved – but will it last?

Jonathan Bradshaw[1]

When UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre published Report Card 7in 2007 showing the UK was at the bottom of the international league table of child well-being, UNICEF UK called a conference at Ditchley Park to discuss the findings. This resulted in the Ditchley Declaration which was supported by all the political parties. The Department of Children, Families and Schools published a Children’s Plan, more resources were found for child care, schools, child health and the child poverty strategy and there was all party support for the Child Poverty Act in 2010. We already knew from national data that things for children improved between 2004 and 2010 – out of 48 national indicators of child well-being covered in The well-being of children in the UK[2]only two had got worse and 13 showed no clear trend.

In order to know how well we are doing for our children we really need to compare their outcomes with children in other countries. Now UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 11[3]repeats the comparative analysis of child well-being six years later, and with more up-to-date data, and the UK’s comparative position has improved. In 2007 the UK was bottom of 21 rich nations in child well-being. In 2013 the UK comes 16 (or 14 if subjective well-being is included) out of 29 rich countries. In 2007 the UK was in the bottom third of the league table on children’s material well-being, education, family and relationships, behaviours and risks and subjective well-being and in the middle third on health and safety. In 2013 it is in the top third on housing and the environment (not included in 2007), middle third on all other domains except education, which is still in the bottom thirds thanks to mainly to our high NEET rates.

The Innocenti Centre has structured the indicators somewhat differently in RC11 but direct comparisons can be made for a number of indicators. The UK has moved up the league table on:

• Life satisfaction
• Finding classmates kind and helpful
• Liking school
• Subjective health
• Family affluence
• Child poverty rates and gaps
• Child deprivation
• Immunisation
• Eating fruit
• Eating breakfast
• Smoking
• Drinking
• Cannabis
• Fighting
• Being bullied 

Things UK children still do not do well on comparatively include:

• Infant mortality
• Low birth weight
• Staying on
• NEET
• Teenage fertility

So RC11 is a good news story. It shows that if the effort is made, children’s lives can be improved.

There is no room for complacency.

The UK is 16 behind, for example, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Portugal - all much poorer countries. We should still be doing much better.

Also the evidence in RC11 predates most of the policies introduced by the Coalition Government to cut the deficit. Unemployment has gone up and most of the cuts to benefits and services have been loaded on families with children (rather than pensioners) at a time when real living standards have been falling. Already there is evidence that child deprivation and absolute poverty have begun to increase. Evidence from the Understanding Society survey suggests that the subjective well-being of 11-15 year olds has begun to fall. NEET rates are up and there may even be a reduction in staying on rates in England. Just as the evidence emerges that we have made progress in comparison with other countries, we are once again moving backwards

---

[1] Professor of Social Policy, University of York. Contributed to the background research for Innocenti Report Cards 7 and 11.

[2]Bradshaw, J. (2011) The well-being of children in the UK, Bristol: Policy Press.

[3] UNICEF Office of Research (2013). ‘Measuring Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A comparative overview’, Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence

Martorano, B., L. Natali, C. de Neubourg and J. Bradshaw (2013). ‘Child Wellbeing in Advanced Economies in the Late 2000s’, Working Paper 2013-01, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_1.pdf

Martorano, B., L. Natali, C. de Neubourg and J. Bradshaw (2013). 'Child Wellbeing in Economically Rich Countries: Changes in the first decade of the 21st century', Working Paper 2013-02. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_2.pdf

Bradshaw, J., B. Martorano, L. Natali and C. de Neubourg (2013). ‘Children’s Subjective Well-being in Rich Countries’, Working Paper 2013-03. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_3.pdf

Report highlights 'bleak' poverty levels in the UK

The Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) Project published its first report today. 'The Impoverishment of the UK' reveals significant levels of poverty and deprivation.

Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, it is a major collaboration between a group of UK universities including York and is the largest and most authoritative study of poverty and deprivation ever conducted in the UK.

The report is the subject of a special edition of Tonight titled Breadline Britain which is broadcast on ITV at 7.30pm on 28 March.

The PSE approach – now adopted by the UK Government and by a growing number of rich and developing countries - identifies people falling below a publicly-determined minimum standard of living. This method of measuring poverty was pioneered in 1983 and repeated in studies in 1990, 1999, 2002/03 and 2012. The project thus provides detailed, robust and definitive trends over 30 years.

Gill Main and Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, of the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at York, are members of the Poverty and Social Exclusion research team. They were responsible for developing the scale of child necessities and analysing the child poverty and deprivation results.

Professor Bradshaw says: “The findings of this study are shocking, indicating a level of poverty and deprivation which should be a wake-up call to policymakers and the public at large.”

Professor David Gordon, of the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research in Bristol and head of the project, says: “The results present a remarkably bleak portrait of life in the UK today and the shrinking opportunities faced by the bottom third of UK society.  About one third of people in the UK suffer significant difficulties and about a quarter have an unacceptably low standard of living. Moreover, this bleak situation will get worse as benefit levels fall in real term, real wages continue to decline and living standards are further squeezed.”

Today 33 per cent of the UK population suffers from multiple deprivation by the standards. set by the public, compared with 14 per cent in 1983.

For a significant and growing proportion of the population, living conditions and opportunities have been going backwards. Housing and heating conditions, in particular, have deteriorated rapidly.

• One in three people could not afford to adequately heat their homes last winter and 29 per cent had to turn the heating down or off or only heat part of their homes. The number of households unable to heat the living areas of their homes is at a record high – now 9 per cent compared to 3 per cent in the 1990s and 5% in 1983.
• Overcrowding is as high as it was in 1983: today 9 per cent of households cannot afford enough bedrooms for every child aged 10 or over of a different sex to have their own bedroom (back up from 3 per cent in 1999).
• The number of households unable to afford damp-free homes has also risen since 1983 – from 6 per cent to10 per cent.
• One in five households can’t keep their home in an adequate state of decoration – up from 15 per cent in the 1990s.
• Overall, across all these aspects of housing, around 13 million people (aged 16 and over) in Britain cannot afford adequate housing conditions, up from 9.5 million in 1999

Increasing numbers of children also lack items considered essential for a stimulating environment and for social participation and development.

•  The proportion of school age children unable to go on school trips at least once a term has risen from 2 per cent in 1999 to 8 per cent today. 

 “Levels of deprivation today are worse in a number of vital areas – from basic housing to key social activities - than at any point in the past thirty years,” says Joanna Mack from The Open University, who, with Stewart Lansley, devised the study method in 1983. ‘These trends are a deeply shocking indictment of 30 years of economic and social policy and reflect a rapid growth in inequality. This has meant that, though the economy has doubled in size during this period, those at the bottom have been increasingly left behind.” 

There is widespread public agreement on what constitutes a minimally acceptable diet. Over 90% agree that, for children, this means: three meals a day; fresh fruit and vegetables; and meat, fish or a vegetarian equivalent at least once a day. 

• Yet well over half a million children live in families who cannot afford to feed them properly.

Our research shows that, in households where children go without one or more of these basic food necessities: 

• In 93 per cent at least one adult skimp on their own food ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ to ensure others have enough to eat.

“It is not as a result of negligence but due to a lack of money that so many children are going without adequate food,” comments Professor David Gordon.

Significant proportions of the population find it difficult to cope on their current incomes:

• One in four adults have incomes below what they consider is needed to avoid poverty
• More than one in five have had to borrow in the last year to pay for day to day needs
• One in three can’t afford to save
• One in four can’t afford to replace or repair broken electrical goods (12 per cent in 1999).

Overall, people feel poorer:
More than one in three adults today say they genuinely feel poor some or all of the time compared to 27 per cent in 1999

Professor Jonathan Bradshaw's memories of the emergence of SPRU

As part of the celebrations for the University of York's 50th Anniversary year,  Professor Jonathan Bradshaw has taken part in the oral history project to record the origins of SPRU, as well as the many other highlights of his long and illustrious career as a social policy researcher. Follow this link to hear his recollections of academic life in York and the main themes of his career: child poverty, welfare rights, social policy.

https://dlib.york.ac.uk/yodl/app/audio/detail?id=york:808360

A brief retrospective of Jonathan's work is also available from the 50th Anniversary website, starting from a stall in York market giving out benefits advice, to receiving a CBE for his services to child poverty and his work on measuring the subjective well-being of children. As Jonathan recounts his research on minimum incomes has links back to an illustrious forebear who operated here in York in Victorian times:

“When social reformer Seebohm Rowntree carried out his first study of poverty in York, he used the cost of a basket of goods as measurement of the minimum income required. With the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, we adapted and refined this method to develop a minimum income standard which went on to inform the campaign for a living wage, as opposed to a minimum wage”. 

Benefits uprating and living standards

Discussion piece by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw *

The decision of the Coalition Government, announced in the Autumn Statement, to uprate most social security benefits and tax credits by 1% per year for the next three years is unprecedented* . It will save £3.8 billion, which is the same as saying that the poorest families will have that amount taken from their incomes. The impact on their living standards will be much starker.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is running at 2.8% for 2012 and the Office of Budget Responsibility*  expect that the level of inflation will be over 2% for at least the next three years. However the movement in average prices is not that relevant to low income households because they tend to spend a larger proportion of their budgets on commodities (food, fuel, water) whose prices have been increasing faster, than general inflation* . Thus the Retail Price Index and the Consumer Price Index both underestimate the inflation experienced by people with low incomes receiving benefits*. The real incomes of the poorest are going to fall as a deliberate act of policy. This has not happened since 1931 when it resulted in the collapse of the first Labour Government.

The post war legislation that implemented the Beveridge plan laid down no provision for uprating benefits. But they were uprated, initially on an ad hoc basis. In 1974 it was decided to link so called ‘long-term benefits’ such as pensions and long-term sick and disabled benefits to the higher of the two annual increases as measured by the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and the Average Earnings Index.  The Thatcher government broke that link in 1979 – by linking long-term benefits to the prices index only. In 1983 they introduced the ROSSI index (RPI (All Items) less housing costs) to uprate income-related benefits. In 1992 the definition of ROSSI changed to New ROSSI.  New ROSSI is calculated as RPI (All Items) less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments. Since 1983, benefits have been increased in relation to the RPI, ROSSI or New ROSSI.  The actual increase in particular benefits has depended on the index applied and on policy decisions as to the appropriate rate for the benefit. In the 2010 budget the Chancellor announced that from April 2011 most DWP administered benefits would be uprated in line with the CPI. Also, the Government introduced legislation providing for earnings up-rating of the basic State Pension, and in addition, provided a triple guarantee that the basic State Pension will increase by the highest of the growth in average earnings, price increases or 2.5%

Between 1948 and 1979 the basic retirement pension doubled its value in real terms and maintained its value in comparison with average earnings. Under the Thatcher government the basic state pension declined in value in relation to earnings, until the Labour Government rescued it and linked it to movements in earnings from 2001. Over the whole period since 1948 it more than doubled in real terms. It will go up by 2.5% in April 2013 well ahead of earnings and just about maintain its value with average prices. (See Table 1)

Table 1: Single Basic State Pension at April 2011 prices and as a percentage of average earnings

Source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/abstract/abstract2011.pdf

Contrast that with what has happened to the benefit for the unemployed. Between 1948 and 1979 it also doubled in value in real terms. But since 1980 there has been a sustained fall in comparison with earnings and even under the Labour Government the real level of unemployment benefit fell (See Table 2).

Table 2: Single Unemployment Benefit / Jobseeker's Allowance (contributory) at April 2011 prices and as a percentage of Average Earnings

Source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/abstract/abstract2011.pdf

The improvements that the Labour Government made to out of work benefits were concentrated on families with children. Table 3 shows what has happened to the incomes of a lone parent with one child on social assistance. The first act of the Labour Government in 1997 was to cut lone parent benefits, but the outcry resulted in a sustained improvement in real terms and as a proportion of average earnings.

Table 3: Income support for a lone parent plus one child at April 2011 prices and as a percentage of average earnings

Source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/abstract/abstract2011.pdf

The decision to uprate pensions by 2.5% and working age benefits by 1% for three years is going to further exacerbate the absurd differentials in benefit rates that have developed over time. In 1948 a single pensioner received only 10p more than a single person on national assistance. Now a single person receives £71 per week in Job Seeker’s Allowance until they are eligible for Pension Credit when it jumps to £142.70 per week. A lone mother with one child gets £133.21 per week. These differentials clearly have nothing to do with need.

The decision to uprate benefits by less than inflation is justified by the argument that earnings are falling in real terms. Yes, and this meant that for the first time for decades there was some closing of the gap between the living standards of the unemployed and working households. In 1948 the single rate of social assistance was 18% of average earnings and it reached 20% in the late 1960s. In 2011 it had fallen 11% of average earnings.

Figure 4 compares movements in the CPI, RPI, the Minimum Income Standard price index and the single pension and JSA rates since 2000. The Minimum Income Standard price index, (developed by Donald Hirsch), represents the expenditure patterns of a low income person rather than the average. Between 2000 and 2011 the MIS price index has risen by 47% compared with the CPI by 28% and the RPI by 38%. The incomes of single pensioners have risen by 51% but single people on JSA by only 29%. Next April single people on JSA will get an extra 71 pence and their living standards and those of all other non-pensioners supported by benefits and tax credits including the majority who are in employment will fall further.

Figure 4: Movements in CPI, RPI, MISPI and benefits for single pensioners and single JSA. 2000=100

*

[1] Professor of Social Policy at the University of York

[2] Bradshaw, J. and Lynes, T. (1995) Benefit Uprating Policy and Living Standards, Social Policy Reports Number 1, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York: York

[3] http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-december-2012/

[4] Levell, P. and Oldfield, Z. (2011),The Spending Patterns and Inflation Experience of Low-Income Households Over the Past Decade, Commentary 119, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies

[5] Hirsch, D. (2012) Benefit uprating: a return to human decency, Poverty 141, 6-9.