Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo
Session 2007/2008
Third Report

COMMITTEE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

Final Report on the Committee’s Inquiry into Child Poverty in Northern Ireland

VOLUME TWO
Written Submissions to the Committee, Witnesses Who Gave Evidence to the Committee, Research Papers, Other Evidence Considered by the Committee and List of Abbreviations

Ordered by The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister to be printed 4 June 2008
Report: 08/07/08R (The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister)

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Membership and Powers

Powers

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is a Statutory Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Assembly Standing Order 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

The Committee has power to:

Membership

The Committee has 11 members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of five members.

The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Table of Contents

Volume One
Section

Executive Summary

Summary of Recommendations

1. Introduction

2. Approach of the Committee and focus of the report

3. Definition and measurement of child poverty

4. The evidence-base for the prevention of child poverty

5. Strategies to tackle child poverty in Northern Ireland

6. Policies to increase income

7. Tackling rising costs and financial exclusion

8. Promoting employment

9. Measures to tackle long-term disadvantage

10. Cross-cutting approaches

11. Conclusions

Appendices

1. Minute of Proceedings

2. Minutes of Evidence

Volume Two
Appendices

3. List of Written Submissions to the Committee

4. Written Submissions to the Committee

5. List of Witnesses Who Gave Evidence to the Committee

6. List of Research Papers

7. Research Papers

8. List of Other Evidence Considered by the Committee

9. Other Evidence Considered by the Committee

10. List of Abbreviations

Appendix 3
List of Written Submissions

Advice NI

Barnardo’s

Belfast Health Action Zone

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust

Children in Northern Ireland

Children’s Law Centre

Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland

Committee for Regional Development

Committee for Social Development

Consumer Council

Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

Craigavon Borough Council

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Department of Education

Department for Employment and Learning

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Department of the Environment

Department of Finance and Personnel

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Department for Social Development

Derry Children’s Commission

Derry City Council

Disability Action

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

Eastern Health and Social Services Board

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

Institute of Public Health in Ireland

Lisburn City Council

NCH Northern Ireland

New Policy Institute

Newtownabbey Borough Council

North Eastern Education and Library Board

Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network

Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People

Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

Northern Neighbourhoods Health Action Zone

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

PlayBoard

Rural Community Network

Save the Children

Shelter Northern Ireland

Southern Area Childcare Partnership

Southern Health and Social Services Board

Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum

Western Area Childcare Partnership

Western Investing for Health Partnership and Western Health Action Zone

Appendix 4

Written Submissions to the Committee

Written Submission by:
Advice NI

Background

1. Advice NI is a membership organisation that exists to provide leadership, representation and support for independent advice organisations to facilitate the delivery of high quality, sustainable advice services. Advice NI exists to provide its members with the capacity and tools to ensure effective advice services delivery. This includes: advice and information management systems, funding and planning, quality assurance support, NVQs in advice and guidance, social policy co-ordination and ICT development.

2. Membership of Advice NI is normally for organisations that provide significant advice and information services to the public. Advice NI has over 70 member organisations operating throughout Northern Ireland and providing information and advocacy services to over 150,000 people each year dealing with over 237,000 enquiries on an extensive range of matters including: social security, housing, debt, consumer and employment issues. For further information, please visit www.adviceni.net.

3. In relation to child poverty statistics Advice NI would refer to the information produced specifically for Northern Ireland by specialist organisations such as Save the Children[1]. Advice NI members do contribute to the alleviation of child poverty on a daily basis and this response is grounded this work.

Summary

4. There is always a balance to be struck between encouraging families in receipt of social security benefit to move into paid employment and providing adequate support for families while they are in receipt of benefits.

5. In our view the Government has taken a predominantly ‘work focused’ approach, concentrating primarily on ‘making work pay’ and using employment as the principal means of tackling child poverty. However, in taking this approach, there is a concern that families on benefits are being left behind. In the body of this response we have identified some areas where effective action could be taken to address this situation.

6. In general terms, just as Government would urge those on benefits not to have a phobia about working, Advice NI believes that Government itself should not have a phobia about seeking to improve the quality of life for those people and children reliant on benefits.

7. There is also a concern that child poverty remains an issue for the ‘waged poor’, with a particular focus being those in low paid employment. The significant problems being experienced by low income families regarding the administration of tax credits has served to push many families into overpayment situations and hardship through no fault of their own. Advice NI also believes that the rate at which the National Minimum Wage has been set has not lifted working families out of poverty and has contributed to people becoming reliant on a poorly administered tax credits system.

Comments – Support for families on benefit

8. Focussing on families in receipt of social security benefits, there are a number of areas which could be addressed which would impact directly on child poverty.

9. Benefit uptake is obviously an area that requires ongoing attention. The fact that uptake of means tested benefits remains worryingly low means that many families on benefits are actually existing on income which is below the poverty line. Benefit uptake is highlighted within the Programme for Government and Advice NI believes that this is an area where local initiatives can be devised and delivered to maximum effect. Advice NI believes that benefit uptake programmes which depend on the advice sector for delivery must be undertaken at a rate of remuneration which means that the service is deliverable and sustainable over the longer term.

10. In much the same way as winter fuel payments have gone some way to addressing the issue of fuel poverty among older people, there is an opportunity to directly impact upon child poverty by providing financial support at critical times of need. The Social Fund Maternity Grant is an example of this but we feel that this principle could be extended to cover other key life events involving children. Advice NI would advocate the extension of this support to in-work ‘waged poor’ households.

11. Obviously children should be adequately fed and clothed as a minimum requirement. Spending on food can be budgeted on a weekly basis but it is often more difficult for families on benefit to budget for clothing for their children. Clothing can be a substantial expense (particularly in this age of designer labels) and assistance towards the cost of clothing for children would be welcome. There are various options for how this might be implemented including (i) allowance becomes automatically available for all children whose parents are in receipt of the appropriate benefits; (ii) allowance becomes available for children over the age of five years of age whose parents are in receipt of the appropriate benefits; (iii) reduced allowance for younger children to take account of possibility of some clothing being passed from one child to another.

12. The list of exclusions for which a Community Care Grant application can be made, should in our view be reviewed, with a view to allowing access for assistance with educational need. At the very least there needs to be co-ordination between the educational authorities and Social Fund in order that sufficient resources are available for the poorest children in order that they can meet basic educational requirements for example in terms of a school uniform.

13. Advice NI has already engaged with the educational authorities in Northern Ireland regarding the take-up of both school uniform grants and free school meals for school age children. Advice NI advocates that free school meals should be available to all children –mindful that this approach would guarantee that all children receive an adequate diet; remove any stigma regarding means testing of school meals provision and maximise take-up.

14. The function of Budgeting Loans should be reviewed. Budgeting Loans can be offered to applicants and, as opposed to Community Care Grants, these Loans require repayment via deductions from benefit. These deductions further reduce the families already restricted income, therefore any family repaying a Budgeting Loan fall below the minimum standard set by government, namely the Income Support level. Whilst these Loans do provide financial support at zero per cent interest, the deductions can have a significant impact on the budget of these low income families.

15. The amounts awarded by the Social Fund should be reviewed. Where these amounts are insufficient to meet the full costs of the item in question, applicants can be forced to seek money from other sources to meet their needs particularly at key times of the year including Christmas and birthdays. Due to problems accessing credit, these can be disreputable sources such as money lenders, who can charge excessive interest.

16. The issue of lone parents aged 16 – 18 in receipt of Income Support requires attention in our view. The personal allowance for the claimant is reduced by up to £23.50. A similar situation exists for couples where one or both are aged under 18. In our view the allowance should be comparable to that of lone parents aged over 18 / couples aged over 18. Any differentiation is bound to impact upon the child/ren, particularly considering the amounts of money involved.

17. This issue is in relation to young parents, and surely such young people should be given as much support as possible, and not penalised for having children.

18. Benefits sanctions, for example failure to carry out a job seeker’s direction, impacts upon the whole family and again there needs to be a balance between ‘encouraging’ people to move into employment and ensuring that these people are adequately supported while on benefit. Previous Advice NI Social Policy Papers (‘New Deal for Disabled People’; ‘The Contributory Principle – On the Agenda or in the Firing Line’ and ‘Welfare Reform: Challenges, Choices and International Insight’ available on www.adviceni.net) indicate that the focus may be too heavily weighted in favour of moving people off benefits rather than firstly ensuring that people are adequately provided for on benefit. In our Welfare Reform paper we highlighted the plight of so-called floundering families in the USA:

“Welfare reform was successful because the US economy was good and because in-work supports – child care and health insurance – helped make work pay. With the downturn in the economy, problems with the US approach were highlighted as being the difficulty for welfare recipients to secure continuous employment (often a focus on ‘take the first job’ and not the ‘best job match’). There was also a very significant issue related to ‘floundering families’ – with a significant increase in single mother households without work and without access to welfare (number has almost doubled since 1990).”

19. We would argue that often the issue is not as straight forward as moving people into employment. There needs to be an acceptance that some people will need further assistance and support to gain the skills necessary to move into employment and that there should be a ‘job match’ between the job and the potential employee.

Comments – Support for working families on low incomes

20. The introduction of tax credits for working families has not been without significant problems and has pushed many families into debt and hardship due to creating overpayment situations. Advice NI has facilitated an online eConsultation on the issue of tax credits (http://www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp) and produced a report with a number of recommendations to improve the situation. Whilst improvements have been made, there remains a significant amount of work to be done. In terms of families living in Northern Ireland, Advice NI believes that there should be local contact points within HMRC in order to resolve any problems that arise for tax credit claimants.

21. From a Northern Ireland perspective, Advice NI would summarise the ongoing tax credit issues as follows:

22. Obviously the impact of making work pay would have a greater impact with a higher National Minimum Wage and such a step would not only make work more attractive, but might also directly reduce Government spending by reducing spending on tax credits, Housing Benefit and could indirectly reduce social security spending by making work a more attractive option.

23. In relation to child poverty, a move into paid employment can have a positive impact. However, where there are children in the household, the issue of affordable childcare provision is obviously important. It might be argued that where one partner is working the other partner could look after the children but this may not necessarily be possible: (i) in lone parent situations; (ii) the other partner may wish to move into employment; (iii) Government policy is now focussing on moving both benefit claimants and their partners into employment. The provision of affordable childcare is obviously an area where local initiatives could be developed – which could directly impact on the child poverty issue.

24. Linked to the childcare issue, there may be a real opportunity for individuals to set themselves up as childcare providers – from a ‘start your own business’ perspective. With this in mind, there should be a review of the process for registering childcare providers. A more straightforward process might have the two-fold impact of (i) increasing childcare provision and (ii) being a business opportunity for families on benefit.

Child Support Agency reforms

25. In relation to child maintenance, the introduction of the proposed Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (C-MEC) may provide the opportunity for children to become the focus of attention. In the past the issue of child maintenance was viewed with scepticism by both parents-with-care and non-resident parents. Parents-with-care on benefits saw their benefits reduce when they pursued child maintenance leading them to believe that the Government was only interested in reducing benefit expenditure rather than supporting children in any meaningful way. The new arrangements may address this issue but as yet there is no detail as regards any proposed maintenance disregard.

26. The issue of C-MEC delivery mechanisms raises issues similar to those around the centralisation of the tax credit system. Advice NI believes that local delivery mechanisms in terms of information provision, collection and debt recovery may maximise the effectiveness of the proposed Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.

27. As a general point in terms of consultation, Advice NI would ask OFMDFM to consider using the tried and tested Advice NI eConsultation service. Clients who have used the service to date include the Department for Social Development (Advice & Information strategy), Department for Social Development (Housing Affordability), the Consumer Council (Bank Charges) and the Oireachtas (Joint Committee on Communications, Marine & Natural Resources). The benefits of the service include:

Further information on the Advice NI eConsultation service can be found at
http://www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp.

15 November 2007

[1] http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/ni7_ACPR07.pdf

Written Submission by:
Barnardo’s NI

Introduction

Barnardo’s NI is the largest children’s charity in Northern Ireland. In addition to policy influencing, we also provide over 45 distinct services in NI, last year working with a substantial number of children and their families in communities across Northern Ireland. We work with disabled children, young people who are at risk of offending, children in care and families in need of support.

Barnardo’s vision is that the lives of all children and young people should be free from poverty, abuse and discrimination. We therefore welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister’s Inquiry into Child Poverty.

1.0 The extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

While we recognise the need for further evidence in relation to the persistence of poverty in Northern Ireland, the extent and impact of child poverty throughout the UK have been well documented within a broad range of statistical and research publications[1]. Government must improve practices of producing and maintaining up-to-date data, however the considerable research activity in recent years has aimed to address the general lack of statistics and other data on child poverty in Northern Ireland. Therefore, rather than reiterate much of this information of which the Committee is no doubt aware, it is Barnardo’s intention for the purposes of the current inquiry to focus on three key areas in which we believe child poverty should be tackled more effectively and where there is a significant impact on children and young people.

1.1 Early Years

The disparity in educational attainment throughout primary and secondary schooling between children and young people with more affluent status compared to those from poorer backgrounds has been clearly demonstrated in research carried out by the Department of Education[2]. However this educational disadvantage is also apparent from an early age in that pre-school children with a lower economic status have less cognitive and behavioural abilities[3] than pre-school children from higher socio-economic backgrounds[4].

Considering the links between poor education and unemployment with poverty, Barnardos believes that in order to effectively address social inequality it is vital that government supports families and agencies working with pre-school children by demonstrating an increased commitment to early years intervention. This is even more important given that social and emotional skills learned between birth and the age of five years affects subsequent performance in both the school and workplace[5].

Furthermore, the key finding from brain research is that the brain is uniquely constructed to benefit from experience and from positive care giving during the first years of life[6]. Significantly, the brain develops earlier than the rest of the body;

By age three the brain has formed 1,000 trillion connections; about twice as many as adults have.

Early experience determines how the neural circuits in the brain are connected. (Bertenthal and Campos, 1987) and children who are played with, spoken to and allowed to explore stimulating surroundings are more likely to develop improved neural connections which aid later learning (Kurr-Morse and Wiley, 1997)[7]. These recent findings from brain research emphasise how crucial the first five years of life are. In this time neural pathways are formed and disposition toward learning is established. French and Murphy (2005) comment:

‘Sylva (1993) having reviewed the evidence about the impact of early learning on children’s later development, concluded that the impact of early education is found in all social groups but is strongest in children from disadvantaged backgrounds’[8].

It is therefore Barnardo’s view that rather than waiting for children to reach school age, it is essential that, from birth, children receive the best possible start in life. Indeed by investing financial resources in programs for very young children, including interventions such as the Perry Preschool program, research suggests that society benefits in the long term through an increase in skilled workers, and a reduction in crime, violent activity and poverty[9]. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, for example, published its research spanning 40 years in November 2004 in which the measured benefits of the programme are highly significant[10]. This long term study shows the effects of a high quality early years care and education programme with children and their parents on low income three and four year old children. At age 40, adults who had participated in the High/Scope programme were shown to have higher earnings, be more likely to stay in employment, have higher academic achievement and to have committed fewer crimes than those in the non-programme group. Although schools and teachers are important, early and ongoing engagement with parents is the key to successful interventions and subsequent changes in society[11].

Government must also consider the important role of play for children’s social, emotional and physical development, especially in their very early years. Through our many services, Barnardos continually provides play opportunities and promotes the value of play in many areas, for example in early years settings, a range of parent education and parent support services including parents from minority ethnic backgrounds, parents in prison and school aged and other young mothers, and for children with disabilities and complex health care needs. Unfortunately, current play and leisure provision for children and young people in Northern Ireland is generally inadequate and often inaccessible, particularly for children experiencing poverty[12].

Good Practice

At Barnardos, we know that young children learn from direct experience. In order to affect change for children we need to support parents in the parenting role. It is important, however, that alongside working with parents, every effort is made to ensure young children do not lose out on positive experiences at this crucial stage in their development. Barnardo’s Northern Ireland has been providing services to the youngest and most disadvantaged members of our society for over thirty years. These services provide a wide range of experiences for young children.

High/Scope Approach

Throughout all early years work in Barnardo’s Northern Ireland the High/Scope Approach discussed above in relation to Early Years is implemented. Using this Approach ensures positive outcomes for children both in the short and long term. In addition to parents, High/Scope provides valuable training for early years teachers, pre-school practitioners, Sure Start projects, those working with under-threes, foster carers, and childminders.

Barnardo’s believes that the High/Scope approach is a valuable tool in helping combat poverty and promoting social inclusion in the most disadvantaged communities of Northern Ireland and would recommend its implementation on a broader scale. The following two examples give an indication of the current range of early years work in Barnardo’s Northern Ireland and we would warmly welcome Committee representatives to visit these and any of our other services.

Travellers Pre –school

Barnardo’s NI has long acknowledged the particular difficulties experienced by the Traveller community, including poor living conditions, inadequate housing, long term unemployment, poor health and poor educational attainment. We have provided an early years service to the Traveller community in Belfast since 1990 of which the main aim of the Traveller’s Pre-School is to promote the inclusion and integration of Traveller children into mainstream education. As a formal recognition of the high quality service being delivered to children and their families within the Traveller community, Traveller’s Pre-School has recently achieved High/Scope Accreditation from the High/Scope Ireland Institute, the first early years service in Barnardos NI to receive this award.

Parent & Infant Project (PIP)

The PIP model was built on key evidence about childhood development that linked factors such as the early development of language, development of social and personal skills and infant mental health. The overall aims of the service are to enable young children to achieve their potential according to their abilities and develop socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually; and to establish an environment where parents will be facilitated in recognising and meeting the needs of their children. With a central ethos of early intervention, the main objectives of this outreach based project are to promote and support very early learning in children aged 0-3 years; to offer parent support and education; to help parents to recognise and meet the needs of their children; to increase parents’ confidence in their own knowledge; and to improve the self esteem of the adult and child through enabling and valuing the proficiency of both.

1.2 Disability

In Northern Ireland, 21% of adults have at least one disability and 6% of children are affected by a disability, of which almost 4% are living with two or more disabilities[13]. Current poverty statistics, which underestimate levels of poverty in households affected by disability, indicate that over a million children living in poverty in the UK are affected by disability while a quarter of all poor children have a disabled parent[14].

There is evidence to suggest that families affected by a disability, whether of a parent or child, are at greater than average risk of persistent poverty. Research shows that disabled children and their families in the UK experience particularly high levels of economic and social disadvantage[15]. It is estimated in the region of 55% of families with a disabled child are either living at or on the margins of poverty and have more chance of living in poverty than other disadvantaged social groups, including lone parent families[16]. The risk of poverty is especially high for the half a million children who live in households that contain both disabled adults and disabled children[17].

Incomes in households with disabled children are likely to be low because these families experience considerable additional costs, face multiple barriers to employment, and problems accessing disability benefits. For example, although the cost of bringing up a disabled child is three times as much as for a non-disabled child, parents in such families are less likely to work and when they do they are more likely to be in low-paid employment. Inaccessible services and poor service provision for families affected by disability compounds problems on a daily basis, and generates high levels of stress and ill-health[18]. The situation is often particularly serious in families affected by disability if it is also a lone parent household and/or there are three or more children.

These are all issues which need to be urgently addressed, especially considering the impacts on child poverty in Northern Ireland which has the highest levels of households with disabled people in the UK. Better administrative processes and increased take up of disability living allowance has been identified as just one measure to improve the lives of disabled children and help reduce child poverty[19]. If the Government wants to ensure that targets to eradicate child poverty are met then it is essential in Barnardo’s view that in addition to greater access to preventative and support services, more must be done to ensure that disabled children and those caring for them receive the disability benefits to which they are entitled. It is also essential that parents who so often act as full-time carers for their disabled children receive appropriate support that enables them to access well-paid and permanent employment.

Disabled children themselves face significant barriers to education, training and employment without the necessary preventative and support services. Recent research on education and employment amongst disabled young people found that despite similar aspirations, the experience of disabled and non-disabled young people diverged sharply in early adulthood[20]. Analysis of the data from studies of children born in 1970 and in the early 1980s revealed that three-fifths of non-disabled young people got the education or training place or job they wanted after finishing compulsory education, whereas just over half of disabled youngsters said the same. As they got older the gap between the proportion of disabled and non-disabled young people out of work widened:

Recommendations arising from this research include a focus on transforming the actual opportunities available to disabled young people, for example, through ensuring continuity of support (including funding, equipment and personnel), especially in the transition from secondary to further education; opportunities to return to education, focusing on acquiring higher qualifications, not just basic skills; and work placements related to each young person’s expressed interests.

1.3 Employment and Learning

Young people making the transition from education to employment now face many more challenges and obstacles than ever before mainly as a result of changes in traditional family structures and a rapidly changing labour market. Those young people who do not stay on at school or in further education or training have fewer opportunities than in previous years.

The term ‘NEET’ is now used to describe young people aged between 16 and 18 (inclusive) who are not in education, employment or training, however Barnardo’s discusses this issue as being relevant to young people aged between 16 and 21 years of age. Many of the characteristics associated with poverty are also associated with young people referred to as NEET. These typically include poor educational attainment, persistent truancy, teenage pregnancy, use of drugs and alcohol, looked after children, disability, mental health issues and crime and anti-social behaviour[21]. The proportion of NEETS has increased from 154,000 in 1997 to 206,000 in 2006[22]. In England, 7% of all 16 year olds are NEET, rising to 11% of 16 year olds from the lowest social groups, 13% amongst those with a disability, 22% amongst those excluded from school, 32% among persistent truants and 74% amongst teenage mothers[23]. In 2005, 6.3% of 16-24 year olds in Northern Ireland were classified as being unemployed, however the percentage of young people classified as NEET is estimated as being twice as high[24].

Barnardo’s believes that the massive potential amongst young people who are NEETS is in danger of being overlooked if those responsible for the education and welfare system do not address what is becoming an increasing issue of concern. The Westminster government has recently revealed plans to raise the school leaving age to 18, although there is no immediate intention to introduce this in Northern Ireland. While we can see the obvious benefits in ensuring education, training or apprenticeship for many NEETS, this will only work in practice if it is actually meeting each individual’s need and that other mechanisms are also put in place for those young people that actually want to, or cannot afford not to, go out to work at 16. For various reasons, not all young people within this age group are able to live in a stable and secure family environment and we would have concerns about the poverty implications if they were unable to enter formal employment until the age of eighteen.

Having NEET status not only impacts on young people’s life chances but from a public policy perspective there are also a range of social and financial implications. Young people who are NEET are at risk of poverty and social inclusion but it has also been suggested that being NEET,

‘..may also perpetuate a worklessness culture that can be passed onto future generations of young people and result in NEET status being reinforced in families and communities across generations’[25].

It is therefore crucial that effective strategies are in place in Northern Ireland to ensure young people are in appropriate employment or learning. This age group should also be given priority in the ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ Anti-poverty Strategy, with a very specific focus on targeting those aged between 16-21 years.

As highlighted in the Strategy, employment for people of working age is the best route out of poverty. However, given the high levels of low pay in Northern Ireland alongside the lack of affordable housing, childcare and fuel for heating, it is also important to consider that an increasing number of people experience ‘in-work’ poverty. This is of particular relevance in relation to younger people aged between 16 and 21 years old who are more likely to earn less and for whom the minimum wage is lower than for adults. While we welcome the minimum wage in principle, Barnardo’s believes that this must be regularly reviewed and increased in order to ensure income protection for young people. In our view, it is discriminatory to pay younger people between 16 and 21 years lower wages for doing the same job as someone older, simply on the basis of age. Research has also highlighted the inadequate level of welfare benefits for young people and accessible information in relation to these, and also the need for more effective training of frontline benefits staff[26].

2.0 Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

Barnardos does not wish to comment other than to welcome the fact that following a fairly lengthy process, the current strategy has been developed into a much more child focused document. However, we have outlined our main ongoing concerns and recommendations throughout this paper.

3.0 Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

While Barnardos welcomes the commitment in the Strategy to eliminate poverty, we are concerned that in its current format it will be unable to deliver the key targets within the specified timeframes, and that the targets themselves are limited in their scope. The absence of targets that are generally not Strategic, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant and Timely (SMART) is a notable gap.

We would refer you, for example, to the three areas we outlined at Point 1 in relation to Early Years, Disability and Employment/Learning, which we believe need to be given greater priority within the Strategy if the main target of ending child poverty by 2020 is to be a realistic one.

(1) EARLY YEARS – For example, we suggest that targets and indicators are reworked to include emphasis on universal access to high-quality, creative and innovative early years programmes and pre-school provision; and to include early and ongoing engagement with parents; positive parenting etc.

(2) DISABILITY - With regards to our previous points on disability, we suggest for example, the development of targets and indicators that address welfare benefits access, service provision and the widening gaps between disabled and non-disabled young people’s participation in employment as they move into early adulthood

(3) EMPLOYMENT AND LEARNING – For example, we suggest the development of targets and indicators specific to young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) and aged between 16 and 21 years of age; also to include preventative and support structures - potential young people NEET identified before they leave school; regular review of attendance, behaviour and attainment; monitoring of ‘at-risk’ pupils, for example, looked after children; extended schools activities; counselling and home support services; family learning and parent contact work; use of specialist outreach teams; use of social work and youth and community work staff.

4.0 Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/ targets.

Also with reference to our previous points, we have some concerns in relation to the practical and effective implementation of the Strategy. Without appropriately developed targets, action plans or agreed financial resources it is difficult at this stage to assess the adequacy of the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements.

5.0 Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

Considering that the UK figured seventh from the bottom of a league table comparing child poverty across 26 wealthy nations[27], Barnardo’s would strongly recommend that cognisance is paid to the experiences of other nations, including their child poverty national strategies, social policies and other interventions[28].

We also suggest continued monitoring and awareness of how child poverty is being tackled by the Welsh and Scottish governments. Finally, it would be useful to keep appraised of ongoing research in the relevant areas, some of which is cited in the footnotes of this paper, with particular attention paid to findings and recommendations on ‘What Works’ and areas of ‘Good Practice’.

6.0 Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration.

There are clearly many other areas where action to tackle child poverty is required both outside and inter-related to those that we have chosen to discuss here. We enclose for your information our recent child poverty briefing, ‘It doesn’t happen here: the reality of child poverty in Northern Ireland’, which provides a concise overview of the issues and a number of key recommendations for action by the Northern Ireland Executive.

Concluding Comments

Barnardos welcomes the chance to contribute to the OFMDFM Committee inquiry into child poverty. We would also like to take this opportunity to extend a formal invitation to Committee representatives to visit Barnardo’s services, particularly those relevant to our work in Early Years.

20 November 2007

[1] For example, statistics recently published in a Households Below Average Income report suggest that almost one in three children in Northern Ireland are living in poverty – HBAI 1994/5-2005/6, 18th Edition. See also, Barnardo’s NI (2007), ‘It Doesn’t Happen Here: The Reality of Poverty in Northern Ireland’, Barnardo’s; E. McLaughlin and M. Monteith (2006) ‘Child and Family Poverty in NI’, OFMDFM, NI; and Save The Children (2006) ‘Under the Radar: Severe Child Poverty in the UK’.

[2] www.deni.gov.uk/statisticsandresearch; for example T. Gallagher and A. Smith (2000), ‘Research into the effects of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland; A. Sutherland and N. Purdy (2006), ‘Attitudes of the Socially Disadvantaged towards Education in Northern Ireland’

[3] Common definitions of cognitive abilities refer to thinking and problem-solving skills, e.g. ‘the process of being aware, knowing, thinking, learning and judging’ MedicineNet.Com

[4] E. Melhuish et al (2006), ‘Effective Pre-School Provision in Northern Ireland (EPPNI)’, DENI, Report No.41

[5] James J Heckman and Dimitriy V Masterov (2004), ‘The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children’, Committee for Economic Development

[6] G. French and P. Murphy (2005), ‘Once in a Lifetime: Early Care and Education for Children from Birth to Three’ Dublin. Barnardo’s

[7] Cited in French and Murphy, ibid

[8] Ibid, p.20

[9] L. Schweinhart et al (2005), ‘Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40’, High/Scope Educational Research Foundation; Heckman, op cit n.4; and Alan Sinclair (2007), ‘0-5: How Small Children Make a Big Difference’, Provocation Series, Vol. 3, No.1, The Work Foundation

[10] L. Schweinhart et al, ibid

[11] Sinclair, op cit n.8

[12] U. Kilkelly et al. (2004), ‘Children’s Rights in Northern Ireland’, NICCY

[13] NISRA (2007), ‘The Prevalence of Disability and Activity Limitations amongst adults and children living in private households in NI’, July 2007, Bulletin 1

[14] Gabrielle Preston with Mark Robertson (2006), ‘Out of Reach: Benefits for Disabled Children’, Child Poverty Action Group

[15] Gabrielle Preston with Mark Robertson (2006), ‘Out of Reach: Benefits for Disabled Children’, Child Poverty Action Group; D. Gordon, R. Parker, F. Loughran and P. Heslop, Disabled Children in Britain: A Re-analysis of the OPCS Disability Surveys., London, TSO, 2000; OPCS Surveys of disability in Great Britain Report 5 (1989): ‘The financial circumstances of families with disabled children living in private households’, www.statistics.gov.uk.

[16] Gordon et al, ibid

[17] Preston and Robertson, op cit, n.14

[18] ibid

[19] ibid

[20] Tania Burchardt (2005) ‘The education and employment of disabled young people: Frustrated ambition’, The Policy Press in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

[21] Research as Evidence (2007), ‘What works in preventing and re-engaging young people NEET in London’, Greater London Authority

[22] Department for Children, Schools and Families, and Innovation, Universities and Skills

[23] Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (2005) ‘NEET Design Review Presentation’, PMDU, London, cited op cit, n.20

[24] London School of Economics (2007), ‘The Cost of Exclusion: Counting the cost of youth disadvantage in the UK’, Princes Trust.

[25] Op cit, note 20, p.7

[26] U. Kilkelly et al. op cit, n.11

[27] Innocenti Research Centre, ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005’, UNICEF

[28] Also refer to Mark Greenberg (2007), ‘From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half’, Center for Amercian Progress

Written Submission by:
Belfast Health Action Zone

Background

The Belfast Health Action Zone (HAZ) is a partnership of public, private, voluntary and community sector organisations working together to tackle inequalities in health and broader social exclusion. The HAZ functions by:

The HAZ experience

The HAZ focuses on a broad social model of health based on the twin pillars of partnership and participation. Whilst the title is ‘Health’ Action Zone the practice has been to take an inclusive approach to addressing areas of need. HAZ has sought to focus efforts on issues or settings of greatest need where collaboration can bring greatest benefit (development pathways). Each of these work programmes or ‘development pathways’ is led by a different partner within the HAZ Partnership but engages a wide range of other organisations in the process. Examples relevant to Child Poverty include:

Five Major Challenges

HAZ experience suggests that there is still much work to be done to effectively tackle inequalities in health and that the health and wellbeing of those who are most disadvantaged in Belfast is characterised by five common features:

Accordingly it is suggested that concerted action is required with commonly agreed goals for the next ten years so we might work toward:

1. Aspiration: Children in disadvantaged areas of Belfast can be shown to exceed their expectations of educational achievement in spite of disadvantage; and, communities’ aspirations can be shown to be more positive.

2. Poverty: A measure of relative poverty is adopted and used to set targets to ensure that people in disadvantaged areas of Belfast can be shown to suffer no greater disadvantage than across Northern Ireland as a whole.

3. Achievement: An increase in the number of school leavers with qualifications in all disadvantaged areas of Belfast can be demonstrated, to equal the average for Northern Ireland as a whole.

4. Safety: Fear of crime can be shown to be significantly reduced.

5. Good Relations: Greater respect and tolerance can be demonstrated within and between communities taking account of the changing nature of the population and including ethnic minority groupings.

Each of these goals will need clear targets. It is recognised that targets can be somewhat narrow and that these measures need to be supplemented by other broader indicators. Shorter-term milestones and indicators for each of these challenges need to be developed and agreed over the coming period.

HAZ suggests that if progress is made in each of these areas there will be considerable improvement in health and wellbeing and a reduction in the wider inequalities gap including poverty.

How will this be achieved?

The experience of HAZ has pointed to the centrality of employment, educational achievement, health and wellbeing and community engagement. It is proposed that work should continue to:

HAZ would also strongly suggest to the Committee that agreed goals to which all Government Departments and their agents are committed to delivering is probably the single most important action that Government could consider.

HAZ recent analysis of need has pointed to the centrality of education as a means of impacting on poverty (copy attached for your ease of reference).

What would improvement look like?

Clearly much work is already underway, however it is also true that we could accelerate effective practice. Improving the impact of resources, money and people could be further demonstrated in a number of areas.

One of the major problems in addressing inequalities is engaging those people who are hardest to reach, often also those in greatest need. Strategies for community empowerment have helped give a voice to local communities that feel threatened, vulnerable or disadvantaged and this capacity building should continue to be supported.

Neighbourhood Renewal and Strategic Neighbourhood Action Planning (SNAP) offer a key approach not just to listen to local people but to engage and build up detailed profiles of local needs and aspirations. These initiatives could be drawn together to become more effective.

The idea of One Stop Shops can be expanded. Models such as the new Health and Wellbeing Centres which link health and social services with library and leisure services could be enhanced to embrace housing, educational support, welfare rights advice, access to specialist services and so forth. In the future, planning any new public facility could consider multiple users rather than sectoral interests e.g. schools could also incorporate community access to leisure services and health services.

A radical shift in how services are developed and delivered as part of a truly integrated process could be expanded so that:

Achieving these aspirations will also require a re-think on how Government departments operate and coordinate with each other as well as a requirement on all agencies to link their working practices and processes with each other.

Although confidence in Belfast is growing and there is an increase in small and medium sized businesses, the economic underpinning that is required to tackle disadvantage is still a long way from being in place.

Although there may be an improving economic climate in the city it is not impacting on those who are suffering the greatest disadvantage. The key to tackling economic change may be a combination of aspiration and education so that citizens can take advantage of the opportunities available in the future.

There is a need to develop coordinated approaches for communities and, in particular, families experiencing difficulty. For example, some people face multiple problems such as lack of education and life skills, low self esteem, disjointed personal relationships, lack of opportunity, lack of information and have been affected by the long-term impact of the ‘troubles’. Comprehensive, locally based holistic strategies taking all of these issues into account offer a more effective means of support.

Possible Priorities for Next Phase HAZ Work

A number of priorities are currently under consideration which will build on existing work and will include:

Children and Young People

1. Use schools and communities as settings for development of new services and approaches together with the community and other partners.

2. Strengthen the development of integrated services for children and young people with the lessons examined for relevance to other issues.

Communities and Neighbourhoods

1. Develop an integrated approach to meeting the needs of ethnic minority groups including Travellers.

2. Expand and develop Neighbourhood approaches to local planning and development working closely with local communities.

3. Develop new approaches to families or communities at particular risk, building on the integrated services for children and young people initiative.

4. Seek to build community relations by working with communities and partner organisations to advance joint understanding and practice at local level.

Thematic Approaches

1. Adopt a coordinated approach to thematic areas of work such as mental health (including suicide prevention), sexual health and wellbeing, and drugs and alcohol.

2. Support efforts to develop a coordinated approach to community safety and fear of crime.

Employment & Employability

1. Enhance opportunities for public service providers to address employability through increased access to employment schemes.

There is now a comprehensive consultation process underway to engage in debate about the final shape of any future priorities for the HAZ.

A way forward

We believe that there has never been a more appropriate time to address the challenge of inequality in Belfast - including the challenge of poverty. Reform of the public sector and local government, together with new local political governance, presents an unparalleled opportunity when all of the key players, embarking on a change process, can embrace a radical new approach. Leadership will be central at such an exciting time.

Belfast is a great city - it can be an even better place to live. It has marvellous natural resources of which the greatest is its people. HAZ has had nine years of experience of practice in this endeavour. Some of this has been successful, but a great deal is still to be done. Child poverty, like inequality is a complex issue with multiple contributing factors. The answer lies in a holistic, joined up approach with agreed targets across Government monitoring to chart progress over time, a clear accountability mechanism, and integrated delivery of programmes on the ground.

23 November 2007

Health Action Zone Council Members

Belfast City Council

Mr Richard Black OBE

Independent Chairperson

Belfast City Council

Ms Marie Therese McGivern

Director of Development

Belfast City Council

Ms Suzanne Wylie

Head of Environmental Health

Belfast Education & Library Board

Mr David Cargo

Chief Executive

Belfast Health & Social Care Trust

Mr William McKee CBE

Chief Executive

Belfast Metropolitan College

Ms Joanne Jones

Principal Lecturer

Belfast Metropolitan College

Mr Brian Turtle

Director

Belfast Regeneration Office

Ms Elaine Wilkinson

Director

Business in the Community

Mr John McGregor

Director

Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

Mr Jim Clarke

Deputy Chief Executive

Department for Employment and Learning

Ms Harriet Ferguson

Regional Manager, Belfast Area

Department for Social Development

Mr Declan McGeown

Director, North Belfast Community Action Unit

East Belfast Partnership

Ms Maggie Andrews

Partnership Manager

EHSSB/ Health & Social Care Authority

Ms Anne Lynch

Director of Planning

Greater Shankill Partnership

Mr Jackie Redpath

Chief Executive

North Belfast Partnership Board

Mr Murdo Murray

Chief Executive

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Ms Mary McDonnell

Housing & Health Coordinator

Probation Board for Northern Ireland

Mr Andrew Rooke

Assistant Chief Officer

Queen’s University, Belfast

Dr Mike Morrissey

Researcher

Social Security Agency

Mr Mervyn Adair

Director of Operations

South Belfast Partnership Board

Ms Anne McAleese

Chief Executive

University of Ulster

Vacant

Vacant

West Belfast Partnership Board

Mr Noel Rooney

Chief Executive

Written Submission by:
Belfast Health and Social Care Trust

Children’s Social Services

Relative poverty is associated with lack of choice and opportunity. Children in households which experience persistent or intermittent episodes of relative poverty face substantial barriers to a realisation of their potential in both social and economic terms.

This is particularly evidenced in the fields of education and health. As a consequence of their material disadvantage, children face major potential. All the key educational indicators evidence the link between relative poverty and poor outcomes.

As a result, an intergenerational disinvestment in the value of education is woven into the value-base of individual families and given expression in a cultural marginalizing of educational achievement across communities.

While Children from poor families do achieve educationally, their numbers relative to more affluent sectors of the population are significantly small.

Education in this context incorporates both academic and non-academic attainments. The hierarchical infrastructure underpinning selection has critically impacted upon the status of vocational education. Children from poor families are doubly disadvantaged. Their potential is not realised within an educational framework which promotes academic excellence and undervalues vocational skills.

As society becomes increasingly individualised and success calibrated in terms of material measures, the cycle of advantage and status is reinforced.

For poor children ambition is subsidiary to need. Children internalise the importance of pragmatism and shape their horizons within parameters which are constrained by the imperatives of little money. Within communities in which the relatively poor merge with more affluent neighbours and in which corporate values and experiences are no longer shared, poor children experience the realities of difference and attendant detachment.

The sense of failure experienced by cohorts of children in relative poverty merges with disengagement and marginalisation for those without sufficient resilience or whose individual family circumstances compound a predisposing vulnerability.

In those communities which are universally disadvantaged their perception of exclusion is confirmed in structural deprivation which contributes to immobilising apathy, fatalism and powerlessness.

The links between dysfunctional parenting and relative poverty are complex and not transparent. While relative poverty compounds individual disadvantage and undermines coping resources and resilience, there is no absolute connectivity.

Relatively poor parents are neither dysfunctional nor inadequate. They have ambition and hopes for their children but are unable to provide financial supports or to access the informal social and employment networks which provide mediating pathways and opportunities for more affluent families.

Poor children are neither deviant nor failing. Their circumstances in many instances inhibit their potential and ambition.

Relative poverty erodes choice, inhibits capacity for innovation and initiative undermines resilience and compromises personal responsibility and accountability.

Services to support those in relative poverty need to promote user involvement, resilience, esteem self-worth, personal responsibility, empowerment and choice. They should be targeted while non-stigmatising, encouraging education and training and maximising community and informal networks.

Maternity Services

The Royal Jubilee (RJMS) and Mater Maternity Services are part of the Belfast HSC Trust. The RJMS provides tertiary referral obstetric, gynaecology and neonatal services for the population of Northern Ireland and, with the Mater Maternity Unit, a full range of services for the local population of Belfast including a fully integrated maternity service. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this consultation process.

For the majority of women in Northern Ireland pregnancy and childbirth are normal life events. The impact of poverty however on women during their pregnancy is well documented with the associated detrimental impact on outcomes for both the mother and baby. The incidence of teenage pregnancy is higher in this group. Women living in disadvantaged or minority groups are less likely to access maternity services early, or maintain contact throughout their pregnancies and subsequently this impacts on the ability of the service to respond to their needs. This may be further complicated by the raising numbers of families moving to Northern Ireland from other countries e.g. Eastern Europeans, with a limited command of the English language and a poor knowledge of how to access services.

The health of the mother herself may have been adversely affected during her own life, from conception through to adulthood. Poor housing, poor diet, increased incidence of smoking, drugs and alcohol abuse all contribute to increase in premature labour, and higher than average perinatal and infant mortality rates. Increasing numbers of women accessing services are known to social services. Domestic violence and disruptive relationships are also linked to the spiral of poverty. Mental health problems are often manifested during pregnancy or following birth.

The levels of breastfeeding among women from socially disadvantaged groups are lower. The outcomes for their own and their children’s health are worse than for the population as a whole.

Midwives, doctors and other professionals working in maternity services have to consider and plan for the effects these problems may have on the woman’s ability to care for her baby. A Multidisciplinary team approach, during the antenatal and postnatal periods is essential to provide basic care and support for the mother and family. Accurate and prompt communication is a key factor in the provision of maternity services with emphasis on the needs of the vulnerable and disadvantaged women with a clearly documented care plan, which should be developed with the woman.

Several of the maternity units in Northern Ireland have established Maternity Services Liaison Committees (MSLCs) where service commissioners, providers and users work together to plan a comprehensive range of services that will meet the needs of women in their area. These partnerships include other organisations and voluntary groups including for example, Sure Start, Women’s Aid, Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM), Tiny Life, National Childbirth Trust, the Stillbirth & Neonatal Death Society (SANDS), the Twins and Multiple Birth Association (TAMBA), the Miscarriage Association, the Association for the Improvement in Maternity Services (AIMS) and others. It is only through ensuring there is real multi agency working that the risks can be mitigated.

Children with Disability

The Bamford Review clearly highlights and illustrates the correlation between social deprivation and the prevalence of mental health difficulties. People with mental health problems consistently identify personal finances as a major source of difficulty and distress. Amongst the issues highlighted are the impact of poverty and social exclusion on mental health and well being and the ways in which stigma, discrimination and the impairments experienced by people including children and young people with mental health problems impact on access to and management of personal finances.

The Review also highlights that those living on incomes below the average wage are twice as likely to develop mental illness as those on average or higher incomes. Surveys of adults and children with mental health problems confirm that the majority of individuals live in households with low incomes.

As Northern Ireland has a higher level of socio economic deprivation there is evidence which the Trust’s experience would confirm that the prevalence of mental health problems and disorders in children and young people is greater than in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is also clear evidence that children with a physical disability are at a significantly higher risk of developing mental health problems.

The experience of professional staff working within the Trust providing Mental Health and Disability Services to children and adolescents also endorses the evidence that such problems and disorders are clearly linked to deprivation and poverty. Such children are often exposed to a wide range of problems associated with social and educational disadvantage and experience would suggest that Looked After Children and abused children are particularly vulnerable. This is borne out by caseloads within Child & Adolescent Mental Health and Disability Services.

It is also evident that young people requiring Mental Health or Disability Services can experience varying degrees of social exclusion and often do not enjoy the same opportunities as others in relation to services such as education, training, employment and resources. This, from our experience, can perpetuate the cycle of deprivation and poverty and its consequences.

Child Health

In relation to child health it is essential we raise awareness of child poverty amongst professionals and ensure they have adequate skills to recognise signs of poverty and to signpost families to assistance. This would span all areas of acute and community child health and all professionals therein. We have an opportunity to highlight concerns about families within our daily business to ensure children reach their development potential unhindered by poverty.

We don’t only look at the health issues but the holistic issues of child development within a social context, and this is all our responsibility not social services alone .Our service group in the Belfast Trust will promote this as a core principle.

15 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Children in Northern Ireland

1. Summary
2. Introduction

2a. Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI) is the regional umbrella body for the children’s sector in Northern Ireland. CiNI represents the interests of its 114 member organisations, providing policy, information, training and participation support services to members in their direct work with and for children and young people. CiNI has recently opened up its membership to colleagues in the children’s statutory sector recognising that the best outcomes for children are increasingly achieved working in partnership with all those who are committed to improving the lives of children and young people in Northern Ireland. CiNI is a member of the Child Poverty Coalition lead by Save the Children which has recently formed to campaign for an end to child poverty in NI.

2b. CiNI welcomes this opportunity to submit written evidence to the Committee on its Inquiry into Child Poverty. We would be happy to follow up with oral evidence to the Committee. We would also be keen to facilitate and support relevant members in delivering oral evidence to the Committee.

3. General Comments
Draft Programme for Government and Draft Budget 08-11

3a. CiNI welcomes the Executive’s commitment to take action to tackle child poverty. While we note the targets set - to work towards the elimination of severe child poverty by 2012 and to work towards the elimination of poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020, including lifting 67,000 children out of poverty by 2010 - it is extremely concerning that these challenging targets are not backed by a commitment of significant resources and indeed actions and activities which can begin the process of tackling child poverty.

3b. In fact recent research evidence demonstrates quite starkly the significant level of under investment in local children and young people when compared to children and young people in neighbouring jurisdictions. The NICCY Research on Public Expenditure on Children and Young People[2] (2007) highlighted significant disparity in spend on children’s personal social services. The expenditure per child in Northern Ireland on personal social services in Northern Ireland is £287. In Scotland it is £513; in Wales £429.10; and in England it is £402.

3c. CiNI would strongly advocate that the Executive give due regard to the findings of the NICCY research when making its final budget decisions. We would welcome a formal response from the Executive on the weighting it has attributed to the research findings when making its final budget decisions. Specifically we would urge the DHSSPS to explicitly demonstrate in its final budget outcome the steps which it is taking to address the level of underspend on children’s personal social services in NI.

3d. We understand that negotiations are currently ongoing within departments on how overall budget allocations will be distributed over competing spending areas. However we are concerned that with only a short number of months left in their current funding cycle (March 2008) many vital early intervention and prevention services for children and families have not received any confirmation or reassurance that further funding will be forthcoming post March 2008. Those services funded via the Executive Programme Children’s Fund, and the Children and Young People’s Priority Funding Package and indeed those seeking funding under the recently announced Supporting Families Package, appear to be quite vulnerable when set against acute hospital budgets and the salary inescapables within health and social services. We believe the Executive’s commitment to tackling child poverty would be fundamentally undermined should any of these services disappear post March 2008. In fact if these services were to disappear already vulnerable families would be pushed further into poverty and left disillusioned and disenchanted by the promises made by their own local politicians. The disappearance of services would also result in the haemorrhaging of knowledge, skills and expertise from the children’s sector. CiNI would urge the Committee, in leading on this inquiry into child poverty, to act now to protect, maintain and indeed further development existing early intervention and prevention initiatives which are already showing positive indications of their contribution to tackling child poverty in NI.

3e. In light of the Executive’s commitment to ending child poverty and given that child poverty is a significant cross-cutting issue which will require all government departments to work together, CiNI believes that the Committee should urge the Junior Ministers, who have responsibility for children and young people’s issues, to lobby their Executive colleagues to set up a cross cutting ring-fenced package that would allow for the development and piloting of creative, innovative evidence based approaches to tackling child poverty. Successful approaches should then be mainstreamed across departmental baseline budgets to ensure that they will be sustained in the long-term across the lifespan of the 10 Year Strategy.

4. Terms of Reference

4a. In our written evidence CiNI does wish to reflect on the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty and also consider the approach taken to engaging with stakeholders, however in the main we have considered the further actions that could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration.

Child Poverty in NI

4b. CiNI would highlight the recent figures from the Households Below Average Income report 2005-6 (After Housing Costs) which indicate that 29% or 122,000 children live in poverty in NI. CiNI would also highlight Save the Children’s analysis of severe child poverty which used a mixed measure and Family Resources Survey data 2004-5 and revealed that 10% of children in NI or 44,000 children live in severe poverty.

5. Engagement with Key Stakeholders

5a. CiNI notes and agrees that the largest gap in information about child poverty is the voice of children themselves[3]. We would strongly advocate for the real and meaningful engagement of children and young people who are experiencing or have had experiences of poverty in the ongoing development, implementation, monitoring and review of strategic policy to tackle child poverty in NI. We would highlight that this is required in line with the Government’s obligations under Article 12 of the UNCRC and section 75 of the NI Act 1998.

5b. CiNI would specifically advocate that the OFMDFM Anti-Poverty Unit pro-actively engage with the OFMDFM funded Participation Network[4]. The Participation Network provides a free service to statutory agencies, local government and government departments providing training and consultancy, sign-posting and resources to support these agencies in developing their capacity to involve children and young people, including children and young people experiencing poverty, in the development of policies and services that affect them. We would highlight that the Participation Network is a vital resource in supporting and enabling Government and its agencies to effectively engage with children and young people experiencing poverty when taking forward work to advance the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategic approach to tackling child poverty.

5c. CiNI would also highlight the DE’s ongoing work to establish a NI Network for Youth. The Network, and indeed all participative structures for children and young people from local level to regional level, must be open to and inclusive of the voices of marginalised children and young people, including children and young people living in poverty.

6. Further Action on Child Poverty
High Level Strategic Action on Child Poverty

6a. CiNI would strongly advocate that the OFMDFM Junior Ministers with responsibility for children’s issues must actively ‘champion’ the government commitment to end child poverty. There is a real need for a high profile public awareness raising and education campaign to highlight the reality of child poverty in NI. This campaign must demonstrate the impact of poverty on all aspects of a child’s life at home, at school and in the community, and the impact it has on a child’s enjoyment of their rights as set forth in the UN Convention on the Rights.

6b. The Ministerial Sub-Committee for Children should be re-convened as expediently as possible and bring together all of the Executive Ministers, including the NIO Minister responsible for policing and youth justice issues, as well as immigration issues, to consider and agree on the cross-government action that is needed to meet the targets set in the draft Programme for Government.

6c. Furthermore we would advocate that the entire Executive and Assembly must give renewed impetus to implementation of 10 Year Children and Young People’s Strategy. Its implementation structures must include representation from those working with and for children, young people and families experiencing poverty. The annual Strategy Action Plan must be revised and updated in consultation with stakeholders including children and young people living in poverty.

6d. CiNI also notes that the NI government has contributed to the GB and NI consolidated 3rd and 4th periodic report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the extent to which it has implemented the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In its most recent Concluding Observations delivered 2002, the UN Committee, while welcoming the government commitment to end child poverty, also noted the lack of an effective and coordinated poverty eradication strategy and recommended that the government undertake all necessary measures to the “maximum extent of available resources” to accelerate the elimination of child poverty[5]. Clearly the UN Committee will question the Government on the extent to which it has implemented this recommendation and will wish to know how effective Lifetime Opportunities, the NI Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy, has been to date and indeed what resources, action and activities have been targeted toward tackling child poverty. CiNI would strongly advocate that the Executive and Assembly give due regard to the reporting process and the UN Committee’s current and future Concluding Observations, and make a formal commitment to action the Concluding Observations, using them to inform the development of child-rights centred policies and programmes to tackle child poverty which can be jointly delivered, monitored and reviewed by all government departments.

6e. CiNI would advocate that a comprehensive strategic approach to tackling child poverty must ensure that children, young people and their families who are experiencing poverty get the additional support they need to access mainstream universal services. It must also include targeted action directed toward groups of children whose experience of marginalisation makes them particularly vulnerable to experiencing poverty.

Action on Child Care

6f. CiNI with the Women’s Support Network chairs the Early Years Strategic Alliance, a group of organisations from across the child care and women’s sectors, that have come together to promote and raise awareness around key issues of concern for children in their early years and their families. The Alliance has produced an Early Years Manifesto of key messages which it has presented to the DE to inform its development of a child rights centred Early Years Strategy. CiNI believes that if pro-actively responded to and integrated within the new Early Years Strategy these messages would make a significant contribution to an early intervention and preventative approach to tackling child poverty. A copy of the manifesto is attached with this submission of written evidence.

6g. CiNI would highlight in particular the link between child poverty levels and the absence of accessible, high quality, affordable and age appropriate childcare to meet demand across NI, preventing parents accessing and taking up education, training and employment opportunities. DHSSPS (2005) data reveals that the number of registered childminder and day care places in NI equates to 1 place for every 6.4 children under 4. All of the Assembly Committees should use their influence to ensure that a single department takes responsibility for all aspects of childcare, joining together the current responsibilities which fall across DHSSPS, DENI and DEL and also noting DARD’s development of a rural Child Care Strategy. As part of this strategic approach a regional childcare information system must be developed and implemented to ensure that parents are able to access child care that best meets the needs of their child in a timely and appropriate manner. Action is required to address the shortage of registered childminders[6] and this should be addressed through establishing a Childminder Start-Up Package, putting in place mandatory pre-registration training for prospective childminders and addressing the registration issues that are hindering the development of childminding. Equally the Executive and Assembly must support those parents, mostly mothers, who choose to stay at home to care for their children in their early years by enabling them to access appropriate home based and group based support services. Furthermore the strategy must address the absence of an appropriately resourced strategic direction for school age childcare which recognises and provides for the vital role played by voluntary school age childcare initiatives.

Action on Disability

6h. CiNI with Disability Action NI jointly chairs the Children with Disabilities Strategic Alliance. CiNI would highlight that where a family has a member with a disability the risk of poverty is higher[7]. Yet children with disabilities have failed to receive the priority focus which has been given to children with disabilities in England. The CSR process in England was informed by a Children and Young People’s policy review and an element of this included a review of disabled children’s services. Subsequently there was a very successful outcome from the CSR process with £340m ring-fenced for disabled children’s services. Under the Barnett Formula NI should receive a consequential of £11.4m for disabled children’s services. The Executive and Assembly must ensure that this money is ring-fenced for disabled children’s services when it enters the NI block. In order to determine how this money could be most effectively spent the Assembly must carry out an inquiry into disabled children’s services to determine the extent of the current gaps in provision and to ensure that monies are directed to address levels of unmet need. We know from those delivering services on the ground that there are significant gaps relating to transition services, respite and short break provision, early intervention and family support.

7. Conclusion

Finally CiNI welcomes this opportunity to provide written evidence to the Committee to inform its inquiry into Child Poverty. We look forward to engaging further with the Committee as it takes forward the inquiry process. We trust that this written evidence will be useful in informing the Committee particularly as it makes it representations to the Executive on the draft Programme for Government and Draft Budget.

16 November 2007

[1] NICCY (2007) Public Expenditure on Children and Young People in NI

[2] NICCY (2007) Public Expenditure on Children and Young People in NI

[3] Save the Children (2007) Annual Child Poverty Report 2007 p.17

[4] The Participation Network www.ci-ni.org/theparticipationnetwork

[5] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002) Concluding Observations CRC/C/15/Add. 188

[6] Between 2001 and 2006 there was over 15% of a decrease in the numbers of registered childminders

[7] SC (2007) Annual Child Poverty Report Almost a third (32%) of children living in households with a disabled adult are experiencing poverty. A similar proportion (30%) of children living in households with a disabled child are experiencing poverty

Written Submission by:
Children’s Law Centre

1. The Children’s Law Centre

1.1 The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable organisation established in September 1997 which works towards a society where all children can participate, are valued, have their rights respected and guaranteed without discrimination and every child can achieve their full potential.

1.2 We offer training and research on children’s rights, we make submissions on law, policy and practice affecting children and young people and we run an advice/ information/ representation service. We have a dedicated free phone advice line for children and young people and their parents called CHALKY and a youth advisory group called Youth@clc. Within our legal, advice and representation services we deal with a range of issues in relation to looked after children and the care system generally. We also produce a series of leaflets, written in conjunction with children and young people in youth@clc, for children and young people detailing children’s rights and the law in a number of areas, one of which is with regard to looked after children.

1.3 Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular:

1.4 From its perspective as an organisation, which works with and on behalf of some of our most vulnerable and socially excluded children and young people, both directly and indirectly, the Children’s Law Centre is grateful for the opportunity to make this submission to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the Inquiry into Child Poverty.

2. The Extent, Intensity and Impact of Child Poverty in Northern Ireland

2.1 25.2% of the population in Northern Ireland is in the 0-17 year age bracket; the proportion of children in the equivalent age group across the four jurisdictions is 21.9%.[1]

2.2 44,000 (10%) of children in NI are living in severe poverty.[2]

2.3 29% or 122,000 children in NI are living in poverty.[3] In addition, once rates and water charges are introduced, it is likely that the levels of poverty will rise considerably.

2.4 Save the Children’s report “Britain’s Poorest Children” (2005) found that, despite hundreds of thousands of children being lifted out of poverty in GB over recent years, there was little change in the number of children experiencing severe child poverty.[4]

2.5 Traveller children under 10 years experience death rates ten times higher than other children in Northern Ireland.[5]

2.6 Infant mortality rates for children in deprived electoral wards is 23% higher than the Northern Ireland average.[6]

2.7 In 2005-06 nearly 7000 families with dependent children presented as homeless – this figure has increased 50% over the past ten years.[7]

2.8 In 2004-05 12% of children entitled to free school meals achieved no qualifications, compared to an average of 4.9%.[8]

2.9 In a recent UK-wide poll on child poverty one of the questions asked was ‘Do you think that ending child poverty should be a high priority or a low priority?’ Across the UK 70% of people said that it should be a high priority. In Northern Ireland, 92% said that child poverty should be a high priority for government[9].

2.10 The poll also showed a much higher level of debt in Northern Ireland connected to the high cost of bills during winter, with 63% expecting to go into debt (or further into debt) as opposed to a UK average of 28%.

2.11 Children born to poorer families in the north of Ireland are more likely to be smaller and to die at a higher rate than those born to better off families[10].

2.12 Children living in poverty are 15 times more likely to die as the result of a house fire, five times more likely to die in accidents and four times more likely to die before the age of 20.[11]

2.13 Suicide rates among 15-24 year olds are almost three times higher in the lowest income groups than in the other groups combined.[12]

2.14 In the north of Ireland, the fifth of the population who are most well off have a life expectancy among the best in Europe. For the poorest fifth it is closer to that in Eastern European countries.[13]

2.15 It has been estimated that about 2,000 lives could be saved each year in the north of Ireland if those living in the Council areas with the highest death rates (the poorest areas) enjoyed the same level of health as those living in the Council areas with the lowest death rates (the best-off areas)[14]

2.16 Young people aged 16 and 17 have no automatic right to social security benefits and also receive a lower level of income support and jobseekers allowance than adults over 25, regardless of the fact that they may be living independently.

2.17 Many young people in NI are in part-time employment as a result of economic necessity. Young people under 16 have no right to the minimum wage and those aged between 16 and 18 receive a lower rate of the minimum wage even though they may be living independently, working full-time and doing the same job as their older colleagues.

2.18 The Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NIMCA) has noted that “the right of families to have access to affordable, quality childcare is fundamental to Northern Ireland’s future economic prosperity, to tackling child poverty, and to achieving the best possible outcomes for all children”[15], yet a major issue currently exists in Northern Ireland in relation to access to quality, affordable and age appropriate childcare to meet demand. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has found evidence that affordability and availability were the main problems in relation to childcare for working parents.[16] A review of, Children First, the Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy published in 1999 found that, over the five years of the strategy, the number of childcare places increased by only 5.7%.

2.19 Despite the existence of working family tax credits,[17] many families living in poverty cannot afford childcare for their children. In 2002-2003 almost one in four children (23%) in severe poverty did not have access to an after schools’ club, compared to one in ten (10%) of all children.[18]

2.20 Poverty in Northern Ireland is considerably more concentrated than in Britain. 25 out of 566 wards (4.4%) have concentrations of child poverty in excess of 75% compared to 180 out of 10,000 wards in Britain (1.8%) with child poverty rates of 50% to 70%.[19] In the Derry City Council area two thirds of the 30 wards have child poverty rates in excess of 50% and only three have rates less than 25%.[20]

2.21 Benefit levels are too low to enable a family to rise above poverty. For example, a couple with four children dependent entirely on benefits, and claiming all of the benefits they are entitled to, survive on a weekly income of £289, which is £128 below the government’s own poverty threshold.[21]

2.22 There is a clear link between low pay and child poverty. 41% of children living in poverty are living in couple families with at least one adult in work and 6% in lone parent families with work.[22] Income levels in Northern Ireland are also lower relative to the other three jurisdictions. In 2006 median incomes for all employees in Northern Ireland were £40 per week less than in Scotland, England and Wales and mean incomes were £59 lower. This income deprivation is compounded by the higher costs of living in Northern Ireland relative to the other three jurisdictions; these costs include food, fuel, transport as well as essential goods and services such as childcare, insurance and banking.

2.23 The Young Life and Times Survey in 2006 explored the experiences and views of children and young people living in poverty. 27% of ‘not well off’ children and young people said that they were not satisfied with what they had achieved at school; those who self-described as not well off were 50% more likely to say they were bullied; many expressed concerns at the degraded state of their environment, hardly surprising given that poor children are more likely to live in areas blighted by social problems such as vandalism, drug dealing and crime generally.[23]

2.24 Research has found that severely poor children in Northern Ireland are more likely than non-poor children to be living in accommodation that has mould, damp walls and floors and rot in window frames and floors.[24]

3. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

3.1 There has been minimal involvement of children and young people experiencing poverty in developing the Strategy. OFMDFM need to address this in line with their statutory obligation under section 75 to directly consult with those who will be impacted upon by the Strategy and also in line with its obligations under Article 12 of the UNCRC which places an obligation on Government to ensure that all children have an opportunity to have their say on all matters affecting them and to have their views taken into account. Children and young people must be meaningfully involved and directly consulted with in all stages of the development of the Action Plan, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Strategy.

3.2 It is clear that addressing child poverty involves the adoption of a cross-sectoral approach which focuses on tackling every aspect of child poverty. There must be a much greater emphasis on strong co-ordination across Government Departments to ensure a ‘joined up’ approach to tackling child poverty.

4. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

4.1 Lifetime Opportunities needs to be properly resourced and adequate ring-fenced funding, which is not allocated through a skewing of resources, must be secured through Cross-Departmental budget allocations. While Lifetime Opportunities prioritises child poverty within the Strategy we do not believe that, as it stands, the Strategy will deliver for children in poverty – there needs to be a development of policies and programmes that will tackle the root causes and impacts of child poverty and a comprehensive Action Plan needs to be developed to deliver on these targets. The Action Plan must be driven by an effective Ministerial-led Poverty Forum and strong political leadership and it must be consulted on openly and transparently. Outcome focused indicators should also be developed to monitor the impact of the Strategy on those children and young people living in poverty. Both the Action Plan and the Strategy should be monitored regularly to ensure that they reflect the main issues affecting children living in poverty in Northern Ireland and that they are sufficiently specific, prioritising children in poverty and comprehensively addressing child poverty.

5. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets

5.1 As yet it is unclear how Lifetime Opportunities will be resourced, targets to eradicate child poverty have not been agreed and an Action Plan to deliver the Strategy has not been developed. At this stage we do not believe that the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate but we are hopeful that the development and adoption of adequate implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements will be one of the outcomes of this Inquiry. The Children’s Law Centre is happy to work with Government to develop adequate structures for delivery.

6. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

6.1 Lifetime Opportunities needs to be properly resourced with the commitment of adequate ring-fenced funding, secured through Cross-Departmental budget allocations rather than through a skewing of resources. The UNCRC Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures to the maximum extent of available resources to accelerate the elimination of child poverty.[25]

6.2 An effective Ministerial-led Poverty Forum with strong political leadership should be set up immediately to develop the Action Plan, implement the Strategy and secure cross-sectoral support for a comprehensive set of actions to eradicate child poverty.

6.3 A cross-sectoral shared action plan must be developed and consulted on openly and transparently as a matter of urgency to tackle child poverty. Targets must be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound) and must address the root causes of child poverty. The action plan must have commitment and support at the highest level of Government and sufficiently senior child poverty champions should be appointed across Government to work with partners on child poverty cross-sectorally and to take the Strategy and associated actions forward.

6.4 The devolved administration should introduce of a duty to poverty proof or poverty impact assess all policies, proposed legislation and budget lines, including high level policies such as the draft budget and investment strategy.

6.5 There needs to be substantially increased investment of additional resources in education in the most impoverished wards in Northern Ireland, for example, better school nutrition, after schools clubs, more pre-school education places, school-based breakfast clubs, school based health services etc. Targets must be established and outcomes closely monitored to ensure improved educational attainment and levels of health among children in our most deprived wards.

6.6 There needs to be a substantial commitment of additional resources to the lowest income and highest deprived wards to ensure that those living in the poorest areas enjoy the same level of healthcare as those living in the best-off areas. Targets must be established and outcomes closely monitored to save the lives of those in the lowest income wards.

6.7 More affordable, good quality social housing is required as a matter of urgency.

6.8 The Government needs to address the growing levels of debt caused by irresponsible lending and take actions such as the regulation of doorstep lenders and interest rates.

6.9 The fact that young people aged 16 and 17 have no automatic right to social security benefits and also receive a lower level of income support and jobseekers allowance than adults over 25 and have no right to the minimum wage under 16 and a lower rate aged 16-18 is clearly a contributing factor to child poverty. We recommend that the Government take account of the UNCRC Committee recommendations in aiming to address the issue of child poverty which states that the Government should review its legislation and policies concerning benefits and social security allowances for 16 to 18 year olds and also reconsider its policies regarding the national minimum wage for young workers in light of the principle of non-discrimination.[26] While these recommendations are outside of the remit of the devolved Government, our local politicians should lobby at Westminster to ensure that the review of these policies takes place to ensure compliance with its international obligations but also to meaningfully address all of the factors of child poverty.

6.10 Inadequate benefit levels must be addressed. Again, while this is outside the remit of the devolved administration, local politicians should again be exerting their influence and lobbying at Westminster for an increase in benefit levels so that those living on benefits are not automatically living in poverty. Benefit levels should also be linked to average earnings to address low income employment.

6.11 The Government needs to spearhead a campaign to change public attitudes towards poverty and remove the stigma associated with living in poverty so that children and young people living in poverty are not further socially excluded through bullying etc.

6.12 Additional targets must be set in the Action Plan for children living in severe poverty and targets which apply to specific groups of children and young people, for example Traveller children and young people[27].

6.13 More affordable, quality childcare must be made available to working parents.

15 November 2007

[1] ONS Mid 2005 Population Survey

[2] Magadi M. and Middleton, S., Measuring severe child poverty in the UK. Save the Children London 2007 forthcoming.

[3] Households Below Average Income report 2005-6 (After Housing Costs)

[4] Northern Ireland was not included in this analysis as, unlike GB, there were not sufficient waves of data available.

[5] DHSSPS Report of Chief Medical Officer 2006 http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/cmoannualreport2006.pdf

[6] DHSSPS Equality and inequalities in health and social care in Northern Ireland DHSSPS Belfast 2004

[7] Data drawn from the Department of Social Development, Northern Ireland Housing Statistics 2005-06, Statistics and Research Branch.

[8] DENI (2005) Northern Ireland School Leavers Survey 2004-05

[9] You Gov Poll for Save the Children, November 2006

[10] O’Reilly and Gaffney referenced in The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) research, “Children’s Rights in Northern Ireland” (2004)

[11] DHSSPS, 2000

[12] GCCNI, 2002

[13] GCCNI, 2002

[14] DHSSPS, 2000

[15] NICMA Briefing Paper – Childminder Start-Up Package. NIMCA June 2007.

[16] Gray, A. and Brugel, I. The supply of and demand for childcare in Northern Ireland. Belfast. Report for the Equality Commission Northern Ireland. 2002.

[17] While working family tax credits provide up to 70% of childcare costs for families living on low incomes many families, particularly lone parents, find it difficult making up the remainder of the costs.

[18] McLaughlin, E. and M.Monteith The Bottom Line. Save the Children Belfast. 2004.

[19] Op cited at note 5

[20] ESRC Seminar Series – mapping the public policy landscape, Poverty and income distribution in Northern Ireland.ESRC/OFMDFM. 2005.

[21] A 2020 vision: Ending child poverty in Northern Ireland. Annual Child Poverty Report 2007. Save the Children. 2007.

[22] Household Below Average Income, DWP. Updated June 2007

[23] Schubotz D., Simpson D and Tennant A “Participation, happiness and achievement: the impact of poverty on the school experiences of 16 year olds” ARK and Save the Children Belfast 2007

[24] Adelman L, Middleton S and Ashworth K “Britain’s Poorest Children” Save the Children and CRSP 2003

[25] Paragraph 46a CRC/C/15/Add.188

[26] Paragraphs 46c and 55 CRC/C/15/Add.188

[27] Irish Traveller families are an extremely marginalised section of the community. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (concluding comments 2002) expressed particular concern that not all children were being protected from discrimination and highlighted the, “…unequal enjoyment of economic, social and cultural, civil and political rights for … Irish Travellers.” The Committee also focused on inequalities in health and access to health services and pointed to the high rates of infant mortality among Traveller children as one indicator of such inequality. In terms of socio-economic rights, the inter-dependence and indivisibility of all rights is hugely apparent. Without basic rights, such as the right to accommodation and flowing from this, the rights to healthcare, social services and a healthy, sustainable environment, children’s rights to participate and have their best interests protected become meaningless. There is clearly a need for the Government to adopt a joined-up, cross-Departmental approach with a substantial commitment of additional resources to tackle the inequalities faced by Traveller children to ensure equality of opportunity for Travellers in all aspects of their lives.

Written Submission by:
Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland

Recommendations
Tax credits

Tax Credits are a method of assisting low income families financially whether they are in employment and/or have children. The system has experienced problems since its introduction in 2003 (see appendix 1) regarding administration and overpayments. Further pressure needs to be placed on HMRC to assist families who are not receiving their correct award or who have been put under financial pressure through overpayments that were raised through official error.

Childcare

Families receiving working tax credit can obtain a childcare disregard applied to their earnings. Certain types of childcare are not recognised by the HMRC if they are not registered by the DHSSPSni. Informal childcare provided by a customer’s relative for example is not recognised. We recommend the committee investigate the possibility of a ‘relatives providing childcare’ scheme which would make it easier for relatives through a tailored registration scheme for relatives. The current process to be a registered childminder can take anything from 3 months to one year and is currently not standardised across Health and social care trusts. Evidence from the Northern Ireland Childminding association suggests that there is a shortage of childminding in Northern Ireland.

Debt

Consumer Debt is a major problem in Northern Ireland for low income families as many people are forced to take out credit and loans as a way of paying utility bills and managing other household expenses. Many CAB clients have been subject to irresponsible lending from creditors and would need assistance in dealing with debt. (see appendix 2) CAB has given evidence to the competition commission and produced a number of reports on the impact of debt. Our message is to reiterate tighter regulations on financial institutions who lend and encourage the financial sector to review its’ practices to provide a better, more transparent service to customers.

Disability Benefits

Appellants who appeal against a decision to disallow Disability Living Allowance are experiencing delays in appeal hearings being listed. In one case a DLA claim was disallowed for a child with Downs Syndrome and the parent appealed in July 2007. Client was informed that she would have to wait a minimum 8-10 months for case to be listed due to delays. This prevents the carer accessing carers allowance and other passports such as the disabled child premium on her tax credits. This leaves the family in extreme financial hardship. We recommend that DLA cases for children should be prioritised as the current backlog is unacceptable.

Housing

Housing and access to housing is an increasing problem with a large number of families on the waiting list for social housing. Coupled with this the increase in house prices has made it extremely difficult to purchase housing and placing higher pressure on income with larger mortgages. In the private rented sector many CAB clients are experiencing difficulties with housing benefit shortfall. This is because most private rented dwellings cost more than the allocated housing benefit and even the discretionary payments. We recommend that a review of housing benefit for the private rented sector would target many vulnerable families who have to pay the shortfall in housing benefit from their income particularly those reliant on means tested benefits.

School expenses

CA carried out an online survey in July 2007 and amongst the findings, 80% of respondents felt that school costs were difficult to meet. Uniform grants are available only for secondary and special education subject to certain criteria. We recommend that the library boards should consider extending these grants to primary schools and adopt a more flexible approach to funding school uniforms. The department should also investigate the possibility of increasing the actual grant which is currently £68 for up to age 15 and £73 for aged 15 and over.

Income Support

Approximately 2,500 Parents who received income support for their children prior to the introduction of child credits in 2003 have still not migrated to the new tax credits system. Of these parents, many with dependents over 16 will be financially penalised as the Educational Maintenance Allowance received by dependents in approved training is treated as the parent’s income and taken into account in full when assessing entitlement to Income Support. These families should be migrated to the new tax credits system where the Educational Maintenance Allowance is totally disregarded as income.

DWP Research

The Department for Work and Pensions commissioned a detailed report on what it would take to reach the 2010 child poverty target and how much more could be achieved through the welfare to work programmes and what contribution various reforms could make. The report examines delivery of particular benefits and work related opportunities. An executive summary is attached which would be of particular interest to the Committee.

Background Information

Citizens Advice is the largest advice charity in Northern Ireland working against poverty, meeting the information and advice needs of some 260,000 people per year. Citizens Advice has formal links to National Citizens Advice in England and Wales and close working relationships with Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). Together the three Associations constitute the biggest advice network in Europe, with 60 years experience of providing advice and information to the public.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) network is very finely tuned to the targeting of social need and, with its regional spread, modern integrated IT infrastructure and skilled staff, represents an efficient and cost effective arena for the delivery of information and advice to the most socially vulnerable people in Northern Ireland.

Access, inclusiveness and principles

Advice is provided on a huge range of issues by trained, specialist advisers across both main communities and to minority groupings, from 30 main offices and from some 120 other outlets within the framework of 4 principles. The advice given is:-

Commitment to Equality

Citizens Advice has been actively involved in the promotion of equality in Northern Ireland for many years and is an active member of the Equality Coalition. Numerous responses on behalf of CAB have been made to a variety of Equality Impact Assessments, Draft Equality Schemes, Screening documents and proposed legislative reform. Citizens Advice strives to ensure that individuals do not suffer through lack of knowledge of their rights and responsibilities or of the services available to them, or through an inability to express their needs effectively and equally. Citizens Advice endeavours to exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services, both locally and nationally for the good of all of society. Citizens Advice has also built up a number of partnerships with other organisations also working towards the promotion of equality of opportunity.

This Citizens Advice submission is based on the experience and evidence gained in from CAB advisers dealing with 264,743 enquiries between April 2006 and March 2007. CAB provided information, advice and advocacy to clients experiencing problems in the following areas:

Citizens Adice Statistics 2006-07

Citizens Adice Statistics 2006-07

Benefit uptake

In 2006 the Social Security Agency (SSA) commissioned a number of benefit take up contracts from the voluntary advice sector. These covered areas such as Pension Credit and Female Pensioners over 80 and were highly successful with a value for money figure of £21 claimed for every £1 of expenditure by the Agency – representing an annual benefit pay out of £6.6m to people in social need.

Citizens Advice has warmly welcomed this change in the Agency’s service delivery which combines intelligent use of the SSA’s own databases with the skills, knowledge and infrastructure that Citizens Advice brings to the table in dealing with socially vulnerable people. The combination makes a significant contribution to the Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Strategy, with a business model which is easy to understand, capable of verification by the Agency and clearly delivering help directly to people who need it.

IN 2007, Citizens Advice was again successful in tendering for benefit take up contracts from the SSA one of which is targeted on Child Poverty, and involves benefit check ups for a target group of 5,000 families with children. The SSA will have verified the outcome of this tender by March 2008, and it will be of particular interest to the committee.

Northern Ireland Statistics

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Committee for Regional Development

1. Further to your letter of 1 November 2007 seeking responses to the Inquiry into Child Poverty, the Committee is pleased to make the following points in response to your request.

2. On the surface it may appear that regional development has little direct relationship to tackling child poverty. However, the Committee is of the view that issues such as road, rail and bus and other modes of public transport infrastructure, together with water reform, can all have positive and negative impacts on the rate and experience of child poverty.

3. A substantial amount of our public transport is road based and access to health and social services, employment, education and training and cultural and sporting activities depends on an adequate, sustainable, safe and effective road network. The absence of such opportunities and services exacerbates poverty and social exclusion.

4. Like roads infrastructure, a good quality, integrated network of bus and rail transport services is key to underpinning economic development, and access to education, employment, leisure and social services. Investment in public transport also brings environmental benefits, in the form of reduced carbon emissions, landscape, air and noise pollution. Failure to adequately resource public transport has an adverse effect on the environment, heightens social exclusion, and may jeopardise the recent and much welcomed positive economic growth.

5. Children, especially those children living in households in poverty, are often dependent on public transport for access to education, training and leisure opportunities. This dependence is underlined in the case of children living in poverty in rural areas across Northern Ireland, and those children living in poverty who have a disability. In such instances, rurality, in terms of scarcity of good quality service, and disability, in terms of accessibility, can serve to reinforce the experience of living in poverty.

6. Finally, the proposals outlined by the Executive in its statement of response to the Independent Water Review Panel’s (IWRP) Strand One Report on the Review of Water and Sewerage Services, make provision for the introduction of domestic charges for water from 2009/10 onwards. These charges would be additional to the current rates bills. At the time of writing the Executive had not commented on the basis for charging, however the IWRP had suggested that charges should be on the same basis as rates, capital values.

7. The Executive has deferred comment on any proposed affordability tariff pending the completion of additional research by the IWRP. This research should be published for discussion and consultation in late December 2007 / early January 2008. However, the Committee had expressed its concerns in relation to the impact such charges will have on the household economy of thousands of households across Northern Ireland who are currently in or near poverty.

8. The Committee would bring the points above to your attention and suggest that the issues of rural child poverty and poverty for those children with disabilities would feature in your Inquiry. The Committee would further suggest that in the course of your Inquiry you might want to seek inputs on water poverty and child poverty from Professor Paddy Hillyard of the IWRP, or contact Advice NI for briefing on their work in relation to the impact of water charging on debt management and household indebtedness.

29 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Committee for Social Development

1. The Committee for Social Development welcomes the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister’s inquiry into child poverty and is grateful for the opportunity to respond. It is clear that there is no single solution to the eradication of child poverty therefore the Committee would wish to comment on a range of issues, some of which fall outside the remit of the Department for Social Development.

Measuring child poverty

2. The Committee understands that the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) Report is the main method of measuring child poverty in Northern Ireland and sets a household income threshold below which a household is considered to be living in poverty. The Committee does not believe that an income only measure gives an accurate account of the levels of child poverty or severe child poverty and would wish to see a mixed measure employed to include relevant deprivation measures. Accurate measurement of child poverty is crucial to tackling the issue effectively and has a particular relevance for accessing funding to help meet the government’s targets of halving child poverty by 2010; eradicating severe child poverty by 2012; and eradicating child poverty by 2020.

3. Research has shown that poverty makes people’s lives shorter and harsher than need be. Poverty is not just about being on a low income and going without – it is also about being deprived of good health, education and housing, basic self-esteem and the ability to participate in social activities, which undoubtedly has a cost to individuals as well as to society as a whole.

Key findings of the Household Below Average Income Report 2005/06

4. The Committee is concerned to note that 29% of all children in Northern Ireland After Housing Costs are living in poverty and finds it disturbing that, in the four years it has been measured in Northern Ireland, the child poverty rate has not decreased.

5. The report also shows that children have a higher risk of being in poverty if they live in a family:

6. Government promotes work as the best way out of poverty. Research has shown that the main cause of poverty is inadequate income, arising primarily from unemployment and inadequate wages and benefits. However, paid work is not, on its own, a guarantee of being free of poverty. Low wages, part-time work and not having two adults in work in a couple household all increase the risk of experiencing poverty.

Affordable and accessible childcare

7. The provision of affordable and accessible childcare is essential to help those bringing up a young family enter or return to work. The Committee expressed some concern in relation to the shortage of registered child-minders in certain areas and the effect this may have on enabling parents to access the childcare component of Working Family Tax Credit (WFTC). Parents in the affected areas often have little choice but to use family members who are not registered and therefore do not qualify for the childcare component of WFTC.

Benefit uptake

8. In the Department for Social Development’s 2007/08 benefit uptake programme, one of the exercises specifically targets child poverty. The Department has written to 5,000 clients targeting both children with a disability and large families in receipt of benefit. This is a test exercise to see what impact social security benefit uptake may have on the child poverty issue and the Committee looks forward to the considering the results of that exercise in June 2008.

9. As part of its benefit uptake programme, the Committee would wish to see the Department for Social Development, in consultation with organisations such as Save the Children, consider alternative methods to try to contact the hard core/hard to reach families living in poverty.

Fuel poverty

10. Lifetime Opportunities, Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy, includes a key target to ensure that, by 2020 every child lives in a decent and safe home which is warm. The Department for Social Development’s Fuel Poverty Strategy aims for the eradication of fuel poverty in vulnerable households by 2010 and in all households by 2016.

11. The Committee believes that the Department’s target is an extremely ambitious one, mainly because Government has limited influence on fuel prices. The Committee would wish to see greater efforts being made by all relevant Departments, and in particular the Department for Social Development, to highlight the inadequacy of the Winter Fuel Allowance and urge the Department for Work and Pensions to assess the level of winter fuel payments on a regular basis so that they do not devalue over time.

Tackling poverty in disadvantaged areas

12. Tackling poverty in disadvantaged areas is delivered through People and Place - A Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Its aim is to improve the quality of the lives and life chances of people living in our poorest communities by tackling inequalities in the core issues such as health, education, employability and skills, crime and community safety.

13. Neighbourhood Partnerships have been established in 36 Neighbourhood Renewal areas to act as vehicles for local planning and implementation of the Strategy. The Committee is currently consulting with all the Partnerships to ascertain how effectively this Strategy is being implemented and will be mindful of the issue of child poverty in its deliberations.

22 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Consumer Council

Objectives of this paper
Contents

1 Introduction to financial capability and inclusion

2 Recommendations to the Committee

3 What do we know about consumers in Northern Ireland?

4 Background on Financial Inclusion

5 Background on Financial Capability

6 The Consumer Council’s role

1 Introduction

The Consumer Council is a statutory body which aims to promote and safeguard the interests of all consumers in Northern Ireland. The Consumer Council’s role is to give consumers a voice and to make sure that this voice is heard by those empowered to take decisions.

The Consumer Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s Child Poverty Inquiry. We support the inquiry having a specific Child Poverty focus but believe that it must not be looked at in isolation but rather within the context of the Programme for Government and the emerging Anti Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy.

This is a challenging agenda but believe that the Northern Ireland Assembly (the Assembly) is not starting from scratch. There is a lot of work already underway with baselines and evidence established and so it is important that this work is built upon and taken forward with partners from the public, private and community sector. Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this paper contain examples of existing work.

The Consumer Council supports having a target to reduce Child Poverty but believe that it will require widespread attention and resourcing across Government departments if it is to be delivered. It will also require the Assembly to review all policies and strategies to ensure they are fully supporting rather than working against this priority.

The Consumer Council advocates a preventative approach delivered through maximising incomes, influencing policy and market changes and developing skills and awareness through education. It is important to take a multifaceted approach; looking at children in a range of contexts including in school, the home, community and wider society.

The Consumer Council has a particular interest in addressing financial inclusion and capability as a priority for addressing Child Poverty. We believe that these two issues must be retained, enhanced and fully embedded within the new emerging Anti Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy.

Our recent Corporate Planning consultation exercise shows that financial inclusion, capability and risks are huge issues for consumers, young and old, children and parents. Mounting debt and the rise in the cost of living are leaving many people struggling to make ends meet. Lack of financial know-how needs to be addressed from cradle to grave and there is an urgent need to get money matters on the Assembly agenda.

If we are to tackle Child Poverty, It is vital that cross cutting strategies are in place to ensure that we maximise household income, encourage uptake of benefits, increase access to financial services and develop the skills and confidence to manage our money.

2 The Consumer Council’s recommendations

We believe that tackling Child Poverty as part of the financial inclusion and capability agenda will be challenging. It will be important to build upon existing work and networks and embed these within the strategies to bring about change and harness energies and commitment to reduce Child Poverty. Here are the Consumer Council’s recommendations:

Emerging Anti Poverty Strategy
Financial Capability
Financial Inclusion
Building an Evidence Base
Strategy and policies
3 What do we know about consumers in Northern Ireland?

There is only limited data available about how consumers in Northern Ireland fare in terms of income, savings and debt. If we are to tackle Child Poverty, we need to think holistically about Child Poverty as these statistics show. A summary of what we do know is below.

Gaps in society

Maximising income
Managing money
Getting the right products
Taking risks
4 Background to Financial inclusion

Financial inclusion covers a broad range of concepts. Individuals or households can be excluded financially for many reasons including: lack of consumer knowledge; confidence; skills; enough money to buy products or access advice; or physical access. Financially excluded consumers often find themselves more affected by increases in interest rates, increases in the total household bills, additional bills and charges and changes to Government Policy.

Lack of knowledge means that consumers may not know about financial products such as current accounts or the types of savings product they need. They may also lack confidence to seek advice or help when needed.

Individuals or households on a low income may not have the money to buy essential financial products such as household insurance or to set aside even small amounts for savings or pension provision. They may not be able to afford to buy advice from an independent financial adviser.

Physical exclusion can mean that consumers are not able to get to financial institutions such as banks, credit unions or Post Offices due to a disability, lack of adequate transport or they have no actual facilities in their local area.

Greater account must be taken of the needs of those who find themselves financially excluded including people with physical or visual impairment, migrant workers, older consumers, lone parents, those on a low income and consumers with low levels of financial capability.

Financial inclusion is not just about who you are or where you live but also how you pay for goods and services. We believe consumers need a choice of payment methods that are straightforward, efficient, cost effective and secure. They need clear information on their payment choices and the true costs and level of security of those options.

Developments in Great Britain

The UK Government set out its strategy to tackle financial exclusion in Promoting Financial Inclusion, published alongside the 2004 Pre-Budget Report. The report sets out a range of measures – in three priority areas – access to banking, access to affordable credit and access to free face-to-face money advice.

Funding in Great Britain

The UK Government also established a framework for delivery – including a Financial Inclusion Fund of £120 million over three years and a Financial Inclusion Taskforce, chaired by Brian Pomeroy, to oversee progress. The Financial Inclusion Taskforce was formally launched on 21 February 2005 but does not cover Northern Ireland as Financial Exclusion is a devolved matter.

5 Background on Financial Capability

It is vital that consumers know how to make the most of their money through budgeting, choosing appropriate financial products including insurance, credit, pensions and savings and accessing all the benefits to which they are entitled. We believe that having the skills to manage your money, plan ahead and make sound financial decisions will make a difference to individuals, the community and the economy.

The Consumer Council recent research report, Managing Money – How Does Northern Ireland Add Up?[20], revealed that consumers here are bottom of the UK league when it comes to having financial savvy.

Introducing children and young people to money matters is a vital part of improving well being and preventing financial and social inclusion. Instilling confidence and skills at an early age means that as they grow up and have money of their own, they can make confident and responsible choices about their finances. Being able to choose things like bank accounts and being able to budget and save are skills we should have from our earliest school days and throughout our lives.

Schools

From September 2007 children will learn about money management at school because Personal Finance Education has been added to the Mathematics and Numeracy curriculum.

To help establish financial capability into a whole school approach, two new posts have been created in the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to work with both primary and post primary schools.

One of the UK Government’s long-term aspirations is that all children and young people should have access to a planned and coherent programme of personal finance education.[21]

In September 2007 HM Treasury announced £11.5 million spread over three years for the Department for Children, Skills and Families for personal finance education. A substantial amount of this will be for innovative curriculum resources which will use the Child Trust fund as a tool to help children learn more about the value of money and savings. Northern Ireland has already received its allocation of this additional funding.

The Centre for Research in Social Policy reports that research shows that children growing up in lower income families have limited opportunities to learn about mainstream financial world and so some fail to acquire basic financial knowledge and skills. Without intervention, many of these children will move into adulthood with limited knowledge and understanding of the financial world and the cycle of disadvantage will be perpetuated.[22]

Young Adults

Students at Further Education Colleges in Northern Ireland will be educated in money matters by Student Support Services and through their individual courses.

Belfast Metropolitan College is currently taking part in a FSA pilot project called Money for Life to develop a toolkit for student counsellors and support staff in ten further education colleges to help students learn about and manage their finances. This project will be rolled out to the other five colleges during 2008/09 academic year.

The Adult Learner Finance Project, delivered jointly by NUS-USI and EGSA, has entered into negotiations with the FSA to explore how it can promote and support the work being undertaken in the further education colleges.

Queen’s University Belfast and University of Ulster adopted the FSA ‘Money Doctors’ programme. The ‘Money Doctors’ scheme gives students advice and information via drop-in sessions and workshops. Students will be encouraged to take control of their money before they encounter difficulties.

Youth workers from the Western Education and Libraries Board and Opportunity Youth took part in the FSA training for youth work intermediaries. This training is now being made available across Northern Ireland and Citizens Advice have been contracted to deliver the training to youth workers at no cost to the youth workers.

Work Place

Employees from both the public and private sector are now able to receive, free of charge, Make the Most of Your Money seminars in their place of work. The FSA has recruited an Employer Relationship Manager who is based in Northern Ireland. Follow-up research with participants has indicated that the seminar prompts many people to make practical changes to their finances. The Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment has already facilitated the delivery of the training to their employees.

Expectant Parents

The Consumer Council and the Parents Advice Centre reviewed a fact file being developed by the FSA for expectant parents to ensure that it is suitable for the Northern Ireland audience.

The guide is designed to help parents-to-be at an expensive and stressful time in their lives by giving them the information and tools to review and organise their finances. It should also serve as a very useful resource for practitioners working with parents. This resource will be rolled out to all expectant parents here in 2009. Northern Ireland has the lowest percentage uptake on Child Trust Funds in the UK. Overall only 63.3 percent of Child Trust Funds are opened here by parents. As a result a major opportunity to embed savings habits in individual children and their parents could be lost.

Access to Advice

Another of the UK Government’s long-term aspirations[23] is to provide all adults in the UK with access to a high-quality generic financial advice service. Money Guidance (formally known as Generic financial advice) is information and advice about personal finances that does not involve a recommendation to buy a particular product. Money Guidance advisers would be expected to provide information on, for example the definition of financial terms, like APR and the range of financial products, such as different types of savings products as well as signpost to other sources of information, for instance money advisers. An independent review, led by Otto Thoresen, was established by HM Treasury to research and design a national approach to generic financial advice. The final recommendations were published in March 2008.

6 The Role of the Consumer Council

The Consumer Council has a key role nationally and locally as the main driver of financial capability and inclusion across the community. It acts as the leader of a multi-sectoral partnership of representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors, to coordinate a strategic approach to financial capability in Northern Ireland.

Key impacts achieved to date:

1 April 2008

[1] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up? The Consumer Council 2007

[2] DETI Labour Force Survey, November 2005

[3] Northern Ireland Executive (www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-del-041207-achieve-your-goals)

[4] Ending Fuel Poverty, a strategy for Northern Ireland 2004

[5] Northern Ireland Housing statistics 2006-2007 (www.dsdni.gov.uk)

[6] Households Below Average Income, Northern Ireland 2005/06

[7] Department for Work and Pensions (www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/2005_06/chapter3.pdf)

[8] The Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) Rt Hon Peter Robinson MP MLA, statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly,
27 November 2007

[9] Department of Social Development Northern Ireland, 2005/06

[10] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up?, The Consumer Council 2007 p:47

[11] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up? The Consumer Council 2007 p:24

[12] Personal over-indebtedness in Northern Ireland, OFMDFM report, February 2006

[13] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up?, The Consumer Council 2007 p:74

[14] Family Resources Survey 2005/06 section 5

[15] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up?, The Consumer Council 2007 p:58

[16] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up?, The Consumer Council 2007 p:46

[17] Northern Ireland Housing Executive 2007 CTOS year end data.

[18] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up?, The Consumer Council 2007 p:8

[19] Managing Money- How does Northern Ireland add up?, The Consumer Council 2007 p:47

[20] http://www.consumercouncil.org.uk/filestore/documents/Financial_Capability_06.09.07.pdf

[21] Financial Capability: the Government’s Long-Term Approach, January 2007.

[22] A Cycle of Disadvantage? Financial Exclusion in Childhood, FSA, November 2000

[23] Financial Capability: the Government’s Long-Term Approach, January 2007.

[24] Bank of Ireland, First Trust Bank, Northern Bank and Ulster Bank

[25] Home-Start’s informal and friendly support for families with young children provides a lifeline to thousands of parents and children in 340 communities across the UK.

[26] Sure Start is a government programme which aims to achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities by increasing the availability of childcare for all children, improving health and emotional development for young children and supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations towards employment.

Written Submission by:
Council For Catholic Maintained Schools

Summary:

The Council in responding to the Committee’s call for evidence, considered that its response should focus on the potential of the draft Programme for Government and its associated draft proposals to impact on child poverty. Council believes that high level strategic decisions and supporting policies are the best way of addressing any major structural issue such as child poverty.

The evidence is derived from an educational perspective reflecting Council policy and the extensive experience of Council officers. It also emphasises the importance of partnership working to achieve outcomes which cannot be adequately delivered by any department or sector working on its own. Council believes that there is a significant demand for capacity building in policies, processes and infrastructure generally, and specifically in addressing child poverty. Council would want to ensure that Government supports connected and coherent policies and removes any political, structural or policy based blockages, to achieving the desired outcomes.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools believes strongly that education is not an end in itself. The benefits of education, especially for those living in social disadvantage are more likely to be achieved when it interacts with other public, voluntary, community and private services to effect real, positive and enduring change which improves the lives of individuals and thereby society as a whole.

1.2 The Council believes that education and all public services should be imbued with the ethos of social justice which requires policies which ameliorate disadvantage and encourage capacity building for individual and communities. This should apply especially to the development of our young people living in relative poverty.

1.3 The Council is disappointed that despite the raising of standards in education the extent of poverty in Northern Ireland is at its current level and that the differentials within society continue to increase rather that narrow. It believes that many useful processes and strategies have been developed, often on the basis of short-term projects, but that few of these have been mainstreamed and that many emerging cross-departmental and cross-sectoral partnerships have been stifled by ‘red tape’ and an over zealous and risk averse system of accountability.

1.4 The Council considers that there is a sufficient body of information on the nature and extent of child poverty and this is not a priority for this submission. It believes that consideration of impact should take account of the family and community history of young people to determine the extent to which structural conditions arising from Government policies have impacted positively or negatively on the levels of child poverty. Similarly research should be conducted into the benefits derived from partnership working at both Departmental and sectoral level, the reasons for the failure of some attempted partnership working and the degree to which narrow Departmental processes, culture and accountability practices contributed to such failures.

2.0 Educational Perspective

2.1 There is clear and unambiguous relationships between poor educational achievement and social disadvantage. These difficulties are exacerbated when there is a generational dimension. Evidence based on an analysis of performance data suggests that the gap in achievement between communities which exhibit high levels of social deprivation and those which do not is increasing. This factor is reinforced when levels of income, unemployment, economic inactivity, incidence of chronic illness and life-expectancy are taken into account. Government needs to objectively assess the extent to which the comparative failure of previous policies and approaches is related to the appropriateness of the policies, the processes and procedures used to implement them and their connectedness to other policies to create a coherent strategy.

2.2 If Government is serious about creating ‘A Peaceful, Fair and Prosperous Society’ as the Programme for Government claims, then one might expect to find a series of connected strategies which are underpinned by policies which first build capacity and then sustain it. At the heart of such policies one would expect to find education. Every study of successful re-generation has education as a pivotol area working alongside other key departments of Government and other partners. It is disappointing that the draft PSA targets neither indicate a significant, joined up approach to helping young people or their families build capacity nor adequately or consistently show how education can work effectively with other services to address the broader issues around poverty.

2.3 In the Draft Budget – 2008-11, under the section dealing with the proposed budget allocation to the Department of Education, one of the key challenges is ‘to raise overall educational achievement while reducing the gap in achievement between the highest and lowest attainers, and ensure that all young people leave school with basic skills in literacy, numeracy and Information and Communication Technology’. The Council welcomes the sentiment of the first part of this statement but has some reservations as to how it might be addressed. It has some concerns about the lack of ambition in the second part.

2.4 In relation to the first, the Council would pose the question as to how this growing gap can be reversed when one of the main reasons for it, the continuation of academic selection, is not addressed in the Programme for Government. It would appear that political considerations, rather than the promotion of a rational, social and economic imperative, is a major obstacle to addressing this key issue. Council would also suggest that the level of funding to schools and the funding formula with respect to the Social Deprivation factor should be reconsidered.

2.5 The Council believes that the current system of education permits failure and then spends significant resources in trying to deal with it. Council would prefer a strategy which has at its core the prevention of failure with the emphasis and resources focussed on where the greatest long-term impact might be. Council would prefer to see a cross-departmental multi-disciplinary strategy aimed at the 0-7 age group to include family and community support as part of this, and a process which for some children, including many from socially deprived backgrounds, might extend to the end of primary education. Progress through the school should be based on the child achieving a series of ‘learning thresholds’ to ensure the appropriate mastery of key literacy and numeracy concepts, knowledge and skills. For some pupils this may mean that they will repeat all or part of a school year or that they may be identified for and provided with special needs support on the judgement of a teacher using a range of agreed standardised, diagnostic assessments, rather than the long and expensive administrative statementing process. A mechanism would have to be found for accessing the additional resources and managing these to ensure that progress is made and the child returned to the mainstream. The critical factor here is that the child is ready to learn appropriately and is supported with fit for purpose interventions which are remedial in nature and intended to be time bound. Council believes that the prevention of failure should deliver the vast majority of children into post-primary education with the skills of numeracy and, particularly, literacy which will allow them to fully engage with the key stage three curriculum. The development of the Pupil Profile, the Entitlement Framework, and the new assessment arrangements in the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum should support such an approach.

2.6 Council is of the view that a system of ‘value added’ needs to be developed to determine the performance of schools rather than the use of achievements at GCSE and other qualifications which take no account of the intake profile of the school and the influence of the school on achievement.

2.7 The Council regards these changes of approach as essential to giving young people the opportunity to benefit more fully from the education system, become more socially competent and more work-ready through a motivating engagement with education. This approach will require an additional resource over a six to ten year period in the early years of education, mainly the 0-7 range, but for some extending to the end of primary education. The approach will become increasingly self-financing as each cohort moves through the system with less need for remedial intervention.

2.8 Approximately one third of all schools are now part of the ‘Extended Schools’ initiative but there is little preparation for teachers to be prepared for the environment in which these schools operate. Council considers that initial teaching training should do more to prepare emerging teachers for the circumstances in which many of them will teach. This should also be an area of focus in Continuing Professional Development (CPD). Finally, Council would like to see the Professional Qualification for Headship (PQH) develop bespoke modules to encourage aspiring leaders to develop many of the very specific skills required to work in socially disadvantaged areas.

2.9 Council accepts that the impacts of social disadvantage leading to poverty are deep rooted in many communities in Northern Ireland and that the culture of education is not embraced by many parents, particularly those who have not had a positive experience of education or who have not benefited from it in career terms. It is with this group in particular that other agencies including community and voluntary organisations, have a role to play in a partnership approach to dealing with poverty generally and child poverty specifically. Initiatives such as ‘Extended Schools’ which have the capacity to involve other providers and community groups are of significant value.

3.0 A Partnership Approach

3.1 The Council is disappointed that the Programme for Government, its draft PSA Framework and the draft budget did not promote in any significant way the achievement of a number of key outcomes on a cross-departmental basis. The ‘Delivering on Priorities’ section of the Programme for Government refers to the PSA’s as ‘addressing key cross-cutting issues and challenges. The PSA’s therefore cut across departmental boundaries and many of the outcomes are interdependent’. In principle, this is to be welcomed but when the PSA’s are examined in detail there is only minimal evidence of this approach, particularly with respect to reducing poverty.

3.2 The Council will, in due course, make a formal response to the PSA Framework but it is useful to refer here to some to illustrate the potential while it might still be possible to influence final decisions. The examples below focus on the PSA’s as they are, not as they might be, and refer in the main to those areas where better outcomes might be achieved with more connected approaches or where aspect of co-operation have not been exploited.

3.2.1 In PSA 6 ‘Children and Family’ there is a useful involvement between OFMDFM and DG but no mention of DHSSPS or DSD in objective 1 ‘Improve the Outcomes and Life Chances of Children and Young People’. Council considers that effective working of education through Neighbourhood Renewal and in a range of health and social services areas is critical to creating the best opportunity for young children to have their needs met in a complementary rather than a piece-meal manner. There is a very clear link to PSA 10 ‘Helping our Children and Young People to Achieve Through Education’ particularly in objective 1 which deals with early intervention and PSA 7 ‘Making Peoples’ Lives Better’. Council believes that the objectives from these PSA’s should be combined into a single high level PSA.

3.2.2 PSA 10 objectives 2 and 3 are probably intended to address elements of a general raising of standards which may have an incidental impact on poverty. Council believes that the relationship to reducing poverty needs to be much more overt. These objectives need to be directly linked to an 0-7 strategy involving local health professionals, those responsible for neighbourhood renewal, the communities, the private sector and the Strategic Investment Board in designing and building community focussed facilities which exploit the connectivity between all relevant services to achieve better outcomes in a more efficient manner. These objectives need to be redrafted alongside PSA 6 objective 1, and all of PSA’s 7 and 19 to create a super PSA owned jointly by at least DE, DSD, DSSPPS, DEL, DETI and OFMDFM.

3.2.3 PSA’s 1 and 2 refer to economic development through ‘Productivity Growth and Skills for Prosperity’ but neither provide any indication of ‘social economy’ type approaches or direct action to address the exclusion, real or imagined, of those with poor educational attainment, limited work skills or a family history of work and employment aversion. The targets outlined at PSA 2 objectives 2 and 3 are too general to be meaningful to the specific task of addressing poverty.

3.2.4 The Council considers that for economic drivers to be the key to closing the gap, there must be a strategy to build capacity at the lower end of the market as well as at the PhD level. The workforce skills deficit is not confined to urban communities but it is most apparent there. Steps need to be taken to improve access to work at both a physical and psychological level. There is a genuine fear in some disadvantaged communities familiar with the influence of paramilitarism of going beyond ‘safe’ boundaries to access work or other services. This must be challenged but also managed. It is unlikely that much private sector investment will be drawn to ‘interface’ areas so physical access through the transport system will need to be considered. However DETI must also recognise that much local employment is at best Small Medium Enterprise (SME). The PSA in 3 does make some reference to support these at objective 2 but this is not sufficiently focussed on the most socially disadvantaged. Government needs to consider how meaningful work experience for young people can be encouraged, possibly through grants or tax breaks to these SME’s.

3.2.5 The most obviously connected PSA’s are PSA 12 objective 1, which recognises the interactivity of departments to achieve outcomes based on reducing differentials, and PSA 7 ‘Making Peoples’ Lives Better’. This is welcomed by Council largely because they link to PSA’s 3 and 9. However, there is also a need to link to PSA’s 10 and 19 in order that the capacity to achieve ‘measurable reductions in health, education and employment difficulties’ can be realised. The concept of a ‘sustainable community’ requires the retention of capacity in the area by choice and most current indicators suggest that when individuals are advantaged, even marginally, in terms of employment or educational qualifications, they leave that community thereby rendering it even more disadvantaged and further extending the social and economic gap. Council, having been associated with many attempts at community regeneration or renewal, is concerned that there now needs to be learning from these failures. Only a high level commitment to a multi-disciplinary, integrated and funded programme will achieve sustainability. Such a programme needs to have shared outcomes which are entirely owned by each Department and other interests, against which each will be held accountable for the whole not the part. Council therefore welcomes the proposal under PSA 6 objective 1 to re-establish the ministerial sub-group on Children.

3.3 The Council commends organisations such as the Belfast Health Action Zone for its attempts to forge effective cross-sectoral working around key aspects of disadvantage. These approaches need to be mainstreamed and supported at a policy level, if Government is serious about addressing poverty.

3.4 The Council, the South Eastern Education and Library Board and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust have been working together over recent months to explore opportunities for effective collaboration. Agreement has been reached to consider the development and joint planning of a new type of educational provision which would be more closely linked to the community and other statutory providers aimed at creating ‘centres of excellence’. These would be designed to raise educational attainment and promote social inclusion by focussing on the 0-7 age range to:

3.5 This proposal, which will go shortly to the Minister in DSD, DE and DHSSPS, is indicative of an approach which will need to be taken in many areas.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools has a strong commitment to equality and social justice as drivers towards a peaceful, fair and prosperous society. It therefore fully supports the eradication of child poverty. It welcomed the ten year strategy for children and young people in Northern Ireland 2006-2016 ‘Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge’ but expressed concern that it did not have an implementation strategy. It is hoped that the working through of PSA 7 will in time create that plan.

4.2 Chapter 7 of the Draft Budget 2008-11 comments on Equality, Good Relations and Anti-Poverty Initiatives. What becomes obvious is that Statutory Equality Obligations exemplified in Section 25 and Schedule 9 do not deal with social disadvantage. In effect there is no imperative in screening any of the Programmes for Government and associated proposals to ensure that the issue of child poverty or anything else to do with social deprivation is covered. This is a matter which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

4.3 Council is concerned that the current implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements in place for a range of policies which impact on child poverty, including Lifetime Opportunities, are too narrowly focussed on single Department activities and a risk averse accountability procedure. It is clear from the experience of officers that a more integrated, multi-disciplinary approach is required with shared outcomes and combined accountability for the whole enterprise.

4.4 The Council had hoped that the Programme for Government, its draft budget, draft PSA targets and the draft Investment Strategy would provide a coherent set of proposals to build capacity across the public sector to create the conditions to address social and economic weaknesses in Northern Ireland. It is disappointed that the draft strategies appear to be highly aspirational with traditional (but not always relevant or appropriate) targets and on absence of policies to build capacity, to instigate significant change or to break cycles of deprivation which impact on such areas as child poverty. All the documents avoid providing a process to achieve the aspirational outcomes. Council hopes that the consultation process will lead to all or at least some of these deficiencies being addressed. If not then the risk is that Northern Ireland’s dependency culture will continue and the competitive edge will be further blunted with the greatest impact being experienced by the weakest in society.

4.5 The Council would prefer to see a smaller number of high level PSA’s with fewer objectives and targets but with implementation strategies and delivery processes identified. These should be aimed at all relevant departments with a requirement that the outcomes or objectives of the PSA’s are jointly owned and that all relevant departments are accountable for full delivery. This would over time create a more connected public service which might lead to more meaningful and accountable partnerships with other service providers. This would appear to Council to be the best means of achieving more efficient and effective service delivery and better outcomes for children and others.

4.6 The Executive has set itself a clear target with respect to reducing and ultimately eliminating child poverty. This cannot be done with the policies of the past or with any further reliance on a benefits culture. It is clear that Northern Ireland has a limited capacity at its social and economic foundations. These must be strengthened by policies which build capacity in individuals, families and communities. Government’s greatest challenge is to confront its own prejudices for the greater good. It is clear to this Council, for example, that the continuation of academic selection both further distorts the connectivity between the education service and the needs of our economy and continues to advantage the already advantaged and a few in disadvantaged communities while further disadvantaging those who are left behind. This reinforces the sense of an ‘underclass’ and makes more difficult the problem of removing child poverty. This issue cannot be ignored, if Government is serious about creating that peaceful, fair and prosperous society.

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Craigavon Borough Council

Introduction

Craigavon Borough Council thanks the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for the opportunity to respond to the Committee Inquiry into Child Poverty. We welcome the fact this important issue is being addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and hope that appropriate policies are put in place to eradicate Child Poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020 in line with United Kingdom targets.

Craigavon Local Government District (LGD) according to the 2005 Measure of Deprivation has an Extent of 23%, this means that 23% of the Craigavon population live in the most deprived Super Output Areas (SOA) in Northern Ireland.

The Income Scale shows that there are 16,499 people in Craigavon LGD experiencing Income Deprivation, while the Employment scale shows that a total of 7,880 people in Craigavon LGD experience employment deprivation.

On the Average SOA Rank measure Craigavon LGD has a rank of 11 out of 26 LGDs. On the Income Scale measure Craigavon LGD has a rank of 5 out of 26 LGDs.

Within Craigavon LGD the most deprived Super Output Area is Drumgask 2 (ranked 41 in NI) and the least deprived Super Output Area is Knocknashane 2 (ranked 824 in NI).

In Craigavon LGD 24.7% of the population are aged under 16 compared to 23.6% in Northern Ireland. The Aghagallon and Drumgask Wards have a high proportion of their population aged under 16 measuring 29.3% and 33% respectively.

Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

The latest Households Below Average Income survey for 2005 – 2006 shows that the proportion of children living in poor homes has risen from 51% to 56% in the last 2 years.

In general children are achieving more and better grades however some groups of children and young people are not keeping pace with others. Disadvantaged children in receipt of free school meals are achieving significantly less in terms of qualifications as do children from a minority ethnic background.

The proportion of children that live in over-crowded conditions has reduced from 14% in 1992/93 to 6% in 2004/05. However, in some places poor housing conditions still persist, most notably in the private rented sector.

Children’s educational prospects reflect the disadvantages of their families.

Northern Ireland has the highest child poverty rate in the UK with 25% of children at risk of Poverty.

Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders.

The UK’s Social Inclusion Strategy is rooted in an understanding that work is the best route out of poverty for people of working age.

In Northern Ireland it is targeted through New Targeting Social Need, Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies and A Shared Future document.

There is recognition in the Lifetime Opportunities Policy that there is a need to target distinctive social need at different times in people’s lives from early years through to childhood, adult working life and later years.

Throughout the document there is recognition that education, health and housing are key factors in poverty in general.

Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020.

By 2010 absolute low income rates should be reduced by 7% and relative low income rates to 12%. The government’s commitments are to halve child poverty by 2010; - to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and over the longer-term to achieve a child poverty rate among the best in Europe.

Child poverty has risen in the last two years from 51% to 56% thus the existing strategy does not appear to be capable of delivering this target.

Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions / targets.

The amount and quality of employment and substitute childcare services for many years has been lower in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain and this means that work as the route to ending poverty is a more frail policy strategy in Northern Ireland than in Britain (Horgan, 2004).

Need for joined up thinking regarding education, children and families.

Need for direct action on low income and poor housing combined with improving educational opportunities for poor children.

Need to break the cycle that children growing up in poverty do worse in education, and those with low educational qualifications go on to form the poor families of the future.

Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes.

Scandinavian countries there are systems of comprehensive family support (which compensates families for the costs of children) and family friendly labour markets (which make it easy for mothers to combine paid work and motherhood).

The Austrian and German systems of paid apprenticeships play an effective role in keeping poverty rates among young adults extremely low. They reduce long term poverty and reduce the risks of poverty associated with life events such as leaving home.

Nordic policy places emphasis on helping people into paid work. This is then complemented by a wide range of social policies aimed at redistributing income to reduce the inequalities that have arisen from the market. Nordic social legislation does not just target resources towards particular problem groups but is designed to include the entire population.

An element of the drive for high employment has been the focus on promoting gender equality. Expenditure has been directed specifically at enabling a combination of work and parenting while also stimulating a more equal share of responsibility for childcare between men and women.

Day care is universal in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, where, in theory every child is entitled to a place.

Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration.

Barriers to employment – low wages and lack of child care particularly for lone parents.

Tackle areas where educational attainment is low particularly for the Travelling Community and Ethnic Minorities.

Compounding factors of Child Poverty:

Health Inequalities: for example low birth weight babies are more likely to develop learning disabilities.

Housing: Children living in temporary and / or overcrowded accommodation find it harder to engage with the educational process.

Labour Market disadvantages: unequal chances in the workplace, even among people with similar qualifications e.g. women who work part time earn on average 41% less per hour than full – time male workers.

Over a quarter of children in poverty are well over a year behind the average child in terms of school readiness.

Difficulties faced by disadvantaged and unqualified young people after leaving education will persist as long as young people become alienated from the school system. Solutions require education to become more relevant to them as they pass through school, and to change their perception of education from a system that is against them to one that provides support.

Introduce free at the point of delivery, good quality universal childcare with a view to extending the Sure Start Programme.

Reduce the disproportionate burden of taxation on poorer families.

Continued improvements in work life balance.

Improved benefits system making it easier for people to learn about and access the benefits they are entitled to.

An approach that increases both employment rates and the rewards from paid work is required.

More emphasis is needed on improving the skills agenda, training, placement in suitable jobs, and job progressions and advancement.

More research is needed to determine future provision for the Craigavon area on the increase in ethnic minority families and the impact on health and education given the increase in numbers of ethnic minorities.

Work by the Craigavon District Policing Partnership and Craigavon Community Safety Partnership has indicated a problem with underage drinking and there needs to be more research undertaken to determine if there is a link between this fact and child poverty.

30 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development

Context

1. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has had an auxiliary role to play in addressing child poverty in rural areas under successive Rural Development Programmes, and considerable potential exists as a facilitator and advocate on rural issues to other Departments.

The Rural Development Programme 2007-2013

2.1 The Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 (RDP) and complementary publicly funded measures are the main vehicles through which DARD can assist in the fight against child poverty. The approach taken in the new RDP 2007-2013 will be three-pronged, aiming to improve rural areas’ economic competitiveness, protect the environment, and strengthen the countryside socially.

2.2 The quality of life measures in the Programme (Axis 3) are designed to strengthen the social and economic infrastructure of the entire rural community. In essence, they are the successors of key measures of the Rural Development Programme 2001-2006.

2.3 While the 2001-2006 programme focused on women, young people and farm families, the new RDP will be wider, with a range of commitments to key Government cross-cutting equality strategies. The Northern Ireland multiple deprivation measure allows DARD to identify rural poverty at a very local level and will influence the scoring of local strategies, thus allowing funding to be targeted at those most in need. It is intended that new Local action groups (public/private/voluntary partnerships lead by local government) will take their cue from the multiple deprivation measure when disbursing 50% of their funds.

Historic and Ongoing Programme Interventions

3.1 The RDP 2001-2006 was a major policy initiative, worth £80 million, which aimed to develop rural areas, with a focus on disadvantage, thereby contributing to the economic, environmental, social and cultural wellbeing of the rural community in Northern Ireland. Finance came from national Government funds and EU structural funds programmes and Community initiatives. Funding of over £6.5 million was granted to some 170 projects likely to have a positive impact on child poverty. The following are examples of projects with clear equality and anti-poverty benefit funded under the RDP 2001-2006, which may be described as the forerunner of Axis 3 in the incoming RDP.

3.2 The lack of childcare is a major issue for people in rural areas, especially women, and has a knock-on effect on employment and training opportunities and therefore levels of child poverty. The RDP 2001-2006 also provided:

Anti-Poverty Strategy

4.1 Lifetime Opportunities is the Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland. Within the strategy there was broad consensus on the need to prioritise child poverty, maintain a focus on promoting social inclusion and set long-term targets, with resources allocated to meet them.

4.2 There are four target groups in this strategy: early-years children; children and young people; working-age adults; and older citizens.

4.3 DARD’s early-years goal is to ensure that every child should have a chance to develop its full potential in infancy, in a nurturing environment regardless of social background. We aim to provide opportunities through the RDP 2007-2013 for young children in rural areas to benefit from projects and schemes such as accessible rural transport, day-care provision, crèches, and initiatives that also support their parents, as well as seeking to improve their overall quality of life. In addition, DARD aims that by 2020 the Government will support every local authority to identify and address gaps in provision of services for early-years children in rural areas.

4.4 DARD’s goal for children and young people is to ensure that they all experience a happy and fulfilling childhood, in a safe environment, while being equipped with the education, skills and experience to achieve their potential as citizens of tomorrow. We aim to provide opportunities for children and young people of all ages in rural areas to benefit from the RDP through projects and schemes such as improving access to ICT, increasing accessibility through rural transport routes and positively benefiting the lives of farm families as well as seeking to improve their overall quality of life.

Children and Young People’s Strategy

5.1 There is evidence that, despite significant investment by the Government over many years, insufficient progress is being made to improve the lives of the most marginalised and disadvantaged children and young people. The aim of the Children and Young People’s Strategy, which was launched in June 2006, is to ensure that by 2016 all children and young people are fulfilling their potential. The strategy sets out what will be done over the course of the next ten years to bring about improvements in the lives of Northern Ireland children and young people, with a focus on high-level outcomes and effective measures and indicators of progress.

5.2 A Children and Young People’s Action Plan currently being developed will monitor the progress of departmental actions against a set of performance indicators. The strategy states that “we will know that we have achieved our shared vision for our children and young people if, after ten years, we can report progress which indicates that our children and young people are:

5.3 Although children and young people are targeted in the Anti-Poverty Strategy, the fact that they have a separate strategy of their own reflects the importance that the Government attaches to this equality group. There is also an independent Commissioner for Children, Patricia Lewsley, who will be instrumental in monitoring the effectiveness of the strategy and assessing how we do. As you are probably aware, DARD is currently developing a rural childcare strategy, and this is a key interest of the Minister.

5.4 Our formal target in the action plan is that at least 5% of RDP programme funds will go on achieving the “contributing positively to community and society” target for children and young people in rural areas.

5.5 DARD is currently working with the Participation Network, an organisation that facilitates direct engagement with children in order to determine their needs. We intend to do this for the strategies that will emerge from the prospective local action groups (LAGs) implementing the RDP.

Rural Childcare

6.1 Because the lack of childcare is a major issue for people in rural areas, especially women, and has a knock-on effect on employment and training opportunities and therefore levels of child poverty, .DARD intends to press for a rural childcare strategy to be developed. This will require cross-Government working, but, importantly, also needs to be developed with stakeholders and practitioners – those who have knowledge and experience of the issues and problems that must be addressed.

6.2 For that reason the Department established a Rural Childcare Stakeholder Group. Once the group’s final report has been received, the Department intends to use its findings to influence other Departments to help develop a cross-cutting rural childcare strategy.

Rural Childcare Stakeholder Group

7.1 The above group was set up in July 2007 by the DARD Minister Michelle Gildernew MP MLA. The remit of the group is to consider the difficulties associated with rural childcare and to prepare a paper by the end of January 2008 that will highlight those difficulties and possible solutions.

7.2 The group is chaired by Siobhán Fitzpatrick of NIPPA, the early-years organisation. The remainder of the group is made up of representatives from various organisations with an interest in or knowledge of childcare issues, including representatives from other relevant Departments (OFMDFM, DE, DHSSPS).

7.3 The group has met five times so far and is concentrating on rural circumstances, looking at issues such as accessibility and transport difficulties, childcare models that are already working in rural areas, and the cost of childcare. Its report is expected to suggest solutions to current problems that will make a difference to the lives of rural families and children.

7.4 One of the most important emerging findings of the group is likely to be the isolation of some rural communities regarding accessibility to facilities that others take for granted, i.e. rural broadband, affordable and accessible childcare, and transport for children to and from school.

7.5 Some excellent childcare centres are available, but they are operating with financial difficulties. Some are servicing a debt, and they do not have any spare funds to pay for small extras that would improve the quality of the care for the children, for example, updating play equipment and hiring temporary help to allow further training for permanent staff.

Linkages to the Other Strategies

8.1 Other Government strategies that support children and rural issues, such as OFMDFM’s ten-year overarching strategy for children and young people 2006-2016 and the Department of Education’s Early Years Strategy for ages 0-6, are being linked to the group’s work.

8.2 Early-years and Sure Start representatives sit on the stakeholder group, which ensures linkages to the Government’s anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy for Northern Ireland.

Funding

9.1 The draft Programme for Government identifies £10 million to tackle poverty and social exclusion in rural areas over the next three years.

9.2 It is intended that some of this funding will be used to help DARD address rural poverty and social exclusion issues, including childcare. Once the recommendations of the Rural Childcare Stakeholder Group are known, DARD will consider how they can be implemented.

9.3 In addition to this funding, as explained earlier in this submission, childcare initiatives will also be welcome to bid for a share of the significant funds available under the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programme.

14 December 2007

Written Submission by:
Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure

DCALSubmission

Written Submission by:
Department of Education

1. The Department provides:
Eligibility Criteria

Meals – based upon:

(a) parental income - the parents are in receipt of Income Support or Income-based Job Seeker’s Allowance; or Child Tax Credit, and are eligible for the Working Tax Credit because they work less than 16 hours per week and have an income of less than £14,495; or, they receive the Guarantee element of State Pension Credit;

(b) considerations about the child - the child has a statement of special educational needs that includes reference to a special diet; is a boarder at a special school; or is the child of an Asylum Seeker supported by the Home Office National Asylum Support Service.

Clothing allowance - are similar to those for free school meals.

Transport assistance - are that a Primary-age pupil must live beyond two miles from their nearest suitable school, while a post-Primary pupil must live beyond three miles from their nearest suitable school. A suitable school is defined as one in the recognised categories of Controlled, Integrated, Irish-medium, Maintained, or Denominational or non-Denominational grammar.

Education Maintenance Allowance

(a) age (pupils must continue to attend school after the end of compulsory school age);

(b) pupils must undertake a full-time course of more than 15 hours of guided study per week;

(c) pupils must sign a learning agreement with the school they plan to attend; and

(d) pupils must be a resident in the North of Ireland, or be resident in the North of Ireland for at least three years.

The level of allowance paid depends on household income - £30 per week for an income of less than £20,817, £20 per week for incomes between £20,818 and £25,521, and £10 per week for incomes between £25,522 and £30,810. [Figures correct for 2007-08 school year.] Payment is made fortnightly. Bonuses are also available in January and June to students who achieve the objectives set out in their learning agreement.

2. Special Educational Needs

The Special Educational Needs Framework addresses the needs of all children with SEN, regardless of their socio-economic background. The framework provides for additional support measures to be put in place by the child’s school and/or Board, in order to address the child’s SENs. In a broad sense the framework aims to enable the SEN child to maximise its educational achievements, which in turn may mean that employment opportunities can be accessed, which otherwise would have been out of their reach. Within the SEN framework, DE has made funding available to supplement the Boards’ transitions arrangements for SEN children from the age of 14 until leaving school, by the introduction of Education Transitions Coordinators. It is hoped that this provision will improve access by SEN children of available post-school opportunities, including further education, training and employment.

Díríonn an Creat Riachtanais Speisialta Oideachais ar riachtanais gach páiste a bhfuil RSO acu, ar neamhchead dá gcúlra socheacnamaíoch. Réitíonn an creat i gcomhair scoil agus/nó Bord an pháiste bearta tacaíochta breise a thabhairt isteach le tabhairt faoi RSO an pháiste. Is aidhm don chreat go ginearálta cur ar chumas an pháiste, a bhfuil RSO aige, a ghnóthachtáil oideachasúil a uasmhéadú, agus dá bharr sin is féidir go mbeidh teacht aige ar dheiseanna fostaíochta nach mbeadh aige roimhe seo. Sa chreat RSO, tá maoiniú curtha ar fáil ag an RO mar fhordheontas do na Boird agus iad i mbun socruithe aistrithe do pháistí RSO idir 14 bliana go dtí go bhfága siad an scoil; chuige seo, tugadh isteach Comhordaitheoirí Aistrithe Oideachais.Táthar ag súil, le linn an tsoláthair seo, go bhfeabhsófar an teacht atá ag páistí RSO ar na deiseanna iarscoile atá ar fáil, agus breisoideachas, oiliúint agus fostaíocht san áireamh.

3. Pupils at Risk

Specific groups of pupils are at risk of educational underachievement and additional targeted support is provided aimed at improving outcomes and subsequent life chances.

School Age Mothers’ Programme

Individualised learning programmes and assistance with child care is available to ensure that pregnant schoolgirls and school age mothers complete compulsory schooling and remain in education beyond age 16 if they so wish. In 2006/07 some 270 young women were assisted to remain in education.

Looked After Children

A limited initiative targeted at young people in residential care settings, including after school tutoring, began during 2006/07. Early indications are that engagement with learning for those participating is improved.

Le linn 2006/07, tosaíodh ar thionscnamh teoranta dírithe ar dhaoine óga i gcúram cónaithe, agus teagasc iarscoile san áireamh. Tugtar le tuiscint go dtí seo gur bhisigh teagmháil le foghlaim na ndaoine óga atá rannpháirteach sa scéim.

4. Impact of Child Poverty on Educational Outcomes

The socio-economic background of a child is widely recognised as one of the key factors to contribute to low levels of educational attainment and yet a good educational outcome will more often than not be the means by which a young person can escape from the cycle of deprivation.

In the north of Ireland, there are still far too many pupils who are not reaching their full potential. The Department is committed to ensuring that action is taken to raise achievement for every child and close the gap in performance that exists between the best and worst off in our community.

Children who are from disadvantaged families have often to contend with very significant barriers to learning – poverty, a poor learning environment, no parental or community support for learning and several other social and health factors often associated with disadvantage. With help and support these can be overcome but, too often, these barriers are not addressed and the child fails to achieve.

Raising achievement for every child is therefore a key focus of the proposed revised school improvement policy, “Every School a Good School”, which has been published for consultation by the Department of Education. The new policy will aim for every child leaving compulsory education with the appropriate standards of literacy and numeracy, the foundation stones for progress in life. It is a pupil-centred policy with equality and improvement at its core. The consultation process closes on 31 March 2008.

That aside, there is a growing recognition across many countries that schools cannot operate in isolation. To enable every child to achieve a good educational outcome requires schools, statutory and voluntary agencies and the wider community, particularly parents, to support the education process. This is particularly the case for schools in disadvantaged areas. We have therefore been encouraging schools to develop external links through our extended school policy, which includes a number of Full Service School Demonstration Projects. Alongside this, officials have been working closely with colleagues in DSD (Neighbourhood Renewal) and in Health to share expertise and experience and to develop policy to address the issue.

I remain convinced that education is the means by which the cycle of deprivation can be broken. My efforts are therefore strongly focussed on introducing new and revised policies to bring equality of opportunity and improved outcomes for all our young people.

5. Early Years

It is now generally accepted that the first few years of a child’s life are of critical importance for his or her future development and well being, and that children from a disadvantaged background generally attain lower levels of achievement in later life. Early Years Policy aims to tackle such disadvantage by providing key services in a co-ordinated manner to improve the life chances of all children and particularly those living in disadvantaged areas.

Sure Start targets the top 20% areas of deprivation, applying NISRA Multiple Deprivation Measure Scores, encompassing around 34,000 children age 0-4 in the north of Ireland. The intention has been to further develop policy to extend coverage to a higher percentage of disadvantaged areas, including those falling within “pockets” of deprivation which are located within a more affluent ward area and therefore not within the top 20%, however this is dependent on the future funding position.

The Department works closely alongside District and local Childcare Partnerships to identify and address specific needs rather than work within a policy vacuum. Through funding from the Children and Young People’s Funding Package Sure Start Projects are currently working to enhance services by developing daycare provision to enable parents in their areas access work or training, however uncertainty surrounds further development of this until the outcome of CSR is known.

An integrated approach which ensures the joining up of services and disciplines such as education, care, family support and health is a key factor in determining good outcomes for children. Sure Start offers services for both children 0-4 and their families and these range from parental support to developmental play sessions for young children. There is a strong community focus in Sure Start and the projects have strong linkages with health professionals and often offer core health services from their base. Of the 32 Sure Start projects which currently exist in the north of Ireland, 6 centres which deliver excellence in integrated children’s services have received funds from the Renewing communities and Children and Young People’s packages, which will enable them to further integrate their services in their local communities.

The Department is developing an Early Years 0-6 strategy to provide an integrated approach to policy and service delivery for young children. Key stakeholders from the Early Years Sector have been closely involved in the development of the strategy and DE will continue to support their engagement throughout the process. Evidence gathered regarding good practice internationally and approaches used by neighbouring jurisdictions has been an integral part of the development process.

6. Youth Services

Youth services are an important part of non-formal education that is fundamentally about providing access to positive activities for young people. There have been some reports of young people and families being unable to afford even the modest sums required for admission to youth clubs.

In terms of what youth services can do to help break the cycles of poverty:

However young people don’t have to use youth services and therefore the trick is attracting them to come to the youth unit or club – or by reaching out to them via outreach and detached youth teams. The Department is starting work on the development of ‘Priorities for Youth’ and a ‘Capital Investment Strategy for the Youth Estate’. The target for both pieces of work is late 2008.

7. The Department of Education is totally committed to the proper implementation of the duties imposed on public authorities by Section 75 of and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

All departmental policies have to be screened to ensure that there is no differential uptake or needs by Section 75 groups, or if there is an opportunity to promote equality of opportunity or better community relations. The screening also assesses if prior consultations have indicated that, “particular policies create problems, which are specific to them”.

If the policy is considered to have significant implications on equality of opportunity an Equality Impact assessment (EQIA) is prepared, to determine the effect of differential impacts. If the policy has an adverse impact, mitigating measures are considered as are alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity.

In both the screening and EQIA processes there is a requirement for consultation with interested groups.

19 February 2008

Written Submission by:
Department for Employment and Learning

Contents
1 Vision and Values

DEL’s vision is: a dynamic, innovative and sustainable economy where everyone achieves their full potential

DEL’s aim is: to promote learning and skills, prepare people for work and to support the economy

DEL’s purpose is: to unlock the talent inherent in the people in our community and enable them to make the most of their potential.

By helping people to find work, upskilling the workforce, supporting employment rights, innovation and creativity and making education and training accessible, DEL can create the dynamic and innovative economy that lies at the heart of the aims of the Programme for Government.

The Department bases its work on a number of key values, which underpin its delivery of the commitments in this Corporate Plan. The Department will seek to provide a professional and responsive service to its customers in an equitable way. It will strive to be innovative and dynamic and to improve continually as an organisation whilst motivating, developing and valuing its staff. Underpinning the work of the Department is its commitment to develop and manage a framework of employment rights, remedies and responsibilities to ensure that those in work are adequately protected.

2 Department’s key areas of activity
3 Context of DEL’s work

DEL’s Contribution to the Programme for Government is summarized as follows:

PRIORITY: Growing A Dynamic, Innovative Economy

Actions: Increase by 300 the number of PhD research students at local universities by 2010.

Introduce a new programme to increase the commercialisation of university and college research by 2010.

Goals: Increasing the employment rate from 70% to 75% by 2020.

Ensuring by 2015 that 80% of the working age population is qualified to at least GCSE level or equivalent.

Increasing the number of adult learners achieving a qualification in literacy, numeracy and ICT skills by 90,000 by 2015.

Increasing by 25% the numbers of students, especially those from disadvantaged communities, at graduate and postgraduate level studying Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM subjects) by 2015.

PRIORITY: Promote Tolerance, Inclusion And Health And Well-Being

Actions: Put in place by 2010 a careers advice service to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

In carrying out its business DEL will contribute to the following Public Service Agreements (PSAs):

Relevance of DEL’s Work to the Issue of the Eradication of Child Poverty

4 The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) is committed fully to the efforts to tackle poverty in all its forms. It is widely acknowledged that the best route out of poverty is through well paid sustainable employment, and in particular increasing household income is crucial to the eradication of poverty. DEL’s primary role in this is to ensure that people have the necessary skills for entry into employment, and where necessary re-employment, and by so doing to maintain earnings capacity and the ability of individuals to break out of the constraint low paid jobs.

5 Improvement in household income generally has a direct bearing on child poverty and it is in this context that the DEL’s core business has the capacity to exert most influence. In its Public Service Agreements DEL has committed to a range of targets, namely an increase in the employment rate in Northern Ireland; specific targets relating to those assisted into employment by DEL’s programmes and services; improvement in skill levels of the working age population including the essential skills of numeracy and literacy; and an increase in the percentage of those in the working age population qualified to level 2 and level 3.

6 In delivering against these targets DEL has a range of key delivery instruments for skills, including numeracy and literacy skills, and for helping people into work. Those specifically targeted at children and young people (up to age 18, or age 21 in the case of Looked After Children) aim to ensure that they make informed decisions about their future working life, have the necessary support to access and participate in education training or employment and have every opportunity to maximize their potential. Measures are in place to provide additional support to address particular barriers to employment.

7 The Department contributes strongly across the entire skills range. It works with the Further Education Colleges and Universities to support the development of essential skills right through to the provision of support for PhD students. Qualification achievement targets are in place and are monitored for year on year rate of improvement. As shown below the Department’s all-age Careers Service has an important role to play here in providing information and guidance for those wishing to avail of it.

8 The following paragraphs outline the key interventions that DEL has in place to improve skills levels.

Success Through Skills

9 Success through Skills is the first overarching strategy for skills development in Northern Ireland. With the twin goals of economic prosperity and social inclusion, it sets out a vision for Northern Ireland by 2015 to be a highly competitive economy on global terms and based on high value jobs. The Strategy focuses on:

It was published for consultation in November 2004 and in February 2006 Success through Skills A Programme for Implementation was published covering the first 3 years of the strategy.

The programme for implementation listed sixteen projects under the following four themes:

To date four of those projects have been completed.

Review of Success through Skills

In line with the public commitment given by the Department, a review of Success through Skills will be undertaken in 2008. The review will take into account the changing circumstances, both domestic and international, since the strategy was introduced and will seek to quantify the contribution skills can make to increase the productivity levels of the Northern Ireland economy. It will also set out to identify the skills required by the Northern Ireland Economy in 2020. Using these projections, the review will carry out a GAP analysis based on the projections of existing provision and, where appropriate, identify new interventions to ensure that strategy continues to meet the needs of the NI Economy.

Careers and Guidance Services (all age)

10 Careers Services delivered by DEL’s Careers Advisers located across Northern Ireland are available to young people and adults in a range of contexts (education, training, employment and unemployment). The Department also currently works with the Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) and the learndirect Advice Line to provide educational guidance services for adults. The Careers Service has developed a Careers specific interactive website (www.careersserviceni.com) that provides a useful self-help tool for both young people and adults, including parents.

11 The Careers Service has developed an all age Careers Education and Information, Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) strategy jointly with the Department of Education which aims to enable all citizens in Northern Ireland to become effective career planners. The strategy incorporates proposals for the development of a differentiated service delivery model, the development of an evidence based approach, client entitlement and the development of a clear commitment towards young people and adults vulnerable to social exclusion. The consultation process on the proposals is now complete. Responses are now being considered by DEL officials in conjunction with colleagues from the Department of Education. The Departments aim to publish the final version of the Strategy and an Implementation Plan in Summer 2008.

Preparing People for Work

12 Frontline Personal Adviser services engage with and help welfare recipients to find work. In addition, the Department has a range of employability related measures available, for example New Deal, Bridge to Employment, Progress2Work, Pathways to Work, Steps to Work, Training for Success, LEMIS, and a number of programmes to assist people with disabilities all designed to help people prepare for work. Some of these measures are currently operating either in pilot mode or targeting specific areas of need and so may not be available across the whole of Northern Ireland. Jobs and Benefit offices and JobCentres are the primary gateway to DEL’s portfolio of employment and training programmes.

Essential Skills

13 There is a direct causal link between levels of deprivation and the incidence of poor numeracy and literacy skills. In October 2002, in response to the findings of the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), which showed that almost 25% of adults in Northern Ireland perform at the lowest levels of literacy competence as compared with economic competitors such as Belgium (18%), Germany (14%), Netherlands (11%), and Sweden (8%), the Department launched the Essential Skills for Living Strategy and Action Plan. The Strategy aims to support 38,000 Essential Skills qualifications by 2011. This support is designed to enable learners to improve their overall quality of life, their personal development, and their employment opportunities.

When people have good Essential Skills it can improve outcomes in other areas of their lives. For example, if parents have good skills and encourage and support their children with their homework, this has a significant impact on how their children perform in school. Family literacy is thus a key area for DEL working alongside DE. Good Essential Skills also bring financial rewards to adults through improved job and pay prospects and reduces the chances of being unemployed.

Training for Success
(DEL’s primary offer for young people)

14 The Training for Success professional and technical training provision replaced the former Jobskills programme from September 2007. There are, however, a number of trainees who are still completing their training under Jobskills. Entry to Training for Success is gained through the network of local JobCentres or Jobs and Benefits Offices. Prior to entering training, each unemployed applicant receives an initial assessment and guidance from DEL’s Careers Service. The Job-Ready strand of Training for Success is designed to enable participants to progress to higher level training, further education, or employment by providing training to address personal development needs, including essential skills training.

15 Whilst in training on Job-Ready, participants receive £40 per week allowance, plus travelling expenses if applicable. Contributions towards lodgings and/or childcare costs may also be paid. On apprenticeship training, individuals are in paid employment from day one and therefore receive a wage agreed with the employer.

Supporting Job Seekers

16 The Department’s network of Jobs and Benefits offices and JobCentres (the former jointly run with the Social Security Agency) are the key portal to services relevant to job seekers, economically inactive individuals or job changers. Vacancies are advertised here and specialist advice and support is available. Staff can advise jobseekers about current job opportunities and the ways in which they can keep in touch with the constantly changing job vacancy scene, both here in Northern Ireland and beyond. These include self service options available via kiosks, and the increasingly popular www.jobcentreonline.com that contains details of job vacancies in Northern Ireland and throughout the EU.

Local Employment Intermediary Service (Lemis) (Adult Service)

17 This Community-based and area-specific initiative operates in tandem with DEL’s frontline Employment Services and is designed to address the needs of those furthest from the labour market in areas currently suffering from high levels of unemployment/low employment, namely Belfast, Strabane and Londonderry. It engages with those who are deemed ‘economically inactive’ and who, for whatever reason, do not choose to use the statutory services. LEMIS providers are local organisations with detailed knowledge of the issues facing the communities in which they operate. LEMIS support provides tailored assistance to help clients to overcome their barriers to employment, along with confidential advice, mentoring and referral to specialist advice where necessary.

Finance

18 The costs associated with education and training are a concern for low income families. DEL, through Student Finance Branch, works closely with other stakeholders including Education and Library Boards, Student Loans Company, Higher Education Institutes and National Union of Students – Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI) to ensure that students and their families are fully informed of the financial and other support/advice available to mitigate the costs of higher education.

19 Means-tested maintenance grants are available in addition to loans towards fees and maintenance costs. In Northern Ireland, students can receive up to £500 more in maintenance grant than in the rest of the UK. Repayment of a Student Loan is linked to the level of a graduate’s income, and so the individual will only repay when they can afford to do so and there is no requirement to repay if their income is below the threshold of £15,000 per annum. In addition, all outstanding debt is written off after 25 years. Additional support is available in the form of allowances for students with disabilities, students with children and adult dependants etc. There is also specific support available through Support Funds (which are funded by DEL and administered directly by the Institutions) to those students who encounter particular financial difficulties.

20 The Department also provides Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) of up to £30 per week to help young people in the 16 – 19 age group remain in full-time education.

21 Concessionary fees are available, for example, in FE for those in receipt of benefits and there are a range of allowances payable to those participating in employment and training programmes. Childcare allowances are also payable where appropriate to address this potential barrier to participation.

DEL Commitment

22 The Committee will wish to be aware that the Department for Employment and Learning is committed fully to providing the means to ensure that those currently outside the labour market have access to the help and support they need to acquire the necessary skills and qualifications to enable them to enter or re-enter the labour market and thus contribute to the rate of growth in the economy in Northern Ireland. It is by this means that DEL is making its contribution to the eradication of poverty and in particular, child poverty in Northern Ireland.

28 March 2008

Annex A
Key Business Areas in DEL

Corporate Services: Minister’s Private Office/ Office of the Permanent Secretary/Central Management, Press Office, personnel, staff welfare, staff training, departmental records, statistics/research and evaluation.

Strategy and Employment Relations: Strategy and Equality covering compliance with Section 75 statutory duties, Co-ordination Unit and in particular the Department’s linkages with interdepartmental strategies; Employment and Industrial Relations, Including responsibility for relevant legislation and sponsorship of the Labour Relations Agency; the NI Certification Office; the administration of the Office of Industrial and Fair Employment Tribunals; the Industrial Court; and the Redundancy Payments Service; Migrant Workers Unit (facilitating the interdepartmental strategy).

Higher Education: Development of policy for the planning, funding and administration of higher education. Also, policy for student loans and awards, education maintenance allowances and for the payment of postgraduate awards.

Further Education: Development of policy for the planning, funding and administration of further education, including the reconfiguration of the Further Education Sector in line with the FE Means Business Review. Also responsible jointly with the Department of Education for the policy and curriculum for the 14-19 age group.

Skills and Industry: Responsibility for the NI Skills Strategy that sets out a vision for skills in Northern Ireland in 2015 and focuses on raising the skills levels of the workforce, enhancing the quality of those entering the workforce, and addressing the employability of those not in employment. This includes Careers Information, Advice and Guidance policy and delivery and the policy and administration of Training for Success (Professional and Technical Provision replaced Jobskills from September 2007), Bridge to Employment and Management Leadership programmes and also for sector development and the associated Sector Skills Councils.

Preparation for Work: Responsibility for the delivery of the public employment service through frontline teams in the network of 35 Jobs & Benefit Offices and JobCentres. A pivotal function of the Service is its local engagement with employers and the availability of “online” vacancy filling services to assist business and jobseekers alike; the administration and delivery of the New Deal programmes; Steps to Work initiatives; the Disablement Advisory Service; Pathways to Work targeted at Incapacity Benefit recipients; Progress2Work (NI) to assist with overcoming major barriers to employment resulting from problems associated with homelessness and substance misuse, an offending background, and other community based employability initiatives such as LEMIS (Local Employment Intermediary Service) designed specifically to engage with unemployed and economically inactive people in Northern Ireland’s most disadvantaged areas, and help them equip themselves for work.

Written Submission by:
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Background

DETI’s key objective is to encourage the development of a high value added, innovative, enterprising and competitive economy leading to greater wealth creation and job opportunities for all. Although Departmental actions are generally not aimed directly at children, DETI activity has the potential to impact significantly on issues affecting poverty levels and therefore child poverty.

Key areas of activity are as follows:

Invest NI

Invest NI works to increase wealth in Northern Ireland by using its expertise and resources to accelerate the creation and growth of businesses within its client base. Since 2002, Invest NI has provided almost £638m of support, bringing total investment of 2.6bn and supported over 15,300 new businesses.

During 2006/07, a total of £450 million was committed to projects, of which £100 million represented offers of assistance from Invest NI. 57% of total assistance was offered to projects in areas which DETI has designated as ‘disadvantaged’ based on the income and employment domains within Noble’s 2005 NI Measure of Multiple Deprivation.

In terms of inward investment, both new and reinvestment continues to play a major role in the development of the Northern Ireland economy by broadening the industrial base, stimulating the introduction and development of new industry sectors, technologies and skills and by creating quality employment opportunities. Since 2002, Invest NI has secured 166 inward investments, bringing total investment of almost £1.1 billion – promoting over 13,000 new jobs, securing 10,500 others. The 69 first time investors will generate over £150m in annual wages.

As part of the Department’s commitment to Lifetime Opportunities, the new anti poverty and social inclusion strategy launched by the previous administration in November 2006, Invest NI has undertaken to target 75% of first-time inward investment projects towards disadvantaged areas to ensure that all areas can benefit from sustainable economic growth. In 2006/07, Invest NI secured 17 first-time internationally mobile investments promoting 2,559 new jobs for Northern Ireland, 76% of which are to locate in disadvantaged areas.

Energy Costs

DETI has responsibility for the energy market in Northern Ireland and, as outlined in the DSD-led fuel poverty strategy, is contributing towards the eradication of fuel poverty by working towards a cost-competitive energy supply in a number of ways, including:

In addition, the Environment and Renewable Energy Fund has provided £7.925m of support to DSD in 2007/08 for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. This includes additional funding for warm homes as well as renewable energy technologies in NIHE properties; housing associations; and low income private households in fuel poverty.

Keypad metering is delivering sustainable benefits to vulnerable and disadvantaged customers in Northern Ireland. As a result of the introduction of NIE’s new “keypad” prepayment meter, 198,000 NIE customers are benefiting from a 2.5% discount on the standard domestic tariff. Some 50% of domestic natural gas customers have been provided with “pay as you Go” meters mostly in the Greater Belfast and Larne licenced area.

A grant of £5.6m is being used to defray the 2007/08 Energy Efficiency levy. This intervention will fund energy efficiency projects in non-commercial premises and has reduced NI electricity tariffs by 1% below what they otherwise might have been in the period November 07-Sept 08. The projects funded by this grant should enable some 1,020 households to be taken out of fuel poverty.

Debt Advice

To help tackle the problems associated with financial hardship, DETI has taken action to provide those experiencing consumer indebtedness with a comprehensive support service. A contract involving the provision of 12 advisors to give face-to-face debt advice in local advice offices throughout Northern Ireland will run through to March 2008.

30 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Department of the Environment

Background:

The Minister has considered the request and can advise that the Department has no specific role in relation to child poverty. The Department does have actions contained within the Children and Young Peoples’ Strategy relating to road safety and environmental education for children. However, these actions are targeted at all children, including those in disadvantaged areas and do not lend themselves specifically to the issue of child poverty.

Current Position

The Department has no specific role in relation to child poverty but is supportive of OFMdFM’s intention to carry out an inquiry into the subject.

13 December 2007

Written Submission by:
Department of Finance and Personnel

Dept of Finance & Personnel rec'd 10.12.psd

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

DHSSPS Submission rec'd 12.02.08.pdf

 

Written Submission by:
Department for Social Development

As Minister for Social Development I am committed to tackling poverty, not just managing it and I welcome this opportunity to contribute to your inquiry into what I consider to be one of the most challenging and important issues that we face as an Executive, as an Assembly and as a society.

It is important to recognise at the outset that the desire to defeat poverty is not a new one. Poverty and its causes are not simple concepts. Neither are there any easy solutions. The development of a meaningful strategy to tackle the impact of poverty, and child poverty, is best done in the context of a common understanding about what we mean when we talk about poverty in a modern, western European setting. The definition of poverty which government applies is a technical one but one that attracts broad agreement at home and internationally.

Under this definition poverty is defined as a household with an equivalised income less than 60% of the UK median equivalised household income. “Equivalised” means that the actual income has been adjusted to take account of the household size and age structure and 60% is a conventional internationally accepted fraction of the median. But even though the definition attracts broad support there is, of course, more than one definition of income (e.g. gross, net of taxes, net of taxes and housing costs) and the income definition used has a noticeable effect on the households and individuals appearing in poverty. For example, amongst owner-occupiers, households where mortgages are being paid off have less disposable income than those where the house is owned outright. Children are more usually found at the family life stage when households are paying off mortgages. For ease of reference a table identifying trends in Child Poverty between 2002/03 and 2005/06 is attached as an annex to this note. A table identifying the number of young people in neighbourhood renewal areas is also attached.

Alleviating poverty will require coordinated action across and beyond Government. The Programme for Government, with the Public Service Agreements which underpin it, is designed to crystallise that cross-government effort. The targets contained in that document and in “Lifetime Opportunities” are extremely ambitious but they also contain a number of technical challenges. For instance, we will be required to agree a definition of “severe child poverty”. Unlike in Great Britain, there is no robust data on child poverty in Northern Ireland in 1998/99 (the necessary survey was first carried out in Northern Ireland in 2002/03) and the number of children in poverty at that date was estimated by backward extrapolation. The target level set for 2010 is thus itself an uncertain number. On a broader point, unlike the Westminster government, the Executive has very limited control over the levers of redistribution through taxation and benefits, which can target assistance to households with children and even a successful programme of job creation, cannot ensure that the people employed in the new jobs come from households that contain children. It is also important to recognise that outside pressures also act on the Executive’s ability to act in other circumstances, for example measures to abolish fuel poverty are at the mercy of international fuel prices and the willingness, as well as the ability, of house owners to make the investment needed to reduce energy consumption.

However, whatever debate there may be around the specifics of the targets included in the Programme for Government and in “Lifetime Opportunities” there is a strong argument to be made in defence of an ambitious statement of intention that spells out the aspiration of this society to eliminate child poverty. It is also important to recognise that any activity in this area will build on those public services that are already the cornerstone of tackling poverty: state-funded education; a health service that is free at the point of delivery and for the most disadvantaged, the provision of social housing. The focus of your inquiry is on child poverty but child poverty does not exist in isolation. In simple terms, though I accept there may be exceptions, children in poverty come from families in poverty. In order to tackle child poverty it is necessary to break the cycle of deprivation which leads families into poverty and keeps them there. Tackling poverty and with it child poverty is a priority for the Executive and is at the core of the work of my department.

My Department’s key role in tackling poverty lies principally in protecting the vulnerable in society. We provide important support for those unable to work and to those not yet in work as they move into work and off benefits so they can support their families, improve their quality of life, and own their own homes.

My Department works on a number of levels:

For individuals and families the benefits system is central in alleviating the impact of poverty and severe poverty. The Social Security Agency, the Child Support Agency and the Housing Executive play a key role in supporting individuals and families through the payment of benefits and maintenance payments. Indeed an important part of the work of these organisations is helping households to claim their full legal entitlement to support.

In addition the Department is responsible through Registered Housing Associations, the Housing Executive and housing benefit for making available affordable, social housing. My department currently spends £750m a year on Warm Homes, Decent Homes, Supporting People, Housing Maintenance, Energy Efficiency, Disablement and Private Sector Grants and creating new social housing. The work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Housing Associations, and charitable organisations in the housing sector all make a substantial contribution to tackling poverty and supporting the most disadvantaged, as does the payment of Housing Benefit.

The most substantial support delivered by my department is through the payment of social security benefits. Last year more than £4.2 billion was distributed as benefits and pensions. Means tested benefits account for £823m targeted at providing a minimum income level for all those recipients.

In terms of activities which specifically target child poverty, or where this group benefits from a more-broadly aimed policy or programme, the Committee may wish to note the following examples:

Tackling poverty in disadvantaged areas is delivered through Neighbourhood Renewal. It aims to make a real difference in the quality of the lives and life chances of people living in our poorest communities by tackling inequalities in the core issues such as health, education, employability and skills, crime and community safety. Research shows that Neighbourhood Renewal Areas have a higher proportion of young people – see table 2 attached.

Neighbourhood Partnerships have been established in 36 Neighbourhood Renewal areas (15 in Belfast, 6 in Derry and 15 in other towns and cities). Work on developing local Neighbourhood Action Plans, to address priorities identified by communities is well advanced.

An investment fund of approximately £60m over the 3 years from 2005 is available to Neighbourhood Renewal areas in order to supplement existing mainstream Government funding. This fund is being used to lever in additional resources, support the testing of new approaches and support activities aimed at assisting the co-ordination and impact of current public services. Approximately 280,000 people live within Neighbourhood Renewal areas.

Neighbourhood Renewal work in our most disadvantaged communities is complemented by our other area based programmes such as Areas at Risk and the Local Community Fund.

Tackling Poverty through Communities of Interest is supported through the Department’s work with the voluntary and community sector. The voluntary and community sector is often best placed to respond quickly to the needs of disadvantaged groups. Current initiatives are focusing on the changing demands on the voluntary and community sector to tackle disadvantage. This includes the £18million Modernisation Fund and the Community Investment Fund spending £5million per annum on community and voluntary organisations.

9 January 2008

Annex 1
Table 1 – Children in Poverty 2002/03 – 2005/06
 

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

Children

Children < 60% of UK Median AHC Equivalised

118,700

113,000

107,400

118,300

All Children

437,700

434,000

430,300

427,300

% of Children < 60% of UK Median AHC Equivalised

27%

26%

25%

28%

Source: Households Below Average Income

Notes:

1. AHC Disposable Household Income After Housing Costs deducted

2. UK Median Half UK households have an income above this level, half have an income below this level

3. Equivalised Income has become adjusted (using McClements Scale) to take account of the number and age of household members

Table 2 - Neighbourhood Renewal Areas
 

Age
0-15

Notes

NI

23.6%

Percent of total population (2001)

NRA

26.2%

Percent of total population (2001)

NRA

72,817

Number (2001)
 

NRA

  

% children in poverty (BHC)

43

2004-05

Written Submission by:
Derry Children’s Commission

Derry Children’s Commission is an Interagency Partnership involving children, young people and parents in equal partnership with the key organisations in the statutory, voluntary and community sectors who deliver services for children in the Derry City Council area.

Our mission is to promote and protect the rights of the child and ensure that children are seen and heard in public decision making in the local area and beyond. The Commission currently has representation from Derry City Council (officers and elected members), Western Health and Social Care Trust, NSPCC, NWRC, Greater Shantallow Area Partnership, Newbuildings Community Association, Liberty Consortium, St Columb’s Park House and Parents as Partners.

We work with six children and young people’s reference groups including young people who face additional challenges in realising their rights. Derry Children’s Commission is a highly innovative project which gives local expression to the developing National and International recognition of Children’s Rights. Our area of benefit is the Derry City Council area. The level of child and family poverty in the Derry City Council area is among the highest in the UK.

The extent, intensity and impact of Child Poverty in Northern Ireland.
The approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of engagement of key stakeholders.
Assess whether the strategy is capably of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020.
Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions and targets.

Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes.

The UNICEF reports ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries’ in 2005 and ‘Child Poverty in Perspective: an overview of Child Well Being in Rich Countries’ in 2007 ask why some countries are doing a much better job at tackling child poverty than others. In the 2007 UNICEF report the UK was ranked bottom and Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were ranked top in relation to indicators of child well being. This is an indicator of where to look for good practice initiatives beyond the UK perspective. Following an in-depth analysis of government policies, spending and poverty rates in OECD countries, the 2005 report concludes that ‘In all countries poverty levels are determined by some combination of the same three forces- social trends, labour market conditions and government policies.

The report emphasises the capacity of governments to reduce child poverty rates and demonstrates that higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates.
Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration.

19 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Derry City Council

1. Preamble

1.1 This submission is being made on behalf of Derry City Council, 98 Strand Road, Derry, BT48 7NN.

1.2 The Council’s Corporate Plan 2006-2009 set out its vision of “A vibrant, prosperous region with equality of opportunity for all” and strategic objectives in relation to increasing the prosperity of people living in the area, building inclusive communities where no-one feels alienated or marginalised and creating strong, confident communities able to participate in the social, cultural, economic and environmental regeneration of their areas. Tackling the issue of child poverty in our society is a key requisite of achieving the above objectives and the vision for the North West region.

1.3 The issue of child poverty is of particular priority given that the population in the council area is made up of a higher proportion of children and young people than the NI average - 29.3% of the population is aged 18 years and under, compared to 26.3% for NI as a whole (based on the mid year estimates for 2006) and that according to research carried out by the Save the Children Fund (2007), children have a 34% risk of living in poverty if they live in the West of Northern Ireland.

2. Executive Summary
Findings

2.1 According to research carried out by the Save the Children Fund (2007), children have a 34% risk of living in poverty if they live in the West of Northern Ireland. Specifically in the Derry City Council area 36% of children are living in poverty compared to an average of 24% of children in NI. (Poverty defined as family income of less than 60% of the GB median income after housing costs – HBAI Report 2004/5).

2.2 As a result of suffering from deprivation, evidence indicates that there will be an adverse impact on the physical and mental health, educational attainment, employment prospects and thus quality of life of people living in the Derry City Council area.

2.3 At a regional level, it is noted that spending on children in NI is much lower than other parts of the UK. The NICCY/DFP/OFMDFM research showed that 14% of the personal and social services budget was spent on children in NI compared with 24% in England and 26.1% in Wales.

2.4 International research shows that higher government spending on family and social benefits is clearly associated with lower child poverty rates. In addition, there also evidence to show that child poverty can be tackled most effectively when there is a high degree of cross-sectoral working.

Conclusions

2.5 It is considered that the current fragmented, uncoordinated approach to tackling child poverty is unlikely to deliver the targets set.

2.6 It is also clear that failure to address the issue of child poverty in our society will greatly impede the attainment of the overall aim of the Programme for Government 2008-2011 i.e. “To build a peaceful, fair and prosperous society in NI, with respect for the rule of law”.

Recommendations

2.7 In order to more effectively tackle child poverty, there are a number of key issues which must be addressed:

3. Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland
Extent

3.1 According to recent research[1] there are 100,000 children living in officially defined levels of poverty in communities across Northern Ireland.

3.2 In the Derry City Council area 36% of children are living in poverty compared to an average of 24% of children in NI. (Poverty defined as family income of less than 60% of the GB median income after housing costs – HBAI Report 2004/5).

Intensity

3.3 According to research carried out by the Save the Children Fund (2007), children have a 34% risk of living in poverty if they live in the West of Northern Ireland.

3.4 Specifically in the Derry City Council area, in 2006, 32.9% of the post primary school population were entitled to free meals compared to the NI average figure of 18.9%. In the same year, median gross weekly earnings for all employees in the council area as 17.5% lower than the NI average - £267.80 as compared to £324.70. Figures also indicate that a greater proportion of the population in the area claim income support benefit (19.1% in Derry City Council area compared to 10.8% for NI overall – 2004 figures).

3.5 The 2005 Measures of Deprivation, indicates that the Derry City Council area ranks third in terms of overall average score, but more specifically it ranks second in relation to income, employment and local concentration of deprivation.

3.6 At a regional level, it is noted that spending on children in NI is much lower than other parts of the UK. The NICCY/DFP/OFMDFM research showed that 14% of the personal and social services budget was spent on children in NI compared with 24% in England and 26.1% in Wales.

Impact

3.7 The recent report “Health and Social Care Inequalities Monitoring System : Second Update Bulletin 2007” clearly illustrates the impact of deprivation on health. This report highlights that the proportion of the younger population (aged 0-15 years) in deprived areas (26%) was higher than in NI generally (24%). It also provides evidence of :

3.8 Research also indicates that :

(Source: An end in sight? Tackling child poverty in the UK 2001)

4. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of engagement with key stakeholders

4.1 It is vital that children, young people and parents who are living in poverty are engaged with directly. Specifically, we would emphasise the importance of engagement with children young people and parents from areas of high child poverty such as those within the Derry City Council area.

4.2 As part of the consultation on ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ the Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Strategy, Derry Children’s Commission held a series of workshops with young people living in poverty. The young people involved in the ‘Pitch Out Poverty’ workshops subsequently put questions to representatives from the Central Anti Poverty Unit of OFMDFM and performed a short drama depicting the educational and employment barriers they experienced as a result of poverty. The suggestions from young people are documented in the ‘Wise Up To Child Poverty’ Report which is enclosed with this submission. This engagement was distinctive in that it was focused on young people living in poverty who have experienced the barriers directly rather than with a general consultative youth panel. Young people living in poverty who experience significant barriers are less likely to engage with general youth participation structures than their better off peers. It is vital therefore that engagement processes are implemented on a local level with young people, that trust is established and that time is given to the process of seeking their views. The option of ‘parachuting in’ with consultation or only engaging with existing youth participation structures is unlikely to effectively reach those young people who are actually living in poverty.

4.3 The Council welcomes the establishment of the Poverty and Social Exclusion forum following the ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ strategy, however whilst the Council recognises the importance of a regional overview, we would like to see better representation from the west on this forum and direct representation from young people and parents living in poverty, (given the higher prevalence of poverty and child poverty in the west of Northern Ireland).

5. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

5.1 Currently there is a range of strategies / programmes such as Neighbourhood Renewal, Extended Schools, Free School Meals, nTSN, Investing for Health and the NI Anti-Poverty Strategy which should contribute positively towards tackling child poverty.

5.2 Whilst there is limited information available to establish the effectiveness of these initiatives to date, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that initiatives such as Extended Schools have been driven by time and expenditure constraints as opposed to social outcomes and may also have missed their anticipated target groups e.g. children from families where the parent(s) are not working/ have disabilities are less likely to be to avail of breakfast clubs. It is also noted that the average overall ranking (3rd) according to the Noble Deprivation Measures for the Derry City Council area have not changed between 2001 and 2005, and the change in the average deprivation score for the council changed by less than 10% over this 4 year period (as was the case for the 1st and 2nd place council areas – Strabane and Belfast).

5.3 It is considered that this fragmented, uncoordinated approach to tackling child poverty is unlikely to deliver the targets set and that it is hoped that new community planning powers will enable councils to facilitate the coordination and monitoring of activity and resources at a local level so as to enhance community outcomes.

5.4 The Council would also note that under the previous Assembly, there was ring-fenced monies in the Executive Fund for children. The lack of availability of such funding will undermine the capacity of the existing strategy to deliver the key targets for 2010 and 2020.

6. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets

6.1 In terms of the existing implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements, it is important to differentiate between the regional and local dimensions.

6.2 At a regional level, the NIAPS has no resourced, cross departmental/sectoral, regional action plan and the resourcing mechanisms currently in place put pressure on quick spend, decreasing the likelihood of achieving long-term outcomes. There also appears to be no effective cross departmental data monitoring and reporting arrangements in place to establish progress on outcomes. Indeed, the current focus of monitoring seems to more focussed on numbers and finances as opposed to improved outcomes for vulnerable children and their families. It is also noted that short term funding initiatives such as the Children and Young Peoples Fund whilst important may not be effective in addressing long term targets.

6.3 At the local level, it is hoped that new Community Planning powers for councils will facilitate rigorous, local accountability which is not currently in place.

7. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

7.1 The UNICEF reports ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries’ in 2005 and ‘Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of Child Well Being in Rich Countries’ in 2007 ask why some countries are doing a much better job at tackling child poverty than others. In the 2007 UNICEF report the UK was ranked bottom and Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were ranked top in relation to indicators of child well being. This is an indicator of where to look for good practice initiatives beyond the UK perspective.

7.2 Following an in-depth analysis of government policies, spending and poverty rates in OECD countries, the 2005 report concludes that ‘In all countries poverty levels are determined by some combination of the same three forces- social trends, labour market conditions and government policies. The report emphasises the capacity of governments to reduce child poverty rates and demonstrates that:

7.3 In NI a child’s educational attainment is directly linked to father’s educational status. Denmark has broken that link showing that by investing in children it is completely possible to break the link.

7.4 Derry Children’s Commission recently hosted a delegation from the Netherlands particularly looking at child heath, physical activity, safety and mobility. The correlation of child ill health, high child accident rates and deprivation is well documented. One of the very notable differences in the Netherlands approach was the degree of cross-sectoral working. One initiative demonstrated public health working together with roads engineers, educationalists, the local authority and planners to address child heath and safety issues in a deprived community.

8. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child Poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

8.1 It is essential that a resourced, cross departmental and cross sectoral regional action plan is prepared and that this plan should be supplemented by a number of local action plans, corresponding to the existing or new proposed council boundaries.

8.2 Each of these plans should define responsibilities for delivery and include clear, time-bound outcome objectives. Responsibility for co-ordinating and monitoring progress in terms of actions, commitment of resources and in achieving outcomes at the local level should be the responsibility of the local council. Such monitoring would facilitate an integrated approach and help ensure that existing strategies are effective in terms of targeting, engagement, impact and long-term outcomes eg Extended Schools Strategy. There would also be benefits in regard to more effective joint working , pooling of resources and expertise, capacity building and supporting co-ordinated, partnership and community development approaches to tackling poverty and inequality.

8.3 Overall responsibility for the monitoring of the regional plan should lie with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

8.4 Consultation on the regional and local action plans should include direct and real engagement with those who live in poverty and key local stakeholders, thus giving them the opportunity to be involved in identifying and addressing need and contributing to the integrated action plans.

8.5 The target dates of 2010 and 2020 clearly indicate that poverty cannot be eradicated overnight. In the interim period, whilst progress is being made towards the Programme for Government objectives, it is essential that all action plans contain measures that will lift children from the day to day experiences of poverty and improve the quality of their lives. In this context, it is important to note that healthy eating, participation in sport, music, play and all other activities are less likely to be experienced by children living in poverty.

8.6 Action plans should also make specific provision for the most vulnerable groups ie; Traveller Families, Migrant Workers, Children with a Disability, Children at Risk, Children in Care, Young Parents and Children with Mental and Emotional Health difficulties.

8.7 It is also essential that an effectively resourced community infrastructure is in place so as to engage those most vulnerable and most likely to be living in poverty and ensure better targeting, value for money, user involvement and lasting impact and outcomes.

8.8 Equality Impact Assessment and Poverty Proofing of government policies and plans should be carried out.

8.9 If the Executive is to be successful in tackling child poverty dedicated ring-fenced funds must be identified within the Budget 2008-11.

4 December 2007

Appendix 1

The recent report “Health and Social Care Inequalities Monitoring System: Second Update Bulletin 2007” clearly illustrates the impact of deprivation on health. This report highlights that the proportion of the younger population (aged 0-15 years) in deprived areas (26%) was higher than in NI generally (24%). It also provides evidence of:

The link between deprivation and poor health

A higher proportion of the population in deprived areas (27%) than in NI generally (21%) indicated that they had a limiting long term illness. This was also true for the proportion that stated that their health was ‘not good’ (deprived areas – 16%, NI - 11%).

The link between deprivation and higher mortality rates

In 2006, a person aged under 75 years of age living in the most deprived areas was 40% more likely to die than a similar person living in NI overall.

The link between deprivation and higher infant mortality rates.

In 2006, the infant mortality rate was higher in deprived areas with 6.5 infant deaths per 1000 live births than in NI overall (5.3 infant deaths per 1000 live births).

The link between deprivation and higher teenage birth rates

In 2006, the teenage birth rate within deprived areas was 28.9 births per 1000 females compared to 12.4 in non-deprived areas.

The link between deprivation and low immunisation take up rates.

Figures for 2004/5 and 2005/6 indicate that the take up for immunisation of children under 2 years of age is generally lower in deprived areas.

The link between deprivation and lower dental registration rates

In June 2007, the standardised dental registration rate in deprived areas was 13% lower than that for NI generally.

The link between deprivation and higher hospital admission rates.

In 2006/7, the standardised admission rate for all in-patient admissions was 20% higher in deprived areas than the NI SAR. The emergency admission rate was 28% higher.

The link between deprivation and higher suicide rates.

Crude suicide rate figures for 2006 indicate that there were 16.8 suicides per 100,000 population in deprived areas compared to 10.1 in non-deprived areas.

The link between deprivation and childhood obesity.

In 2005/6, obesity levels among P1 children in deprived areas were higher (5.9%) than in non-deprived areas (4.9%).

[1] Kenway et al (2006), Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland 2006, JRF, York

Written Submission by:
Disability Action

Introduction

1 Disability Action is a pioneering Northern Ireland charity working with and for people with disabilities. We work with our members to provide information, training, transport awareness programmes and representation for people regardless of their disability; whether that is physical, mental, sensory, hidden or learning disability.

2 More than one in five (300,000) people in Northern Ireland has a disability and the incidence is higher there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Over one quarter of all families here are affected.

3 As a campaigning body, we work to bring about positive change to the social, economic and cultural life of people with disabilities and consequently our entire community.

4 Our network of services is provided via our Headquarters in Belfast in three regional offices in Carrickfergus, Derry and Dungannon.

5 Disability Action welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

Extent of Disability Among Children in Northern Ireland

6 The NISRA Disability Survey, the most recent research has found that amongst the very youngest within Northern Ireland’s households, the prevalence of disability is notably higher amongst boys than amongst girls. Around 8% of boys aged 15 and under were found to have a disability, compared with 4% of girls of the same age.

7 In relation to multiple disability the most common number of disabilities for children is 1, with just over 2% of children having a disability within one area only. However, a notable number of children across Northern Ireland (almost 4%) are living with two or more disabilities.

8 Chronic illness, learning difficulties, social or behavioural difficulties, intellectual difficulties and difficulties with breathing are the most prevalent disabilities reported for Northern Ireland children. Many children with chronic illness are living with asthma and have associated breathing difficulties, illustrating the interaction between these two particular categories.

9 The prevalence of disability amongst children living in households varies from a low of 5% in the East of Northern Ireland (Antrim, Ards, Ballymena, Banbridge, Craigavon, Down and Larne) to 8% within Belfast.

Disabled Children Living in Poverty

10 The most recent government statistics (released August 2007) showed that 124,000 children are living in poverty, this represents 29% of all children in Northern Ireland an increase of 5% on the previous year’s figures. There are no figures currently available on the prevalence rates of poverty among disabled children.

11 However, disabled children are more likely to experience child poverty and they are more likely to be worse off as adults. Reports from Northern Ireland are scarce and data is not current, therefore Disability Action relies on information from the Office of Disability Issues (UK) which the Committee should extrapolate for Northern Ireland and which shows that:

Quintile distribution of income for households with and without disabled children

Chart 2.eps

12 There can also be wider impacts on their families, with many parents spending time “fighting the system” rather than enjoying time with their children and leading to increasing stress and a greater likelihood of family separation or breakdown.

13 There is anecdotal evidence that families from higher socio-economic groups are more likely to be able to navigate the system than poorer families. This may mean there is a reinforcement of multiple sources of disadvantage for other families.

14 Levels of stress may also differ between different black and minority ethnic groups in the population. (A study showed that South Asian families with children with significant disabilities had higher levels of stress than any other social group).

15 In relation to the strategy contained in Lifetime Opportunities Disability Action believes that the processes, timescales and content are at the very least weak.

16 Whilst not arguing at this point for a re-write of what should be the framework for tackling child poverty in Northern Ireland, Disability Action firmly proposes a significant review of its content in particular the current targets which are too general and non-specific.

Conclusion

17 Disability Action has prepared this short and general brief on poverty and disabled children and is happy to prepare further more specific evidence for the Committee’s attention.

26 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including
food, clothing, housing, medical care, education…”
(UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948)

Children most at risk of low income and poverty in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough,
Households Below Average Income (DSD 2005/06)

1. Introduction

Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council is located in the South West of Northern Ireland. Its population is approximately 54,000. The main population centre is Dungannon with a population of 11,139, with Coalisland as its second town. There are 10 villages and 33 settlements. The area has experienced the fastest growth in the region over the last 5 year period, in 2005/06 its growth rate was 3.1% compared to 1% for Northern Ireland.

As part of its civic leadership role it is advocating on the serious issue of Child Poverty; which is not only evident from recent statistics but from experiences on the ground.

2. Summary of Issue

The recent DSD Households Below Average Incomes (HBAI) NI, 2005/06 identified Children living in Dungannon were most at risk of low income. In Dungannon, almost two-thirds of children fall into the bottom two fifths of households living on low income (BHC), (DSD Households Below Average Incomes NI, 2005/06).

These statistics have been substantiated by organisations who are working to address poverty in the area. Councillors are also hearing first hand experiences of poverty and its impacts within their local communities.

Council as part of its civic leadership role is advocating to government to undertake a review of the area and to look at future action to help make a difference to the lives of people living here.

3. Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland
Extent and Intensity of poverty in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough
3.1 Child Poverty West of the Bann

Of all the Local Government Districts (LGDs) people living in the West of the region are most at risk of living on a low income. (DSD Households Below Average Incomes NI, 2005/06).

3.1.2 Data on household income indicates that the highest household incomes are in the Rural East area reflecting the transfer of earnings generated within Belfast by commuters – with the lowest incomes in the Rural West. (NI Executive Draft Budget 2008 – 2011).

3.1.3 Children living West of the Bann are more likely to be experiencing poverty

Figure 6: Child poverty rate by parliamentary constituency (HBAI 2004-5)

Report Map

3.2 Child Poverty in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough

3.2.1 Children living in Dungannon were most at risk of low income. In Dungannon, almost two-thirds of children fall into the bottom two fifths of households living on low income (BHC), (DSD Households Below Average Incomes NI, 2005/06).

3.2.2 The majority of employment in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough is food, engineering and manufacturing, concentrated on low wage income.

3.2.3 11920 people live with Income deprivation in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough, approx. 23% of population (NI Multiple Deprivation Measure)

3.2.4 Dungannon house prices in 2006 were higher than the NI average, £178,296 compared to £174,178.Source: (UU Survey: District Housing Plan Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough 2007).

3.2.5 The average rental level in Dungannon town is between £150 – £170 per week, in outer villages and areas it is on average £120 – £140 per week.

3.3 Migrant Workers and Ethnic Minorities

3.3.1 The groups with the highest poverty risk are: Ethnic minorities and migrant workers; travellers; young people especially aged 16-18, lone parent families; families of ex-prisoners; people with low or no educational qualifications; long term unemployed; people living in disadvantaged communities; people living in border areas. (Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Network).

3.3.2 Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough has the highest number of migrant workers and population growth across the region, as referenced previously. The migrant population is approximately 10% of the population of 54,000 (estimate 2007). This figure is deemed low as other evidence would suggest, 22% of families registered with Sure Start are migrant workers, and 40% of births in the area in 2006/07 were to migrant worker families. Given that families are only one group of migrant workers the % population figure may be much higher. This is a unique situation and one which brings its own issues for child poverty.

3.3.3 Approximately ¼ of the population is under 16 years of age. Mid Year Estimates 2005

3.3.4 According to NI Census 2001 46% of Dungannon households had one or more persons with a limiting long term illness. NI Census 2001

3.4. Benefits and Low Income

3.4.1 If a family is living entirely on benefits, it is likely to be living in poverty. (Save the Children).

3.4.2 Around half of all children in poverty in NI are living in households where at least one parent is in paid employment - low wage. (Save the Children).

3.4.3 9% of the Dungannon population live in the most deprived Super Output 4 Areas in NI (9th out of 26 LGDs’)

3.4.4 In 2004 10.4% of adults and 24.3% children under 16 were living in Income Support Households, compared to 8.8% and 23.3% for the NI average. Source: Income Support Claimants 2004 (Social Welfare Statistics &Consultancy Branch, DSD)

3.4.5 Industry in the Borough is mainly traditional manufacturing, therefore the majority of the workforce population relies on low wage incomes.

3.5 Housing

3.5.1 Bad housing makes children sick. Children living in cramped, often emergency accommodation experience disturbed sleep, poor diet, hyperactivity, bedwetting and soiling, aggression and higher rates of accidents and infectious disease. And the effects are long lasting. Shelter (2006), Toying with their future.

3.5.2 There are 802 people on the housing waiting list in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough with 556 of these people in housing stress – June 2007.

3.5.3 Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough in its entirety has now been registered an area of HMO, the first outside of Belfast, Derry and Coleraine, due to migration. This brings major issues of fitness standards and rental abuse.

3.5.4 6.6% of Households in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough are without central heating or without sole use of bath/shower/toilet or without both compared to 5.3% NI average. Of 16259 households in Dungannon 8.4% of homes were unfit. NI Census 2001/2001 House Conditions Survey

3.5.5 In 2004 there were 597 new dwelling starts. 12 of these were for Housing Associations, representing 2.0% of total new build, compared to 7.8% for Northern Ireland. Source: New Dwelling Starts 2004 (DRD).

3.6 Education

3.6.1 Children entitled to free school meals are more than twice as likely to achieve no qualifications (12%) compared to the NI average (5%). DENI – Northern Ireland School Leavers Survey 2004/5.

3.6.2 The % of the post primary school population entitled to free school meals (2006) is 21.3% compared to 18.9% for NI Source: School Census 05/06 (DE).

3.6.3 In a recent consultation undertaken by Council with a number of local schools, teachers emphasised the additional pressures and importance of more support for integration and teaching of new migrant worker children.

3.7 Experienced Impact of Child Poverty - Isolation
Experience of isolation from organisations working at the local level:

3.7.1 ‘Lack of English/Information means that children and Young People do not

3.7.2 access services and thus do not feel part of the community’ (SHSSB BME Consultation).

3.7.3 ‘Lack of after hours childcare (outside of the standard 9-5pm) means parents have to leave children in appropriate childcare feeling isolated and without adult supervision’ (SHSSB BME Consultation).

3.7.4 ‘Because childcare places are expensive parents become unemployed as they have to look after their children as such they do not get the opportunity to learn English or integrate with other children’ (SHSSB BME Consultation).

3.7.5 ‘There is a greater need for homework clubs for young people to help them interact outside school and also as both parents work after school hours’ (SHSSB BME Consultation).

3.7.6 ‘There are an ever increasing number of housing developments on the edge of rural towns and villages that are housing new families who then don’t have the local knowledge or connections which further isolates them and can lead to real problems with depression’ (Sure Start Dungannon).

3.7.7 ‘Local charities are experiencing an increase in the number of crisis situations. We currently respond to more and more calls per week, and increasing migrant worker families seeking help’ (SVDP).

3.7.8 ‘Affordable transport is a key issue which is required not only to support work, but access to key services, social and leisure facilities across both rural and urban locations’ (Sure Start).

3.8. Experienced Impact of Child Poverty - Depression
Experience of depression from organisations working at the local level:

3.8.1 ‘We were called to a house were a women only had a packet of rice in her cupboard and did not know where to turn to for help’ (SVDP)

3.8.2 ‘Often when crisis calls are made it is at a time when there is no money for rent or food and families are experiencing a threat of homelessness’. (SVDP)

3.8.3 ‘SVDP can do so little, provide some necessity food, clothing and small emergency money £30 - £40, people should not be allowed to reach such a crisis point in their lives; mainstreamed support is needed’ (SVDP)

3.9 Experienced Impact of Child Poverty - Family/relationship problems and breakdowns.
Experience of family/relationship problems and breakdowns from organisations working at the local level:

3.9.1 ‘We are aware of many families where both parents work one during the day whilst the other works in the evening or overnight. This puts strain on their relationship and is not good for their children’ (Sure Start).

3.9.2 ‘Don’t see any other option but to share the childcare due to cost of outside childcare’ (Sure Start).

3.9.3 ‘Daughter who is 3 years old didn’t get into playgroup this year, which leaves the situation very difficult’ (Sure Start).

3.9.4 ‘Day-care is very expensive and if you are running late they make you pay extra, which is hard on an already limited budget’ (Sure Start).

3.10 Case studies

A number of case studies are also available for information, providing real evidence of experiences and impacts of poverty on the ground. Information on these can be provided if required.

4. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

It is critical that the review of child poverty takes account of real experiences. Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council would like to facilitate a session with the Committee of OFMDFM in Dungannon to allow this interaction and strengthen its evidence base.

Council is aware that engagement has taken place in the development of strategies and plans – Lifetime Opportunities and the NI 10 Year Children’s Strategy and Action Plan. These plans are very good in terms of objectives but are lacking in terms of delivery.

There is also a need for local plans that take account of local need. The Southern Area Children and Young people’s Services Plan does not link to ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ and does not take account of poverty and prioritising resources. Whilst it does address some areas which will help alleviate the impacts of poverty it does not take account of the underlying strategic causes such as low disposable income. The Partnership to oversee delivery of the Plan is voluntary as is its commitment to delivery of actions.

Overall the development of strategies to address poverty are fine, the key element missing is delivery. There would seem to be either a lack of resources for departments to reprioritise or a lack of commitment to deliver on poverty.

5. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

As stated above existing strategies and targets are fine, it is delivery that is missing. Also as mentioned previously there is concern that the ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ Strategy and NI and Sub Regional Children’s Strategy are not interlinked.

There is also a focus on short term solutions. Whilst these are important the main underlying problems need also to be addressed. For example in Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough some of the main issues are reliance on low income economy and high rental values. Whilst organisations such as Sure Start can link into plans and deliver actions relating to supporting families to deal with child and relationship issues, support in planning and encourage integration, it can not address the bigger causes of child poverty such as income or rent.

In dealing with poverty too much emphasis is placed on Neighbourhood Renewal. The two neighbourhood renewal areas designated in Dungannon and Coalisland. These areas which were identified on the basis of the Noble index of multiple deprivation by DSD are not recognizable, coherent communities, as pockets of deprivation in their vicinity have been omitted. The level of funding earmarked by DSD is insignificant in terms of reducing deprivation.

Whilst there is some benefit in terms of project based activity It is not addressing mainstreaming of services and is therefore having limited impact. We must move away from short term projects and look at a different way of targeting mainstreaming of services and seeking real commitment from Government.

“In addition to Neighbourhood Renewal the implementation and development of Sure Start programmes has taken place since 2000. There are currently two programmes in the Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council area. Clogher Valley Sure Start (Augher, Clogher, Fivemiletown, Ballygawley, Aughnacloy) and Dungannon Sure Start (Dungannon Town, Moygashel, Granville, Coalisland South). It has only recently expanded to Coalisland South with funding from the Children and Young Peoples Funding Package, which has also provided for a pilot programme for two year olds and an increase in daycare to facilitate parents to access education/training and potential employment. These programmes and recent initiatives have delivered positive outcomes.

The Goal of Lifetime Opportunities for Early Years (0to4) is “to ensure that every child should have a chance to develop their full potential in infancy regardless of social background.” Sure Start programmes will continue to play their part in delivering on this goal. The additional funding available from the CYPFP will also make a positive contribution but the key issues of housing affordability, of low wage economy and affordable / flexible childcare will remain outside this control.

Child Poverty also happens outside of the Sure Start and Neighbourhood Renewal areas which mean that these children, parents and communities are excluded. Work must take place to mainstream these initiatives and address the issues that remain outside their remit.”

6. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets

Given that child poverty continues to rise, it would seem that the current implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring are not adequate to deliver the actions/targets. The main issue would seem to be that there is no commitment from departments to reprioritise resources.

In a recent study ‘An Exploration of the impact of Rural Isolation on Poverty and Disadvantage in Families with Children in the Sothern Investing for Heath Partnership area’, a number of organisation were asked how they provide services to respond to the challenge of equitable rural service delivery and poverty. Comments included ‘Our Service is there for all’, ‘We deliver our services equally’ Council has had similar answers from departments. This view of equality or targeting TSN is misleading and leadership is required to move departments forward if the existing strategies and action plans are to be delivered.

If a real difference to child poverty is going to be made adequate resources are required. Departments continually state they do not have the additional funding. It is also important that Government through OFMDFM centralise funding to undertake value added activity to seek to alleviate child poverty. It is also critical that all departments identify actions and areas that are value added and target driven to show real commitment.

A monitoring group should be established including a wide range of stakeholders to regularly monitor progress of the named strategies and plans on child poverty.

Data collection is important, however this does not need to become an exercise in itself. Leadership from one department is required and a commitment from all departments to gather and share relevant information. There also needs to be an updated monitoring form, as it is not appropriate to tick a white or black box to help determine diversity needs.

7. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

England

8. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

1. Given the unique situation of Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough with regard to child poverty figures and new communities, we are seeking OFMDFM Committee to hold a session on child poverty in Dungannon.

2. The current Executive budget needs to address child poverty as a priority, and allocate additional resources, as current resource reallocation is not working.

3. Seek action and commitment to the Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy – Lifetime Opportunities; to identify actions, allocate responsibilities, and measure progress through a review group of stakeholders. Similarly, with the recent document ‘Unmet Needs of Children in NI’.

4. Ensure local Children’s plan’s ‘Southern Area Children and Young people’s plan’ includes Lifetime Opportunities, and wider strategic causes of child poverty with cross departmental commitment to action.

5. Establish a taskforce in areas of extreme child poverty and with unique situations to other areas to address a local plan of action, with a commitment from other Departments or allocated resources.

6. Seek a commitment from Government on short-medium term actions:

(i) Provision of adequate preschool places.

(ii) Provision of appropriate childcare to accommodate a diverse group.

(iii) Provision of after schools support for children.

(iv) Provision of adequate dental care for NHS and vulnerable groups.

(v) Provision of outreach community healthcare workers.

(vi) School transport for young children to help safety and access.

(vii) DSD to formally intervene in housing rentals, and to review the gap between housing benefit support and rents.

7. Commitment from Government to medium-long term actions:

(viii) DETI/INI to address economic deprivation and reliance on low income employment (contributor to child poverty), by looking at regionally dispersed R&D, knowledge based industry and public sector employment.

(ix) DSD to prioritise the provision of social and affordable housing in areas of poverty.

List of Stakeholders Consulted

1. Sure Start Dungannon

2. Southern Health and Social Care Trust - Promotion of Wellbeing

3. Southern Health and Social Services Board – Children’s Services Planning

4. Save the Children

5. Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Network

6. St Vincent De Paul

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Eastern Health and Social Services Board

1. This submission has been drafted by the Personal Social Services Directorate, of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board.

2. The Governments anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy for Northern Ireland: Lifetime of opportunities sets out targets for early years and for children and young people aged 5-16.

3. The early years section emphasises a broad and balanced pre-school curriculum to age 6, parents having access to a range of information and services, and improvements in rural early years services.

4. The targets for children aged 5-16 stressed improvements in educational attainment and in improvements to mental health and well being.

5. The wider strategy stressed improved access to employment for disadvantaged groups and an end to area deprivation.

6. We consider that whilst the range of actions and targets set out in this strategy are important there remains a significant aspect to the elimination of childhood poverty that is not addressed.

7. The link between poverty and poor outcomes for children is well known. The 2006/07 report from Ofsted, (The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, 2006/07), highlights the links between low education attainment and economic disadvantage. It states: “The relationship between poverty and outcomes for young people is stark”. However the relationship and the factors involved are complex and range beyond income level and simple factors for example lone parents.

8. Over the past few years the Child and Young Persons Committee (CYPC) has taken time to identify and critically appraise detailed evidence from a wide range of sources, addressing the problems of poor outcomes for children and young people. What follows is a brief summary of the interventions and approaches, Eastern Area Family Support Strategy, that proposes a course of action to address the task of achieving better outcomes for all vulnerable children, and as a consequence a reduction in inter-generational poverty.

Background:

9. Within the population there are children and groups of children who require additional family support because of the adverse circumstances or multiple disadvantages they face whilst growing up.

10. From research we know that large portions of the population are disadvantaged as a result of challenges such as unemployment, chronic illness and disability or living in a lone parent family. Whilst the evidence would indicate that children who live, for example, in a lone parent family have a higher chance of experiencing poorer outcomes both during childhood and as an adult, there are also many children who have a similar upbringing but who do not suffer the same long-term negative consequences.

11. The work of the “Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study Team” in the United States has started to provide a better understanding of how a range of adverse experiences in childhood result in poorer outcomes for children in later life and the mechanisms for this. The ACE Study reveals a powerful relationship between the emotional experiences of children and their later physical and mental health as adults, as well as helping to explain the major causes of adult mortality in the United States.

12. The ACE Study has identified nine factors that lead to poorer outcomes for children as adults if they are exposed to them within their family. Given an exposure to one category, there is an 80% likelihood of exposure to another category. The strength of this research has been in mapping the impact of multiple disadvantages rather than studying each issue separately, as rarely do children and families experience just one type of disadvantage – for example, a child does not grow up with a parent with a substance misuse problem or experiencing domestic violence in an otherwise well-functioning family.

13. An adverse childhood experience is defined as growing up in a household as a child or young person with one or more of the following:

14. The greater the number of adverse childhood experiences the greater the likelihood that as an adult the individual will present with a range of health problems and emotional disorders, ultimately resulting in an earlier death. For example, an individual who has experienced adverse childhood experiences in four categories is 390% more likely to have chronic heart disease compared to an individual who has not experienced any. Similarly, an individual who has experienced adverse childhood experiences in four categories is 460% more likely to be depressed with a 1,220% increase in attempted suicide. The two most powerful findings from the study are that adverse childhood experiences.

15. Are vastly more common than recognised or acknowledged, and have a powerful relation to adult health a half-century later.

16. The above concept is a key aspect of progressing an early intervention approach by ensuring that those children living in adverse circumstances are identified at the earliest possible stage.

17. Another key component of early intervention is to identify and provide support to children and young people who are already struggling to achieve reasonable outcomes. Examples would include young people who are missing school or who are performing poorly within school, young people on the fringes of offending, or young people who are leading unhealthy lifestyles through smoking, drinking or early sexual activity. Such children and young people are also considered to be vulnerable in the context of this strategy.

18. Children with complex health needs and/or disabilities also need to receive family support services as vulnerable children or children in need. Research would indicate that the earlier the identification of a child’s need for additional support or specialist services the better the outcomes for the child concerned.

19. The CYPC after much discussion, which considered children and young people in a wide range of vulnerable circumstances, felt that the following groupings contained those children who were most vulnerable to experiencing long term and significant difficulties:

20. The CYPC also accept that there are other factors which contribute to adverse childhood experience, including single parenthood, poverty, isolation, ethnicity, overcrowded living and young parenthood.

Approach:

21. Adverse life events contribute to serious long-term outcomes for some children. However, research would indicate that other children faced with similar adverse events appear to emerge relatively unaffected. This capacity to resist or recover from adversities is generally called resilience.

22. A review of the research into resilience and its role in Child Care Services compiled by Tony Newman* stresses that whilst there is no doubt that the identification of risk factors leads to substantial improvements in a child’s health and well being, improving the outcomes for vulnerable children is not simply a matter of eliminating or reducing risk factors but also of promoting resilience.

23. Risk factors are cumulative; the presence of one increases the likelihood that more will emerge. Where this cumulative chain of adversities is broken most children are able to recover from even severe exposure to adversities in early life. However, where adversities are continuous and extreme child resilience will be very rare unless the adversities are moderated by factors external to the child.

24. Therefore, to be successful in maximising outcomes for children living in adverse circumstances, including poverty, supportive interventions should begin as early as possible in the child’s life and must be continuous.

25. Examples of key factors in promoting resilience include:

26. The adoption of a high-level outcomes approach raises a question in relation to child protection services. Traditionally child protection has focused upon harm caused to children by adults, rather than self harm or the harm caused by risk taking behaviour. Children or young people considered at risk of abuse by adults become the centre of a full multi-agency assessment and service response. Children and young people who do not fall within this category generally receive a patchier, less cohesive response.

27. A high-level outcomes approach would suggest that the crucial element for consideration is the outcome for the young person. If a child or young person suffers harm it is an equally poor outcome for them regardless of the cause. Therefore a child or young person who is at risk of self-harming is in as great a need of safeguarding as one who is at risk of abuse by an adult. As such the service response should be equivalent.

28. This approach does not imply that children and young people at risk of abuse should receive a different or lesser response than they currently receive or that other children and young people who are in need of ‘safeguarding’ should automatically be brought into the current child protection system. The issue is about developing a whole child multi-agency response to all children and young people who require safeguarding.

29. This requires universal and community based services that both identify, and provide additional support to, vulnerable children and children in need. This would be a co-ordinated approach that provides a continuum of support services for all children, and additional support services for vulnerable children from birth to adulthood. This will involve infrastructure services, universal children’s services, adult services and community based support services in a formal locality plan.

30. A co-ordinated approach to children who are at risk or who have complex needs. This requires a single multi agency strategic and service development plan to agree priorities, plan service responses and measure performance. At an individual case level there would be a lead professional from the most relevant agency able to access a menu of support services across agencies to respond to the particular needs of the child/young person. Tier 1/2 services would also allow priority access to promote inclusion, develop resilience and maximise outcomes.

31. Complex issues require strategic inter-departmental vision and joined-up approaches consistently applied. This approach would coordinate and link together the following programmes/government funding initiatives/interventions.

Infrastructure Services

Trust family support services

Adult Services: Drug/Alcohol/Mental Health

Child protection services

Primary Care e.g. GP’s Health Visitors

Disability support services

Surestart

Fostering/adoption

Home Visiting

Residential care

Lifestart

Education welfare services

Faith groups support services

SEN services

Early years services

Child and adolescent psychology

Focused support groups e.g. Prison Link

Hospitals

Sports/Recreation clubs

Supported accommodation

Breakfast clubs

Probation

School nurses

Youth justice agency services

Extended schools

Offender programmes

After schools clubs

Youth justice centres

Community centres

  

Homework clubs

  

Summer schemes

  

Community safety partnerships

  

Community development

  

Youth Services

  

F.E. colleges

  

Diversionary schemes

  

Restorative justice schemes

  

32. This co-ordinated approach to service delivery for all children will lead to better outcomes for the most vulnerable and provide more opportunity for them to extract themselves from inter-generational poverty.

22 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

Introduction

1. The Equality Commission welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Committee for the Office of the First and Deputy First Minster into their enquiry into child poverty. We consider that equality is a pre-requisite for good relations and we consider equality is a pre-requisite for the eradication of poverty. Therefore it is essential that the anti-poverty strategy recognises the interdependence of good relations and equality of opportunity.

2. The extent of poverty and its relationship with inequality in Northern Ireland is well documented. The Bare Necessities Report concluded that Northern Ireland has higher poverty rates than Ireland and GB, “.. as the scale of poverty is a reflection of widening income inequalities. Northern Ireland is not only characterised by high poverty levels but also by considerably higher levels of income inequality than Britain.”[1] Furthermore this research showed that 38% of children live in households that have low incomes and lack three or more basic necessities.

3. The recent conflict in Northern Ireland had a significant impact on children and young people. Horgan[2] has drawn attention to growing evidence that the conflict has had a traumatising effect on far larger numbers of children and young people than was formerly acknowledged. Research for the NI Commissioner for Children and Young People and by the Social Services Inspectorate[3] has highlighted a serious shortage of mental health services, both community and hospital based, for children and young people in Northern Ireland, during a time when suicide rates for young people are high.

4. An additional effect of the conflict has been an increasing tendency towards social segregation on sectarian grounds, particularly in housing[4].

5. The cost of bringing up children in Northern Ireland is significantly higher than in Britain:

6. It is clear that there are a range of issues arising from the particular circumstances of children and young people in Northern Ireland that the strategy needs to address.

7. This enquiry is timely given the draft Programme for Government’s commitment to, ‘reducing child poverty by 59% by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020.’ The Commission has also recently launched its ‘Statement on Key Inequalities in Northern Ireland.’ Whilst we acknowledge that much progress has been made, some inequalities remain to be addressed. In identifying six broad areas: educational underachievement, employment, access and availability of health and social care, housing and communities, participation in public life and the impact of prejudice, we have been guided by evidence of persistent inequalities that have not been notably improved by either legislation or by other public policy interventions.

8. The Commission welcomed the publication of Lifetime Opportunities: Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland. Our previous and detailed comments on the development of the final strategy reflected our role as an advisory body and our experience of enforcing the range of anti-discrimination and equality legislation.

9. Given the terms of reference for the enquiry outlined and our role, our comments relate to; the approach taken and engagement with key stakeholders; whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering key targets for 2010 and 2020 and to examine implementation mechanisms.

General Issues

10. However prior to commenting on the specific points above the Commission considers that in the first instance the articulation of an explicit official definition of poverty is a valuable tool in the fight against poverty against which progress can be clearly measured. Therefore we recommend the development of a clear definition of poverty.

11. Secondly it is of vital importance that the strategy explicitly addresses social need arising out of the conflict. Poverty and conflict cannot be disassociated from each other and it is important that that this is built into the strategy. Northern Ireland is coping with the effects of many years of violence and for some communities their experience of poverty is compounded and sustained by continued sectarian conflict. Importantly too, in particular areas, the effect of past conflict, can result in chill factors in relation to employment and restrict mobility.

12. Finally the Commission commended the strategy, for identification of rural and gender proofing alongside Section 75 commitments. However, we were disappointed that the strategy does not recommend or develop a system of poverty proofing. The Commission considers that the strategy would be strengthened by a commitment to establish a system of poverty proofing. This would act as a tool in the implementation of the strategy in ensuring that the targets in the strategy are achieved. It would also assist departments to assess the impact of their spending on anti-poverty measures, ensure that policies do not inadvertently produce greater inequalities and ensure that future policies are developed in a way that benefits people living in poverty.

Approach Taken and Engagement with Key Stakeholders

13. The Commission accepts that one of the best ways out of poverty is through paid work for those who can and we welcome approaches to removing barriers which prevent people from re-entering the labour market which in turn will impact on child poverty. Of course poverty is not just a problem for those outside the labour market but is a very real experience for those in low paid work. Job seekers who are ‘poor’ often enter the workforce in a way that will, in the long run, concentrate their experience of poverty. The job oportunities that are available to those who are long term unemployed and /or are unskilled, are rarely likely to lift them out of poverty. Such jobs as are available are likely to be poorly paid, may be temporary and are also potentially most likely affected by an economic downturn. Looking at the profile of those in low skilled/low paid jobs – women, disabled people, migrant workers – it is not unexpected that these groups experience a disproportionate degree of poverty.

14. It is necessary to examine the profile and quality of employment opportunities available to those in poverty to ensure that coming off benefits is worthwhile. In many circumstances despite initiatives such as Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, the benefit of taking low skilled, low paid, insecure employment is very marginal. One of the frequent barriers to employment has been shown to be poor levels of literacy and numeracy. Lower levels of literacy are positively correlated with poverty and unemployment.

15. It is important that there is joined up thinking in government on the issue of poverty and the associated initiatives to address it. Education and training are core elements in getting people out of poverty and enabling them to have true equality of opportunity.

16. Ending inequalities caused by discrimination will also lead to a reduction in the numbers in poverty. The Commission accordingly emphasises the importance of its work and that of Government in addressing unlawful discrimination in the fight against poverty.

17. In relation to engagement with key stakeholders the Commission is currently revising its guidance for public authorities on consulting children and young people in light of the recent consultation exercise. ‘Lets Talk: Let’s Listen’, outlines the importance of consulting with children and young people and reinforces the importance of Section 75 in relation to children, with particular emphasis on the good relations duty.

18. Consultation with children and young people has the potential to complement other initiatives to encourage active citizenship, widen and deepen participation in the democratic process and assist public authorities to comply with the range of their human rights responsibilities.

Delivery of Key Targets

19. The Commission in its work on the Comprehensive Spending Review, (CSR) recognised that this was an opportunity to make progress against persistent inequalities by aligning resources with priorities. We commended the strategy as it focused on outcomes that are linked to the life chances of individuals and groups and the potential of the draft Programme for Government to impact on these individuals and groups. However we are aware of the limitations of the current performance measures and feel that there is a lack of clarity in the document about how the targets will be built into departmental actions and targets in the PfG.

20. The targets accompanying PSA 7: Making People’s Lives Better, in relation to child poverty ‘to work towards eliminating severe child poverty by 2012,’ does not give any indication of how this will be achieved. However the goals in the strategy and associated targets to ‘end child poverty by 2020…’ were much less ambiguous in intent. Given that the NI Assembly does not have legislative remit to increase benefits such as Child Benefit, which can impact on levels of child poverty, we feel that this lack of information at this level is cause for concern.

21. The Public Service Agreement (PSA) Framework accompanying the Programme for Government has identified under PSA 10, two specific targets to reduce gaps in educational outcomes but there is no specific reference to groups or identification of where the disadvantage occurs. To break the cycle of child poverty, reducing the gap in educational outcome is essential. For example the Commission identified Traveller education as a priority area for its work on the CSR and would have expected to see targets in relation to Travellers. The Commission has initiated a series of roundtables with key stakeholders in education with a view to positively influencing outcomes for Traveller children in education.

22. In terms of action planning the Commission has been working on the range of single strand strategies, PSI initiatives and other high level policies with an impact on equality and good relations, including the anti-poverty strategy.

23. Our interest in action planning across these strategies sits within the wider context of modernizing government service through regulatory regime of targets and performance business.

24. Therefore we wish to see coherence across these policy areas and associated action plans outlining the issues which address the strategic aims; linked to clear targets and benchmarks and; transparency in terms of indicators which reflect achievements in each of the action areas. For example it is important that there is read across and vice versa from the strategies covering gender, race, children and young people and A Shared Future, as they have the potential, in conjunction with Lifetime Opportunities, to contribute to the elimination of child poverty by 2020, something that is in all our interests.

25. The Commission welcomes the link made between the investment strategy goals, and the recently published Programme for Government. This is particularly pertinent as opportunities in the processes, such as, procurement to secure equality and sustainable development objectives, should be developed. Improvements in our infrastructure can work towards further economic stability and growth, which in turn can impact on child poverty in Northern Ireland.

Implementation Mechanisms

26. There is still much to test on this strategy through implementation and accountability for actions to achieve the targets, and ultimately to ensure positive actions for children and young people. For example indicators should give particular insight into reasons for progress (or indeed lack of progress) with individual outcomes. For example paragraph 107 of the strategy refers to the need for services for disabled children and those from ethnic minority groups; the indicators should reflect this.

27. The Commission has consistently called for a specific budget allocations associated to this strategy. Taking education as an example, PSA 10: Helping Our Children and Young People to Achieve Through Education, refers to providing early intervention at pre-school level and reduce the gap in educational outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable children and young people. The associated actions and targets do not, for example, refer to additional teachers and support staff for those schools in Neighbourhood Renewal Areas; or an increase in funding for youth programmes. The Draft Budget merely refers to providing additional funding for teaching principals. The Commission would prefer to see tangible actions and targets that can make real change to those children and young people in poverty.

16 November 2007

[1] Hillyard, P., Kelly, G., McLaughlin, E., Patsios, D., and Tomlinson, M., (2003) Bare Necessities: poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland, (Belfast: Democratic Dialogue) (www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/bare-necessities.pdf).

[2] Horgan, G., (2005), The particular circumstances of children in Northern Ireland, (www.childrenslawcentre.org/ParticularCircumstancesofChildreninNorthernIreland-GorettiHorgan.htm).

[3] NICCY research (2004) cited in Horgan (ibid). Social Services Inspectorate (2005), Care At It’s Best: Overview Report of the Multidisciplinary Regional Inspection Of The Service For Disabled Children in Hospital (Belfast: DHSSPS).

[4] In 1999, 98% of Northern Ireland Housing Executive estates in Belfast were classified as segregated while across Northern Ireland 71% of tenants lived in segregated areas; Research conducted by Dr Peter Shirlow for the University of Ulster found that 68% of 18-25 year olds surveyed never had a meaningful conversation with anyone from the other community and that 58% of people were unwilling to use shops or leisure centres located across the religious divide (Sunday Tribune, ‘Seven years after Good Friday, North is more violent than ever, 29 August 2005).

[5] The 2003-04 Family Spending Survey found that the average amount per household spent on food was 20% higher in Northern Ireland than in the North East of England. Clothing and footwear are more some 37% more expensive than the average in Britain cited in Horgan (2005) op cit.

[6] (Northern Ireland Housing Executive: 2001 Northern Ireland Housing Conditions Survey (Belfast: NIHE) (www.nihe.gov.uk/publications/reports/2001HCS.pdf)

[7] DHSSPS (2004), Indicators of Personal Social Services (Belfast).

[8] DHSSPS (2004), Ibid.

[9] Bell, K., Jarman, N., and Lefebvre, T., Migrant Workers in Northern Ireland (Belfast: Institute of Conflict Research).

[10] During 2005-06 the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) recorded 936 racial incidents, of which 746 were subsequently deemed to be racist crimes. The previous year there were 813 incidents, of which 634 were confirmed as crimes. In 2003-04, 453 racist incidents were reported (www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,,1785490,00.html).

Written Submission by:
The Institute of Public Health Ireland

Introduction
The Institute of Public Health in Ireland

The Institute of Public Health aims to improve health on the island of Ireland, by working to combat health inequalities and influence public policies in favour of health. The Institute promotes cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in research, training, information and policy.

The Institute congratulates the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee on convening this inquiry on child poverty in Northern Ireland and welcomes the opportunity to contribute our views and experience on this important issue.

In Northern Ireland, children born into poverty are four times more likely to die before the age of twenty than non-poor children1. The Institute is gravely concerned regarding the impact of child poverty on the health of Northern Ireland’s population. We believe that the Inquiry should seek to better understand the profound impact of child poverty on the health of children in Northern Ireland and reduce child poverty by seeking opportunities to optimise and protect the health of disadvantaged children

Summary
1. Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

1.1 An in-depth understanding of the extent and nature of child poverty in Northern Ireland will contribute to designing effective measures to improve the life chances of children born into disadvantage.

1.2 A comprehensive assessment of the extent and nature of child poverty as well as a review of issues with measurement in Northern Ireland has been recently conducted2. We concur with the recommendation to develop a clear set of definitions on the reporting and analysis of child and family poverty in Northern Ireland. This Inquiry could reasonably deliver on this recommendation by delivering a clear statement on the issue and proposing mechanisms to enforce standard definitions across government departments and their publications.

1.3 We consider that core measures of child poverty should include measures based on income as well as those based on combined income and deprivation and measures capturing information on children in severe poverty.

1.4 Consideration should be given to producing a dedicated regular bulletin compiling information on the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland. This bulletin would keep the issue on the political and public agenda as well as fostering understanding and action across the full range of government departments and other sectors. Such a bulletin could present up-to-date information on (i) core measures of child poverty as per the standard definitions proposed by the Inquiry (ii) outcomes for children living in poverty across the domains of health, education, social inclusion, housing etc. linked to, but not exclusive to, the indicators proposed in Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge A Ten Year Strategy for Children and Young People 2006-2016.1

1.5 There are no rich children in poor families. The issue of child poverty is intimately linked with wider societal issues such as changes in family structures and family policy, employment levels, demographics and the macro-economic climate. The Inquiry’s examination of the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland must be conducted within the wider context of poverty dynamics in the region. This will entail examination of the macro- economic environment and specifically issues such as levels of unemployment, low-paid employment and the rising numbers of families described as ‘working poor’. Best evidence on projected changes in demographics and family structure (e.g rising numbers of lone parents; immigration) must also be considered in order that efforts to tackle child poverty are developed within an appropriate context.

1.6 A quality information system for child poverty in Northern Ireland must perform at a level where it can

(i) report on the current state of child poverty in Northern Ireland accurately and in a way that is actively and appropriately communicated to many sectors

(ii) allow for comparisons on an all-island, UK and European basis

(iii) provide timely reporting on key outcomes for poor children across a number of domains

(iv) monitor changes in the prevalence and nature of child poverty and it’s outcomes

(v) be meaningfully integrated with information on the wider dimensions of poverty affecting families

(vi) be forward-looking and able to signal potential challenges and opportunities as the child poverty agenda moves forward

(vii) provide for some examination of the intergenerational transmission of child poverty

(viii) report directly on government targets and indicators as articulated in strategy and policy documents

1.7 Families move in and out of poverty over time – this dynamic state requires dynamic research methodologies. Poverty may be related to a short spell of parental unemployment or changed family circumstances, or it may be recurrent or persistent for all of the childhood years3. The consequences of poverty on these children are quite different and ameliorating child poverty for these groups will require different approaches. The Inquiry is encouraged to consider some of the limitations of data derived from cross-sectional surveys in its examination of child poverty in Northern Ireland. Meaningful analysis of data from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study could provide better insight into the dynamics of child poverty in the region.

2. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

2.1 It is our understanding that Lifetime Opportunities4 and Our Children and Young People represent the over-riding strategies addressing child poverty in Northern Ireland. The Inquiry is invited to consider mechanisms to ensure that the action plans related to these strategies are co-ordinated and remain committed to addressing child poverty in an intensive way from the outset.

2.2 A considerable level of consultation and engagement was undertaken in the development of both strategies. These strategies are essentially high-level documents which set out the broad strategic areas of action to tackle child poverty, rather than detailed proposals for action. Children and families living in poverty and the groups that represent them have a particularly useful role to play in translating policy into action at regional, local and community level. Community involvement in the development and implementation of action plans allied to these strategies is therefore recommended.

2.3 The emphasis on early years in Lifetime Opportunities is particularly welcome as evidence shows that poverty affecting newborns, babies and infants has profound effects on health and well-being. Consultation with pregnant women and health and social service providers for pregnant women and new mothers should be included as action plans are developed.

2.4 Some, but not all, of the indicators presented in Our Children and Young People are currently being monitored in terms of the different outcomes experienced by children born into disadvantage. The commitment to monitor inequalities in issues such as teenage pregnancy, infant mortality and education should be sustained with the support of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency and other data providers and the possibility of monitoring all the outcomes according to inequalities and the relationship with child poverty should be explored.

3. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

3.1 Data from 2005/2006 suggests that the proportion of children living in poor homes has risen in the last two years, despite government plans to eradicate child poverty. The reduction of child poverty by 2010 and the elimination of child poverty by 2020 are ambitious targets. Consideration should be given to the development of a clear strategic framework accompanied by a series of 5 year action plans proposing time-bound actions to be undertaken by each government department, starting with the period 2010-2015.

3.2 The targets pertaining to ‘early years’ and ‘children and young people’ in Lifetime Opportunities are commendable and if achieved, will certainly contribute to the reduction of child poverty and its consequences for disadvantaged families. However, it is unclear how these commitments, some of which are drawn from commitments made in a range of other relevant policies, fall short of presenting a coherent and clear strategic framework for tackling child poverty in the region. The Inquiry is advised to consider the development of such a framework to enhance and add focus to the commitments made in Lifetime Opportunities. Such a framework would propose how to reduce child poverty through tangible changes in policy, services, research and information, monitoring and outcomes over the period to 2020.

4. Examine whether the implementation measures, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions and targets.

4.1 The implementation of Lifetime Opportunities is currently unclear as action plans allied to the strategy have yet to be articulated. The Inquiry is in a unique position to work with the Central Anti-Poverty Unit to link together aspects of information, policy and outcomes to develop a cohesive action plan to address child poverty in the coming decade.

4.2 It is our understanding that the effectiveness of Lifetime Opportunities will be monitored and evaluated through the Ministerial Poverty Forum, the Central Anti- Poverty Unit, the cross-departmental Equality and Social Need Steering Group and that annual reports will be produced. Similarly, we understand that the effectiveness of Our Children and Young People will be monitored through the Minister for Children and Young People and the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Children and Young People in conjunction with a Strategy Planning and Review Group supported by a parent’s advisory group, practitioners group and research and information group. This signals a rich commitment to monitoring progress but there is clearly a need to rationalise and co-ordinate these varied monitoring mechanisms between strategies.

4.3 The Inquiry’s attention is drawn to the example of the State of the Nations Children5 report produced as part of the monitoring of the Childrens Strategy in Ireland. This report provides a comprehensive picture of children’s well-being across the domains of material well-being, health, education, criminal justice, play and environments. This allows for international comparisons and highlights strengths and weaknesses in children’s well-being.

5. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

5.1 Ireland set a ten-year target to tackle child poverty by 2007 as part of the initial National Anti-Poverty Strategy. The most recent data produced through EU-SILC indicates that there has been a modest fall of 3 or 4 % in the proportions of children in child poverty despite an economic boom, lower unemployment and increases in child benefit. In Ireland, good levels of child income support by international standards are not resulting in low levels of child poverty by international standards. It is generally accepted that Ireland’s poor record on child poverty and poor outcomes in terms of health and education for disadvantaged children is caused in part by a lack of resourcing and development in services which impact on poor children. The child poverty debate has therefore moved from a sole focus on incomes to include an equal emphasis on building infrastructure for children in poor families so that poor children can enjoy improved housing, neighbourhoods, schools and health services while they are on a low income.6 The Inquiry may wish to consider the experience in the Republic of Ireland at this stage to learn from the experience of government departments and other sectors in attempting to meet child poverty targets.

6. Consider what further action could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable within the devolved administration

6.1 The Inquiry should consider commissioning in-depth analysis of social and fiscal policy to see what can be done to improve incomes for households with children examining parental earnings, social welfare and child benefit/child tax credits. Such analysis should also assess the relative contribution of adult welfare payments which contribute a larger component of family income that child income transfers do – adult welfare rates may have considerable leverage to raise children out of poverty.

6.2 The Inquiry should seek to develop methods to enhance the current strategy commitments to remove obstacles facing low-skilled women in accessing education, training or employment. The Inquiry should take particular care to examine the position of the ‘working poor’ and issues of low pay and insecure employment. We question the benefit to children of parents working long hours on low pay with limited promotional prospects.

6.3 Additional actions are needed to help families manage their finances and budget and to cope with debt.

6.4 There needs to be better commitments in terms of children with disabilities in terms of improving their life chances and reducing poverty in families caring for disabled children.

6.5 While the effect of child poverty on health is well documented, the effect of childhood illness on poverty in Northern Ireland requires further research. Childhood illness creates a poverty trap for children and their families. When a sick child is absent from school, academic achievement suffers, as can a child’s mental and emotional development and peer relationships. Sick children place a substantial financial and emotional strain on families, with many parents opting for unpaid leave from employment in addition to meeting the costs associated with health care. Irish research shows that there is little financial assistance for non-medical costs and financial strain is most acute for families caring for children with lengthy and/or multiple admissions.7

6.6 Babies born to lower socio-economic status families are at an increased risk of being born earlier and/or born smaller. These babies are more likely to be stillborn or die in infancy. For survivors, the increased risk of lifelong physical, intellectual or sensory disability and associated behavioural difficulties can limit their overall potential and perpetuate intergenerational cycles of poverty. In Northern Ireland, women in the least skilled occupations were substantially more likely to smoke throughout pregnancy (29%) than women in the highest social class (11%).Although teenage birth rates have fallen in all areas of Northern Ireland, the rate in deprived areas has remained 70% higher than in Northern Ireland as a whole (28.6 per 1000 women as compared to 16.7 per 1000 women).The development of supportive social and fiscal policy for pregnancy in conjunction with effective interventions to reduce smoking among disadvantaged women will contribute to a fairer start for babies born into disadvantage. Explicit commitments should be made within government policy to achieve equitable birth outcomes (birth weight, congenital anomaly and early life mortality) for babies born into families from different socio-economic backgrounds. The future design of maternity/ antenatal services and social policy for pregnant women should contribute to the reduction of inequalities in birth outcomes and have a social inclusion focus. Effective interventions to reduce teenage pregnancy and improve birth outcomes for babies born to teenage mothers should be developed and resourced. Improved accessibility and early uptake of antenatal services for socially excluded women, and for teenagers and ethnic minority women in particular have an important role to play but are not prioritised within the current strategies8.

6.7 Consideration should be given to reducing the severity and the duration of child poverty as well as the numbers of children living in poverty.

6.8 Progress with the achievement of existing policy commitments to tackle socio-economic inequalities in childhood obesity and breastfeeding should be monitored.

6.9 A long-term research programme to monitor inequalities in child health should be agreed and this should encompass monitoring outcomes for vulnerable children, such as those in care.

6.10 The success of current policy and programmes aiming to provide accessible child care and early education for disadvantaged families should be monitored on an ongoing basis.

6.11 Households in Northern Ireland experience higher rates of poverty, unemployment and low-paid employment than other households in the UK. As Northern Ireland also has a higher proportion of children, it is therefore unsurprising that rates of child poverty exceed those recorded in the rest of Britain. The Inquiry should seek to secure funding for tackling child poverty from Westminster that reflects this situation i.e. funding to tackle child poverty should be allocated on a basis of need across the countries and regions of the UK. It is estimated that £3.8 billion needs to be invested across the UK in child poverty to reach the 2010 target9. The Inquiry is encouraged to consider what level of top-line investment is required in Northern Ireland.

16 November 2007

References

1 Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2006)Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge. A Ten Year Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland 2006-2016.

2 Eithne McLaughlin and Marina Montieth (2006) Child and Family Poverty in Northern Ireland. A report prepared for the Equality and Social Need Division, OFMDFM.

3 Brian Nolan, Richard Layte, Christopher T Whelan and Bertrand Maitre (2006) Day In Day Out Understanding the Dynamics of Child Poverty. Combat Poverty Agency.

4 Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2006) Lifetime Opportunities – Governments Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland.

5 Office of the Minister for Children. State of the Nations Children. Government Publications 2006.

6 Combat Poverty Agency (2007) Welfare Policy and Poverty.

7 Eithne Fitzgerald (2004) Sick Children, Money Worries. Children in Hospital Ireland.

8 Institute of Public Health in Ireland (2006) Unequal at birth. Inequalities in the occurrence of low birthweight babies in Ireland.

9 Barnardos Northern Ireland (2006) It Doesn’t Happen Here. The reality of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

Written Submission by:
Lisburn City Council

I wish to advise that, having considered this matter, the Council would state that, rather than tackling poverty per se, the focus should be on the behaviour which leads to child poverty, ie unemployment, educational failure and family breakdown. The Council would refer your Committee to an exercise undertaken in the state of Wisconsin, USA, to eradicate poverty.

4 December 2007

Written Submission by:
NCH Northern Ireland

About NCH

1. NCH is one of the UK’s leading children’s charities, helping children achieve their full potential. Through our services we support some of the UK’s most vulnerable and excluded children and young people and facing difficulties such as poverty, disability and abuse. We believe all children and young people have unique potential and that they should have the support and opportunities they need to reach it.

2. In addition to the £1.6 million already invested in Northern Ireland, NCH plans to invest a further £1.4m in developing and providing services for vulnerable children, young people and families across Northern Ireland many of whom are in or at risk of living in poverty. Working closely with children’s services planning processes across the statutory, voluntary and community sectors, we currently provide services to over 2,000 children, young people and their families in Northern Ireland with services operating in each of the four health and social services boards (see Appendix 1 for a list of services and solutions we provide here and elsewhere in the UK).

3. NCH believes all children should have equal access to opportunities to fulfil their potential in our society. Poverty is the biggest barrier that stands in the way of this, so we are passionately committed to the UK Government’s aim: in our view no other policy has such potential to transform the lives of the UK’s most vulnerable children. Until the goal is achieved, Governments across the UK must act to address the inequality that children from families on low incomes experience in almost every aspect of their lives.

4. We welcome the UK Government’s commitment, now explicitly referenced in the NI Executive’s draft Programme for Government (2008-2011), to eradicating child poverty in a generation, by 2020. NCH is an active member of the campaigning group, End Child Poverty, to keep the UK Government to its pledge. While we acknowledge some progress has been made in GB it is clear that more dramatic and determined action will be required if the goal is to be achieved. We believe the three elements of a successful strategy for ending child poverty are:

1. The extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

5. In NCH’s response to the Committee on the Programme for Government’s consideration of “Lifetime Opportunities – Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland” (January 2007), along like others, we raised concerns around how child poverty is being defined, measured and monitored in Northern Ireland.

6. Like Save the Children (24/11/07)[1] we would draw the OFMDFM Committee attention to the latest government (HBIA) statistics which show almost one in three (29%) of all children in Northern Ireland are living in poverty (AHC) which equates to around 122,000 children. We are very concerned both at the high level of extent and the fact that the child poverty rate has not decreased over the four years it has been measured in Northern Ireland.

7. Research shows that children in Northern Ireland are more likely to live in low income households[2] than adults and some children are at much higher risk of poverty that others including children living in a family where : there are no working adults (67% risk); the mother is under 25 years old (54% risk); there is only one resident parent (44% risk); there are four or more children (44% risk); there is at least one disabled adult (36% risk); they live in the West (34% risk) and ; there is at least one disabled child (32% risk).[3]

8. If the aim of ending child poverty is to be achieved in the UK, significantly increased benefits and tax credits will need to be directed towards families at the bottom of the income distribution and those at risk of living in poverty. We are particularly concerned about the growing number of parents in low-paid work whose families are still living in poverty – a UK wide issue. While work may be the best route out of poverty for some families, for others, particularly those with a disabled parent, work is not an option and the UK Government/NI Executive must ensure sufficient resources are available to support them.

9. Of particular concern are findings from research by Save the Children which show that, despite lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty in GB over recent years, there has been little change in the number of children experiencing severe child poverty[4] and that around one in ten children in Northern Ireland living in severe poverty (around 44,000 children)[5].

10. NCH is pleased to see the NI Executive’s draft Programme of Government (PfG) includes a priority of addressing child poverty with specific targets set out in the draft PSA Framework (Number 7, Objective 1) of a) ‘working toward the elimination of severe child poverty in Northern Ireland by 2012’ and b) ‘working toward the elimination of poverty by 2020 including lifting 67,000 children out of poverty by 2010. However, delivering on such ambitious targets requires a clear strategy / action plan backed up by significant resources which is not reflected in the draft Budget or accompanying documentation.

11. We support the call for inclusion of measures within the NI HBAI reporting mechanisms so the NI Executive/Assembly will be able to annually monitor progress against such targets in terms of the proportion and number of children in Northern Ireland living in severe child poverty. Monitoring needs to track numbers of children living in or at risk of living in poverty.

12. Poverty impacts on all aspects of a number of areas in a child’s life including Income (particularly for those living in families dependent on benefits or in low paid employment), Education (the impact of socio-economic disadvantage starts early and may continue throughout the child’s years education, poor parents struggle to meet additional education costs), Health (along a range of indicators such as diet and nutrition, dental health, physical environment, emotional well being, stress and mental and sexual health), Home and neighbourhood (such as major increases in the number of homeless families presenting to the NIHE and high costs of heating) and Play and social development (going without play and safe places to go impacts on the quality of life of a child or young person).[6]

2/3. The approach taken formulating the current strategy and whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets to 2010 and 2020
Lifetime Opportunities

13. While NCH responded to the invitation of the Programme for Government Committee of the Transitional Assembly’s to help review of the draft Lifetime Opportunities anti-poverty and social inclusion’ strategy in January 2007, we are unsure as to the current status of this strategy.

14. We understand the outcome of Review in January 2007 led to a number of recommendations being been put to the current Executive and subject to a further review but the Strategy has as yet to be considered by the Executive. Like other groups, we are deeply concerned at the delay in reviewing the Strategy since, under Direct Rule arrangements, to be considered as one of four key priorities of the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.

15. The draft Programme for Government, Budget and Investment strategy seem to have been issued without reference to an agreed anti-poverty strategy to guide how child poverty targets and actions will be taken forward and included in the budget. It is imperative that an action plan must now be developed, setting out a full set of programmes and policies to deliver on these targets as part of the 2008-11 and subsequent budgets.

Taking a Joined-Up Approach to Tackling Child Poverty in Northern Ireland and limitations of the Draft PfG, Budget and Investment Strategy

16. In our view, such a child poverty action plan and associated budget lines should link explicitly with the implementation of the cross-departmental 10 year children and young people’s strategy. Significant ongoing investment is needed to address the policy objectives and fund support services in the Priority Children and Young People’s Funding Package (2006-2008) which is focused on addressing educational deficits and improving outcomes of vulnerable children and young people in Northern Ireland.

17. We believe targets and policy measures in the draft PfG and Investment strategy need to be ‘child poverty proofed’ with a view to ensuring a consistent and joined-up approach is being taken ‘across government’ and these are monitored to ensure they contribute in tackling child poverty in Northern Ireland. In our view, such an approach needs to encompass children and families who are at ‘high’ risk of living in poverty in Northern Ireland.

18. Thus, reducing and eliminating child poverty in Northern Ireland and the affects this experience has on such children, young people and their families in the short, medium and long term will require significant and sustained action and investment across a wide range of policy measures. Actions need to be ‘joined up’ under the lense of tackling child poverty and inequality in Northern Ireland and link explicitly to the ‘whole child’, children’s rights and outcomes based approach adopted within the Children and Young People 10 year strategy. In this way monitoring progress against tackling child poverty could be aligned with assessing progress against achieving better outcomes for children and young people in Northern Ireland using a range of key indicators.

19. Top priority on tackling child poverty should be a focus on maximising ‘poor families’ income through tax credit and social transfer/benefit measures across a range of spheres. A child poverty proofing led approach should ensure that one set of ‘benefits’ will not be ‘cancelled or off-set by losing another benefit to avoid re-creating ‘poverty traps’. The primary policy objective should be guided by relevant UNCRC provisions and articles to ensure that no child or young person in the UK is living below the poverty line and has a decent standard of living (irrespective of family circumstances and/or who carers for them). While many such actions may fall within the domain of UK Government and Treasury, the NI Executive should hold the UK government to account in relation to progress in this area.

20. However, many potential measures and actions lie within the remit of devolved government in Northern Ireland. In our view, a priority should also be given to measures aimed at ‘breaking the cycle’ of poverty though enabling children and young people to fulfil their potential and ensuring they, and their families, have access to a wide range of timely, non-stigmatising public services. This will require investment in frontline advice and support services including early intervention and prevention initiatives across a range of areas which impact on children’s lives and experiences including early years, family support, education and training, mental and emotional health and well-being, home and neighbourhood, play and development.

21. The child poverty strategy / action plan for Northern Ireland needs to be truly ‘whole-child’ in nature and link with a wide range of children’s policy developments cutting across all government departments such as Investing in Health, Bamford Review, Care Matters and Families Matter, Early Years and Extended Schools strategies and other education and youth service reforms, Urban Regeneration, Rural Development, Neighborhood Renewal, Homelessness, Supporting People and Social Housing and Benefit Advice/Take-up strategies to name but a few.

22. The draft NI Investment Strategy is also relevant to tackling child poverty and overcoming inequality through investing in those currently trapped into cycles of poverty to help grow our economy in a sustainable way.

4. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions / targets

23. In the absence of an agreed Strategy, targets, action plans or budget, the only conclusion can be that the current arrangements are not adequate.

5. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

24. We have much to learn when looking elsewhere for possible interventions to reduce child poverty. Research shows that countries with the lowest rates of children living in poverty (like those in the Nordic region) allocate the highest proportion of their gross national product to social expenditure, particularly family and other related social transfers[7]. While responsibility for social transfers falls mainly to the Westminster government, the NI Executive can also have a major impact through developing and resourcing a comprehensive range of actions designed to tackle child poverty.

25. Moreover, as the recent NICCY report shows, Northern Ireland has fared much less well on spending on children compared to other regions in the UK particularly in relation to under-spend on personal social services and specifically the Surestart programme. This is of particular significance since under resourcing Surestart and development of children’s centres in Northern Ireland can (directly) hinder progress with regard to tackling child poverty.

6. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

26. There are no simple answers or solutions to ending child poverty or children and young people’s unique experiences of it. In our view, the three elements of a successful strategy for ending child poverty are: tackling income inequality; providing children with opportunities to fulfil their potential, and ; offering them excellent public services.

27. Thus, a wide range of policies and approaches will be required, involving a wide range of sectors and actors: these all need to join up. We support the suggested range of solutions made by Save the Children in their submission to the Committee under the headings of Income, Education, Health, Home and Neighbourhood and Play and Development.

28. Tackling child poverty in Northern Ireland should be a high priority and a cross cutting action plan needs to be developed and supported in the NI Executive’s current /successive PfGs, Budgets and the Investment Strategies. More focused and detailed work is needed which should incorporate the views, experiences and solutions offered up by those directly affected by poverty in Northern Ireland including children and young people.

29. NCH is committed to tackling child poverty in the UK will work in partnership with service users and others to help develop solutions and to achieve this key objective. Appendix 1 provides for some information about NCH and some of our ‘policy solutions’ in this area. In line with our strategy and key priorities we want to ensure the most vulnerable children and young people in Northern Ireland have greater access to:

16 November 2007

Appendix 1 - NCH and Child Poverty - Some Solutions
http://www.nch.org.uk/

30. NCH helps children achieve their full potential through providing support services to some of the UK’s most vulnerable and excluded children and young people who face difficulties such as poverty, disability and abuse. NCH helps over 178,000 children involved in nearly 500 projects across the UK. We also promote social justice by lobbying and campaigning for change. NCH is the leading UK provider of family and community centres, children’s services in rural areas, services for disabled children and their families, and services for young people leaving care.

31. NCH services in Northern Ireland currently include:
NCH’s UK Wide Growing Strong Campaign

32. Growing Strong is a UK wide campaign launched recently to highlight the huge impact emotional wellbeing has on young people’s futures. We want to ensure that every child and young person has the self-esteem, resilience and social skills they need to succeed in life. We particularly want the most disadvantaged children and young people in the UK to have the inner strength to overcome the difficulties they face http://www.nch.org.uk/getinvolved/index.php?i=484

33. The poor emotional wellbeing of children in the UK has a negative impact on them, their families and the whole of society. Without good emotional wellbeing, children and young people cannot meet life’s challenges successfully. Poor emotional wellbeing is an important factor behind current social problems in the UK. In particular, it affects social mobility. Policies to tackle social exclusion, deprivation or lack of social mobility will not succeed if we don’t address the issue of emotional wellbeing.

34. Children are most vulnerable at times of change – moving from primary to secondary school, becoming teenagers, going through disruptions in their family life, dealing with death or serious illness in the family. With the right support, they can get through these difficult times. Without it, these setbacks could become serious – particularly if they are already vulnerable.

NCH ‘Dare to Care -give your time to help end child poverty’

35. As part of ‘Dare to Care’ campaign, NCH aims to recruit 1,000 volunteers between October 2007 and March 2008 to help end child poverty. In February 2008 we’re running a themed month called ‘Time for Money’ and, as part of this, we’ve designed some new volunteer roles. These roles offer one to one support for our service users by helping them to develop new skills and confidence all linked to managing money such as

NCH / Barclays Financial Futures Initiative

36. Barclays is investing £1.8 million to support NCH’s work with families, young people and socially excluded groups, to help them improve their money management skills and raise awareness of Child Trust Funds. Over three years, we will work together on a project called ‘Financial Futures’, which we estimate will touch the lives of around 160,000 young people and their families. Barclay’s, are keen to take part in the Dare to Care ‘give time to end poverty’ volunteering initiative.

[1] SCF, 24 October 2007, Alex Tennant & Marina Monteith

[2] See The Poverty Site (www.poverty.org.uk), produced by the New Policy Institute supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The data used is Northern Ireland Family Resources Survey (the survey on which HBAI reports are based)

[3] Average risk of poverty in NI for children is 29%.

[4] SCF (2005) Britain’s Poorest Children

[5] SCF (2006) Under the Radar: Severe Child Poverty in the UK analysed 2004/5 Family Resources Survey data

[6] Ibid

[7] UNICEF, (2005), Child Poverty in Rich Nations,

Written Submission by:
New Policy Institute

Introduction

1. We are grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to submit evidence to its very timely inquiry into child poverty in Northern Ireland.[1]

2. As a London-based think tank, our knowledge of this subject is mainly based on from the research we did in order to write Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland, a report published in 2006 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That report in turn is part of a longer series of projects which we have been carrying out since 1998, measuring and monitoring progress on poverty and social exclusion across the UK. We expect to undertake an update of the 2006 Northern Ireland report next year.

3. The main thrust of this submission concerns the likelihood of achieving the 2010 target of reducing child poverty by a half. The Committee’s interim report notes the consensus view that this target is ambitious. We go further. Given the latest official figures and in view of (a) the tax and benefit policies in force over the last two years, (b) the tax and benefit policies announced for the next three years, and (c) the economic prospects to the end of 2009, we believe that there is now no chance of coming close to that target either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. The only way now to avert such an outcome is a substantial policy shift by the Westminster government in favour of a redistribution of income. This needs to be said.

4. None of this is to deny the importance of what can be done within Northern Ireland itself. Indeed, while many of the required policies are either in place or in prospect here, there are still some important gaps. We believe that these gaps are occurring precisely because of the over-riding preoccupation with reducing child poverty. Two changes are required to overcome these weaknesses. First, poverty alleviation (easing the burden for people on low income) needs to be considered alongside poverty reduction. Second, it is not enough to think just about ‘children’.

The likelihood of reaching the 2010 child poverty

5. As is made clear in table 1 of the Committee’s interim report, the rate of child poverty in Northern Ireland has not changed across the four years for which there is data. Assuming the estimate presented there for child poverty in 1998/99 is correct (and we have no grounds to doubt it), the broad picture it paints is of a period of progress in reducing child poverty (between 1998/99 and 2002/03) followed by a period of stagnation (2002/03 to 2005/06). As figure 1 in the attachment to this submission shows, this looks very similar to the child poverty picture for the whole of the UK.[2]

6. On the basis of the figures in table 1, a halving of the rate of child poverty between 1998/99 and 2010 requires a child poverty rate in that later year of 15%. With child poverty at 25% in 2005/06, that requires falls of 2% a year over the five years to 2010/11. This compares with an average rate of decline of just 0.7% a year between 1998/99 and 2005/06.[3]

7. So how likely is it that we will see a substantial increase in the rate at which child poverty falls after 2005/06? Given the delay in producing the official poverty statistics, almost two of these five years are already behind us. Crudely speaking, there are two factors that determine the child poverty rate. The first is employment. Here, the latest published figures show a very slight rise, from 69.1% of 16 to 59/64 year-olds employed in autumn 2005, to 69.7% in autumn 2007. [4]

8. The second is the level of benefits and tax credits, both in-work and out-of-work. Over the two years, tax credits have risen broadly in line with retail prices and earnings.[5] As figure 2 in the attachment shows, however, the overall value of out-of-work benefits to families with children was slightly down, relative to earnings, in 2007 compared with 2005.[6] On both employment and state support, therefore, the evidence suggests that there has been very little change in poverty rates between 2005/06 and now.

9. What about looking forward, through 2008 and 2009? The key policy statements here are the Pre-Budget Report and the 2008-11 Comprehensive Spending Review, both published last autumn. Neither contained anything to suggest that the value of state support would be going up faster than prices or earnings.

10. As far as employment is concerned, everything depends on what happens to the economy. At the moment, the prospects to the end of 2009 are uncertain, what with the financial problems, the squeeze on personal incomes arising from the interest rate rises up to last summer, and the probable onset of a recession in the US economy. In two years time, if employment in Northern Ireland is close to where it is now, we should probably be relieved.

11. The implication of all of this is clear: there is no reason to expect that child poverty, either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, is much lower now than it was over the period 2003/04 to 2005/06; nor that it will be much lower in two years time. On that basis, the 2010 child poverty target is quite simply out of sight.

12. It is a matter of judgement as to how much damage missing the target by this amount would do to the idea that society, through its politicians, can decide to do something about poverty. In our view, the damage would be considerable: “nice idea, tried it, failed”. But even at this stage, such a failure is not inevitable.

13. The basic requirement is clear: the only way to bring about another sizeable fall in child poverty in a period of just two or three years is for the UK government to bring about a sizeable redistribution of income to the benefit of those in poverty. Of course, as your interim report notes, these tax and benefit ‘levers’ are difficult for the Executive to influence. But seek to influence them we believe they must.

14. Without going into detail, two principles need to be borne in mind in selecting suitable measures. First, with nearly half the children in poverty in Northern Ireland belonging to families where at least one adult is already doing paid work (see figure 3), in-work poverty is numerically nearly as important as out-of-work poverty. Besides tax credits, other measures may well be needed here, including reductions in the taxes paid by low income households and increases in Child Benefit (which, unlike tax credits, are not a disincentive for a family to do more paid work).

15. Second, it is unlikely that simply raising the child elements of out-of-work benefits will be enough; some additions to the benefits to working-age adults will also be required if we are to avoid the extraordinary situation whereby the value of benefits for children actually exceed the value of benefits for adults. We will return to this again below.

Poverty alleviation alongside poverty reduction

16. We very much welcome the recognition in the interim report, of the “importance of minimising the impact of rates and water charges on those on low-income”. At other points too, the report refers to things that impact directly on the costs borne by low income households. They include the need for affordable housing and problems such as the shortfall between Housing Benefit and private sector rents.[7]

17. We believe that more needs to be made of this subject of ‘costs’. One of the problems of focussing so much on reducing the numbers in poverty is that it tends to downplay the importance of things that do not lift people over the poverty line but which can nevertheless make a big difference to how well they are able to cope.

18. A possible phrase to describe this is ‘poverty alleviation’. We stress that this is not offered as an alternative to ‘poverty reduction’ (something that would certainly be a big step backwards) but as a complement to it. Even the most optimistic assumptions imply that there will be more than 100,000 people in Northern Ireland living in poverty for many years to come. The costs that they face are a very proper subject for attention.

19. This call for attention to poverty alleviation is not just an abstract idea. For example, there are two kinds of cost, both of which are very important to low income households, which are barely mentioned in the interim report. One is the cost of fuel. The issue here is less the level of fuel poverty (the numbers spending more than 10% of their income on fuel) than the extent of the continuing rise in fuel prices.[8] While this is a subject that affects all, it hits those on low incomes hardest. Doing something to limit and offset these prices would surely seen by many as a high priority now.

20. A second aspect of cost that often appears to be overlooked is public transport. We suspect that fares are an especially important consideration for low income working households, and one of the factors that, if they are too high, discourage people from taking a job in the first place. Though long a Cinderella subject, this is something where the policy levers are very much in the hands of the Executive and local government.

Beyond children

21. The subject of public transport provides a helpful link to our last point which is that, while child poverty is properly the priority, this should not be a reason to place a fence round the subject and insist that only those things that impact on children deserve to be considered. [9] One example of this is the question of whether to raise social security for working-age adults. As a short term tactic, the idea of raising benefits (including credits) for children while holding them steady for adults was perfectly sensible. But as a long term strategy, it leads to a situation where state support for children exceeds that for adults, perhaps even by a large margin if the 2010 child poverty target is to be reached.

22. This is undesirable for a number of reasons. What is its moral basis? What sorts of incentive does it present to people? And where does it leave the erstwhile child who, having turned 17, has left school without a job or a training place? Where indeed, too, does it leave their family, with whom they may continue to live for many years to come?

23. On the basis of work that we have done with young adults in England and Wales, we understand the issue of public transport (cost, availability and perhaps safety too) to be one of great importance to this age group, allowing them access to college, work and friends. Are these people ‘children’? If they are outside of education and training, or are aged over 18, no. But they were, last year or the year before. Very many are still in poverty: across the UK, the high child poverty rate continues to apply all the way up to and including 21 year-olds.[10]

24. This points to something that we all need to be very careful about: does society’s promise to abolish child poverty apply only to those who are classified as ‘children’? If so, then when Mr. Blair first pledged to abolish poverty by 2020, it was a pledge that actually only applied fully to those not yet born. This seems to us to be a cruel and even dangerous illusion. We suggest that the promise should be to flesh and blood children and should continue even when they cease to be ‘children’ in the statistics. All of those aged 16 to 25 who are now in poverty were ‘children’ back in 1999. Even though the measures that are needed will often be different, we would ask you to urge the Executive to consider their needs too as part of the child poverty strategy.

January 2008

Attachment[11]
Figure 1: UK child poverty rates, ‘before’ and ‘after’ housing costs

image001.png

Figure 2: the value of out-of-work benefits relative to earnings

image003.png

Figure 3: children in poverty in Northern Ireland by work and family status

image005.png

Figure 4: housing costs in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and the English regions

image007.png

[1] In making our submission, we refer at points to the Committee’s interim report, using the html version available at http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/centre/2007mandate/reports_07.htm

[2] This is true whether child poverty is measured on the ‘before housing costs’ basis (as per table 1) or the ‘after housing costs’ one.

[3] This assessment, expressed in terms of poverty rates, looks slightly worse than the assessment in terms of numbers given in para. 28 of the interim report. On the other hand, it should be noted that in one respect, para. 28 itself is unduly pessimistic since there are five years still go between 2005/06 and 2010/11 (‘2010’) not just three.

[4] Source: Monthly Labour Market Report, January 2008, table 2. Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, The figures quoted are for the September to November periods.

[5] On Child Tax Credit, the annual ‘family element’ is the same in 2007/08 and it was in 2005/06 while the ‘child element’ is about 9% higher. The Working Tax Credit is about 6.5% higher. Sources: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pre_budget_report/prebud_pbr04/press_notices/prebud_pbr04_press02.cfm (for 2005/06) and http://www.cpag.org.uk/publications/extracts/benefit_rates_poster_2007.pdf for 2007/08.

[6] This is because, as figure 2 shows, the amount of the adult element has continued to fall relative to earnings.

[7] And it is for this reason that we fully endorse the interim report’s conclusion (at para. 10) that poverty statistics on both a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ housing costs basis should continue to be produced. For water charges, housing costs in general and Housing Benefit shortfalls only show up in the ‘after’ measure. If that measure is discarded, as some seem to want, a very important aspect of low income households’ real experience will be lost from official sight.

[8] For example, figures from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform suggest that, for the United Kingdom as a whole, domestic gas prices rose on average by 31-37% in real terms from 2005 to 2007, while electricity prices rising by an average of around 21-25%.

[9] We have in mind specifically para. 39 of the interim report, and in particular its last sentence whose meaning is not quite clear to us. While it is obviously right to have some limits on what can count as an anti-child poverty measure, the way that everything is connected to everything else suggests to us that the limits should be drawn broadly rather narrowly.

[10] Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion, 2007: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In 2005/06, 1.5 million young adults aged 16 to 25 were in poverty. Two-thirds of them (one million people) are single and without dependent children, many still living at home with their parents (and who are therefore also in poverty themselves).

[11] The source for all of these graphs is the website associated with Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion: www.poverty.org.uk

Written Submission by:
Newtownabbey Borough Council

Newtownabbey_1.psd

Newtownabbey_2.psd

Written Submission by:
North Eastern Education and Library Board

1 Context

“The North Eastern Education and Library Board has a vision of developing and delivering world class Education, Library and Youth Services, the Board will aim to help everyone realise their potential and contribute to a caring inclusive and progressive society.” ( NEELB Corporate Plan )

The Board’s vision is underpinned by four key strategic themes that provide a comprehensive framework for the planning and delivery of services:-

2 In line with government policy to address underperformance and educational disadvantage, the Board targets its efforts on tackling deprivation and social cohesion as well as bringing people together in a manner to promote mutual understanding and respect for diversity. In distributing funding to schools through an approved formula the Board also takes into account the agreed mechanisms relating to the calculation of free school meals. Within the Board’s area some 9,329 pupils have an entitlement to Free School Meals and some 4,126 pupils have an entitlement to a Uniform Allowance. The overall criteria for these two areas of entitlement includes annual taxable income of less than £14,495.

3 The NEELB delivers a range of statutory services through a number of core processes. Collectively these services have a direct and indirect impact on the quality of life experienced by the children and young people living within the North Eastern Education and Library Board. Many of the services presently provided attempt to address issues relating to under achievement and poverty eg

The Youth Work Curriculum Development NI, based in the NEELB, provides curriculum material, training and resources for staff relating to Personal and Social Development, Participation, Acceptance and Understanding of Others, and Testing Values and Beliefs. The Strategy for the Delivery of Youth Work in Northern Ireland 2005-2008 (DE) has 2 key themes related to child poverty and young people’s development – Effective Inclusive Youth Work and Participation.

Providing Advice and Support eg Education Welfare Service

The following brief commentary outlines how this service attempts to support parents at risk of being in, or falling into, the poverty trap. The Board’s Education Welfare Service responds to referrals from schools, parents and other agencies in respect of concerns which impact upon a child’s ability to attend school and therefore engage in learning. As a result, the children referred to the service are deemed vulnerable to social exclusion and services are delivered to assist these pupils engage in beneficial education. The most recent statistics with regard to this show that in the 2006/07 school year there were

The Education Welfare Service works with children across the continuum of ‘in need’ and ‘at risk’, for example children on the Child Protection Register, Looked After Children, School Age Mothers, Young Carers and children and families who are in need of additional support in order for them to benefit from education.

Education Welfare Officers are acutely aware of the relationship between poverty, non school attendance and vulnerability to social exclusion. A sample of referrals to one Education Welfare Service team evidenced that approximately 70% of referred children experienced poverty for example when benefit money ‘ran out’ towards the end of the week, with some parents stating that they were unable to send their children to school. In the view of the Board, the financial pressure experienced by the majority of our service users can result in a poorer uptake in education provision.

The potential detrimental outcomes, where there are patterns of disrupted attendance can result in disengagement from learning which ultimately impacts upon future life chances.

These are important services in meeting the needs of society and, in particular, in helping the needs of the most marginalised groups in society. The Board also undertakes regular surveys to determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of its services in meeting the needs of those it charged with serving.

4 Education has a crucial role to play in trying to help schools and individuals to break the cycle of deprivation and the NEELB has played a key role in providing leadership in a range of initiatives targeted at schools in areas of deprivation. The following are examples of some of the most recent initiatives.

The Extended Schools Programme is of particular significance since it aims to break the cycle of deprivation and underachievement at local level.

The following brief commentary outlines the development of Extended Schools in the Board’s area. A detailed report on these developments has been lodged with the Department of Education

5 The Board’s statutory services also deliver a wide range of services in partnership with a range of other statutory and voluntary bodies. This approach is common practice and yields benefits to all parties and those receiving the service. Examples of partnerships are

Many of these multi agency approaches have evolved in response to local needs over many years and many of them are dependent on short term funding.

Of particular significance is the work of the Northern Area Children and Young People’s Committee, which provides a framework for a wide range of statutory and voluntary organisations to work towards the aim of improving the well-being of vulnerable children and young people.

The four Children and Young Peoples Committees have agreed a common set of outcome proposals for children and young people in Northern Ireland.

1 All children and young people have a stable upbringing.

2 All children and families live in safe, supportive communities.

3 All children and young people live free from poverty.

4 All pregnant women, new parents and babies thrive.

5 All children are ready for learning and school.

6 All children and young people enjoy and succeed during school years.

7 All children and young people are involved in decisions that affect them.

8 All children and young people make a positive contribution that is valued.

9 All children and young people make a safe transition to adulthood.

6 Implementation Structures

a) Multi Agency working is an aspirational concept with many benefits for those in receipt of service delivery but it is an extremely costly concept in terms of strategic planning and diverts staff into multi agency planning at the expense of delivering their core function of service delivery to the public.

Serious consideration must be given to the real benefits of complex multi agency working with a cost benefit analysis undertaken for such activities

b) Many of the very effective working initiatives which exist at present between agencies to address issues relating to deprivation are based on short term funding. This is a flawed concept and needs to be the subject of urgent review

c) In seeking to put new funding mechanisms in place it is important that there is a gradual shift in policy otherwise the impact at local level could be very serious in terms of service delivery to those in greatest need

d) At times there appears to be a lack of a coherent strategic approach from government with different departments implementing policies which are contradictory eg the emphasis on the need to rationalise school provision when rolls are seriously in decline while simultaneously another government department is investing considerable finance into the area and publicly stating that these same schools are at the core of community renewal in that area

e) There is an urgent need for a much greater coherent strategic approach at government level in terms of early years issues and the need for greater engagement of parents with schools and their local community

Policy Intervention

a) The NEELB has long argued for the Department of Education to give serious consideration to the concept of whole service schools, particularly in those communities with greatest need. The Board remains of the view that this is an issue worthy of urgent investigation with exemplars of good practice readily available.

b) The NEELB is also of the view that the energies of those in schools should be concentrated on raising educational standards. It is important that schools are adequately funded to enable them to concentrate on the key issues facing them, with a reduction in the number of educational initiatives, which hold out the carrot of short term additional funding.

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network

Enclosed is a submission to the Child Poverty Review from the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit evidence on such an important issue as the growing level of child in Northern Ireland. I would also like to express my willingness to make an oral presentation to the committee on this matter in partnership with the New Policy Institute representative Peter Kenway. I look forward to hearing from you in this regard.

The majority of the focus of this submission is on income (state benefits and wages) as a major contributor to child poverty. There is a key role here for Northern Irelands elected Westminster representatives to lobby for an increase in both areas as a matter of urgency.

This submission contains data sourced from a variety of independent academic and government studies. I would like to take this opportunity to call for a joined up approach across all government departments to really address Child Poverty in Northern Ireland.

I would also like to emphasise the key issues we hear referred to time and again by families living in poverty; the crucial importance of affordable housing, the essential need of accessible health services and an education system which provides appropriate supports to enable children from low income families to plan and work toward a route out of poverty.

The costs of borrowing for families living in poverty across NI makes it more and more difficult to try to make ends meet just to cover the basics such as housing and household bills.

The submission finishes with some specific recommendations and key among them must be the essential need to talk with and listen to families living with poverty. They know the policies and actions that do and do not work and are a key part of the solution to such a complex issue.

23 November 2007

NI Anti-Poverty Network - written submission-1.psd

NI Anti-Poverty Network - written submission.pdf

NI Anti-Poverty Network - written submission.pdf

NI Anti-Poverty Network - written submission.pdf

NI Anti-Poverty Network - written submission.pdf

NI Anti-Poverty Network - written submission.pdf

 

Explanatory Notes
Second slide page 1

Income figures on this slide refer to NI.

Income rates for UK are:

Single adult two children (£223. UK)

Couple with two children (£301. UK)

Additional notes:

Poverty is normally measured by using relative income poverty lines. This involves working out average household incomes in a country. A poverty line is then set which is a percentage of that average income. Commonly these poverty lines range from 40-70% of household income. This gives an overall picture of the risk of poverty but the figures can also be broken down by age, gender, household type and employment status to give a more detailed picture of who is at greatest risk. People falling below 60% of median income are said to be “at risk of poverty”.

There have been moves away from measuring poverty on the basis of income alone. Northern Ireland now measures poverty in terms of relative income [60% of the national average] and deprivation.

Relative income & deprivation

Deprivation indicators are now included in the annual Family Resources Survey, carried out by Government in Northern Ireland and across the UK. These are based on families’ ability to afford:

According to research carried out by NIAPN & STC for the Poverty Awareness Programme-Budgeting for Poverty, we identified that a family of four living on the poverty line is £15,912. That’s £1508. of a difference and they still experience real hardship as you can see if you visit our website. So imagine what its like on one and a half thousand pounds less.

Top slide page 2

Applicable Amount for Lone parent aged under 18, one child

£35.65

£47.45 child addition

£16.43 family premium

Total - £99.53

Applicable Amount for Lone parent aged 18 or over, one child

£59.15

£47.45 child addition

£16.43 family premium

Total - £123.03

Applicable Amount for Couple aged 18 or over, two children

£92.80

£47.45 child addition

£47.45 child addition

£16.43 family premium

Total - £204.13

Applicable Amount for Lone parent aged 18 or over, two children

£59.15

£47.45 child addition

£47.45 child addition

£16.43 family premium

Total - £170.48

Additional information: Households at greatest risk of poverty in NI:

Households that have experienced relationship separation have the highest rate of poverty 54%, followed by divorced 46% and then single households

Inequality is the central issue in the Northern Ireland poverty debate. The simple fact is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are staying the same. Not only is the gap between top and bottom earners soaring in cash terms but the well off are getting higher per centage increases than the low paid.

Second and bottom slide page 3

According to the Monitoring Poverty & Social Exclusion Report 2006 (MOPSE) Northern Ireland has….The wider poverty picture helps paint a scene for NI, it tells us low pay is common among full time employees, particularly women, that NI has a population with serious health issues and people with disabilities, that there are high numbers of people without paid work and in receipt of benefits and that fuel poverty is extreme.

If we look closely this tells us many NI children live in cold, hungry households, many will have caring responsibilities and there will no extra income for essential items such as having their full school uniform or three meals a day.

Additional information:

In Northern Ireland educational attainment for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds provide particularly stark facts…..

“The effects of this underachievement are felt throughout the lives of those we are failing - our working-age economic inactivity rate is the highest in the UK. People who are economically inactive are more than twice as likely to have no qualifications – and the roots of this rest in their schooling. That is how the cycle of failure begins. ……The NI selective system of education does not allow those from disadvantaged backgrounds a chance of a decent education. In fact, only 7% of pupils in grammar schools are from disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to 28% in secondary schools. Over the last 3 years an average of only 5% of pupils from the Shankill got a grammar school place. I simply do not believe that this is because they lack talent. And the most disadvantaged pupils are only around half as likely to achieve 5 good GCSEs as the least disadvantaged. Not only is this a tragedy for those whom the system is failing, but it’s an economic disaster for Northern Ireland as a whole.” (Maria Eagle Minister for Education NI 2006)

The Impact - top slide page 4

People in debt identify two main reasons for their financial difficulties: insufficient income – mainly through job loss, relationship breakdown or giving up work as a result of sickness or disability.

Debt is strongly associated with age and income, so the younger and poorer the household the greater the likelihood for financial difficulty. Together rent and household bills account for two thirds of all single debts. Berthoud and Kempson, 1990; Kempson, 2002)

The Impact - bottom slide page 4

Families living with poverty and social exclusion live daily with food poverty, fuel poverty, low wage employment and low benefit levels.

All these result in poor health and a lower life expectancy. Social isolation is common, alongside educational failure.

It is a stark fact that families Experiencing Poverty also face a much higher cost of living as they cannot access the credit or payment benefits more affluent people take for granted.

Long term experience of poverty often results in people feeling excluded and powerless. This affects the hopes and dreams they enjoy and contributes to high levels of anxiety just trying to make ends meet.

The grinding worry associated with long term poverty can also make the future look bleak, as the cost of living keeps on rising but wages and benefits stay the same.

This can lead to depression and health problems and in the long term greater dependency on essential services. It costs our society more in the long run not to deal with poverty now.

Low income also means less supports for life

Specific Actions – last three slides page 5 & 6

Written Submission by:
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People

The Office of Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) was created in accordance with ‘The Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order’ (2003) to promote and protect the rights and best interests of children and young people in Northern Ireland. Under Articles 7(2)(3), NICCY has a mandate to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law, practice and services relating to the rights and welfare of children and young people by relevant authorities.

At NICCY, we have been making our views known to Government on a number of poverty related issues and have been at the forefront of highlighting the inadequate provision of resources for children’s services. In March 2007 we urged all candidates in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections to use existing and new resources creatively to tackle the blight of poverty that affects children and young people in Northern Ireland. We also launched a report into expenditure on children’s services making a series of recommendations to Assembly Members and Ministers to improve current service provision, including child contingent support.

From the outset NICCY would like to express concern that the report of this inquiry will not be available to inform the program for government and budget for the next three years. NICCY has noticed major policy gaps within the Program for Government and Draft budget that will have a negative impact on child poverty. We urge the committee to ensure that all recommendations from this inquiry are given due consideration when preparing the final program for government.

Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland
Extent and intensity

NICCY is aware that other organisations who have already prepared submissions to the Inquiry, have given specific and detailed statistics on the geographical breakdown child poverty rates; therefore we have decided not to repeat those statistics here.

However, it is worth noting that the Northern Ireland Executive, by its own admission[1] has stated that people living in the west of the Province have lower incomes, and that average weekly gross earnings in rural areas are below those in urban areas. Therefore, it follows that inequalities need to be addressed to ensure that regional variations in income are not leading to poverty and to an adverse impact the health and well-being of children and young people.

Research for OFMDFM in 2006[2] presented a series of statistics on child poverty based on various measures. Using income only, between one fifth and one quarter of all children in Northern Ireland are living in low income households. Using a consensual poverty measure (income and deprivation) almost two fifths of children is considered poor. Using the Department of Work and Pensions measures 14% of children in Northern Ireland are living in absolute low income poverty. This reinforces the need for OFMDFM to develop an agreed and comprehensive way to measure child poverty.

Horgan (2005) points that higher child poverty rates in Northern Ireland are coupled with a higher cost of bringing up children. The costs of essential services such as childcare and fuel in Northern Ireland are considerably higher than in the rest of the UK. This results in parents not having the ability to provide a nutritious diet which impacts on their health and obesity rates.

Irrespective of how poverty is measured, it is NICCY’s view that the figures detailed above, are shocking and unacceptable figures, and we urge immediate action across departmental accountabilities to address the root causes and impact of poverty on children and young people.

Impact

There are many impacts of poverty on children. It is notable that the effect of poverty on children begins even before a child is born, as can be seen by low birth weights and higher infant mortality rates. In 2006 the Infant mortality rate in deprived areas was 6.5 infant deaths per 1000 live births; this was higher than the rate of 4.9 in non deprived areas.[3] Children born into poor families, begin life at a considerable disadvantage.

It is also worth noting that the teenage pregnancy rate in deprived areas is 28.9 per 1000 live births; this is considerably higher than the rate of 12.4 in non deprived areas[4].

Poverty can permeate every aspect of a child’s life, from the opportunities they are afforded to take part in play and recreation facilities to poor health outcomes and low educational achievement and employment prospects. Given, therefore the complexities of the issues, there is a need for a multi dimensional solution focussed approach in response.

Research has shown that people living in poverty make dietary choices based on their finances. ‘When you go to the supermarket you buy the cheapest loaf, you don’t go for the bread that’s supposed to be better for you. And fruit is dearer than biscuits, so you don’t end up buying as much of it’.[5] The nutritional needs of children living in poverty are not being met because their parent’s budget does not stretch to fresh fruit and vegetables. In addition, there needs to be a clear education approach to the benefits of healthy eating, so that the nutritional aspects of healthy food can be shared.

In essence poverty excludes children from fully participating in society at all levels, this is shown in research in 2006 by the New Policy Institute, which found that child poverty has a negative impact on both health and educational attainment. For example

Child poverty does not just affect a person’s childhood but it has a negative impact on the life choices that are available to them, at all stages of their life.

In research completed by Queen’s University on behalf of NICCY by Kilkelly et al (2004), children and young people of all ages and from all areas across Northern Ireland voiced their views on the impact of poverty on their area.

In my area you won’t go one day without seeing a stolen car and being asked if you want to buy drugs. There is an awful lot of anti-social behaviour and loads of fights. Neighbours fighting over something stupid and being left in hospital. There is graffiti, underage drinking and loads of fights and a lot of burnt out cars.” (Boy aged 15)

“It is all over the news that more people - young adults – are being attacked and stabbed due to alcohol. Drugs are being sold on your street corners and you can’t walk anywhere without people doing drugs and abusing aerosols etc. As a kid you would want the best for your kid and that wouldn’t be on the agenda” (Boy aged 14 years)

The quotes from children and young people clearly show that children and young people want to live in a safe and clean environment.

The Executive and Assembly need to acknowledge the wider effects of growing up in poverty such as crime social and economic constraints.

At the beginning of this section, we referenced impact at birth, and sadly we know that suicide rates in deprived areas are substantially higher than the Northern Ireland Average.[6]

Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

The current anti Poverty strategy emerged following a review of the New Targeting Social Need (NTSN) policy which aimed to tackle poverty and social exclusion. It is NICCY’s view that the NTSN policy has being driven through largely separate departmental programmes, with little evidence of a joined up approach at departmental level being reflected in coordination of services at a local level. Critically strategic objectives were missing and those objectives which were set, reflected departmental priorities rather than any overall Government commitment to reducing poverty. Monitoring arrangements therefore, did not serve to adequately reflect and measure progress against the broad objective of reducing poverty and social exclusion.

At consultation stage the Anti Poverty Strategy did not include any focus on child poverty and did not contain any reference to children and young people as a priority group. This was an unacceptable omission and indicated that children and young people were less of a priority. However, we are pleased to acknowledge that the final strategy did focus on early years and child and young people as two distinct groupings.

NICCY understands that some children and young people were involved via the Derry Children’s Commission in the development of the strategy pre consultation. However we believe that there should have been a more co-ordinated and stratified effort to ensure children and young people from across Northern Ireland were involved in a more substantial way. We would strongly urge the Inquiry Committee to pro actively seek the views of children and young people in the course of its work. Children and young people are very capable of sharing experiences of living in poverty.

Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

While the Anti Poverty strategy is attempting to fully address the issue of child poverty at two key stages in the lives of children and young people, in its current state NICCY does not believe that the strategy can deliver on the key targets of 2010 or 2020. It is our view that the targets set are vague and are difficult to measure; we further believe that the strategy is simply addressing the effects not the causes, and that this leads to a sticking plaster response, rather than a holistic approach addressing fundamental issues leading to child poverty.

The strategy while not as robust as it should be is a starting point for positive action. What needs to follow is a comprehensive action plan; this action plan should take each target and break it into smaller interim goals that are time bound, and can be measured at regular intervals.

The anti poverty strategy states that children in lone parent households and persons with a disability are at a high risk of poverty. In other words, those most at risk of poverty are those who are unable to work or who can only work outside the home if public services such as childcare and accessible transport are greatly improved. The anti-poverty strategy however continues to see work as the best route out of poverty, ignoring the reality of situation as outlined in the strategy.

The Anti Poverty strategy needs to be amended to include actions to improve public services and higher benefit levels, and increase the uptake of benefits for those who cannot work or cannot find employment.

Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets

It is NICCY’s view that the Draft Program for Government and Budget in its current form will not deliver on its key targets in relation to child poverty. While the Draft Program for Government includes a commitment to tackling poverty, essential actions and resources are not contained within the Draft Budget to support this action.

For example, the budget for the Department of Social Development reduces monies to the Housing Executive and Associations, therefore families will be force to continue to pay the shortfall in their housing benefit in the private rented sector. There is also a lack of a dedicated focus on improving the economy and creating jobs in areas suffering from high unemployment and high rates of child poverty. Again we would draw the Inquiry’s attention to the situation in the West of the Province, where only last weeks, announcements about the closure of Seagate, with significant job losses in the Limavady area, will have an impact on the families in that part of Northern Ireland. We would encourage creative approaches to the economies development, particularly in areas of deprivation.

The main targets of the anti poverty strategy are reflected in Our Children and Young People- Our Pledge strategy, to half child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020. However the action plan for the first two years of the children’s strategy does not set any interim targets or actions specifically aimed at tackling child poverty, or halving the figure by 2010. It is unclear how this strategy is linked to the work of the Children and Young People Unit at OFMDFM and with the ten year strategy for children and young people. Without a shared agenda or timetable between these two strategies NICCY does not see how the 2010 can be delivered.

Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

The UNICEF report on child poverty[7] Sweden, Norway and Finland had the lowest rates of child poverty while the UK ranked fourth. By examining the policies in the Nordic Countries the report put forward the following critique explaining why their rates for child poverty are among the lowest.

‘Nordic policy places emphasis on helping people into paid work. This is then complemented by a wide range of social policies aimed at redistributing that have arisen from the market. Moreover, unlike many industrialized countries that target resources towards particular problem groups, Nordic social legislation is designed to include the entire population.

All the Nordic countries provide generous maternity leave allowances that go unmatched elsewhere. In addition, Nordic countries have legislated in favour of extended parental leave schemes which allow one parent to care for a child at home until the age of three, without losing their job. Day care is universal in Denmark, Finland and Sweden where, in theory, every child is entitled to a place.

The impact of such measures is reflected in high female labour force participation rates that averaged over 70 per cent in 1997. This is a most significant aspect of Nordic policy. For research reveals both a strong link between high female employment and low child poverty, and a corresponding link between comprehensive levels of family policy and high employment among women.

Above all, it is clear that family focused social policy is deep-rooted in Nordic culture and that the principle of social entitlement is highly institutionalized, enjoying wide support among the electorate.’

Family friendly policies have proven to reduce child poverty in other countries. NICCY believes it is necessary to introduce similar policies here, which focus on the family so that employment is an option for all parents. In addition, the success of such initiatives as this will only be successful if the issue of low wages is also addressed.

NICCY would also recommend creative management of situations where work is not always possible because of barriers e.g. difficulties arranging child care, and in deed in some instances, the appropriateness of children being cared for outside the family; and the type of work available.

Research[8] has shown the need for and success in investment in skills development early in a young person’s life, in fact from early years.

Skill remediation programs for adults with severe educational disadvantages are much less efficient compared to early intervention programs; so are training programs for more mature displaced workers. At current levels of investment, cost-effective returns are highest for the young. NICCY would commend this research in terms of showing the importance of investing in early years, and skills development programmes in education.

NICCY would recommend a holistic approach is taken to reduce child poverty, this should include for example: family friendly policies, economic regeneration, simplifying of benefits systems, and help with take-up of benefits; investments in skills developments, and education programmes. These should all form key parts of the anti poverty action plan.

Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

The concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2002 stated that ‘the Committee urges the State party take all necessary measures to the “maximum extent of … available resources” to accelerate the elimination of child poverty;’[9]

NICCY would urge the Committee of OFMDFM to ensure the actions outlined in any revised anti poverty are underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The following Articles should be given particular consideration in this Inquiry.

Article 2 - The right to protection against discrimination, the rights of the UNCRC must be respected for all children equally.

Article 3 - The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in decisions made by legislative bodies or administrative authorities.

Article 4 - The State has an overarching obligation to translate the rights of the Convention into reality.

Article 6 - The State has an obligation to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Article 12 - States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Article 18 & 26 - The right for additional support to be given to parents including social security.

In conclusion NICCY makes the following recommendations to the Committee.

Targets set by the Government in the Anti-Poverty Strategy must be reviewed and improved by all Government Departments; interim targets need to be set, that are monitored on a regular basis. The Executive must ensure that adequate resources are allocated to fully implement the Anti-Poverty Strategy. All government departments must work together to develop, implement and monitor action plans in line with the strategy. These plans should be both department specific, but should be joined to ensure greatest impact.

21 November 2007

[1] Building a better future, Draft Budget 2008-2011

[2] Mc Laughlin and Montieth (2006) Child and Family Poverty in Northern Ireland OFMDFM

[3] Health and Social Care Inequalities monitoring system second update bulletin 2007

[4] Health and Social Care Inequalities monitoring system second update bulletin 2007

[5] North and West Belfast Women against Poverty(1999) Living with Poverty: Personal stories of women from North and West Belfast

[6] Health and Social Care Inequalities monitoring system second update bulletin 2007

[7] A league table of child poverty in rich nations

[8] Heckman J, Invest in the Very Young

[9] UNCRC (2002) Concluding Observations of the Committee of the Rights of the Child. United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.45-46

Written Submission by:
Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA)

NICVA

As the umbrella representative organisation for the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) has over 1,000 members. Full members, of which there are 945, are independent voluntary and community organisations. NICVA also has 78 subscribers to NICVA services. These include all District Councils in Northern Ireland and some statutory bodies which have interest in or relationship with the voluntary and community sector.

NICVA is an independent body with charitable status and is a company limited by guarantee. The organisation is owned by its members who elect the board of trustees or Executive Committee. NICVA offers comprehensive advice to member organisations on charity law, funding, finance, personnel and policy matters. With a dedicated communications team, NICVA works to ensure the sector is represented at every level, and that the voice of the sector is facilitated through the media and into the corridors of power.

1. The extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

1.1 NICVA has worked extensively with voluntary and community organisations over the last three years in an attempt to develop an anti-poverty strategy for Northern Ireland. We welcomed the publication of Lifetime Opportunities, but stressed that it needed to have an action plan and budgets attached. NICVA is very concerned that this document now has no status and we can find no evidence of budgets dedicated to the eradication of poverty in the current draft Programme for Government and Budget.

1.2 During the time that we and others have been campaigning for an effective strategy to tackle poverty in Northern Ireland, the situation for children in poverty has been worsening as worrying statistics issued during the summer indicate. ‘Households Below Average Income 2005-06’ (Department for Social Development) showed that the proportion of children living in poor homes has risen from 51% to 56% in the last two years. This is based on the proportion of children living in the bottom two quintiles of the income distribution. For each of the last four years the figures are:

2002/03 51%
2003/04 51%
2004/05 54%
2005/06 56%.

1.3 The local figure of 56% compares unfavourably with the child poverty figure of 49% in Britain.

1.4 The impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland has been well documented in reports by NICVA member organisations (eg A 2020 Vision, Save the Children). It is important to stress that poverty is not just about incomes; the impact can be seen in many other areas eg poor children are far more likely to under-achieve at school, to suffer poor health and to be living in worse conditions than better-off children.

2. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

2.1 It follows from the comment above that we must have an effective cross-cutting approach to poverty that involves all government departments. An effective strategy must involve children affected by poverty and their families, young people’s organisations and community groups in both urban and rural areas. Neighbourhood Renewal and other strategies must make the elimination of poverty in both rural and urban areas a priority. It must also have clear actions that will make a difference and firm and unambiguous targets to ensure we are making adequate progress or, alternatively, need to formulate additional policies and actions in order to end poverty.

2.2 We believe that the consultation with key stakeholders on Lifetime Opportunities, the anti-poverty strategy launched by the Secretary of State a year ago, was satisfactory.

2.3 Another issue about the ‘approach’ to a strategy to eliminate child poverty is that we must remember that there are many causes for poverty which require very many solutions. We need to take account of children in low-wage households, children in families depending on benefits and children who are in care. Low income is an important cause of poverty but there are also issues arising from issues such as drug and alcohol misuse, health and disability issues and many other factors. Again, this reinforces our call for a broadly-based, inclusive strategy that involves all departments.

3. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

3.1 NICVA’s firm view is that we do not have the sort of over-arching strategy that will deliver the elimination of poverty. The fact that child poverty has increased over the two latest years for which statistics are available is a clear indication that existing policies and actions are not working. In order to end child poverty, children must no longer be living in poor households, which means tackling adult poverty. This means well paid jobs for adults, along with training and support to allow adults to access them, a decent education system which does not leave almost a quarter of the working age population with no qualifications, decent housing, adequate access to public transport, especially in rural areas, and good health. In addition to this, we need adequate supports for those who are unable to work. Lifetime Opportunities focused too much on work as a way out of poverty, as this is not available as a route for everyone, particularly those who are sick or disabled, or whose caring responsibilities prevent it. Children living in these households also need to be lifted out of poverty. Even where parents are in work, the prevalence of low wages does not guarantee this as a route out of poverty.

3.2 In addition, any strategy must be adequately resourced. There is no indication in the recent Draft Budget that provision has been made for funding an anti-poverty strategy.

3.3 When we talk of an over-arching strategy we mean that all levels affecting poverty must be pulled. For example, economic inactivity has remained stubbornly at its existing levels for many years despite government’s wish to reduce them. This is a complex issue which we cannot do justice to in a short memorandum. One of the issues is that the boundaries between activity and inactivity, or between seeking employment and not seeking employment, are not as rigid as we might imagine. If we make jobs more attractive, provide good quality, affordable childcare and improve public transport, more people are likely to consider entering or re-entering the workplace.

3.4 Our economic vision is for a high value-added, knowledge-based economy with rewarding employment. In line with this, we believe a special effort must be made to attract back into education, training and employment people with low levels of confidence, skills and qualifications. This will significantly boost the incomes of poor families. Community education has a very important role in this task which must be encouraged.

3.5 A central part of strategy is resources and we believe the Executive and Assembly must consider the costs and benefits (including opportunity costs) of all areas of its budget. To take just one example, is the spending on New Deal being used effectively to get people off benefits and into work or could the money be better spent elsewhere?

4. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets

4.1 As we understand it, the Executive has not yet adopted an anti-poverty strategy. Therefore it is not yet clear how any such policy might be implemented. As there is no existing action plan, it is impossible to say whether the implementation mechanisms and monitoring arrangements are adequate. Under point 3 above, we have indicated our concern that resources are not being made available for the elimination of poverty.

4.2 We believe that radical thinking will be needed to ensure we provide integrated services for all children and their parents. The Executive has moved towards a single telephone number for public services; we believe this can be taken further with ‘one-stop shops’ for all children’s services, perhaps developed through community planning and including public transport services.

5. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

5.1 Our member organisations can contribute a lot of evidence on this point eg community health services in Sweden, anti-poverty measures in Denmark and France and childcare and other children’s services in Scandinavian countries generally.

5.2 There are examples of good practice much closer to home. An URBAN project in the Shankill area offered holistic care to mothers and children right through from conception to school-going age and brought together a range of services in one package. Evaluations showed the initiative was very successful but it ceased when EU funding ended. We believe that the learning from this project should be taken on board and that similar initiatives should be launched in disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland.

6. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

6.1 We believe the new Executive and Assembly should adopt a radical approach to all areas of policy and spending to ensure they are contributing to the fight against poverty. To give just a few examples:

The National Minimum Wage is a reserved matter and the Assembly cannot decide to increase the amounts payable. However, it can take a view on the need to reduce poverty by increasing the amount paid and can make its view known to the Treasury. Likewise, it can call for an increase in the amount spent on child benefit.

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Northern Neighbourhoods Health Action Zone

Within the Northern Health and Social Services Board area, the regional Investing for Health Strategy provides the main strategic framework within which partners are working collaboratively, through the Northern Investing for Health Partnership (NIfHP), to improve health and wellbeing and to reduce inequalities in health.

It is recognised that one of the key factors contributing to inequalities in health is poverty, and through the implementation of the Health Improvement Plan partners within the Northern Health & Social Services Board area are working collectively to address this issue.

Currently, there are a number of publicly available strategic documents and resources which relate to tackling poverty, including child poverty, which are utilised by the ‘Health Improvement/ Public Health’ team within the NHSSB.

These include:

The Health Action Zone has not commissioned any specific research into child poverty within our geographical area, to avoid duplication with the above resources.

3 December 2007

Written Submission by:
The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland.
The Measurement of Child Poverty

The draft Programme for Government 2008 – 2011 commits to:

“Work towards the elimination of poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020 including lifting 67,000 children out of poverty by 2010”

The measure of child poverty referred to here comprises relative income poverty. This is defined as the proportion of children living in a household whose income is less than 60% of UK median household income, before housing costs, equivalised using the modified Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) scale.

On this measure, 25% of children in Northern Ireland lived in income poor households in 2005/06 compared to 22% of children in the UK as a whole. The child poverty gap between Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole widens if the income poverty threshold is raised from 60% of UK median household income, to 70% of UK median household income. On that basis, almost two in five children (39%) in Northern Ireland live in households below this threshold, compared to 33% of children in the UK as a whole.

Ultimately however, a range of poverty measures will be used to track change in relation to child poverty including: relative income poverty; a mixed measure, combining material deprivation and low income which provides a wider measure of people’s living standards; and absolute poverty reflecting whether the very poorest families are seeing their incomes rise in real terms.

Child Poverty in Northern Ireland 1998/99 – 2005/06

The vehicle for measuring child poverty is the Family Resources survey (FRS) and the associated publication Households Below Average Income Series (HBAI) NI. The FRS / HBAI has been in place in GB since the early 1990’s but was only introduced to Northern Ireland in 2002/03.

The baseline for the draft PfG target to halve the numbers of children in poverty is 1998/99. Given that the FRS was not available in Northern Ireland in that period, it was necessary to model child poverty levels in 1998/99. OFMDFM published estimates of child poverty for Northern Ireland in the period 1998/99 in March 2007[1]. These estimates have since been updated reflecting methodological changes in the interim and these revised estimates will be published shortly. Estimates for child poverty in 1998/99 reported here are those most recent revised estimates.

Table 1: Relative Income Child Poverty Before Housing Costs

Year

Relative income poverty rate for children

95% confidence interval2

Number of children living in poor households

1998/99

29

Not applicable

135,000

2002/03

25

+/-4.2%

108,000

2003/04

26

+/-4.3%

112,000

2004/05

25

+/-4.1%

107,000

2005/06

25

+/-4.3%

108,000

Source: OFMDFM, DSD HBAI NI.[2]

Modelling of child poverty estimated that in 1998/99 the relative income poverty rate for children on a before housing cost basis was 29% representing approximately 135,000 children living in income poor households.

Actual data from the first years HBAI NI 2002/03 estimated relative income child poverty on a before housing cost basis to be 25%. In other words one quarter of children (approximately 108,000) in Northern Ireland lived in households whose income was less than 60% of the UK median income level.

Between 2002/03 and 2005/06 it is evident that there has been no statistically significant change in the rate of child poverty and, as has been the case in Great Britain over the same period, the levels of child poverty have remained broadly stable.

Current poverty rates published by the Department for Social Development utilise the UK median. On the basis of a Northern Ireland median, as would be expected, the rates of child poverty are substantially reduced. That is, when the Northern Ireland population is compared against a Northern Ireland median benchmark, the extent of income inequality is much reduced in contrast to comparisons of the Northern Ireland population against a UK median benchmark.

Table 2: Relative Income Child Poverty Using Both a NI and a UK median Before Housing Costs

Year

Northern Ireland relative income poverty rate for children based on:

60% of Northern Ireland median

Northern Ireland relative income poverty rate for children based on:

60% of UK median

2002/03

20

25

2003/04

20

26

2004/05

19

25

2005/06

19

25
Who is most at risk of child poverty?

The risk of poverty is defined as the proportion of a specific group that is classified as in low income poverty and this risk of poverty varies by demographic and socio-economic characteristics of households. Examples of households in 2005/06 that are at particular risk of child poverty and, in order of risk, include:

On that basis, whilst 25% of all children in Northern Ireland live in income poor households, the poverty risk of children that live in households renting privately, for example, is much greater.

How are income poor children distributed within different households?

Whilst the risk of child poverty varies clearly with social and demographic characteristics of households, the numbers of children in poverty in these different types of households is determined by the incidence of those households in the population as a whole.

For example, whilst the poverty risk of children living in lone parent households (36%) is higher than that for children living in couple households (22%), a much higher proportion of income poor children (65%) live in couple households compared to lone parent households (35%). This picture of the risk and concentration of poverty reflects the demographic realities that there are many more couple households with children in the entire population than there are lone parent households.

Households that comprise a significant proportion of those in poverty include;

Children in households that:

So, for example, three quarters of relatively income poor children live in households that have no savings, whilst 35% of income poor children live in lone parent households. It is important to note that this picture is again influenced by certain demographic realities.

Absolute child poverty

As mentioned above, another measure of child poverty which will be monitored over time is absolute child poverty benchmarked at the income values for 60% of UK median household income in 1998/99. Figure 1 below details the change to absolute low income in Northern Ireland over the period 2002/03 to 2005/06.

Figure 1 Absolute Low Income Poverty 2002/03 – 2005/06

Figure 1 Absolute Low Income Poverty 2002/03 – 2005/06

Source: DSD, HBAI NI

On that basis, in 2002/03, 23% of children were poor compared to the 1998/99 baseline estimate of 29%. Since 2002/03 there has been a statistically significant decrease in absolute child poverty from 23% to 16%. In other words, the poorest children in our society have seen their household incomes rise in real terms, after adjustment for the effects of inflation, from 1998/99 to 2002/03 and between 2002/03 to 2005/06

The Impact of Child poverty

The direct impact of income poverty on the ability of households to provide goods or services for children commonly assessed as a necessity was provided by the report “Bare Necessities: Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland” and through subsequent research commissioned by OFMDFM[3].

On the basis of 33 items which were considered as a necessity including items related to food, clothing, participation and activities, developmental and environmental items, 47% of children were found to lack one or more necessities whilst 29% lacked two or more. Furthermore, the research found that over one fifth of children (22%) in Northern Ireland lacked 3 or more necessities whilst 16% lacked four or more.

The broader impacts and legacies for children born into relative income poverty are well researched and documented.

In education for example, children living in income poor households are often at a significant disadvantage to those not in poverty. For example:

The proportion of pupils not entitled to free school meals who achieved two or more A levels or equivalent (50%) was much higher than that for pupils entitled to free school meals (22%). Of those entitled to free school meals, girls continue to outperform boys in terms of highest level of qualification achieved, with 23.0% of girls achieving 3 or more A levels or equivalent, compared to 13.5% of boys.

School leavers not entitled to free school meals are more likely to continue their education with 70% entering institutions of Higher or Further Education compared to 46% of leavers who were entitled to free school meals.

Table 3 below indicates the gap in attainment between those children entitled to free school meals and all pupils in respect of attaining no qualifications. Between 1992/93 to 2004/05, roughly twice the rate of pupils entitled to free school meals leave education without any qualifications compared to all pupils.

Table 3 Pupils Leaving Education with No Qualifications

OFMDFM response_Table.eps

Source: DE,

Note due to technical difficulties no data is available for 2002/03

In relation to health there are numerous examples of the impacts of deprivation on children and the legacy of that impact as they grow to adulthood.

Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders
Formal Consultation Process

During the development phase of ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy two periods of public consultation were undertaken.

The Phase 1 consultation ran between April and October 2004 and Phase 2 between July and August 2005.

103 formal written responses were received during the first consultation and 63 during the second.

During both consultations a number of public seminars were held at various venues across Northern Ireland. The majority of these seminars were organised and facilitated on behalf of OFMDFM by the Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Network (NIAPN), a voluntary organisation which lobbies on behalf of people experiencing poverty. NIAPN’s involvement in these seminars helped to ensure that some of the most difficult to reach groups were both represented and had their views expressed during the consultation process.

In November 2004, as a follow on to the first consultation, the Queen’s University Institute of Governance hosted a key ‘Chatham House rules’ seminar attended by a range of key stakeholders including representatives of political parties, to both discuss the strategy proposals and seek to inform the debate around the development and future direction of the policy.

Views of Children and Young People

Children and young people were also afforded the opportunity to participate in the process, through a specially organised workshop in conjunction with the Derry Children’s Commissioner. This event allowed a wide range of children and young people from areas of disadvantage within Derry to offer their views on the development of the strategy and helped identify the real issues facing children and young people experiencing poverty and social exclusion.

Further Consultation

In October 2006 at the latter development stages of ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ OFMDFM officials further engaged with key stakeholders and established a ‘Critical Friends’ advisory group which comprised representatives from the voluntary and community sector (including Save the Children), academics, officials from the Department of Work and Pensions and other devolved administrations.

Key Issues - Child Poverty

Throughout the two public consultations and the subsequent meetings with ‘Critical Friends’ a strong view was expressed that in light of the UK Government’s commitment to halve child poverty by 2010 on the way to eradicating it by 2020, there was a need for comparative targets to be set within any new Northern Ireland strategy. These views were further reflected within formal written submissions made by organisations such as Save the Children.

Taking account of the views expressed during the various consultation stages ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ identifies its two overall objectives as being to;

‘Lifetime Opportunities’

Since its launch on 13th November 2006 ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ has been both debated by the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on 12 December 2006 and considered and assessed by the shadow Executive’s Programme for Government Committee in December 2006/January 2007.

It is hoped that the NI Executive Committee in line with its statutory duty under Section 16 of the St Andrews Agreement NI Act 2006 will soon consider the formal adoption of an anti-poverty strategy for NI.
As part of this process the OFMDFM Committee will be presented with proposals for its consideration and comment.
Consultation on the 10 Year Strategy for Children and Young People

We were also informed by the consultation process on the 10 year strategy for children and young people.

Child poverty and particularly social exclusion and multi-faceted need, was consistently identified as a key theme in the lives of children and young people throughout the development phase of the 10 year strategy. In acknowledging this, the strategy includes the outcome ‘Economic and Environmental Well-being’.

Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020.

‘Lifetime Opportunities’ and its associated targets have still to be formally considered by the Executive Committee in line with its statutory duty under Section 16 of the St Andrews Agreement NI Act 2006, to adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to tackle poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation based on objective need.

It is the intention of Junior Ministers to bring forward a 12-month work programme to set annual targets and actions. This will be brought to the Committee for consideration in the new year.

Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets
Monitoring and Evaluating Progress

When ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ was launched it was highlighted that the effectiveness of the strategy would be monitored and evaluated through a range of mechanisms:

The Ministerial led Forum, which had responsibility for overseeing the process and monitoring progress made against the strategy’s goals, objectives and targets, was formally established in early 2007 and met for the first and to date only time, on 8th March 2007. Recognising that government cannot deliver on its own and needs to work in partnership Forum membership consisted of relevant stakeholder groups including local politicians, employers, representatives of trade unions, the statutory, voluntary and community sectors, social economy and individuals experiencing poverty and social exclusion.

The Central Anti-Poverty Unit (CAPU) within the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the overall impact of the Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy. This Unit also provided the secretariat to the Ministerial Poverty Forum.

An Inter-departmental Equality and Social Need Steering Group which is chaired by a senior official in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister was identified as being the principle mechanism for co-ordinating, monitoring and evaluating across departments and Agencies.

It was further proposed that on the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review, policies needed to take the strategy forward, including new policies, the resources and Public Service Agreements for meeting the commitments within the strategy would be published. Progress against agreed indicators would be published periodically thereafter.

In delivering the 10 year strategy for children and young people, Northern Ireland Departments will also deliver a wide range of initiatives and programmes that impact positively on child poverty and exclusion issues.

The setting of specific actions and targets on an annual basis will help significantly to assess progress.

Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes
British Irish Council (BIC)

The Social Inclusion Strand of the British Irish Council has been a valuable opportunity for officials to exchange information on programmes, services and statistics in each administration and to share good and innovative practice through meetings and visits.

The report to the Social Inclusion Ministers of the British Irish Council administrations will be presented to Ministers at a ministerial meeting in April 2008. The work will outline lessons learned on the theme of child poverty with a particular focus on lone parents. Work on this theme took place between the Social Inclusion Ministers’ meeting in Edinburgh in March 2006 and the end of 2007.

This report will:

Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI)

Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) was a key component of New TSN policy aimed at tackling social exclusion of vulnerable groups in society. It was retained in the current proposals for a broader Anti-Poverty Strategy.

PSI involves Departments working together and with partners outside Government to improve and enhance the circumstances of those at risk of social exclusion by identifying and tackling factors that could contribute to social exclusion and which would best dealt with in a co-ordinated way. It also involves consideration of positive initiatives to facilitate and encourage social inclusion. The PSI approach recognises that tackling the ongoing social exclusion of some vulnerable groups requires inputs from a range of Departments and other public sector providers.

A Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) Working Group on Lone Parents was established in September 2006 in recognition of the fact that lone parent families make up around a quarter of all families with dependent children and are more at risk of being in poverty than any other household type. It is estimated that between a third and half of lone parent families here are living in poverty affecting around 46,000 children.[4]

The starting point of the PSI group was to examine research undertaken in GB and NI which identifies various barriers impeding lone parents returning to and/or entering paid work. Key themes arising from research together with existing policies and programmes have been examined in more detail in consultation with lone parents and their representative organizations. The emphasis being on what works well, gaps in provision and where things could be done more effectively.

Recommendations arising from this work are nearing completion, if accepted these recommendations are expected to make a major contribution to the reduction of child poverty.

The 10 year strategy for children and young people aims to narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers also through a range of actions to improve the lives and prospects of disadvantaged children and young people and give them the best start in life.

Child Poverty – A view on the approach being taken by the Department for Work and Pensions

In June 2006 Lisa Harker, was engaged to provide independent advice on possible new approaches to what was seen as the Department for Work and Pensions number one priority – tackling child poverty. Ms Harker was viewed as having a wealth of experience working as a policy adviser, researcher and writer, specializing primarily in issues related to families, poverty and social exclusion

The subsequent report entitled ‘Delivering on Child Poverty: what would it take?’ was presented to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in November 2006.

Within her report Lisa Harker advises that whilst it had not been possible for her to undertake a thorough review of the Department’s strategy she was able, within the timeframe allocated, to provide some guidance on:

The Report reflects her view that although the Government has made significant progress on tackling child poverty, further changes will be necessary if the goals of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating child poverty by 2020 are to be reached.

The Report recommends that help for parents looking for work should be more focused on the needs of the whole family and access to childcare and flexible working arrangements should be improved. The author reflects the view that parents need help, not only to find work, but to also gain the skills they need to advance in employment. Support must also be open to a wider group of families – including the partners of those already in a job.

At the report’s launch in November 2006 Lisa Harker stated that “I believe that by ensuring that welfare-to-work support is more attuned to the needs of all families and the demands of the labour market, the Department for Work and Pensions could help more families find an effective and sustainable route out of poverty.”

Lisa Harker’s Report is available via the Department for Work and Pensions website - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2006/harker/#harker

4 December 2007

[1] See: www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/eliminatingchildpoverty.pdf

[2] A confidence interval is a statistical construct that allows a degree of certainty to be attached to a point estimate as the point estimate is based on a sample of households. The confidence interval is constructed on the basis that we can be 95% certain that the true estimate lies within a possible range of values. For example in 2002/03 we can be 95% certain that the true level of child poverty is 25% +/- 4.3%. In other words we can be 95% certain that the true level of child poverty is between 20.7% and 29.3%

[3] See: www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/bare-necessities.pdf and www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/childandfamilypoverty2006.pdf

[4] Census 2001 indicates around 60000 lone parent families in Northern Ireland LFS April-June 2007 indicates approx half of lone parents are in employment HBAI figures for 2005/06 indicate After Housing Costs around 24000 lone parent families in poverty affecting approx 46000 children

Written Submission by:
PlayBoard

Introduction

“If you’re poor you have no money, no food, no toys, no parks” Child aged 6, Craigavon

PlayBoard is the leading agency for children and young peoples play in Northern Ireland. We campaign to ensure that every child has access to high quality, free and inclusive play opportunities.

PlayBoard’s mission statement is Working for the child’s right to play.

Children and young people should not be deprived of PLAY, an essential childhood experience, simply because parents and carers are living in poverty. It is essential for those children who live in poverty to experience quality play.

Undoubtedly Play and Social Development are global issues in terms of a child’s right of access. Play is one of, if not the most, central component in a child’s life, it is essential for a happy childhood. Play is the culture of childhood; it is well documented that play is important for all aspects of child development, social, emotional, physical, intellectual and creative. Play encourages independence, confidence, creativity and self esteem; it helps develop social interaction and life skills. Over all it enhances quality of life.

Play is a cross cutting social policy issue. It is fundamental to healthy and happy childhood and both challenges and informs our understanding of children. Good play opportunities can help improve the quality of life and safety in neighborhoods, tackle obesity, promote health and well being, and support holistic development.

1. Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland has the youngest population of any region in the UK: approximately 400,000 children and young people are under the age of 18. That equates to 27% of Northern Irelands residents. Of those, almost 40% live in households that are in the bottom 30% of total household income. Latest figures from the department of Social development suggest 29% of children in Northern Ireland are living in poverty an up ward, and indeed, worrying trend from last years estimated figure of 24%.

Experiences of children and young people in NI:

If normal play experiences are absent throughout a child’s life (Play Deprivation) that child is more likely to become highly violent and anti social. Inability to engage in play can only result in behavioral instability, neurological dysfunction, unhappiness and a lack of mental well being in affected children. Children are at risk from play deprivation across the board and in particular in disadvantaged areas. Therefore children from less-well of backgrounds are at risk from high levels of play deprivation.[1]

1.1 Access to provision

Children and families living in poverty have limited or no access to provision and activities that require payment such as swimming lessons or play care provision.

There may also be limited provision in the area they live such as shops and play spaces.

This lack of facilities may result in children experiencing limited mobility, and limited opportunity to be independent of a parent or adult.

This in turn will have a limited effect on children in many different ways including their physical, mental and emotional development.

Limited opportunities therefore can have both short and long term effects on the lives of children and young people.

Children in rural areas are even further isolated and opportunities outside of school may be limited. Quite often for rural children friends need to be ‘imported’ or services bought in, for those children living in poverty these are not viable options open to them.

1.2 Stress

Those living in poverty can experience a large amount of stress. Which can increase the already negative environment for the children and families. Children can also be stressed in this environment. According to a study of education in England primary school children and their parents are suffering from deep anxiety about modern life.

In NI evidence shows that we struggle with a range of social anxieties linked to poverty, including:

Play can help to address some of these anxieties as it can be a source of socialization and comfort.

1.3 Ability of parents to cope

It is widely recognised that parents are the first educators of children and that children learn coping mechanisms from their parents. Children in homes where there may be abuse of substance as a way to cope will in turn experience this abuse which will have a long lasting negative impact on a child.

Children may also be in a situation where there is an abusive relationship and limited capacity for a parent to improve this situation.

If we isolate our children they are not an integral part of our society and will not feel a sense of belonging. They should be seen and not heard within their communities. Children and young people can go from being disadvantaged to disenfranchised and this may in some cases lead to challenging behaviors. For older children this may spiral out of control possibly resulting in Anti Social Behavior Orders. This in itself creates a financial drain on resources.

1.4 The environment

The environment has a big impact on how children see their community. In an area with limited provision, where there are derelict buildings and little resources put into the upkeep of the area there will be limited pride in the area. This in turn feeds into how a child sees their place in the community, society and the opportunities available to them.

Free play in the environment allows children to manage risks, to problem solve and to learn independence.

1.5 Play as Informal Education

Our current education structure in Northern Ireland does not adequately allow children to access quality play opportunities within the school day.

Play gives informal environments to develop social skills.

2. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders.

It is unacceptable that Play is absent from Lifetime Opportunities.

PlayBoard as an NGO and the leading agency for children and young peoples play in Northern Ireland would welcome an opportunity to consult further on the strategy.

As a children and young people’s organization recurrently engaging in meaningful consultation and participation with children, we would recommend a greater effort to engage directly with children and young people.

PlayBoard would recommend a more outcome focused approach. Involvement of all stakeholders, in particular children and young people is of paramount importance.

3. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020.

It is our understanding that the financial resources required to achieve these targets have not been adequately addressed within the recently published Programme for Government.

There is a requirement for an investment strategy and a budget to match an action plan to deliver on these targets.

4. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure the key actions/ targets.

If an agreed strategy was adopted and appropriately consulted on, then targets action plans and budgets would follow.

Appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms could then be put in place.

5. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes.

The provision of school aged childcare and play care is essential to the regeneration and renewal of communities and is a crucial intervention that contributes to breaking the poverty cycle. Quality childcare is instrumental to the infrastructure and development of a modern country – as essential as roads and transport – enabling parents to work and offering new opportunities for children.

School aged childcare policy and subsequent funding has had a chequered past. The sector and infrastructure has been developed through investment such as PEACE, NOF and more recently DHSSPS through the Children and Young People’s fund.

Policy responsibility for Early Years transferred from the Department of Health (DHSS&PS) to the Department of Education (DE) on 1st November 2006. Prior to that date the DHSS&PS had policy responsibility for Early Years and DE had responsibility for the Pre-School Education Expansion Programme. The School Aged Childcare sector, currently receiving top up funding from the Children and Young People’s Package through DHSS&PS, did not move to DE along with Early Years.

The new Early Years Strategy will focus on children from birth up to foundation years of primary, 0-6yrs. PlayBoard have queried why the broader age range has not been accounted for, as in Children First 0-14, Children and Young People’s Strategy 0-18. The response has been that as with other jurisdictions the strategy will be based on the OECD report “Starting Strong, Early Childhood Education and Care”, however the age range for that report is 0-8 years.

Due to the School Aged Childcare sector not having moved to DE and concerns surrounding the lengthy timeline in which this age range may have to wait to be reviewed may result in the investment to date, both human and financial, that has underpinned the development of infrastructure and a professional play work workforce being negated.

6. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved admistarion.

In consultation with children, membership and staff the key actions are follows:

Conclusion

Play is one of the most important central components of a child’s life.

It is fundamental to healthy and happy childhood and both challenges and informs our understanding of children. Good play opportunities can help improve the quality of life and safety in neighborhoods, tackle obesity, promote health and well being, and support holistic development.

In tackling poverty the provision and recognition of play is a key driver. All children are morally and legally entitled to play within their own community.

Every child in Northern Ireland is entitled to quality play experiences and it is the government’s role to ensure that no children are excluded.

15 November 2007

[1] Play Wales Briefing Paper Play Deprivation.

Written Submission by:
Rural Community Network

1. Background

1.1 Rural Community Network [RCN] is a regional voluntary organisation established by community groups from rural areas in 1991 to articulate the voice of rural communities on issues relating to poverty, disadvantage and equality. We are part of the wider Rural Community Development Networking Infrastructure (RCDNI) with the twelve Rural Support Networks covering the whole of rural Northern Ireland. The RCDNI has a membership of over 800 members.

1.2 As the regional rural voluntary organisation for rural communities, RCN focuses its work in two core areas:

2. Acknowledging Rural Child Poverty

Around 35% of Northern Ireland’s population live in rural communities with 19% living in poverty. 24% of the rural population is aged under 16 compared with 23% of the urban population. [source: Family Resources Survey Urban Rural Report 2004-2005]

The recent Save the Children Report Annual Child Poverty Report 2007 identified that there are greater child poverty rates in small/medium sized towns than in large towns or cities, particularly in the west.

Table: Child Poverty Rates (%) in Northern Ireland (2004/5)
 

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

Belfast Metropolitan Area

21

22

Urban East

28

27

Urban West

29

31

Rural East

16

16

Rural West

27

23

All Children in NI

24

24

Source: DSD, FRS data

3. Triggers into Rural Child Poverty

Regardless of whether a child is living in an urban or rural area, the consequences of poverty are similar such low income, poor educational attainment, poor health, low quality housing, fewer choices. However, the causes of poverty are often different in rural areas and therefore the solutions need to be different.

RCN argues that any anti-poverty strategy should show an understanding of rural poverty by highlighting:

Graph 1: By Local Authority

RCN_Chart.eps

3. Some Possible Solutions
Rural Childcare

The provision of quality, flexible and accessible childcare is a significant barrier to finding and taking up work in rural areas and disproportionately affects women and lone parents. Participation of women in quality, full time jobs would make a significant impact on child poverty. DARD are sponsoring the development of a rural Childcare Strategy [to be published @ January 2008]to examine both the gaps and possible solutions, some of which DARD can respond to and others more the responsibility of other departments.

It is important that this inquiry strongly recommends that the rural Childcare Strategy is fully examined with recommendations taken on board by those departments responsible.
Rural Transport

School buses currently cannot pick up children to deliver to day-care or nurseries, nor can they deliver children to after-schools provision, despite the fact that they might be passing the children on the road or passing the After-Schools club. This means that children in rural areas are having greater difficulty in accessing day-care or after-schools provision which in turn means that the principle carer, usually the mother, cannot access employment.

We recommend that this Inquiry approaches DENI to examine this issue.
Sure Start

The Rural Childcare Stakeholders’ Forum has identified that some children living in Sure Start areas are missing out on the support and services provided by Sure Start as they are accessing provision outside of Sure Start areas. This is not the principle of Sure Start which is about following the child.

We recommend that this Inquiry approaches DENI to ensure that that there is greater linkage and coverage between rural Sure Start areas.
Digital Divide

Despite BT’s claim of 100% Broadband coverage, there are still areas that cannot access Broadband. This means that the potential of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to help address deficiencies in rural services cannot be realised impacting on poverty levels.

We recommend that this Inquiry highlight the digital divide that is still a reality for some rural communities.
Local Action Groups – Rural Development Programme
The Local Action Groups will be responsible for delivering @£100 000 million of the new Rural Development Programme. Based on a social partnership model, these will be managed by clusters of local Councils. The participation and engagement of children and young people in these structures is critical placing children and young people at the heart of rural development and sustainable rural communities. The Participation Network are currently working with DARD on this.
This Inquiry to recommend that children and young people are actively supported, and encouraged to fully participate in the Local Action Groups and the local action planning process.
Vulnerable Children & Young People – Creative Eye Programme

TADA Rural Support Network has developed an important model of engaging with vulnerable young people in rural areas during the summer developing creative skills. The Creative Eye Programme also invests in a shared space between young people coming from different experiences and abilities as well as giving them a stake in their communities.

4. Life-Time Opportunities – Anti Poverty Strategy

We are concerned that Life-Time Opportunities has not as yet been approved by the Executive and has not adequately shaped spending priorities in the draft Budget and Programme for Government.

Whilst we welcome the rural targets in Life-Time Opportunities, we are concerned that they are not specific, measurable, actionable or time-bound.

This Inquiry to recommend that Life-Time Opportunities is approved by the Executive with appropriate budgets attached to the key targets and the Ministerial Forum re-instituted. We would also recommend that the rural targets are thought through and made more specific.
5. Sustainable Rural Communities

Child Poverty exists in rural communities as it does in urban areas. The demographic and economic events associated with children entering and escaping poverty are however, often different. Taking account of these differences is critical if child poverty is to be effectively addressed in rural areas.

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Save The Children

Introduction

Save the Children is an international non-governmental organisation working in over 50 countries worldwide to create a better future for children. All of our work is underpinned by a commitment to making a reality of the rights of children enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In Northern Ireland Save the Children works through a variety of partnership approaches to support community level action on children’s issues; facilitates children and young person-led initiatives; undertakes independent research and policy analysis and promotes children’s rights through public education and fundraising activities. Child poverty is one of our two main priorities in the North of Ireland, and we have engaged intensively in advocacy around the development of Lifetime Opportunities, the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy.

Save the Children welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Committee for OFMDFM’s Inquiry into Child Poverty in Northern Ireland as we believe that this is a timely opportunity to focus on developing recommendations to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Potentially the Inquiry could:

1. Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

1.1 Extent

The annual Households Below Average Income reports (HBAI) are the UK government’s main vehicle for measuring child poverty across GB, and more recently, the UK.[1] In particular, it sets a household income threshold below which a household is considered to be living in poverty. This is set at 60% of the median income, and is equivalised to take account of family size.

The HBAI Report’s main method of poverty analysis uses an income only After Housing Costs (AHC) measure, where housing costs such as rent, mortgage interest payments, rates and ground rent have been removed. This is intended to reflect the money a household has to exist on, after housing costs have been paid, and to take into account the wide variation in housing costs across households and geographically.

There are a wide range of other measures of child poverty. The DWP consulted widely on the measurement of Child Poverty in 2003 and recommended the use of a mixed measure (combining income and deprivation) to be used alongside the income only measure and deemed that poverty would only be reducing if all figures were moving in the right direction. While data has been collected for the mixed measure since 2004/5 in Family Resources Survey, statistics from this measure have yet to be provided in analysis of child poverty. It is expected that next year’s report will be the first to report on the mixed measure. Other research has used mixed measures of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

Interestingly, the HBAI After Housing Costs measure is the only one in which Northern Ireland child poverty figures are lower than the UK average. In all other cases, Northern Ireland child poverty rates are higher. Arguably the After Housing Costs measure does not provide an appropriate comparison with GB, as the housing costs in NI have (in the past) tended to be lower than in GB, while most other costs have been higher, including food, fuel, childcare and clothing.

According to the most recently published HBAI statistics almost one in three (29%) of all children in Northern Ireland are living in poverty (AHC). This equates to around 122,000 children.

This year saw slight changes of HBAI methodology, which need to be taken account of when comparing with previous years data. However, irrespective of equivalisation scale used, the 2005/6 data showed a higher level of child poverty than previous years, with an increase of 4% or 3% depending on the scale used.

It is not clear whether this represents a statistically significant increase in the proportion of children living in poverty. However, what is clear is that the child poverty rate has not decreased over the four years it has been measured in Northern Ireland.

Figure 1: Child Poverty rate (AHC) using McClement’s scale (ie previous methodology)

missing image file

Source: HBAI 2002/3 – 2005/6

Figure 2: Child Poverty rate (AHC) using OECD scale (ie new methodology)

missing image file

Source: HBAI 2002/3 – 2005/6

Children in Northern Ireland are more likely to live in low income households than adults.

Figure 3: Poverty rates by age group (AHC).[2]

missing image file

Children have a higher risk of being in poverty if they live in a family:

Lone parent families are the household type most at risk of being in poverty.

Almost half of lone parent families are living in poverty (AHC) compared to one in five couples with children or pensioner households.

Figure 4: Proportion of households in poverty (AHC) by family type.[4]

missing image file

Almost half of poor children live in families where at least one of the adults is in paid work.
Figure 5: Breakdown of children in poverty by household employment.[5]

missing image file

1.2 Intensity

Save the Children’s report Britain’s Poorest Children (2005) found that, despite hundreds of thousands of children being lifted out of poverty in GB over recent years, there was little change in the number of children experiencing severe child poverty.[6] Our recent report Under the Radar: Severe Child Poverty in the UK (2006) analyses the 2004/5 Family Resources Survey data and finds that one in ten children in Northern Ireland is living in severe poverty – this equates to 44,000 children.

Save the Children is calling on the NI Executive to set targets for the eradication of severe child poverty in Northern Ireland. In order to monitor progress, the NI HBAI report should include a measure of the proportion and number of children in Northern Ireland living in severe child poverty.

As well as studying depth of poverty, intensity can also be examined using persistence of poverty. The study of persistent poverty involves tracking the same group of people over a four year period to identify those who stay in poverty at least 3 out of 4 years. While for many poverty is a transient state, unfortunately for a small group poverty is a long term state and these children suffer the greatest impact of poverty. To date it has not been possible to study persistent poverty in NI due to a lack of data. However, since 2001 the Northern Ireland Household Panel survey has been collecting data which can be used for this type of analysis for the first time. There are now enough waves of data available to enable the study of persistent child poverty in NI and research is currently being carried out by Save the Children with partner ARK, at Queens University which will be available in early 2008.

1.3 Impact

There are many dimensions to poverty that affect not only a child’s current living standard, but also their prospects in the longer term and into adulthood. Whilst low income is important to poverty, it is not the only dimension. A child’s quality of life is also important. Access to education, decent housing, good quality health service, a safe environment – as well as income – all affect the quality of a child’s opportunity.

DWP, 2003

Poverty impacts on all aspects of a child’s life. Here we will briefly look at three areas:

1.3.1 Child poverty and income levels

If a family is living entirely on benefits, it is likely to be living in poverty. At around 30% Northern Ireland has the highest levels of working age population not in paid work of any region across the UK. Benefit levels are set below the poverty line (60% of the median income). For example, a couple with four children living entirely on benefits live on a weekly income of £289, £128 below the poverty line for that family type.[7] However, benefit levels are higher than the severe child poverty threshold, so if a family is in receipt of all benefits they are entitled to, they should not be experiencing severe poverty.

It is important to note, however, that around half of all children in poverty in Northern Ireland are living in households where at least one parent is in paid employment. In-work poverty is as big a challenge as poverty linked to economic inactivity. Northern Ireland has high levels of low pay – indeed it has the highest levels of low pay for full time workers of any region of the UK.[8]

Save the Children commissioned a survey of families living on low incomes across the UK to explore how they manage financially, with fieldwork carried out in June and July 2006. In total 1,580 parents were surveyed, including a representative sample in Northern Ireland. The results showed life below the poverty line as a daily struggle to make ends meet. Eight-five percent of respondents said that they had found it difficult to make ends meet over the previous year, and sadly six in ten said that they felt that they would never have enough money to make ends meet.

Strikingly, 85% said that they were proud of the way they managed their finances, and the most common coping mechanism appeared to be parents going without basic essentials. More than nine in ten (91%) said that they regularly go without basic things themselves in order to make sure that their children were provided for.

Two-thirds of parents (66%) said that they struggled to find a job that paid enough for their family to live on, and a similar proportion said that childcare costs made it difficult to work. However, while the costs of childcare is a key problem, many find it difficult to access quality childcare. A review of the Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy found that, over the lifetime of the Strategy (1999-2004), the number of childcare places had only increased by 5.7%. In 2004 there was only one childcare place for every 6.4 children under four.

1.3.2 Impact of child poverty on children’s educational experience

In Northern Ireland, educational disadvantage begins at an early age. According to Department of Education research, pre-school children from higher socio-economic backgrounds in Northern Ireland already show signs of higher cognitive and behavioural abilities than children from poorer backgrounds. Young children living in areas of high deprivation score less well on verbal skills, early number concepts and general cognitive skills.

The impact of socio-economic disadvantage continues to be apparent throughout the child’s years at primary school. Test scores and attainment gaps between nigh and low socio-economic status children continue to widen with the most significant increase between the ages of 5 and 10. By age 11, children attending schools with higher levels of deprivation are less likely to have reached level 4 at key stage 2, compared with 11 year olds on average. The gap continues to grow throughout secondary level education, and by GCSE level, children entitled to free school meals are more than twice as likely to achieve no qualifications (12%) compared to the NI average (5%). Worryingly, as the following figure indicates, there appears to have been little progress in narrowing the gap in educational attainment and, if anything, in recent years the gap has grown.

Figure 6: Proportion of children achieving no GCSEs.[9]

Save the Children_Chart.eps

Factors affecting the educational experience of children in poverty include:

On 21 November Save the Children and JRF published a research report by Goretti Horgan of the University of Ulster on the impact of poverty on primary school children’s educational experience. It found that children’s school experiences are shaped by the level of disadvantage they face. There is clear evidence of boys as young as nine becoming disenchanted with school and starting to disengage. Children in the most disadvantaged schools worried about being beaten up on the way to and from school and about their school being vandalised; they were very aware of the costs associated with school and of the difficulties parents face in meeting those costs. These range from small amounts such as 50p or £1 charged for no-uniform day to costs of uniforms, trips during school hours and residential trips.

1.3.3 Impact of poverty on children’s health outcomes

Even before birth, the impact of poverty on maternal health results in higher levels of infant mortality and low infant birth weight. The rate of infant mortality is one third higher in deprived wards than in non-deprived wards and the gap appears to have increased over recent years.

According to DHSSPS, children born into poverty are four times more likely to die before the age of 20 than non-poor children. They are fifteen times more likely to die as a result of a housefire and five times more likely to die in accidents.[11] The impact of deprivation on health continues into adulthood, with those living in deprived wards living on average 2.5 years less for women, and 3.1 years less for men than the NI average.

Poverty impacts on children’s

1.3.4 Child poverty and its impact on home and neighbourhood

Bad housing makes children sick. Children living in cramped, often emergency accommodation experience disturbed sleep, poor diet, hyperactivity, bedwetting and soiling, aggression and higher rates of accidents and infectious disease. And the effects are long lasting. Evidence suggests that children in poor housing are directly and adversely affected later in life, even if their housing conditions subsequently improve.

Shelter (2006), Toying with their future.

For thousands of children in NI, having a place you can call home cannot be taken for granted. In 2005/6, 6,805 families with dependent children presented as homeless to the NI Housing Executive. This was an increase of more than 50% from 1995/6.

Spiralling house prices make it practically impossible even for families on good incomes to afford to buy, and there is a serious shortage of social housing. Many families living on low incomes have no choice but to opt for private rented accommodation because they have no prospects of being offered social housing. In most cases, the rent is higher than the housing benefit received, resulting in the family having to find a shortfall of £10 or £20 or more per week from an already restricted budget. Too often this can lead to real hardship.

The costs of heating is higher in Northern Ireland than any other region in the UK.[12] The 2003-4 Family Spending Survey found that spending on a family home in Northern Ireland was 43 percentage points higher in NI than the UK average. 24% of the population in Northern Ireland are living in fuel poverty and this rises to 50% of households with an annual income of less than £10,000.

1.3.5 The impact of child poverty on play and social development

Play is a vital part of childhood and in the very early years is the major source of a child’s learning. It is through play that children can develop their language and social skills, express their emotions, develop their imagination and creativity. It is also crucial to a child’s health and development and this is best supported by access to a wide variety of play experiences and opportunities. Having good play provision and well-designed safe play areas for children can contribute to a sense of wellbeing and security in their surroundings.

Play, culture and leisure activities and social interactions with peers remain essential for wellbeing and social development as a child becomes a teenager. Doing without these opportunities and experiences because of poverty can have a major impact on the quality of life of a child or young person. Indeed, when young people are consulted about their priorities, play and social development regularly top the list.

However, for many children in Northern Ireland, especially those in poverty, access to and the affordability of good play and leisure provision can pose a major problem, cutting them off from a world of fun, adventure, learning, development and wellbeing. Being excluded from social participation can also have detrimental effects on a child or young person’s sense of self-worth and belonging.

2. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

2.1 The development of Lifetime Opportunities

Lifetime Opportunities came out a review of New TSN, commissioned by the NI Executive in 2001. Deloitte and Touche were commissioned to produce an official evaluation of New TSN, and in addition a number of academics and voluntary sector agencies also added their assessments of its success.

The official evaluation found that the New TSN policy had been ‘successfully mainstreamed’ into planning and implementation of government programmes and the budgeting process. However, it lacked strategic focus, was more focused on process rather than outcomes, and needed to broaden its scope. Of most concern perhaps was the finding that there was no evidence that the skewing of resources was having an impact on people living in poverty.

The findings of the academics and NGOs reiterated these criticisms and made strong arguments for change:

It was decided that a new strategy needed to be developed. The Central Anti-Poverty Unit went out to public consultation twice in developing its plans through 2004 and 2005. However, this was a less than ideal policy development process. Both consultations spanned summer periods, and the duration of the second was less than 12 weeks, which is standard good practice. Of particular concern was the lack of consultation with children and young people – only one meeting occurred at the request of the young people. Furthermore, an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) was not carried out on the Strategy, against the advice of the Equality Commission.

On receiving the second consultation document , a number of groups felt that their comments to the first consultation process had not been taken account of. Key concerns included the lack of focus on child poverty, the lack of budget for implementing the Strategy, and the lack of strategic leadership in setting targets and directing Departments in developing actions. There were strong concerns that the Strategy would become merely New TSN with a few add-ons.

In order to take account of some of the concerns the Central Anti-Poverty Unit set up a ‘Critical Friends’ group made up of representatives of civic society, representatives of DWP, devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland and Combat Poverty Agency. Through this process, and due to added pressure emerging from the St Andrews Agreement, the Strategy was completely re-drafted, and the action plan was put on hold. The Strategy was published by the then Secretary of State Peter Hain on 13 November 2006.

Reflecting on this process, despite the five years between the start of the review of New TSN in 2001 and the publication of the Strategy in 2006, the final document was completely and hastily reworked in the final month or two prior to its launch. While this resulted in a better, more focused document, a number of the key concerns remain including the lack of ring fenced budget, the ability of departments to coordinate actions, as well as the suitability of a number of targets. In addition, without any timetable for publishing actions plans, it is not clear how practically the Strategy will be implemented.

2.2 Assessing Lifetime Opportunities

Given the length of time Lifetime Opportunities was in development Save the Children would recommend that, rather than starting entirely afresh, the Executive retains the positive aspects of the Strategy, while making a number of improvements.

The positive aspects to be retained include:

1. A strong focus on child poverty. Two of the four lifecycle groups focus on child poverty.

2. The commitment to eradicate child poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020.

Tony Blair made a historic commitment in 1999 to eradicate child poverty across the UK by 2020. ‘Eradication’ has since been defined as reaching levels of around 4%. Save the Children has been arguing for a need for a NI-specific commitment to be set as, since the population in the North of Ireland represents only around 2.5% of the UK population, all our children could live in poverty and the UK target be met. We were delighted to see this commitment stated in Lifetime Opportunities.

3. The establishment of a Ministerial-led Forum

Save the Children has been concerned at the lack of political leadership in tackling child poverty. Indeed, we believe that this is reflected in much of the Strategy, which is too much a result of negotiation with departments rather than strategic thinking. However, an effective Ministerial-led Forum has the potential to contribute joined-up, strategic thinking in developing a coherent set of actions to eradicate child poverty.

4. Commitment to involving people experiencing poverty

There is a commitment within Lifetime Opportunities to engage people experiencing poverty in the implementation of the Strategy. This must, of course, include children and young people and the engagement must happen in a meaningful and inclusive manner.

As indicated above, we believe that the weaknesses in the Strategy are largely a reflection of a lack of both political leadership and strategic direction in its development. This has impacted in various ways on the Strategy, most critically the targets, as they are the most important part of the document in that they will form the basis for developing the Lifetime Opportunities Action Plan.

While Save the Children welcomes the high level targets of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020, the lower level targets need to be reviewed. The targets are a result of an administrative negotiation exercise with Departments based on what is already being delivered, as opposed to being set by the Minister on the basis of a robust analysis of the roots and impacts of poverty. We believe that they are inadequate for four reasons:

1. They are, on the whole, not SMART (ie Strategic, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant and Timely).

2. They are too general – and mostly don’t prioritise children in poverty. Much of the children’s sections look more like a Children’s Strategy as opposed to a Strategy intended to deliver change for the poorest children.

3. Too many relate to social inclusion more generally, rather than child poverty.

4. There are serious gaps – for example, there is only one health target for younger children, and this focuses on breast-feeding.

Save the Children is deeply concerned at the limitations of these targets, and recommends that they be replaced by a new set of targets by the Executive based on recommendations from the Ministerial-led Forum.

3. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets to 2010 and 2020.

In January 2007 the Programme for Government Committee of the Transitional Assembly reviewed the Strategy, and invited submissions from groups. This resulted in a number of recommendations which have been put to the current Executive. With the return of devolution, the Executive committed to reviewing the Strategy over the summer recess. However, the Strategy is yet to be considered by the Executive, with the earliest date for this being December 2007.

Along with many other groups, Save the Children is deeply concerned at the delay in reviewing the Strategy. Peter Hain, when he launched the Strategy, had stated that it would be one of the four priorities of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The draft Budget and Programme for Government have been released without an agreed anti-poverty strategy in place.

It should be remembered, of course that the responsibility of meeting the 2020 target is not only held by the NI Executive, but also the Westminster government, which holds responsibility for taxation and setting benefit levels. The Northern Ireland Assembly should hold Westminster to account on these issues.

4. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions / targets

In our oral evidence to the Inquiry we stated in reference to this that:

‘In the absence of an agreed Strategy, targets, action plans or budget, the only conclusion can be that the current arrangements are not adequate. This may be reviewed following publication of the draft Programme for Government, Budget and Investment Strategy.’

The following day the three documents were released by the Executive. We were pleased to hear assurances that ending child poverty would be a key priority and to see three targets to reduce child poverty contained in the Public Service Agreements annex to the draft Programme for Government. The first two targets: ‘Work towards the elimination of poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020 including lifting 67,000 children out of poverty by 2010’ largely mirror the UK government’s targets, but focussing them on Northern Ireland. Previous commitments were to contribute to the UK targets which, given the size of Northern Ireland’s population, could be achieved with no change child poverty levels in the North of Ireland. These targets could be improved, however, by removing the slightly hesitant phrase ‘work towards’ and rewording with more conviction thus:

‘To halve child poverty in Northern Ireland by 2010 (using a 1998/9 baseline), on the way to eliminating child poverty in Northern Ireland by 2020.’

It should be noted that the 2010 target, which mirrors targets for the rest of the UK is based on a 1998/9 baseline. Unfortunately, unlike GB, there is not equivalent Family Resources Survey data for Northern Ireland. This the figure included in the draft target refers to an estimate of the number of children living in poverty at that time, calculated to be around 135,000 children. Using this estimate, the number of children who will need to be lifted out of poverty by 2010 is 54,000. This averages at around 11,000 children a year from the latest data in 2005/6 to 2010/11.

The other child poverty target included in the draft Public Service Agreements focuses on severe child poverty: ‘Work towards the elimination of severe child poverty by 2012’. While again we would suggest re-writing it to remove the hesitancy suggested by the phrase ‘work towards’ we strongly commend the Executive for including a target for severe child poverty. This is the first such target for any part of the UK or Ireland, and suggests a commitment to focus action on the poorest children, rather than targeting solely those who will be easiest to lift over the poverty threshold.

Thus, with these minor suggestions as to how these targets might be reworded, Save the Children was pleased to see the targets on child poverty included in the Public Service Agreements. However, three things are needed to ensure an end to child poverty: targets, actions capable of lifting children out of poverty and resources. Unfortunately there is little evidence of the latter two. It would appear that the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements have not been put in place to deliver on the targets. The only actions listed associated with meeting the child poverty targets are ‘Continue the roll-out of the Benefit Uptake Strategy’ and vague commitments to increase economic activity rates.

The Committee for OFMDFM should request information from each department on the actions and budget they have allocated towards ending child poverty as it is not possible to determine these from the draft documents released by the Executive. This would also be important in providing a baseline against which future years can be measured.

We understand that recently Direct Rule ministers commissioned an analysis of departmental budget spend on tackling poverty and this was revealed to be around £2 billion of the total block budget. Having seen the assorted list of actions included by departments in the draft Lifetime Opportunity action plan, and in the absence of seeing the content of the report, we would caution against this figure being taken at face value. Criteria must be set to establish whether an action is considered to be contributing towards the child poverty targets, including:

Despite these difficulties, it is important that the actions and budget allocation associated with ending child poverty be established, not least to allow the Committee to assess whether, when reviewed together, they are adequate to meet the three targets. This may also help to allay the concerns of many that the programmes funded under the Children and Young Person’s funding package have not been adequately included within the departmental budgets. Indeed, the Direct Rule ministers, in delivering this £100 million package aimed at tackling disadvantage associated with child poverty, set a challenge to our locally accountable Executive to find the necessary resources to meet their child poverty targets.

Despite consensus that tackling child poverty will require a cross-cutting approach, the relevant Public Service Agreements are associated with only three departments: OFMDFM, DHSSPS and DSD. It overlooks DARD’s role in implementing the Regional Development Programme with its child poverty element; the role of DE in developing an early years strategy and reducing educational inequalities; the role of DOE in planning and resourcing the capacity of local people, including the poorest children and their families, to participate in community planning; the role of DEL in taking forward the skills agenda; DETI’s role in increasing the number of decently paid jobs; DRD’s public transport remit; DCAL’s responsibility for increasing access to the arts and sport; DFP’s remit for rating and water charging policies and SIB’s remit to promote procurement of infrastructure programmes that encourage departments to ‘take advantage with contractors in each major procurement opportunity to progress the Executive’s wider economic, social and employment objectives’. The PSA document also fails to link the child poverty targets with the Children and Young People’s Strategy.

The Investment Strategy will also be very relevant in tackling child poverty. It must demonstrate that investment will work to overcome inequality. Only by investing in those who are currently trapped into cycles of poverty and economic inactivity will we be able to grow our economy in a sustainable way. We need all of the children and young people currently in education to be developing the skills to actively engage in the economy in the future – both to allow sustainable growth and to ensure we can provide for our ageing population.

Finally, in reviewing current mechanisms, it is important to consider whether socio-economic status might be included as an additional category to Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Indeed, it is a striking absence, limiting the effectiveness of the associated equality legislation. The development of a Single Equality Bill will be an important opportunity to correct this.

5. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

It is useful to look elsewhere for possible interventions to reduce child poverty. Certainly, when we compare the levels of child poverty in the UK with other wealthy nations, it becomes clear that we have much to learn. A report published by UNICEF in 2005 comparing child poverty across 26 wealthy nations found that, across a range of indicators, the UK came seventh from the bottom of the league table. At the top of the league table were Denmark and Finland, with child poverty rates of 2.4% and 2.8 respectively, around a sixth of the levels found in the UK and Ireland.

As the 2005 UNICEF report ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005’ concluded, much of the success of the Nordic countries has been largely a result of implementing family focused social policies. The countries with the lowest rates of children living in poverty allocate the highest proportion of their gross national product to social expenditure, particularly family and other related social transfers. The report also found that in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Belgium child poverty rates were below 10% and that at least 10% of GDP was allocated to social spending associated with reducing child poverty. In these countries the proportion of benefits was highest for pre-school children.

Figure 7: Family and other related social transfers as a per cent of GDP, and child poverty rate.[13]

Family and other related social transfers as a per cent of GDP, and child poverty rate

While much of the responsibility for social transfers falls to the Westminster government, the NI Executive can also have a major impact through developing and resourcing a comprehensive range of actions designed to tackle child poverty. The recent NICCY report into spending on children in Northern Ireland compared expenditure on children across the UK. When analysing spend on Sure Start it stated:

‘Sure start is a clear example of where allocations to particular programmes vary along with regional priorities. Regional funding deviations for this particular programme appear to have stifled the development of Sure Start in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to children’s centres and this might hinder progress with regard to tackling child poverty.’ (p63)

Using figures contained in the report, the 2006-7 spending on Sure Start in Northern Ireland was considerably lower per head of population than either Scotland or Wales.

Figure 8: Spend on Sure Start in NI, Scotland and Wales 2006-7.[14]
 

NI

Scotland

Wales

Funding 2006-7

£9.3 million

£56.4 million

£54 million

Mid year population estimates 2006

1,742,000

5,117,000

2,966,000

Spending 2006-7 on SS by head of population

£5.34

£11.02

£18.21

6. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

The Executive has made growing a dynamic and innovative economy a central focus of its draft Programme for Government. However, it is important to not depend on the ‘trickle down effect’ delivering prosperity for all across society. The example of the ‘celtic tiger’ economy in the Republic of Ireland which has led to more – not less – poverty should be a warning. As Professor Steiglitz, an eminent economics academic, recently remarked, ‘A rising tide does not lift all boats. A rising tide lifts all yachts.’

To date, according to most child poverty indicators, things appear to be moving in the wrong direction in Northern Ireland – higher levels of child poverty, wider gaps in educational and health outcomes, higher costs of living including fuel and housing costs. ‘More of the same’ is not an option. Unfortunately, there are no ‘silver bullets’ when it comes to ending child poverty, as the experience of poverty is both all-pervasive and unique to each child affected. A wide range of policies and approaches will be required, involving a wide range of actors. Some possible policy areas might include:

Income
Education
Health
Home and neighbourhood
Play and Social Development
Conclusion

Save the Children commends the Committee for First Minister and Deputy First Minister for conducting this timely Inquiry into Child Poverty.

Alex Tennant
Head of Policy and Research

3 December 2007

[1] HBAI draws data from the annual Family Resources Survey conducted in GB since 1994/5, and in Northern Ireland since 2002/3. Thus while there are now 18 waves of data available in GB, only four are available in NI, the first of which is considered to be not entirely reliable, due to initial ‘teething’ problems.

[2] Graph taken from The Poverty Site (www.poverty.org.uk), produced by the New Policy Institute supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The data used is Northern Ireland Family Resources Survey (the survey on which HBAI reports are based)

[3] Average risk of poverty in NI for children is 29%.

[4] Graph taken from The Poverty Site (www.poverty.org.uk). This figure varies slightly from the figure quoted previously, as it is averaged over three years.

[5] Graph taken from The Poverty Site (www.poverty.org.uk).

[6] Northern Ireland was not included in this analysis as, unlike GB, there was not sufficient waves of data available.

[7] This calculation uses benefit levels and poverty thresholds for 2005-6.

[8] The threshold for low pay is set at £6.50 per hour.

[9] DENI – Northern Ireland School Leavers Survey 2004/5.

[10] See Save the Children’s State of Child Poverty in Northern Ireland 2007 report for more information

[11] DHSSPS (2000) – Investing for Health – consultation document.

[12] ONS 2004, Relative regional consumer price levels 2004.

[13] UNICEF, (2005), Child Poverty in Rich Nations, p23.

[14] Funding allocation drawn from NICCY report, Mid year population estimates from ONS mid-year population estimates.

Written Submission by:
Shelter Northern Ireland

Introduction

1. Shelter Northern Ireland believes that housing should be a right for everyone. Good housing is the platform for building our communities, raising our children, a place of safety and well being, the core of our lives and those who depend on us. Shelter NI welcomes the opportunity to make the following submission to the Child Poverty Inquiry.

2. General Comments

(1) There are many ways to measure child poverty. The method being used by OFMDFM is largely governed by income. Before housing costs the number of children in poverty in 1998/9 was estimated at 127,000, in 2005/6 the number was measured at 122,000 (higher than expected). The Government target is set at halving the 1998/9 number by 2010/11. This seems unlikely given the progress to date.

(2) The main focus for eradicating child poverty is through improving household income streams, principally through encouraging households to find paid work supplemented with tax credits to make living without benefits viable. However, it would be useful for the statutory agencies providing services to children or to households with dependent children to express their key statistics using child poverty measures. This would allow a wider perspective on whether child poverty is affected by services other than those which are income related.

(3) The influence of migrant families is being felt on the housing front. It may be 2006/7 before the statistics begin to reflect this phenomenon. The likelihood is that there will be a growth of the number of children at risk of poverty as many migrant workers are on low wages.

Housing and Child Poverty

3. With respect to households with dependent children living in poverty in their own home, i.e. households who have their own self contained accommodation whether they own or rent it. The following housing measures should be encouraged:

1. The eradication of fuel poverty by means of maximising house insulation and improved airtighness in homes for example. Improved airtighness brings an added health benefit to children and adults who have asthma.

2. As the prices of crude oil and gas continue to rise for a variety of reasons outside the control of the individual, greater efforts to develop alternative renewable heating and power systems should be investigated by the Housing Executive and housing associations on behalf of their tenants where there are high levels of households with dependent children in poverty. This should also include the development of Combined Heat and Power stations at the neighbourhood level.

3. In the private landlord and owner occupier sector, higher levels of grant aid to encourage the move away from dependency on fossil fuels will assist in preventing those households with children at risk of falling into the poverty measure.

4. Government should encourage the private sector to consider these matters when new developments are taking place. Such measures need to be imposed through improved building control regulation and individual development plan conditions. These proposals will also assist in meeting the Kyoto Protocol agreements.

5. The Assembly and Local Councils need to look carefully at the impact of the new water rates and again at the regional and local rate charges on placing more children at risk of poverty due to the recent massive rise in capital values.

4. With respect to households with dependent children living in poverty without their own home. Government is fully aware that the number of households who are homeless is rising and that households in housing stress and households in general waiting for social housing is at record levels. (19k households in housing stress, 36k households on the waiting list)

1. In 1996/7, 4461 families presented as homeless. In 2006/7, 7,100 families presented as homeless. Only 2% of homeless households are in full time work, so there is a strong correlation between homeless households with dependent children and households with children at risk of poverty.

2. The child poverty statistics using the quincentile breakdown of income show that there is likely to be more children per household in the lower quincentiles that in the upper. On the assumption of a minimum of 2 children per family at both of the above dates (a very conservative figure), the number of children who are homeless at risk of poverty has risen from 9, 922 to 14,200.

3. Additionally the number of households presenting because they can no longer meet their accommodation costs has risen significantly. Some of these would include children at risk of poverty. It would be helpful if the DsD/NIHE provided a breakdown of homeless statistics by poverty and child poverty measures.

5. For this group, the following housing matters should be pursued

(a) All new housing developments should provide for a full range of tenures. Evidence from the US shows that the dilution of concentrations of people in poverty and child poverty assists people to break the poverty cycle. DoE Planning Service should ensure that planning policy (PPS12) provides for the regulatory tools to enforce private developers to deliver a suitable mix of tenures.

(b) Social Housing Issues

(i) The number of new social housing completions has declined in the recent past compared with the number of homes sold to sitting tenants resulting in an overall loss of stock in the social rented sector. This also has the result of reducing the number of lettings available each year, down by almost 1000 in ten years. The consequences are that an increasing number of households with children at risk of poverty are presenting as homeless. This will result in multiple negative outcomes for children in poverty.

(ii) The draft PFG investment for new social housing depends on the realisation of the sale of existing land held by the Housing Executive (a once off event and that land that will have to be replaced in the future). There is a target of 2000 new social and affordable homes, but at best there is likely to be new house starts of 3-400 in 2008/9. In addition to the around 800 starts hoped for 2007/8, new housing for households in need including children in poverty over the next couple of years is wholly inadequate.

(iii) An adequate level of social housing should be constructed, which we believe should be 5000 per year for the medium period. This will have the added benefit of enabling households with children in poverty to be provided a decent home along with the recognised health and wellbeing benefits.

(iv) For those in poverty there is no alternative accommodation option except for social housing. Accessing private rented accommodation for this group of people places them at risk of greater poverty as they are subject to the vagaries of the rent charged by the landlord and the short availability of discretionary housing benefit.

(v) The Assembly would be meeting its responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which, under Article 27, specifically requires the State to support parents and others, “…in the case of need provide material assistance………….. particularly with regard to …..housing.

(vi) Living in social housing may not remove the household from poverty, but there is security of tenure, rents are designed to be affordable and social landlords’ support social capital building. They engage with tenants to improve living conditions, provide high quality dwellings which are regularly maintained. Tenants will gain from the financial benefits of a well insulated home which is energy efficient. Social landlords will also engage with other agencies to work in partnership for a safe and secure environment, a suitable place for bringing up children and for giving them the opportunity to break the poverty cycle.

16 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Southern Area Childcare Partnership

Introduction

This submission is a report by the five Sure Start projects in the Southern Area namely Blossom, Dungannon, Clogher Valley, South Armagh and Orana. Each sure start covers a specific geographic area with around 600 to 1000 children 0 to 4 and their families registered in each area. Dungannon and Clogher Valley Sure Start have also been part of the submission by Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. The DSD Households Below average Incomes NI 2005/06 noted that children living in Dungannon were most at risk of low income. In Dungannon, almost two-thirds of children fall into the bottom two fifths of households living on low income.

Summary

Sure Start projects in the Southern Health and Social Services Board/Trust area welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee Inquiry into Child Poverty. Sure Start was introduced to Northern Ireland though the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in December 1999 (Department of Education from 2006) with responsibility for co-ordination via local Childcare Partnerships.

In compiling this response Sure Starts have identified some of the groups of children and parents that we have found suffer to the greatest extent the impact of poverty namely Travellers, Migrant Workers, families living in disadvantaged communities, lone parent families, benefit dependent families and low income families. We have reviewed the evidence and considered the range of initiatives to address poverty either directly or indirectly.

One inescapable fact is that the lack of an adequate income is at the root of much of poverty and disadvantage. It follows therefore that access to an education which meets the enables each individual child to reach their full potential is required as is support to parents and communities to ensure this happens. Ultimately we must also move away from a low wage economy.

Whilst there are many strategies some of which we have commented on it is unfortunate that Lifetime Opportunities has not been implemented and the targets around poverty and housing contained in the Children and Young People – Our Pledge 10 year Strategy (CYP) are missing from the action plan.

In addition to these two matters there is a need for specific action on groups of children most at risk as well as general targets. If we do not it is conceivable that by 2020 we will still have Traveller children, migrant worker children, children living in disadvantaged areas and children living in benefit dependent and low income homes still living in poverty and with disadvantage.

In addition to specific targets we take the view that there is a need for single area based plan which draws together all the strategies and initiatives and those charged with implementing them. These area based plans should be based on the six high level outcomes contained within the CYP.

We recognise that legislation may be required which will place a formal duty on organisations to actively participate. Consideration should be given to an element of pooling of budgets and the requirement to “bend the mainstream”. Robust procedures in terms of timely and accurate data collection, common assessment framework, clear targets and scrutiny by e.g. Assembly committees are also required. The focus should be on Outcomes rather than processes and there should be the opportunity to compare and learn from these different approaches and implement as “best practice”.

Sure Start projects are keen to be involved as we are aware that we only form part of the bigger picture of what is required. We would welcome the opportunity to consider how the development of Children’s Centres could strengthen the impact of our work particularly with the recent development of the Programme for 2 year olds and limited Daycare funding to assist parents who wish to avail of training and/or education with the objective of moving into paid employment.

As area based projects we are aware that children, families and communities who live outside our boundaries cannot avail of our services. This is similar to other area based initiatives such as Neighbourhood Renewal. Consideration must be given to how “what works” in any area can be mainstreamed to ensure all children, families and communities will benefit.

1. Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland

The groups with the highest poverty risk are: Ethnic minorities and migrant workers; Travellers; young people especially aged 16-18, lone parent families; families of ex-prisoners; people with low or no educational qualifications; long term unemployed; people living in disadvantaged communities; people living in border areas ( Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Network)

Ethnic minorities and migrant workers. “Dungannon – where many of the immigrants have chosen to live – saw the biggest jump in population of any council area. It grew at three times the Northern Ireland average, followed by Craigavon, Cookstown and Newry and Mourne. (Belfast Telegraph 7 Dec 2007). 22% of families registered with Dungannon Sure Start are migrant workers families and 40% of births in the area over the last 6 months were to migrant worker families.

The emerging community of European Migrants experience considerable economic difficulties, particularly those that arrive with their families. European migrants have no right to claim benefits or social housing. They are required to register under the Workers Registration Scheme and to be self supporting and have a year of uninterrupted employment. They will have to maintain privately rented accommodation, whilst earning sufficient money to support a family in privately rented accommodation. (Children and Young Peoples Plan 2008-2011 Nottingham City.)

Travellers – The levels of disadvantage and poor health of Travellers has been well documented. The SHSSB area has the highest proportion of Traveller households in N Ireland (45%) Traveller children up to the age of ten years old are ten times more likely to die than their settled counterparts (Connolly, 2002).

The Traveller Education Strategy 2006-2010 in the Republic of Ireland stresses that these issues concerning health, accommodation, economic conditions and other indicators of social exclusion, are inextricably linked to the educational difficulties which often face Traveller pupils, and content that the “physical needs cannot be divorced from cognitive, emotional and social needs”.

The recently published Adequacy and Effectiveness of Educational Provision for Traveller children and Young People in Northern Ireland noted that “in conducting the field work for the current research we encountered a range of responses from reluctance, to a deep resistance from mainstream schools to participate in the project.” The report noted” the findings from this research indicate that the low expectations were due to the curriculum and the education system as a whole failing to meet the needs of Traveller children.”

Sure Start projects are area based and where Traveller populations fall within our area then we work with Traveller children and parents and with colleagues from a range of agencies to effect change within our remit.

Benefit Dependency and Low Wage Earners. “If a family is living entirely on benefits, it is likely to be living in poverty. “ (Save the Children) “Around half of all children in poverty in N Ireland are living in households where at least one parent is in paid employment – low wage. “ (Save the Children) Lifetime Opportunities states that 146,000 in-work families are receiving child and working tax credits (April 2005) These tax credits whilst welcomed reinforce the view that we have an extensive low wage economy. In addition many families have real difficulties with long delays in processing claims, the knock on effect where claiming other benefits depend on having a tax credit assessment and even more where the claw back of overpayments result in very great hardship in financial and relationship terms.

Preschool Provision – Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge Action Plan 200-2008 under indicator of Progress (Action 3.19) “Since the 2006/07 school year there have been sufficient funded pre-school places for every child in Northern Ireland whose parents applied.” At 4 May 2007 there were 110 children in Dungannon district unplaced with 81 of these in their final pre-school year.

We have been informed that the SELB have advised the Department of Education many times that there are insufficient places and the view is that we are unlikely to get the extra places needed in SELB. The population of preschool children is increasing and this means that even more children will miss out on a full year of preschool. Pre school education is generally accepted having a positive impact on children’s progress (EPPNI Summary Report 2006).

Childcare - Childcare provision is also a significant problem particularly for those on low income, working part-time or outside the 9 to5 pattern – these parents are usually suffer multiple disadvantage. Parents in rural areas face even greater childcare issues. One of the Early years targets in Lifetime Opportunities states that “By 2020 Government will support every Local Authority to identify and address gaps in provision of services for early years children in rural areas.” This includes day care provision and crèches. Whilst this is to be welcomed it is unclear why it should wait until 2020 and why it excludes urban areas.

Rurality - There is a rural dimension with housing being generally poorer quality, with greater isolation, no access to transport, little opportunity to obtain work, difficult to access service such as GP, Dentist, Playgroups, Parent and Toddler Groups, This is all so much greater for migrant families who have no support network, possibly speak little or no English,

Dental Health - The oral health of Northern Ireland’s population is the worst in the UK. One in eight adults has no natural teeth and our children have the highest rates of tooth decay in Europe. (CYP). Sure Start projects work to promote good dental practice and registration with dentists. However there is a widespread problem with NHS places. For example in Dungannon and Coalisland all dental practices have closed their lists for NHS patients.

Family problems and breakdowns also pose a greater problem where the mother may be depending on her partner’s income to maintain a tenancy or pay a mortgage. This is even greater where the family are migrant workers and there is little or no safety net when things go wrong. Issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse form a potent mix which have extensive adverse impacts on children.

2. Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders

It is difficult to comment in detail as we are unclear how the key stakeholders including children themselves have been engaged. One of the Supporting themes of the CYP is “developing a culture where the views of our children and young people are routinely sought in matters which impact on their lives”. From our viewpoint a letter was issued dated 1 November requiring a response by 16 November. It is acknowledged that agreement has been reached to accept this late submission. It is hoped that the committee will reflect on the adequacy of the approach when reviewing responses and take the opportunity to consider the gaps and now they might be addressed.

3. Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020

Lifetime Opportunities, Governments Anti-Poverty and social inclusion strategy for Northern Ireland has still not been ratified by the Executive and there is little reference in the Draft Programme for Government. It identified many of the issues and has goals and targets however there is no Action Plan or budget attached and it is difficult to see how it can deliver.

In the Early Years (0-4) section Sure Start is referenced as follows “At the heart of governments drive to improve the quality of early years among those most in need, is the Sure Start programme.” The Sure Start projects acknowledge their role in this and are keen to develop outcomes based approach which fits with the current wide range of initiatives and strategies.

However whilst projects can impact on child development and parenting we are conscious that issues of income/benefit adequacy, high housing and fuel costs, difficulty in accessing social housing are largely outside the current remit of Sure Start projects. We consider that the specific additional difficulties experienced by children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, Traveller and Migrant worker and children with high level of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities need specific actions and target if we are to achieve

“Our Goal is to ensure that every child should have the chance to develop their full potential in infancy regardless of social background.”

The foreword of the CYP refers to children being free from poverty however the supporting themes make no reference to poverty. High level Outcome Economic and Environmental Well-Being has six Indicators three on child poverty and the other three on homes of a decent standard, homeless and temporary accommodation. This section also referenced the Governments commitment to delivering on the UK child poverty targets, which aim to halve child poverty by 2010 and eliminate it by 2020

Unfortunately and surprisingly the subsequently published Action Plan 2007- 2008 makes no reference to these indicators and have no actions or timescales on child poverty or housing. Neither is there reference to the other key drivers for change such as the neighbourhood renewal strategy, fuel poverty strategy or supporting people.

There are a range of other strategies such as Extended Schools, Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, Fuel Poverty strategy, Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood Strategy and Action Plan and Investing for Health. However there is no requirement for departments at central or local level to work together. For example there is a target to end child poverty by 2020 how is this being achieved, who is responsible for achieving it and how will progress be measured?

The other important aspect is the need to fully implement / continue to explore the implementation of the Human Rights Acts and the UN convention on the rights of the child.

4. Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets

There are no implementation mechanisms for Lifetime Opportunities, the CYP has an action plan with no reference to any action on child poverty. There are no resources identified for either strategy. If there is no implementation and no associated actions then monitoring does not feature.

Should these strategies be implanted and actions developed then there is a need to ensure monitoring of progress which requires clarity in terms of current position and the ability to collate and disseminate relevant data on a timely manner. “The absence of relevant data that might inform policy development in light of departmental statutory obligations to promote equality on the basis of race is of serious concern. Data collection must be more systematic to enable more detailed analysis when required. (Adequacy and Effectiveness of Education Provision for Traveller Children and Young People in Northern Ireland NICCY, Equality Commissioner for Northern Ireland) Lifetime Opportunities noted that “Data from GB indicates that ethnic minorities are at high risk of poverty. There is no comparable NI data”.

Lifetime Opportunities states that “By 2020 government will support every Local Authority to identify and address gaps in provision of early years children in rural areas” How is this being implemented; why only rural areas – again in England there is an obligation on every Local Authority to establish Childcare Sufficiency in their area and to consider how to address any deficits.

5. Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

In England Every Child Matters has the Children’s Acts which requires joint goals, targets and action plans with local authorities as lead bodies each of who has to have a lead director for Children’s Services. In addition each local authority is required on a yearly basis to publish their Children and Young Peoples Action Plan which details where they are at with each high level Outcome and what they are doing over the next year to improve their performance.

This approach is underpinned by the use of the Common Assessment Framework which means that there is a common language and integrated working across all services working with children and families. In N Ireland we have the recently introduced UNOCINI (Unmet Needs of Children in N Ireland) but again no legislative backing and indeed little indication that it is a CAF. Whilst there is much work to be done in the English approach it is going in the right direction in terms of structure.

6. Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

There is the need for legislation such as the Children’s Acts which will require organisations and agencies to work together on common goals and targets on an area basis. Issues of data collection, planning, common assessment framework and common language will also have to be addressed.

19 December 2007

Written Submission by:
Southern Health and Social Services Board

1 This evidence is on behalf of the Southern Health and Social Services Board, and in the Board’s capacity as lead agency of the Southern Area Children and Young People’s Committee (SACYPC), on behalf of the SACYPC.

2 The SHSSB plans and commissions health and social care services for the total population of the SHSSB area, including 88,700 (MYE 2006) children and young people aged 0-18. The SHSSB includes Local Government Districts of Newry and Mourne, Craigavon and Dungannon which all fall within the top 10 ranks of multiple deprivation, with Craigavon LGD ranking third in relation to most deprived Super Output Areas in Northern Ireland. (pg113 Multiple Deprivation NI 2005).

3 The SACYPC is an interagency Committee, set up on a statutory basis through the Children (NI) Children’s Services Planning Order in 1998, with the purpose of carrying out multi-agency planning for children and young people in need. The Committee brings together the SHSSB, the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, the Southern Education and Library Board, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Youth Justice Agency, together with representatives of the childcare voluntary sector, led by Children in Northern Ireland, of the local community sector and the local black and minority ethnic sector. It oversees three year plans to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and young people.

4 This evidence will not provide a detailed account of child poverty, as we are aware that expert evidence is to be provided to the Committee by Save the Children and the Children’s Legal Centre, organisations with which we work through Children’s Services Planning to ensure a rights approach to improving outcomes for children and young people. We endorse the evidence provided by these two organisations.

5 However, we will add the following

5.1 Approximately 55% of families of disabled children have a low income. It has been estimated that the annual cost of bringing up a disabled child are three times greater than those for a child who is not disabled.

5.2 Parents of disabled children commonly report difficulties in finding out about and claiming benefits. Some research indicates a significant under-application for Disability Living Allowance, with the most disadvantaged families, including those from a black and minority ethnic background, being the least likely to apply for and receive benefits.

5.3 The care demands on parents of a disabled child, as well as multiple appointments with services and lack of childcare, affect their ability to work. Mothers of disabled children are less likely to have paid employment than other mothers, and fathers’ employment and earnings are reduced. (Source: National Service Framework for Services for Disabled Children and Young People).

5.4 The financial impact of the death of a child on a family is similar to the above evidence in relation to disabled children, particularly if parents have had to give up work to care for their child.

6 Both the SHSSB and the SACYPC, in relation to the need to connect integrated planning and commissioning of services for children and young people to Government policy across the range of Departments, see their work in relation to children and young people in the context of ‘Our Children and Young People: Our Pledge: A Ten Year Strategy for the Children and Young People of Northern Ireland: 2006-2016’ and work towards improvement of the six high level outcomes set out in the Strategy.

7 It is our view that child poverty cannot be eliminated, except through a co-ordinated approach, linking all sectors, and most importantly, including vertical and horizontal linkages so that Government joint priorities can be addressed through joint Departmental priorities, through local integrated planning, which includes needs assessment information. This process must involve the participation of children and young people, as required through Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as well as their families and communities.

8 We are concerned that there is not sufficient linkage between the Strategy for Children and Young People and the mechanisms for the elimination of child poverty. However, we are of the view that there is a critical opportunity now, as the implementation plan for the Strategy for 2008-2011 is in preparation, and, through the Children’s Services Planning process, the integrated plans for children and young people’s services will be set out in a regional Children’s Services Plan 2008-2011. We think that both these processes, at Government and Agency level, should be used by the Government to put in place linked indicators and work towards the elimination of child poverty.

9 There are discussions on-going at this time between representatives of the four Children and Young People’s Committees across Northern Ireland and the Children and Young People’s Unit within the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on best models for linkage between the driving of the Strategy at Government level and the need for a partnership at regional level, bringing together statutory, voluntary and community sector agency representatives with children and young people and families, to implement the Strategy through an integrated planning process. We would recommend that the Committee ensure that this process incorporates within it those actions towards the elimination of child poverty in Northern Ireland which cannot be carried out by single agencies in isolation.

10 We thank the Committee for the opportunity to give this evidence, and would by happy for a delegation from the SACYPC to give oral evidence to the Committee to expand on the recommendation contained within this paper.

28 November 2007

Written Submission by:
Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above Inquiry. The information set out below is submitted on behalf of the Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum (VSHPF). This Forum is open to any voluntary sector organisation within Northern Ireland who has an interest in housing and homelessness policy and legislation.

Item 1 – Examine the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

The VSHPF would support a collation of all recent research that has been undertaken in relation to child poverty in Northern Ireland. In addition we would advocate that the examination considers child poverty both within the context of geographical location and also in terms of communities of interest. In this respect we would request consideration of the extent, intensity and impact of child poverty on homeless children and on young people leaving care should be included within the scope of this inquiry.

Item 2 – Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of the engagement with key stakeholders.

We would advocate that in formulating the strategy engagement should take place with children and young people who are living in poverty. Whilst we appreciate that the concept of poverty may be difficult for children to articulate, such information could be obtained, for example, through interviews conducted by social workers. This was the approach taken when gathering evidence as part of the Homeless Families Homeless Children - A Study of Homelessness amongst Families in the Western Health & Social Services Board area of Northern Ireland May 2001. This publication can be accessed on www.simoncommunity.org.

Item 3 – Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020.

We have concerns that the strategy will be able to deliver on the key targets for 2010 and 2020. We would advocate that it is essential to identify key targets, which could be delivered within a relatively quick time scale i.e. 3 years. In this respect we believe a full commitment to increasing the social housing stock by 2000 new units over the next 5 years would have a positive impact. In this regard we have concerns that, while this target is supported within in “Building a Better Future - Draft Programme for Government 2008-2011” that the resources to deliver on this target do not appear to have been fully allocated.

Item 4– Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets.
Item 5 - Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes.

The VSHPF would support this approach.

Item 6 – Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration.

We would advocate that there is a connection between the work of the Child Poverty Strategy and relevant strategies, which have been established under the Promoting Social Inclusion initiative. In this regard the report “Including the Homeless - A Strategy to Promote the Inclusion of Homeless People and those at risk of becoming homeless in Northern Ireland” is relevant. This strategy contains a number of action points, which are directly concerned with homeless children and therefore are relevant to Child Poverty.

Furthermore this submission should be considered in the context of the paper prepared by Shelter NI. The VSHPF concurs with the Shelter document.

16 November 2007

The VSHPF are representatives of organisations in the voluntary and community sector with particular interest in housing issues. The aim of the forum is to enhance the capacity of the sector to make policy responses and influence policy development in housing and homelessness.

Written Submission by:
Western Area Childcare Partnership

1. According to the Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, there is a growing recognition that early access to early childhood education and care (ECEC) provides young children, particularly from low-income and second-language groups, with a good start in life. In many countries childcare has been moved on to their electoral agendas, and this is as a direct result of Government recognition of the role of ECEC in:

2. Within Northern Ireland, four Childcare Partnerships were established in April 2000 and operated under Children First – The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy. The Partnerships were mandated to take forward this Strategy, which was essentially to develop a childcare infrastructure that incorporated:

3. When investing its resources, the Western Area Childcare Partnership follows a needs-led approach which takes into account measures such as: Income Support Benefits Indicator, Needs Indicator Profiles (which can be found on the website: www.wacy-pc.org) and the Multiple Deprivation Measure Report.

4. The Western Area Childcare Partnership is an inclusive partnership based on the principle of equality between its key stakeholders. The Partnership actively promotes an integrated approach across all sectors and at all levels. Its focus remains on targeting funding streams to sustain existing childcare provision and create new places with a strong emphasis on increasing the growth of interagency co-operation and promoting high quality services, vital to ensuring that childcare remains a cornerstone in supporting families in meeting their parental obligations and assisting marginalised families out of the poverty trap.

5. Statistical information continually highlights the negative impact poverty has on children and their life’s chances. For instance, children’s health and educational outcomes appear to be closely linked to family income levels. There is a high level of deprivation among children in Northern Ireland (38%) compared to 20% in Britain. The 2005 Deprivation Measures indicates that 25% of children in Northern Ireland are affected by income deprivation and HBAI (Households Below Average Income) statistics confirm that 25% of children are living in poverty in Northern Ireland. The Bottom Line 2004 reports that 8% of children in Northern Ireland are living in severe poverty. (As quoted in Wise Up to Child Poverty by Maria Herron, Derry Children’s Commissioner, 2005.) Good quality childcare is integral to supporting better educational attainment for the child, as well as supporting parents in accessing better training and employment opportunities.

6. Research from Derry Well Women appears to indicate that cost is a seriously inhibiting factor in accessing suitable childcare; childcare is more expensive for working lone parents than two parent working families. For one-parent families the lack of directly subsidised childcare provision leaves parents with little choice in remaining on social welfare, thereby compounding the poverty trap.

7. Research carried out by G Horgan (in Disabled Families Living on the Brink of Poverty, UU Research 3, August 2005) in Northern Ireland indicates that families with one or more disabled members are more likely to be living in poverty. Added to this, research carried out by the National Children’s Bureau (NI) has shown that there is a mismatch between the needs of children with disabilities and their parents and the services that are currently available to them. The lack of childcare services that exists in Northern Ireland is most acute for children with disabilities.

8. The new TSN – the Way Forward Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy for Northern Ireland has been criticised for not addressing the issues of unemployment, low pay and inadequate benefits. The Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Strategy does not specify how child poverty will be eradicated by 2020. The Ten Year Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland aims to free our children from poverty and ensure that they live in decent homes and in communities that are free from distress. All of these strategies have a concern for the child at their core. The challenge is to ensure that there is a joined-up strategy across departments, which will ensure that each agency is doing its part to increase and skill-up the workforce, increase employment opportunities, attract inward investment, and support families to meet their parental obligations, thus reducing the affects of poverty on children.

9. Research from the Derry Well Women Project, entitled Childcare on the Borderline, revealed that the weekly childcare costs in the North West of Ireland ranged from £1.50 to £215, with the mean cost per household being £42.27 per week. Of the people who responded 11.8% stated that they were in receipt of financial assistance towards their childcare costs. The amount received ranged for £1.50 to £150 per week, giving an average of £43.60 per household per week. Of those who stated the source of financial assistance, 25.9% reported receiving help from education and training providers. Others included Social Services and ex-partners. This appears to highlight an inconsistency in accessing support for childcare costs with an added negative outcome resulting in the majority of childcare providers continually operating at minimum or below cost recovery level. This does not bode well for the quality of service the organisation is able to provide.

10. Research carried out by La Valle et al. (Parents demand for Childcare Research Report 176, DfEE, 2000) indicates that in Northern Ireland there is a particular shortage of good-quality and affordable childcare for very young children.

11. The lack of focus on child poverty in Northern Ireland contrasts with the approach in Britain, where there is an annual update of Opportunity for All which monitors child poverty indicators; new Public Sector Agreements which specifically outline how central government departments will deal with child poverty in Britain and Child Poverty Accords which have been agreed with local government. Although current Government Policy and Strategies are seeking to redress this shortcoming, such as the OFM/DFM’s 10 Year Strategy for Children and Young People.

12. With a clear strategy in place, the Northern Ireland Government will also need to monitor the progress of the strategy. An Outcomes Focused approach towards planning of services across departments, such as that being introduced in the UK following the release of the Every Child Matters document is one such approach to monitoring effective change over the longer-term.

13. Finally, there is a need to develop services for children with disabilities in the context of the whole family and for such services to support both the disabled child’s parents and his/her non-disabled siblings. Again, partnership and inter-agency working is the key to the effective planning and implementation of services for children with disabilities, if stress and deprivation levels affecting families with children with disabilities are to be reduced. Children with disabilities are by definition “children in need” and adequate resources should be secured to assist their families in meeting their needs and reducing the stressors they encounter on an ongoing basis (i.e. respite care, key workers, etc.).

23 November 2007

Written Submission by:
The Western Investing for Health Partnership and Western Health Action Zone

Poverty is a complex life experience affecting the lives of 77,566 children in the Western Board area.

The Western Investing for Health Partnership (WIFH) and Western Health Action Zone have undertaken to provide a joint response to this query.

1 Examine the extent, intensity and impact of Child Poverty in Northern Ireland
1.1 Extent
1.2 Intensity
1.3 Impact

The recent report “Health and Social Care Inequalities Monitoring System: Second Update Bulletin 2007” clearly illustrates the impact of deprivation on health. This report highlights that the proportion of the younger population (aged 0-15 years) in deprived areas (26%) was higher than in NI generally (24%).

Research indicates that Children from poorer socio-economic circumstances are:

(Source: An end in sight? Tackling child poverty in the UK 2001)
(The State of our Health Western Investing For Health 2005)
(Eating for Health HPA 2001)

2 Consider the approach taken when formulating the current strategy including the extent of engagement with key stakeholders

As an outcome of this engagement, the following question came from a 13year old living in the Bogside area

“Many young people living in poverty do not even think about going to University because it is so expensive and hard to get in. We have heard that people have to take out big loans to go to university. But now even going to school is getting expensive because you have to pay for school trips, stuff for home economics and now taxis because we don’t have a school bus anymore. My question for the government is: Do you think education should be free?”

This observation by a young person that education is not really free is supported by recent research from Wales which puts the average hidden cost of education at £1,300 per child annually.(End Child Poverty Cymru 2007) This includes money spent on school trips, sports kits, uniforms, textbooks, school meals, transport, after school activities, materials and equipment.

We welcome the establishment of the Poverty and Social Exclusion forum following the ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ strategy. Membership of this is comprised of officials from Government Departments, statutory organisations, regional voluntary sector organisations, and organisations representing those living in poverty.

3 Assess whether the existing strategy is capable of delivering the key targets for 2010 and 2020
4 Examine whether the implementation mechanisms, resources and monitoring arrangements currently in place are adequate to ensure delivery of the key actions/targets
5 Identify and analyse relevant experience elsewhere in terms of policy interventions and programmes

The UNICEF reports ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries’ in 2005 and ‘Child Poverty in Perspective: an overview of Child Well Being in Rich Countries’ in 2007 ask why some countries are doing a much better job at tackling child poverty than others. In the 2007 UNICEF report the UK was ranked bottom and Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were ranked top in relation to indicators of child well being.

6 Consider what further actions could be taken to tackle child Poverty with particular focus on those that would be deliverable by the devolved administration

21 November 2007

Appendix 5

List of Witnesses Who Gave Evidence to the Committee

Advice NI

Mr Kevin Higgins

Barnardo’s

Ms Fiona MacMillan

Ms Mary Anne Webb

Children in Northern Ireland

Mrs Marie Cavanagh

Mrs Elaine Conway

Dr Paschal McKeown

Children’s Law Centre

Ms Natalie Whelehan

Citizen’s Advice Centre

Mr Derek Alcorn

Ms Lucy Cochrane

Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

Mr Jim Clarke

Craigavon Borough Council

Ms Davina McCartney

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Mr Paul Donnelly

Ms Pauline Keegan

Department of Education

Mrs Katrina Godfrey

Mr Alan McMullan

Ms Mary Potter

Ms Louise Warde-Hunter

Department for Employment and Learning

Miss Jan Harvey

Mrs June Ingram

David Rogers

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Mr Noel Cornick

Mr Fred Frazer

Mr Graham Davis

Mr John Hinds

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Mr Fergal Bradley

Mr Andrew Elliott

Ms Patricia Nicholl

Dr Bernie Stuart

Department for Social Development

Mr Brian Doherty

Mr Stephen Martin

Dr Chris Morris

Mr Dave Wall

Derry Children’s Commission

Mr Dominic Bonner

Ms Clionagh Boyle

Mr Gavin Melly

Disability Action

Mr Kevin Doherty

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

Ms Claire Linney

Mr Barry Monteith

Eastern Health and Social Services Board

Mr John Duffy

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

Mr Bob Collins

Mrs Evelyn Collins

Institute of Public Health in Ireland

Dr Helen McAvoy

Dr Jane Wilde

NCH Northern Ireland

Mr Ross McCrea

New Policy Institute

Dr Peter Kenway

North Eastern Education and Library Board

Mr Gilly Irwin

Mr Gordon Topping

Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network

Ms Frances Dowds

Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People

Mrs Patricia Lewsley

Ms Seanna Hume

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Dr Stephen Donnelly

Dr Gerry Mulligan

Mr Michael Pollock

Playboard

Ms Margaret Deevy

Rural Community Network

Mr Raymond Craig

Ms Karin Eyben

Save the Children

Ms Marina Monteith

Ms Alex Tennant

Southern Area Childcare Partnership

Mr Gerry McDonald

Ms Mia Murray

Southern Health and Social Services Board

Ms Fionnuala McAndrew

Mr Sean McKeever

Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum

Mr David Carroll

Mr Tony McQuillan

Western Area Childcare Partnership

Ms Maura Mason

Western Health Action Zone

Ms Siobhan Sweeney

Western Investing for Health Partnership

Mr Brendan Bonner
Appendix 6

List of Research Papers and Briefings

 

Title

1

Comparing child poverty in Northern Ireland with other regions

2

Households below average income

3

Comparative research on reducing childhood poverty

4

The measurement of severe and persistent childhood poverty

5

Tackling severe childhood poverty

6

Childcare provision in the UK and Republic of Ireland

7

Policies to minimise the impact of fuel costs on families with low incomes

8

Children’s services planning

9

The approach of the Scottish Executive to prioritising, resourcing and delivering on children and young people’s issues
Appendix 7

Research Papers and Briefings

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

 

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

 

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

Research Paper - Comparing child poverty in NI with other regions.pdf

 

Households Below Average Income
An analysis of the income distribution in Northern Ireland 2005/06

Definitions of Housing Costs and Measures of Income

(From Appendix I of above DSD Report)

The income measure used in HBAI is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income. This comprises total income from all sources of all household members including dependants.

Income is adjusted for household size and composition by means of equivalence scales, which reflect the extent to which households of different size require a different level of income to achieve the same standard of living. This adjusted income is referred to as equivalised income. (See Appendix 2 for further details).

Traditionally HBAI in GB presents analysis of disposable income on two basis: Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC). Differences in the way water charges are collected in NI and GB has meant that BHC analysis is not consistent. People in Northern Ireland do not pay council tax; instead a rates system operates where the amount paid is dependent on the respondent’s council area and the size of the house in which they live and covers payment for water and sewerage, bin collection and other services at a local and regional level. It has not been possible to disaggregate the rates payable to give separate amounts for each of these services, hence BHC analysis includes these charges.

Income Before Housing Costs (BHC) includes the following main components:

Income is net of the following items:

Income after Housing Costs (AHC) is derived by deducting a measure of housing costs from the above income measure.

Housing costs

These include the following:

An adjustment is made to the calculation of mortgage interest payments to disregard additional loans which had been taken out for purposes other than house purchase.

Negative incomes BHC are reset to zero, but negative AHC incomes calculated from the adjusted BHC incomes are possible. Where incomes have been adjusted to zero BHC, income AHC is derived from the adjusted BHC income.

Research and Library Services

Reducing Childhood Poverty
Comparative Research

Jennifer Betts, Jane Campbell, Tim Moore and Janice Thompson

This paper provides comparative information on the approaches and measures which have been taken to reduce childhood poverty in other EU member states and also further afield, including the United States. Much of the comparative material in this paper is drawn from the work of the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. The UK focused material is drawn from the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), which regularly produces research publications on the themes of poverty and social exclusion.

Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Summary of key points

Definitions of poverty are complex and important as they shape levels of poverty and policy makers responses to these.

Household income is used to determine poverty in the UK, the EU and more widely. It has been argued that income as a sole indicator of poverty is wholly inadequate.

Within ‘rich countries’, levels of poverty determined by median household income range from 2.4 percent in Denmark to 27.7 percent in the Mexico.

Compared with other OECD countries, in the 1990s, the UK had the greatest percentage decrease in the level of child poverty. However, it achieved this from a relatively high starting point and research indicates that progress in reducing child poverty may now have stalled.

In broad terms the principal measures to reduce child poverty can be divided into three categories:

1. Policies to alter income levels directly through the tax and benefit system. The aim is to provide direct financial support to families, recognising the extra costs of children.

2. Policies to promote paid work. The aim is to ensure that parents have the help and incentives they need to find work. Paid work is seen as the best long-term route to financial independence for families.

3. Measures to tackle long-term disadvantage. Some examples are: policies which attempt to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies; provision of support for parents of children aged under 5 in disadvantaged areas; attempts to raise basic standards of literacy and numeracy and tackle school truancy and exclusions.

Taxes and government transfers have a significant impact on ‘market’ poverty rates. However, comparative research shows that the relationship between government spending and poverty rates is complex. A number of reports, however, concur that progessive universal support rather than means-tested benefits have greater potential to impact on child poverty.

Children in lone parent families make up a significant proportion of all children living in poverty in the UK. Welfare to work programmes targeted at lone parents, therefore, are key to helping these children out of poverty.

Adequate levels of child-care are necessary to ensure that lone parents in particular can access the labour market. Quality childcare is also increasingly seen as the most effective way of breaking the cycle of poverty resulting from educational under achievement.

Health inequalities also continue the cycle of poverty and the EU is increasingly focused on working to develop a shared understanding across member states of these and the most effective ways to reduce them.

Contents

Introduction

Childhood Poverty in ‘Rich Countries’

Measures to Reduce Child Poverty

Taxes and Transfers

Promoting Paid Work

Child care

Measures to Tackle Long-term Disadvantage

Education

Health

Introduction

This paper provides comparative information on the approaches and measures which have been taken to reduce child poverty in other EU member states and also further afield, including the United States. Much of the comparative material in this paper is drawn from the work of the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. The UK focused material is drawn from the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), which regularly produces research publications on the themes of poverty and social exclusion.

Definition of poverty

Reaching and agreeing a definition of poverty has always proved to be a difficult and controversial issue for governments, academics, researchers and the general public.

Many would agree however, that poverty can be described in terms of:

For the purposes of statistical measurement and monitoring a more precise definition is needed. The definition and measurement of poverty, however, is complex and important as it will shape how policy makers perceive poverty and design responses for its reduction. Traditionally the UK government measured and defined poverty in terms of low household income using a poverty line set as a proportion of mean income. In 1998, median household income was adopted by the European Union as the key income threshold. Typically a threshold of less than 60 percent of national median equivalised household income has been the definition and measure of poverty used by European bodies since then. The OECD, however, uses a 50% median threshold and this is reflected in the UNICEF publications which look at poverty in OECD countries. Commenting on progress in defining and measuring poverty throughout OECD, one such report noted that:

In Canada, the all-party promise made 15 years ago to “seek to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000” has run into the sands of definitional debate and has not been followed by agreed yardsticks and clear targets . In the United States, where there has been an official definition of poverty since the 1960s, there is today little consensus on its merits, much debate over how it should be revised, and no official target for its reduction. In Australia and New Zealand the first steps are only now being taken towards defining and monitoring the problem.

Other countries have made considerable progress. The Republic of Ireland has pioneered a combination of relative income measures and direct monitoring of material deprivation. Similarly, the United Kingdom has established a range of indicators to monitor changes in children’s health and nutrition, clothing and housing, and participation in social activities. In the European Union as a whole there is broad agreement that low income should be defined as ‘below 60 per cent of median income’ and that this measure should be updated annually. The EU also tends to see income poverty as but one aspect of the broader problem of social exclusion – to be monitored by a range of national indicators.[1]

Child Poverty is obviously clearly linked to the distribution of resources within a household and in some analyses the term ‘child poverty’ is explicitly used as short-hand for ‘children living with poor parents’.[2] An overview of the National Action Plans on Social Exclusion, which EU Member States are required to produce, however, points out that:

In previous analyses of the National Action Plans on Social Inclusion, Eurochild has called for the European Commission to develop “a new Primary Indicator that is specific to children and young people and informed by their perceptions of need”. We consider that measuring family household income as the sole indicator of child poverty is wholly inadequate. There are many circumstances where family income may not benefit the child – for example, in cases of child maltreatment or domestic violence. It is also the case that income is just one aspect of poverty and exclusion.[3]

Childhood Poverty in ‘Rich Countries’

Figure 1 below places 26 countries in a child poverty ‘league table’. The 26 countries are all members of the OECD[4] and ‘....as most have achieved near-universal basic health care and education for children, its membership constitutes a convenient group for the analysis of problems facing the children of economically developed societies’. They are considered, therefore, to be ‘Rich Countries’. Figure 1 shows that, out of the countries listed, Denmark and Finland had the lowest proportions of children in poverty – at 2.4 and 2.8 per cent respectively. The countries with the worst levels of child poverty were Mexico and the US at 27.7 per cent and 21.9 per cent respectively. The Nordic countries, the smallest in terms of population had the lowest levels of child poverty whereas countries with large population sizes, such as Australia, Canada and the US were all at the other end of the league table.

Figure 1 Percentage of children living in ‘relative’ poverty, defined as households with income below 50 per cent of the national median income.

image001.jpg

Source: UNICEF, ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005’, Innocenti Report Card No. 6, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005 Figure 1[5]

Figure 2 below shows the rise or fall in child poverty during the 1990s in a number of OECD countries. From the table it can be seen that in this period the UK leads the rest of the countries in its overall reduction in the level of child poverty. It is worthy of note that Norway, one of the countries with the lowest levels of child poverty is continuing to reduce its level of child poverty.

Figure 2 Percentage Child Poverty Change 1990s

image003.jpg

Source: UNICEF, ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005’, Innocenti Report Card No. 6, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005 Figure 2[6]

When considering the figures contained in Figure 2, it should be noted that the United Kingdom (along with Australia and the USA) began the period to which the data relate with what is described by UNICEF as ‘...child poverty rates that offered much scope for improvement.[7] It is also worth noting that research conducted by the New Policy Institute and published in late 2007 in a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates that across the UK:

The period of slow but steady progress in reducing poverty has now come to an end, arguably around three or four years ago. In particular, overall poverty levels in 2005/06 were the same as they were in 2002/03. Child poverty in 2005/06 was still 500,000 higher than the target set for 2004/05.[8]

Measures to Reduce Child Poverty

In broad terms the principal measures to reduce child poverty can be divided into three categories:[9]

1. Policies to alter income levels directly through the tax and benefit system. The aim is to provide direct financial support to families, recognising the extra costs of children.

2. Policies to promote paid work. The aim is to ensure that parents have the help and incentives they need to find work. Paid work is seen as the best long-term route to financial independence for families.

3. Measures to tackle long-term disadvantage. Some examples are: policies which attempt to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies; provision of support for parents of children aged under 5 in disadvantaged areas; attempts to raise basic standards of literacy and numeracy and tackle school truancy and exclusions.

Clearly, therefore, reducing poverty requires systemic change, for example in relation to taxes, benefits and education systems. It has been noted, however, that whilst such system changes are being made and implemented there is a need to invest in support to those in greatest need.

Taxes and Transfers

From the late 1990s the UK government initiated a move towards the use of tax credits to provide support that would previously have been delivered through the benefit system. Since 2003 two tax credits have come into operation: child tax credit and working tax credit. These are based on family circumstances (apart from the married couple’s allowance, the rest of the income tax system operates at the individual level) and both are refundable tax credits, meaning that a family’s entitlement is payable even if it exceeds the family’s tax liabilities. The impact of the government’s welfare reforms over the period 1997 – 2001 it can be argued include:

Examining poverty levels before and after government support in terms of taxes and transfers underlines the importance of these to reducing child poverty.

Figure 3 The impact of taxes and transfers

image005.jpg

Source: UNICEF, ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005’, Innocenti Report Card No. 6, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005 Figure 9[11]

The light blue bars in Figure 3 above show child poverty rates based on household incomes before government taxes and transfers while the dark blue bars show the rates after taxes and transfers. The poverty line in both cases is 50 per cent of median post-tax and transfer income.

Analysis shows, however, that the relationship between government spending and reduction in poverty rates is complex. For example, analysis of the relationship between government support for the specific purpose of improving family security[12] and poverty revealed that 10 countries out of the 26 examined devoted similar proportions of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to social transfers (between 7 and 10 per cent) but within these countries child poverty rates that varied from 3.4 per cent in Norway to over 15 per cent in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Commenting on this finding, the report noted that:

Plotting social expenditures against child poverty rates...cannot therefore be used as a simple means of calculating how much more social expenditure is required in order to reduce a country’s child poverty rate to a given level. But it can and does demonstrate that the relationship between social expenditures and child poverty rates depends not only on the level of government support but on the manner of its dispensation and on the priorities governing its allocation. And some countries are clearly achieving more bang-per buck than others.[13]

In spite of the complexity surrounding the link between government support and poverty, a number of reports have highlighted the importance of support through non-means tested benefits. A House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee, report, for example stated that:

... it is notable that countries who deliver financial support for children predominantly via non-means-tested benefits, for example, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg, have comparatively low levels of child poverty.[14]

A recent report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation also highlights the role of non-means-tested benefits in proposing models for combining existing tax and benefit policies to meet Government child poverty targets for 2010 and 2020 respectively[15]. The report advocates two mixed packages; one to meet the 2010 target for a reduction in child poverty, and the other for the decade between 2010 and 2020 when the target is for child poverty to be five per cent or less.

The key feature of the model presented in Table 1 is that it relies less on means testing and more on targeting the size of a family to ensure that money reaches more children in poverty. It uses ‘progressive universalism’ to give a certain level of benefits to people with particular needs, regardless of their income. Therefore larger families would gain through using Child Tax Credit rises in two ways:

Targeting large families regardless of income reduces work disincentives and means that support for larger families will not fluctuate with their income.

Table 1: Policy package to meet 2010 target

Recommendation

Cost to HM Treasury

Cost per child

Number raised out of poverty

Rise in child element of Child Tax Credit from £37 to £48.50; and of family element by £20 each for third and subsequent children

£4.3 bn

£4,300

1 million

Source: Hirsch; D. ‘What will it take to end child poverty? (2006)[16]

Assuming that the model in Table 1 has been adopted to meet the 2010 target, Hirsch goes on to develop a model that should then be implemented from 2010 to 2020. He argues that it would not be effective to rely solely on tax credits and benefits; parents’ incomes need to at least be maintained. Table 2 shows a model to address child poverty in the period from 2010 to the next target set for 2020.

Table 2: Policy Package from 2010 to meet 2020 target

Recommendation

Cost to HM Treasury

Cost per child

Number raised out of poverty

Extend indexation; uprates with earnings all benefits and tax credits for parents from 2010, and raises Working Tax Credit for couples

£12.1bn

£16,900

0.7m

Source: Hirsch; D. ‘What will it take to end child poverty? (2006)

The model shown in Table 2 would increase tax credits and benefits for people with children in line with earnings and increase Working Tax Credits for couples. However this would only lower child poverty to 8%. To attain the 5% target would require key benefits and tax credits to rise faster than earnings. Therefore the marginal cost of getting the remaining 500,000 children out of poverty would be almost twice as high as for the previous 700,000; nearly four times as much per child as the previous million taken out of poverty before 2010.

The diminishing returns for this model lead the author of the report to conclude that tax and benefit models cannot be relied on solely to address child poverty. A multi-faceted approach is required with a key long-term requirement to increase substantially the amount that parents earn from work. This has the double advantage of lifting families out of poverty while reducing the cost of the tax credit system and releasing resources for out of work benefits. Even with the poverty level below ten per cent, a third of poor children live in households with a single-earner.

Promoting Paid Work and increasing incomes

Although it is an important fact that considerable numbers of children in poverty live in two parent households, children in lone parent families make up 40% of all children living in poverty.[17]

The labour market position of lone parents in the UK has improved over the last ten years. The number of single parents claiming Income Support fell from 1 million in 1997 to 760,000 in 2005, a reduction of almost a quarter. The UK lone parent employment rate in 2006 was 56.5%. Since 1997 the rate has risen from 44.7% – a significant increase of 11.8 percentage points. Yet, government recognises that there is still more to be done in this area. Raising the employment rate of lone parent’s yet further, is an important part of the government’s strategy for reducing child poverty and government has set a target of 70% among single parents by 2010.

This next section of the paper looks at welfare to work programmes that apply to lone parents and seeks to identify those programmes which are successful in raising employment, incomes and child outcomes.

Evaluation of welfare to work schemes

Over the last two decades research has been carried out to evaluate programmes which aim to encourage those in receipt of welfare to move into employment. Much of this work has focussed on programmes in the US, and to a lesser extent in the UK. Recent research has striven to take an experimental or quasi experimental approach involving, for example, the use of ‘control groups’ to arrive at unbiased estimates of the effectiveness of the programmes. Research has been focussed primarily around the comparative effectiveness of two approaches:

Welfare to work policies and schemes from North America are examined first. This is followed by an examination of welfare to work programmes operating in the UK.

North America

A recent report on Welfare to Work Policies and Child Poverty for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation[18] (JRF) examined a range of North American welfare to work schemes: some small scale, others on a much larger, often State wide scale. The authors of the report wished to identify what works best in welfare provision, in particular those programmes which were successful in helping benefit claimants in their return to work and the effect the programmes had on employment, earnings and income.

Effect of Financial incentives

It was hypothesised that financial incentives would benefit long-term claimants and people who move into work but into low-income employment. The use of financial incentives was investigated in three US programmes and it was found that:

Effect of Time limits

It was hypothesised that setting time limits will discourage claimants from developing a long term dependence on welfare assistance. Reliable evidence on the effect of setting time limits was felt to be of great importance by the researchers due to the inequality and poverty implications of withdrawing benefits. The North American schemes included in this study were the Florida’s Family Transition Programme and Connecticut’s Jobs First Programme. These studies found that:

Effect of Mandatory Job Search and activity based reform packages

It was hypothesised that these methods would get people back into work faster than they would otherwise do. It was also theorised that schemes which aim to improve employability would produce additional gains from holding people in work longer and that better wages would provide stronger incentives. It was anticipated that the gains would build. The study looked at 11 programmes and found that of these 10 had positive employment impacts:

Effect of job retention and career development

In America, a special programme was developed which aimed to improve job retention and career advancement among lone parents. The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) plan encourages career advancement by providing help for lone parents with job search, basic education, short term training and support services such as childcare and transportation. ERA projects have been tried in both the US and UK but can vary in the different components and incentives which are used.

Schemes based on the ERA plan were studied in three locations in the US by the JRF researchers. They wanted to find out whether these schemes improved earnings and career advancement prospects for single parents and thus helped them to achieve economic stability and break the welfare dependency cycle. The schemes included in this study were:

1. The Riverside County, California

2. The Pee Dee Region, South Carolina

3. Corpus Christi, Texas

4. Fort Worth, Texas

5. Houston, Texas

The first study, at California, examined career advancement through education and training. The second, at South Carolina examined methods to improve outcomes through post-employment services. The remainder examined the effects of pre-employment services and post-employment services.

Findings
United Kingdom

The New Deal programme is at the heart of labour market policy in the UK. It seeks to increase job search and employment among specific sections of the unemployed population, including younger people, the over 50s, lone parents, the disabled and the long-term unemployed.

The New Deal for Lone Parents[19] (NDLP) started in 1999. This voluntary scheme offered lone parents assistance with job search, training or other work support. Work Focussed Interviews (WFIs) were introduced into the programme in 2001 and Review meetings in 2002. These were designed to ensure continued contact with the claimant. There was a mandatory aspect to the WFI provision with age of youngest child used to determine which claimants were invited to attend for interviews. If avoidance of interviews was continually repeated then sanctions could be applied.

The JRF report examined the impact of welfare reform in the UK and in particular the effectiveness of the New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Their findings were:

The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Programme[20]

The ERA programme (based on the US model) is being run in experimental mode in the UK. It proposes to help those previously on long term benefits who have found work to remain in employment, to work longer hours and to undertake in-work training. Those on the programme receive:

A recent independent evaluation of the first year of operation of the (ERA) programme found:

In a recent press statement Professor Alan Marsh of the Policy studies Institute said:

ERA may become the next step in welfare-work-policy. If these results are sustained over the second year, we can be confident that ERA does encourage employment retention and advancement. If it can then be shown in the longer run that these results justify the cost of the programme, it may become a very significant anti-poverty measure. It would help the government meet their target to abolish child poverty, keep workers away from unemployment and benefits, and establish them instead as full-time workers with proper conditions. Both they and tax payers would gain.[21]

Childcare

Childcare is central to ensuring that lone parents in particular can access the labour market. It is also central to the education and development of the child. A report published in May 2007 by Eurochild[22] reviewed the national reports of 27 EU Member States on their strategies for social protection and social inclusion aimed at ending child poverty. The participants in the review provided a brief ‘situation analysis’ and described the policy responses to address child poverty in their country. One of the areas examined was childcare provision.

The report found consensus among the countries that the early years of the child’s life are of great import. The correct interventions in terms of pre-school and child care services for children living in impoverished circumstances were felt to be of crucial importance for the child’s chances later in life.

Welcoming the increasing emphasis on new policy measures in relation to child care provision in each of the Member States, the Eurochild report authors stressed that a high standard of all early-years care and education services is vital. They recommended that Member States prioritise the monitoring of the availability and quality of these services in their countries.

Member States placed a strong emphasis on encouraging women into the workplace. The need for higher skilled jobs accessible to women was stressed and many wished to see a greater level of attention being placed on gender equality in the workplace and on factors which would contribute to a better work/life balance. Reference was made to the Barcelona Council targets[23] on childcare as supporting these objectives.

Developing Childcare provision in EU Member States

The EU Member States taking part in the review reported on child care provision in their countries and in particular, child care for the children of working parents. The actions and targets of a number of EU countries are set out below.

Luxembourg

Luxembourg has a network of “Maisons Relais pour enfants” (MR Childcare Centres) which it aims to extend and improve. These facilities are open for long hours over a six day week and provide integrated services to support parents, activities for children and links between schools and families. In 2005 87 “Maisons Relais pour enfants” were in operation in Luxembourg. In addition there were 178 local or district branches and 8,000 places for children. Luxembourg stated that it is pursuing and intensifying its efforts to improve the supply of MR facilities. The main features of the MR concept are[24]:

Austria

Austria has seen the numbers of children receiving pre-school day care increase by 70% over the last five years. There has been a focus on the extension of care centres for children with the aim of improving the framework for reconciling work and family life. Austria has been piloting innovative schemes, for example, flexible care hours, inter-age and inter-community care and inter-generational forms of care.

Germany

New legislation in Germany (the Day Care Expansion Act, 2005) has allowed for the provision of expanded childcare and all day education for children under three. It is anticipated 23,000 additional places for this age group will be available by 2010.

Ireland

An extra 50,000 childcare places will be funded through Ireland’s National Childcare Investment Programme, 2006-2010. In addition, the State introduced an Early Childcare Supplement of €1000 per child per annum from September 2006. This is targeted at pre-school children up to the age of 6 and is specifically provided to assist parents with child care costs.

Poland

Poland is seeking to make improvements to social security for employees after childbirth. Proposed changes to legislation will allow for:

Measures to tackle long term disadvantage

Key to breaking the cycle of poverty are measures taken to address long term disadvantage which results from educational and health inequalities.

Education

Whilst there is a strong correlation between poverty and educational attainment, the relationship appears to be complex. International comparisons summarising the relationship between educational attainment and disadvantage shows that:[25]

The 2002 UNICEF report which provided the evidence to support these conclusions set out league tables on a number of factors relating to educational disadvantage in rich nations. The report concluded that:

In sum, the ‘big picture’ shows that some OECD countries are consistently performing better than others when it comes to educating and equipping their young people for life in the 21st century – whether measured by the percentage of students reaching fixed benchmarks of competence or by the gaps that are permitted to open up between low achieving and average students.

Combining the results of recent cross-national research, it can be said, for example, that a child now at school in Finland, Canada or Korea has a significantly higher chance of being educated to a reasonable standard, and a significantly lower chance of falling well behind the average educational level for his or her age, than a child born in Hungary, Denmark, Greece, the United States or Germany. Current knowledge does not point a precise finger at the factors or policies which account for these differences in educational outcomes. But one clear finding is that differences in educational achievement within nations are very much greater than differences between nations. Different national policies and systems may promote or mitigate disadvantage in ways that are not fully understood, but they are clearly not the mainspring of that disadvantage.[26]

In this context it is worth noting that:[27]

The UNICEF report, whilst recognising the difficulties in establishing the factors or policies which account for these differences in educational outcomes does, however, highlight the role of the child’s home and of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in determining education outcome. The report states that:

...it is clear that the social, economic and cultural status of the child’s home is the most powerful influence on the likelihood of educational success, much recent research has focused on that relationship and on the possibilities for weakening the processes by which disadvantage is reproduced from one generation to the next. And perhaps the most significant of the insights gained in recent decades has been the realisation that such disadvantage becomes established, and measurable, at a much earlier age than was previously suspected.[28]

The UNICEF report identifies the US Head Start progammme, which dates back to the 1960s and the United Kingdom’s Sure Start programme, which was launched in 1998/9, as examples of ECEC programmes designed to tackle educational disadvantage. In relation to Head Start, the report concludes that Overall, the consensus of current opinion seems to be that the programme has achieved much whilst not delivering the kind of measurable clear-cut successes that had initially been hoped for’.[29]

A comprehensive evaluation of the Sure Start programme is being carried out on behalf of Department for Children, Schools and Families by the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck, University of London. A report published as part of the programme of evaluation concluded in relation to Sure Start Local Programmes (SSLP) that:

...only limited evidence of SSLP impact was detected and that which emerged was often limited to specific sub-populations. Some of the detected effects of SSLPs can be regarded as beneficial whereas other effects were developmentally adverse. In all cases, the size of these limited effects, whether developmentally beneficial or adverse, was small.[30]

The UNICEF report underlined quality as the key to successful ECEC interventions

In sum, the evidence to date suggests that the potential of ECEC can only be liberated by quality ECEC. And as the OECD’s cross-national review concludes, ‘quality’ implies a well-informed and clear vision of purpose and aims, strong partnerships with both families and primary school systems, well thought out access policies to enable all children at risk to participate, high standards of staffing, motivation, and in-service training, and a built-in, long-term agenda for research and evaluation.[31]

Health

Poverty and ill health are strongly correlated and three basic strategies to reduce childhood health inequalities can be identified:[32]

1. Reduction of socioeconomic inequalities by ‘levelling up’ living standards

2. Interventions aimed at improving the health of all children;

3. Interventions aimed specifically at improving the health of children in lower socioeconomic groups.

A Life Course Approach

WHO propose a life course approach for interventions to tackle child ill health and health inequalities and the following information on this approach is extracted and summarised from the European strategy for child and adolescent health and development (2005)[33].

Life course research to date suggests that, to a differing extent across health outcomes, inequality develops as a result of various socially patterned exposures and behaviours starting in early life. Improving social inequalities in adult health requires a range of targeted intervention strategies for infants, children, adolescents and adults, e.g. targeting interventions at young girls and women may improve not only their own health but that of their offspring[34].

The WHO European strategy for child and adolescent health and development states that policies, programmes and health systems should be in place to work towards targets relating to:

EU Project – Closing the Gap

Closing the Gap is a three year (2004-2007) initiative based on a partnership of 21 national public health agencies and institutes from across Europe that are working together to develop a shared understanding of health inequalities and to determine how to reduce them. A task of the initiative was to highlight the role that the EU can play in reducing health inequalities at the national or local level. The output from the initiative contained, amongst other things, a report comparing approaches in different jurisdictions and a database of projects which might provide examples and learning for others. The comparative report concluded that:

EU institutions, member states, regional and local governments and relevant stakeholders, including non governmental organisations, should act upon this learning by implementing priority strategies and measures within their separate and joint powers on the following basis:[35]

1. Improve visibility and gather data

Political and societal commitment is imperative to tackle health inequalities and can only be achieved if the problem becomes more visible to politicians and the public, for example by presenting strong data and evidence from independent sources.

2. Ensure equal uptake of prevention and health promotion measures

An important place to start raising awareness on health inequalities is within the health sector itself. This would entail the provision of equal access to quality health care services (which some countries are actively looking at), but also raising awareness among health professionals about the need to make their public health interventions equity sensitive, so that they effectively reach different socio-economic groups and generate change.

3. Involve key actors and encourage partnerships across policy areas

Health inequality is a multi factorial and complex issue; we need many partnerships across different levels and sectors and to work collaboratively to reduce them.

The health sector (i.e. decision makers and professionals at national, regional and local level) has a crucial leadership role to play in involving other relevant actors. Other sectors often develop policies or strategies that are directly or indirectly relevant to reducing health inequalities. It is therefore the task of the health field to identify these policies and strategies, to liaise with the responsible actors and to argue for and ensure a health equity dimension. The support and commitment of senior management within the health sector is critical in order to make this inter-sectoral process of reducing health inequalities a success.

4. Establish health-equity targets, also across sectors

While most European countries have general health policies that state that inequities in health shall be reduced, there are still very few examples of quantified equity targets that are backed by specific strategies, financial resources and performance management or monitoring systems.

5. Apply equity-sensitive Health Impact Assessments

A number of countries refer to the importance of Health Impact Assessments (HIA). HIA could be a useful tool to investigate and effectively advocate for health equity during a particularly defined policy process in a timely fashion.

HIA does not need to be a complicated process, and while it may require some initial investments, it could eventually be cost neutral and could perhaps even save money. It is important though to ensure that health impact assessments take a health equity focus. In addition, there should be a real readiness and possibility to change policy according to the HIA outcomes.

6. Develop capacities for implementation

In several countries, there is still a gap between policy statements and what is happening in practice. This is partly due to the fact that there is insufficient capacity in place to implement those policies. Indeed, adequate financial resources, organisations, services and well-trained people at national, regional and local level are essential to ensure the development, implementation, evaluation and follow up of actions.

7. Support the local level and encourage local ‘upstream’ policies

The regional and local level is critical to the development and implementation of strategies that address the health gap. In several EU countries local governments even have the formal responsibility and the mandate to reduce health inequalities.

8. Prioritise sustainable actions that address the gradient

Actions should involve a mix of up- and downstream measures; universal population approaches as well as additional targeted actions to disadvantaged groups, ideally linked to social inclusion and anti-poverty strategies. Those actions should be prioritised that :

1. generate the greatest levels of inequalities (urgency);

2. lead to the greatest immediate health gains possible (notably amongst the more disadvantaged groups);

3. change the slope of the health gradient by addressing differences in health determinants across all socio-economic layers;

4. take a gender and life-course perspective, and in particular focus on children and adolescents.

5. are most cost-effective.

Specific actions that have proved effective in reaching and promoting the health of the lower socio-economic groups include the use of outreach workers and home visitors, intercultural mediators, self help groups, training and other low barrier approaches that engage and empower people. Several countries stressed the importance of equal opportunities during childhood and early interventions.

A common difficulty faced by many initiatives is that they are often based on short-term funding which endangers long-term impacts on the lives of the people involved. Local, regional and national governments should explore opportunities to scale up those actions that have the biggest impact on the lower socio-economic groups. Sustainability of actions is critical if they are to have a lasting impact. This does not happen by itself, but requires careful planning.

9. Strengthen the evidence base and get it into practice

Too often policies and strategies are not being sufficiently monitored or evaluated in the different European countries. It is therefore important to ensure that policies and programmes that can contribute to a reduction of health inequalities are evaluated.

10. Incorporate and build on EU processes

Initiatives taking place at the level of the European Union (EU) can reinforce national and regional level efforts. It is therefore important to establish parallels between EU level and EU Member State activities.

In addition to these recommendations the report noted however that it is at local level where measures to address health inequalities take direct effect. On the Closing the Gap website a full European Directory of Good Practices[36] to reduce health inequalities can be found and comprehensively searched by target population, target age etc. These exemplar practices have been collected based on a set of quality elements, developed and discussed for the area of tackling health inequalities and all exhibit specific selection criteria.

The following list with a brief outline of each, are samples of those in the directory that specifically target general and socioeconomic related health inequalities in children.

Springboard Family Support [37](Ireland)

This is an initiative of family support projects targeting vulnerable families which aims to improve the wellbeing of children and parents e.g. individual counselling work; group activities such as breakfast clubs, coffee mornings, homework clubs; family counselling/therapy; and drop-in facilities.

Manchester Family Link Worker Scheme[38] (England)

The family link workers work in partnership with other agencies including schools, nurseries, social workers, health visitors etc. and it demonstrates how multi-agency working can tackle health inequalities and support families with young children and a variety of needs.

Project Jiwsi [39](Wales)

A project delivering sex and relationship education programmes to groups of vulnerable young people (aged between 11 and 25) in community settings throughout North Wales.

Poverty and Health of Children[40] (Netherlands)

The main aim is to tackle health inequalities with respect to children by influencing the state of poverty. Parents and children are asked during a preventative medical about the relation between the lack of money and items which influence their health e.g. because of lack of money the child cannot attend a sports club. A team from the municipal health service tries to help the family in several ways e.g. a small amount of money for swimming lessons.

Equal Health, Equal Opportunities[41] (Netherlands)

A health promotion community project in a deprived neighbourhood in Tilburg, The Netherlands. It includes activities such as district health day, walking club, children’s cooking café, breakfast meetings, lunch topic meetings, exercise week.

Supervision by the Youth Practitioner of Pupils with Absence because of Illness[42] (Netherlands)

Pupils not attending school because of illness (based on certain non-attendance criteria) are reported to the youth physician, who meets with parents and pupils, gives advice, liaises with the school and social services etc.

The Pine House[43] (Norway)

Set in an area of Oslo with high immigrant population - prenatal maternity care, community care for children aged 0-6 years and an open kindergarten where children and adults can meet other people. Activities are based on the wishes of the community it serves.

Smoke-free Children[44] (Sweden)

Since 1997 child health nurses in Sweden have used a new non-judgemental method for discussing smoking with parents. The method focuses on the child’s environment and not the parent’s smoking per se. The parents are requested to smoke without exposing their infants to smoke. Although not primarily targeted, parent’s smoking has decreased faster than the general population of the same age group.

Reduction of Social Inequalities in Child Accidental Injuries through Environmental Measures[45] (Sweden)

The introduction of environmental measures to improve child safety e.g. new building laws passed to have certain safety features in new homes. The preventative efforts were initiated by the Swedish Red Cross and Swedish ‘Save the Children’.

I go to the U And You?[46] (Germany)

Relate to the early detection measures U1-U9 of the legal health insurance in Germany. They serve to evaluate physical and psychological development. This intervention is to increase participation in these measures in the 3-5 year old age group, especially in low social or migrant groups and involves a Kindergarten group contest with posters and fliers. Children receive incentives of t-shirts and photos of their kindergarten wearing their t-shirts and are entered into group competitions.

Guardian Angel[47] (Germany)

This is a model project offering support for families with small children in a disadvantaged neighbourhood of Flensburg (Northern Germany), by a family midwife, social worker and parent’s café. Guardian aims to intervene with help in problems as early as possible. The area of the city has a high proportion of young and single parent families living on state benefits.

Healthy Parenthood[48] (Czech Republic)

Educational activities are focused on the improvement of responsible sexual behaviour in young people (including Romany, an ethnic minority). The two main intervention activities are education and health care services.

December 2007

[1] UNICEF, ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005’, Innocenti Report Card No. 6, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005 p8

[2] Sutherland H (2001) “Reducing Child Poverty in Europe: What can Static Microsimulation Models tell us?” EUROMOD Working Paper No. EM5/01 http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/mu/publications/em501.pdf accessed October 2007 p3

[3] The OECD, founded in 1960, is the international organization of the industrialized, market-economy countries. www.oecd.org

[4] http://www.unicef-irc.org/cgi-bin/unicef/Lunga.sql?ProductID=371

[5] http://www.unicef-irc.org/cgi-bin/unicef/Lunga.sql?ProductID=371

[6] http://www.unicef-irc.org/cgi-bin/unicef/Lunga.sql?ProductID=371

[7] UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre – Report Card No. 6 Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005. http://www.unicef-irc.org/cgi-bin/unicef/Lunga.sql?ProductID=371

[8] ‘Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2007’ by Guy Palmer, Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway and published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation p9 http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2152-poverty-social-exclusion.pdf

[9] Sutherland H (2001) “Reducing Child Poverty in Europe: What can Static Microsimulation Models tell us?” EUROMOD Working Paper No. EM5/01
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/mu/publications/em501.pdf accessed October 2007

[10] As above

[11] http://www.unicef-irc.org/cgi-bin/unicef/Lunga.sql?ProductID=371

[12] Family allowances, disability and sickness benefits, formal day care provision, unemployment insurance, employment promotion, and other forms of social assistance

[13] UNICEF, ‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005’, Innocenti Report Card No. 6, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2005 p23

[14] House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee, Child Poverty in the UK, Second Report, Session 2003-04, HC 85, The Stationery Office, 2004, para 203

[15] To reduce child poverty levels by half by 2010 and to between 5% and 10% by 2020.

[16] http://www.jrf.org.uk/child-poverty/

[17] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/childpoverty/childpoverty.pdf

[18] http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781859355107.pdf

[19] www.newdeal.gov.uk

[20] http://www.psi.org.uk/research/project.asp?project_id=134

[21] 22 February 2007 www.psi.org.uk/news/pressrelease.asp?news_item_id=198

[22] Ending Child Poverty within the EU?: A review of the 2006-08 national reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion. 2nd Edition
http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/files/NAPs_report_2006_final.pdf

[23] The Barcelona agreement set targets of childcare provision for 90% of children 3-6 and 33% of those under 3 by 2010.

[24] See page 76 of the Eurochild report
http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/files/NAPs_report_2006_final.pdf

[25] http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/publications/key_health_data/2004/ch_02.htm

[26] UNICEF (2002) A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations’ Innocenti Report Card No.4. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre. Available from: http://www.unicef-icdc.org. p18-19

[27] http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/publications/key_health_data/2004/ch_02.htm

[28] UNICEF (2002) A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations’ Innocenti Report Card No.4. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre. Available from: http://www.unicef-icdc.org p22-23

[29] As above p25

[30] National Evaluation of Sure Start Research Report NESS/2005/FR/013
Early Impacts of Sure Start Local Programmes on Children and Families
Report of the Cross-sectional Study of 9-and 36-Month Old Children and their Families http://www.surestart.gov.uk/_doc/P0001867.pdf

[31] UNICEF (2002) A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations’ Innocenti Report Card No.4. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre. p27

[32] Mielck, A. et. al. Children, an important target group for the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities in health, Ch. 9 in Mackenbach, J. and Bakker, M., Reducing Inequalities in Health – A European Perspective, Routledge, London and New York (2002)

[33] WHO Europe, pages 6-12

[34] Ibid, Ch2, pg 48

[35] Costings C et al (2007) Closing the Gap: Strategies for Action to Tackle Health Inequalities. pp36-40
http://www.health inequalities.eu/?uid=d5d5f0091dfeccc2fae218961e9a846a&id=Seite2113

[36] www.health-inequalities.eu

[37] http://omc.gov.ie/docs/Family_Support/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Publications/Final_Evaluation_Report_of_the_Teen_Parents_Support_Initiative.pdf

[38] http://www.swpho.nhs.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=33105

[39] http://www.fpa.org.uk/community/youngpeople/detail.cfm?contentid=63

[40] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=14&idx=138

[41] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=14&idx=60

[42] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=14&idx=101

[43] http://www.swpho.nhs.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=33245

[44] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=20&idx=56

[45] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=20&idx=84

[46] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=7&idx=105

[47] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=50e9748ecac2c4bfdbfa86453755d226&id=search1&land=7&idx=53

[48] http://www.health-inequalities.org/?uid=40051a59fc3f877ac2abda9c6959ff03&id=search1&land=1&idx=103

Research briefing
The measurement of severe and persistent childhood poverty

Introduction

This short briefing paper is intended to assist the Committee in its inquiry into childhood poverty within Northern Ireland (NI). The paper looks at some of the current approaches to the measurement of child poverty that are used in the UK today by government and others working in the area. It is not intended to be an exhaustive and in-depth account of all the work that has been done in this area, however, the paper aims to indicate some of the complexities in measuring such social phenomena as child poverty.

What is Poverty?

There is no straightforward and generally agreed definition of poverty. Poverty is seen today as a multi-dimensional issue and understood by many as the inability to participate in society - economically, socially and culturally. The measurement of poverty is as complex as its definition. Researchers on poverty have been engaged in the formulation of new measures that take into account its many dimensions. Most would agree that the measurement of poverty must go beyond assessing how much income a person or family has, as it is understood that looking at income alone can miss significant aspects of what it means to be poor.

What is Child Poverty?

In 1999 the UK government pledged the eradication of child poverty by 2020. Interim targets were set; these were a reduction by a quarter by 2004 and a half by 2010[1]. At this point in time government’s definition of child poverty referred to children living in households with less than 60 per cent of the ‘average’ (median) income. The starting position or baseline for the UK was 4.2 million children in poverty (after housing costs) and 3.1 million (before housing costs).

In 2003 the UK government carried out a consultation about how child poverty should be measured. As a result government broadened its definition of child poverty to include children living in households experiencing material deprivation. (This did not affect its original PSA target on child poverty which referred to the number of children living below the 60% of median income threshold.)

How is Child Poverty Measured?

This section of the paper briefly describes the current UK official measures of child poverty. Examples of each of the measures are presented showing what they can reveal about the UK government’s progress in meeting its child poverty targets. Some recent figures for child poverty in Northern Ireland are summarised. This is followed by an outline of some independent research on child poverty in the UK and NI.

UK government measures

The Department for Work and Pensions published new child poverty measures in 2003 in Measuring Child Poverty[2]; these came into effect from 2004/05. Government believed this would provide a more effective long term approach to the measurement and monitoring of child poverty. The new measures use a set of inter-related indicators or ‘tiers’ to capture different aspects of poverty. According to Measuring Child Poverty this new composite measure will show that poverty is falling when all three indicators are moving in the right direction. The three tiers are:

1. Absolute low income thresholds – the ‘fixed’ poverty line

This measure determines the number of children in families with incomes below a defined ‘fixed’ monetary value or ‘threshold’. Government maintain that this measure will help to ascertain whether the poorest families are experiencing a rise in income in real terms.

Absolute low income[3] is measured using a fixed or set poverty line. For example, the fixed poverty line for a couple with two children was set at £210 per week which was 60% of the ‘average’ (or median[4]) weekly income in 1998/99. The fixed poverty line does not move from year to year - it is held constant in real terms[5].The UK government’s annual statistics show progress relative to this fixed amount. What should be observed in the statistics (if poverty is being alleviated) is that the proportion below the fixed threshold is moving downward over time – and (as a move upward is less likely) it is the rate of movement downward that is of interest rather than its direction.

Figure 1. ‘Fixed’ poverty line measure – UK

Research paper - measurement of severe & persistent childhood poverty_Fig 1.ai

Source: Households Below Average Income 2005/06[6]

Figure 1 shows the progress in the UK using the fixed poverty line measure. The chart confirms the proportion of children below the threshold moving downward over time - from 26% to 13%. The rate of change was greatest between 1998/99 and 2001/02, and slowed thereafter.

2. Relative low income thresholds - the ‘relative’ poverty line

This measure also assigns a monetary value or ‘threshold’ as a cut off point below which people or families are deemed to be living in poverty. The difference between this measure and the last is that the threshold can change from year to year - as the population becomes better (or worse) off. The official UK ‘relative threshold’ for child poverty is 60 per cent of the ‘average’ or ‘typical’ household income[7] for that year (before housing costs). For example, in 2004/05 the relative threshold was £268 per week for a couple with two children; in 2005/06 the threshold was £300 per week. A family with a couple and two children would therefore be defined as poor in 2005/06 if living on less than £300 a week.

2005/06 - 60 per cent thresholds in the UK:

Relative poverty lines are based on the view that poverty should be assessed in relation to (relative to) the standard of living in a country. The measure is specifically designed to show whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. In theory, the proportion of children falling below the threshold should be shrinking year on year.

Figure 2 ‘Relative’ poverty line measure - UK

Research paper - measurement of severe & persistent childhood poverty_Fig 2.ai

Source: Households Below Average Income 2005/06[8]

Figure 2 shows progress in the UK using the relative poverty line measure. Between 1998/99 (the baseline for the UK Government’s PSA target) and 2005/06 the proportion of children in the UK living in households below the poverty threshold declined very gradually – an overall reduction of five percentage points by 2004/05 from 26% to 21%. There then occurred a one percentage point increase in 2005/06 to 22%. A further 9% drop in the next five years is needed if the target of halving child poverty by 2010 is to be met.

The reason why a 60 per cent of median income threshold is used is because this is the cut off used to monitor child poverty in the EU and allows for comparisons across Member States.

Figure 3 Relative poverty line – percentage of children living below 60% threshold, Northern Ireland 2002/03- 2005/06

Research paper - measurement of severe & persistent childhood poverty_Fig 3.ai

The Family Resources Survey was extended to cover NI in 2002/03. Figure 3 above shows progress from 2002/03 to 2005/06 using the relative poverty line measure. The chart includes the poverty figures before and after housing costs. All UK government indicators of poverty relating to the target will define income “before housing costs” (BHC).[9]

3. Material deprivation and low income combined

The material deprivation indicator aims to measure children’s (and their families) living standards. This new measure examines the circumstances of children living in low income households (below 70 percent of contemporary median equivalised income) - which are also materially deprived[10]. The material deprivation information is collected through the Family Resources Survey which asks parents a series of questions about the goods, services and household items available to the children and themselves. If they do not have these items, they are asked whether this is because they do not want them or because they cannot afford them. Table 1 below is an example of some analysis for Northern Ireland. These results were published by DSD in its Households Below Average Income Report for 2005/06[11].

Table 1 Material deprivation amongst children living in low-income households
(before housing costs), Northern Ireland, 2005/06

Items and services wanted but can’t afford

Below 70% median

All children

Enough money to keep home in decent decor

23%

14%

Hobby or leisure activity

24%

15%

One weeks holiday a year

60%

38%

Have friends/family round for drink/meal once a month

31%

18%

Save £10 a month

58%

34%

Replace any worn out furniture

44%

26%

Replace/repair broken electrical goods

36%

20%

Money to spend on yourself each week

51%

30%

Able to keep accommodation warm enough

10%

6%

Source: Family Resources Survey 2005/06

The table demonstrates that significantly higher percentages of children living in low-income, materially deprived households could not afford the items compared with children in households which were not low income and materially deprived. As with the other components in the new ‘tiered’ measure of child poverty, the UK government has committed to monitoring and publishing these figures on an annual basis.

Child poverty measures in the Republic of Ireland

Ireland’s National Anti-Poverty Strategy 2002-2007 contains the following definition of poverty:

People are living in poverty if their income and resources (material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequate income and other resources people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities, which are considered the norm for other people in society.

Ireland, like the UK uses a composite measure of poverty – an indicator of income plus a material deprivation measure. The material deprivation items were chosen by a panel of ‘experts’ rather than the general public. The National Anti-poverty Strategy includes targets for the reduction of two measures of poverty - these measures are:

Measures of poverty in the EU

At the Lisbon European Council in March 2000, the European Union called for all of its member countries to work towards the eradication of poverty throughout the Union by 2010. The Laeken indicators[12] are a set of relative poverty indicators commonly agreed and used within the European Union to monitor progress in this area. Eurostat carries out and publishes the analysis of the indicators. The relative threshold is set at 60 per cent of median income. This allows comparable statistics on poverty and social exclusion to be published for every EU country. Eurostat, however, goes beyond the 60 per cent threshold and publishes a range of poverty thresholds – for example at 40, 50, 60 and 70 per cent - of both median and mean income.

The Laeken indicators also have an alternative poverty threshold that is “fixed at a point in time”. This means that current incomes are measured against an earlier cut-off threshold (which is updated for inflation).

Severe Childhood Poverty

This section of the paper briefly considers the topic of severe child poverty - its definition and current approaches to measurement.

What is severe child poverty?

As with child poverty, a precise definition of severe child poverty is hard to arrive at. Many researchers working in the area of child poverty identify severe poverty as very low income in combination with other factors such as material deprivation.

UK Government measures of severe childhood poverty

The Measuring Child Poverty paper of 2003 refers to the use of low income thresholds for measuring depth of poverty,[13] however government does not specifically define severe child poverty in this paper or elsewhere. Some commentators have expressed concern about the absence of an explicit measure. In 2004 a report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Work and Pensions[14] recommended that the UK government create an explicit indicator for severe child poverty. The following year an independent study of severe child poverty made similar recommendations saying:

It is therefore important that eradication of severe poverty be incorporated in official targets, and measures of severe poverty included in the new child poverty measures[15]

Another independent study in 2007 for Save the Children[16] had this to say:

While currently and under its new measures, the government will continue to monitor various dimensions of poverty, including material deprivation, there are no plans to monitor severe poverty.

Recently, Save the Children Fund commented again saying:

This government has championed the notion that the first step to changing something is to measure it. Measurement provides a clear focus, an understanding of the problem at hand, and a tool for accountability. Given how many things the government does measure, the lack of a measure of severe poverty is glaring[17].

Independent UK research on severe child poverty – severe poverty measures

In the period following the UK government’s announcement (in 1999) of its targets on child poverty, a number of social researchers in the UK have been carrying out independent research on severe child poverty and developing measures which aim to take account of dimensions beyond that of low income.

In the introduction to one such study, the authors explained the background to their research and the concerns that had led them to further investigation in this area:

Sutherland in 2001 noted that the income situation of the poorest children may have worsened following the government’s early reforms. Recent evidence from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) showed that whereas the proportion of children in non-severe poverty declined significantly after 1997, there has been no evidence of a corresponding decline in the proportion of children in severe poverty. This was consistent with findings of a separate study based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS), which observed that the decline in child poverty between 1997/98 and 2003/04 was lower for more severe poverty (below 50 per cent of median income) compared to the proportion below 60 per cent of median income[18].

Most researchers working in the area of child poverty recommend a severe poverty measure which combines very low income with severe material deprivation. Some of these studies are summarised below.

A study which was published in 2003 - Britain’s Poorest Children: Severe and Persistent Poverty and Social Exclusion[19] examined persistent poverty using British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) data. It used a combined material deprivation (using Poverty and Social Exclusion survey data) and a low income measure to examine severe poverty. This measure consisted of:

This important study used three measures of severe child poverty and calculated 8 permutations of poverty. The proportions of children poor on combinations of the three measures was examined, children poor on all three were defined as severely poor. The study found that 8% of children in Britain were living in severe poverty using 1999 data.

The Bare Necessities: Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland (2003)[20]

This was the first study of poverty in NI which looked at a combination of income and deprivation. A survey was carried out to devise a consensual mixed poverty measure – people were surveyed to ascertain the items and activities felt to be necessary for an acceptable standard of living today. Households which were poor on this measure lacked at least three deprivation items and had on average an equivalised household income of £156 per week. The survey found a poverty rate of 37.5% of children in Northern Ireland.

The Bottom Line: Children and severe poverty in Northern Ireland (2004)[21]

This study of severe childhood poverty applied Adelman et al’s measure of severe poverty (see above) to Northern Ireland data. It used data from the Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey, Northern Ireland (PSENI) of 2002/03. Children were defined as being in severe poverty if they were poor on all three of the measures. It found that 8% of children in NI were living in severe poverty.

Britain’s Poorest Children Revisited: Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey (1994-2002)[22]

This research published in 2005 updated the study in 2003 by Adelman et al utilising further waves from the BHPS.

Severe Child Poverty in the UK (2007)[23]

This study aimed to identify its own measure of severe child poverty using a combination of existing UK government indicators. It classified children as being in severe poverty, non-severe poverty and not in poverty using the following definitions:

Children are classified as being in “severe” poverty if they are in households with very low income (i.e. below 50 per cent threshold), in combination with material deprivation (deprived of both adult and child necessities, at least one of which shows some degree of severity, i. e. two or more items

Those in households below 70 per cent of median income, in combination with some form of adult or child deprivation are classified as being in non-severe poverty.

The remainder are classified as not being in poverty.

The authors favoured this definition as it uses a measure that is “widely available and supported in policy circles”. The study found that 10.2% (1.3 million) of children in the UK are classified as being in severe poverty.

In the report’s conclusion, the authors were generally satisfied that their measure is capable of identifying the most disadvantaged children and families.

Persistent Poverty

Poverty can vary in extent, depth and duration. The length of time spent on a very low income can have a significant effect on the person or family in terms of the deprivation they experience. For some, the time spent on low income will be short; some are frequently making the transition in and out of low income over a period of time while others are remaining persistently in low income. It is these aspects that researchers on poverty are increasingly interested in and believe to be as important as headline counts of how many of the population are ‘in’ or ‘out’ of poverty.

How does government measure persistent poverty?

The UK government publishes figures on persistent low income. These are contained in its Opportunity for All publication. For this analysis low income is defined as below 60 per cent of median income. Persistent low income is defined as being in a low income household in at least three of the last four years. The table below shows that small reductions in persistent low income have occurred over the period 1991 to 2004, although the extent of persistent low income amongst children in GB remains relatively high at 13% before housing costs and 17% after housing costs.

Table 2 Percentage of children living below 60% of median income in at least 3 out of 4 years, GB

Year

Before Household Costs

After Household Costs

1991 to 1994

20

25

1994 to 1997

17

24

1997 to 2000

17

22

2000 to 2003

15

19

2001 to 2004

13

17

Source: HBAI 1994/95-2005/06

The information in Table 2 comes from the Family Resources Survey which is a cross-sectional survey (it surveys people at one particular point in time). Many researchers maintain that persistent poverty is best measured using longitudinal or panel data. Panel surveys such as the BHPS (GB) and NIHPS (NI) track a fixed group of individuals or households over time and help to explain movements in and out of poverty. A recent study has endeavoured to develop our understanding of persistent poverty in Northern Ireland using such data sets and is summarised below.

Independent research on persistent poverty in Northern Ireland

Poverty researchers have pointed to a lack of information on the extent and depth of child poverty in Northern Ireland.[24] A recent study of persistent and severe child poverty in Northern Ireland[25] used panel survey data – the Northern Ireland Household Panel Survey (NIHPS) which enabled analysis of the duration and dynamics of persistent poverty. The survey tracked the same respondents over a four year period and in the analysis children were defined as belonging to one of the following five groups:

Early results from this research provide new evidence of the prevalence of persistent and severe poverty in Northern Ireland. Table 3 below reveals that relatively large proportions of children in Northern Ireland have experienced severe and persistent poverty.

Table 3 Poverty type over four years, Northern Ireland

Poverty type

%

No poverty

52

Short-term no severe

15

Short term and 1+ severe

12

Persistent no severe

9

Persistent and 1+ severe

13

Base = 550

100

Source: NIHPS 2001-2004

Conclusion

In 2006 a study by two NI academics[26] evaluated a number of national and international measures of child poverty including the new UK government and non-government measures of child poverty - outlined earlier in this paper. It found that the prevalence of child poverty in Northern Ireland varied from a low of 8% for severe child poverty and 14% using the UK government’s new absolute poverty measure to 38% using the consensual poverty measure. The study considered the importance of choice of measure and made some recommendations about how poverty rates in NI should be measured and reported in the future. For example:

Briefing note:
Tackling Severe Childhood Poverty

Introduction

This short briefing note summarises the characteristics of severe child poverty and outlines some key short term and longer term actions for tackling the problem.

What is severe child poverty?

Many researchers identify severe poverty as very low income (for example, living on less than 40 per cent of the average household income in a country) in combination with other factors such as low living standards or ‘material deprivation’. There are varying degrees of poverty but the latest measures of severe poverty show clearly that those with lower incomes experience a range of added disadvantage[1]. For instance, research has found that children living in severe poverty are much less likely to have access to a range of essential goods than children not living in poverty.

What are the causes of severe child poverty?

Child poverty is viewed as a multi-dimensional issue and its analysis has become a highly technical and expert field. Research projects in other countries, especially those countries with the lowest child poverty rates such as the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden[2] have looked for the factors which have the greatest impact on child poverty rates. A recent study for UNICEF[3] identified four common factors:

Other current research would agree that poverty is especially related to employment status but the most severe poverty is particularly associated with instability in employment status[4]. Parents making frequent transitions in and out of work give rise to an increased risk of periods of low or no income. Methods to improve job retention would help these families greatly. Actions to tackle severe child poverty are discussed in greater detail in the final section of this paper.

Which children are most likely to be living in severe poverty?

Research has established some of the characteristics most associated with severe child poverty. A study in Northern Ireland on behalf of Save the Children in 2004[5] found that children living in severe poverty were most likely to be living in households where:

How is severe child poverty measured?

There is no official UK measure of severe child poverty. The UK government monitors depth of poverty[6] by publishing figures on families living below a range of low income thresholds and the living standards of children living in poor households. This does not equate to the monitoring of severe child poverty according to many observers. Child poverty groups have been calling for government to produce an official definition of severe child poverty, create an explicit measure and to monitor and publish the statistics.

Progress in the understanding of severe child poverty has come from non-government research. The recent NI study for Save the Children in 2004 (mentioned above) used a very low income threshold (40% of median household income) in combination with an indicator of the child’s living standards to measure severe child poverty. This ‘material deprivation’ indicator was based on survey information about the resources and services available to the children and parents living in the household.

The extent of the problem - UK and NI

A study in 2007 estimated that 1.3 million children in the UK were living in severe poverty[7] Table 1 below identifies rates across the UK regions revealing very high levels in London and Wales, and a relatively high rate of 9.7% (or 44,000)[8] in Northern Ireland. A study from 2004[9] put the figure at 8% or 32,000 children.

Table 1 Regional variations of severe child poverty in the UK

image002.gif

Tackling severe child poverty - immediate and longer term actions

Most people would agree that tackling severe child poverty is not an easy task. Research has established that although ‘general measures’ focussed on children in families have helped to reduce child poverty in the past, it is supposed these children were probably closest to the poverty line and therefore the ones who were easiest to help.[10] A research report published in 2005 which looked at long term trends in child poverty[11] noted there was:

..evidence of an overall decline in child poverty in the UK after 1997. While the decline in non-severe poverty is notable, there is no evidence of a decline in severe poverty. The lack of evidence of a decline in the proportion of children in severe poverty suggests that children from the poorest families remain a legitimate concern, since the current policies seem to have made little impact on their poverty situation

There are, however, a range of recommendations for the reduction of severe child poverty for policy makers which have stemmed from a number key research studies in NI and the UK on behalf of child poverty groups. For instance, Save the Children identify a number of immediate actions which they believe could be taken, for example:

1. Running a benefit uptake campaign.

It is known that a large number of people who are in need of benefit find it too difficult to claim. Poverty campaigners would wish to see more research being carried out around the issue of benefit levels and uptake. Methods to reduce the complexity of claiming benefits should be sought. All barriers to benefit uptake need to be identified and attempts made to find more creative ways of reaching people.

2. Provide help for those on low incomes:
Longer term actions for tackling child poverty and severe child poverty

Save the Children, along with other children’s groups in Ireland and the UK identify a number of general actions to address child poverty, actions which they believe will help to alleviate the problem (including severe child poverty) over the longer term: for instance:

Research Paper

Childcare Provision in the UK and Republic of Ireland

Dr Janice Thompson

6 March 2008

This Research Paper outlines current and previous childcare strategies, policies and funding for Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. It outlines the results of some recent research in the childcare field and the opinions of organisations in the childcare sector. It discusses barriers to childcare both from the perspective of providers and parents.

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Summary of key points

Childcare is a crucial part of any child poverty strategy and yet it is proposed that childcare in Northern Ireland remains “woefully inadequate” and women cite the lack of affordable quality childcare as the main barrier to seeking employment[1].

Parents in the UK continue to pay around 75% of the cost of childcare, a higher proportion than in most OECD countries[2].

Section 2 focuses on Northern Ireland and notes that a new Early Years Strategy for 0-6 year olds, covering education, care and development, is in the planning stage with the Department of Education expecting to publish in July or August 2008.

Childcare in Northern Ireland is therefore currently under the direction of the previous Childcare Strategy Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999)[3] and its key principles of social inclusion, quality, affordability, accessibility, flexibility, information and partnership. Sure Start was implemented as a result of Children First to promote physical, intellectual and social development of pre-school children with its projects locally managed by the four Childcare Partnerships. A 2005 review[4] of the strategy noted the importance of developing and implementing a new revised childcare strategy, moving to mainstream funding for childcare and strengthening accountability for delivery.

Section 3 focuses on childcare in England. Choice for Parents (2004) is the most recent main UK Government childcare strategy. It outlines the improvements that have been made including investment in the previous National Childcare Strategy (1998), and in Sure Start, leading to the number of childcare places having “increased dramatically by 525,000” and an “entitlement to 12.5 hours a week of free early education for all three to four year olds”[5]. The Strategy covers both reserved issues (such as tax credits and maternity leave) and devolved issues (such as quality of childcare places) and responsibility for its delivery in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is therefore shared between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. It is supported by the Childcare Act 2006 which takes forward some of the key commitments from the Strategy, including duties on local authorities in England and Wales to assess the local childcare market and secure sufficient childcare for working parents.

Section 4 focuses on Scotland. A new early years strategy covering childcare will be published during 2008[6], so as with Northern Ireland, childcare is therefore currently under the direction of the previous childcare strategy, Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland (May 1998)[7]. It focused on raising the quality of care, making childcare more affordable and available, and making childcare more accessible by increasing places and improving information. To implement the Strategy, a Childcare Partnership was set up in the 32 local authority areas in Scotland.

The Scottish Executive commissioned research to provide an assessment of issues relating to parents’ perceptions of access to and demand for childcare. Some of the pertinent findings were that ‘trust’ was the most important factor in any childcare decision and often a family member was seen as the ideal childcare provider for almost a third of respondents with out of school clubs, childminders and nursery/crèche the preferred formal options[8].

Section 5 focuses on Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government’s Childcare Action Plan published in 2002 put the perspective that children should be at the heart of childcare policy in Wales. The 2005 Childcare Strategy for Wales – Childcare is for Children is the Assembly Government’s response to that report[9]. The Delivery of the Strategy is through existing Children and Young People’s Framework Partnerships and it supports three inter-related objectives[10]:

Section 6 notes the current Republic of Ireland’s National Childcare Investment Programme (NCIP) as a key element of the National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010 being implemented by the Office of the Minister for Children (2006). NCIP includes €575 million over five years to increasing the supply by 50,000 additional childcare places, over and above the 36,868 places already created by mid 2007, with a greater focus on pre-school places for 3 and 4 year olds[11]. The National Childcare Strategy includes an Early Childcare Supplement which came into effect in April 2006 and is paid in four quarterly installments of €250 per quarter[12].

Sections 7 and 8 deal with the barriers to childcare which fall into two main categories. Firstly, the barriers childcare providers face when establishing or running childcare provision and these differ between childminders, voluntary playgroups and the larger businesses of private daycare providers, however some common themes were the economics of provision due to parents’ belief that childcare should be cheap; set-up costs; accessing training and qualifications; and the time taken to fill vacancies. Secondly, the barriers faced by parents in accessing childcare are discussed and include cost of childcare and accessibility in rural areas.

The discussion, Section 9, notes the fact that current childcare policy and strategies pay little attention to the issue of informal care or addressing the needs of parents who chose to stay at home with pre-school children. There is some discussion of alternative viewpoints to the current accepted approach to early years interventions and policies and the fact that further research is needed in the impact of childcare and early years education on the outcomes for children. It is noted that the complexity of decisions surrounding childcare should not be underestimated and that childcare choices result from complex moral and emotional processes in assessing both children’s needs and the mother’s own[13].

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Childcare in Northern Ireland

Current Childcare Policy and Relevant Funding in Northern Ireland

3. Childcare in England

Childcare Policy – Historical Context

Current Childcare Policy and Relevant Funding in England

4. Childcare in Scotland

Current Childcare Policy and Relevant Funding in Scotland

5. Childcare in Wales

The Childcare Strategy for Wales

6. Childcare in the Republic of Ireland

Childcare Policy – Historical Context

National Childcare Investment Strategy and National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010

7. Barriers to Providing Childcare

Barriers for Childminders
Barriers for Private and Voluntary Providers

8. Barriers to Accessing Childcare

Cost
Rural Areas

9. Discussion

10. Appendix 1 – Childcare Statistics for Northern Ireland

11. Appendix 2 – Childcare Statistics for England

12. Appendix 3 – Childcare Statistics for Scotland

13. Appendix 4 – Childcare Statistics for Wales

Introduction

Childcare is a crucial part of any child poverty strategy. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states in Article 18 “parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible[14].

Childcare and early years services play an important role in tackling poverty, enhancing attainment and promoting well-being among children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government’s anti-poverty strategy has focused on improving opportunities for parents to take and remain in work, providing assistance with moving ‘from welfare to work’, ensuring that paid work provides higher income than not working (‘making work pay’) and on providing security for those who cannot work. The success of the Government’s flagship policies, such as the New Deal, a scheme aimed at offering subsidised work or education to the long-term unemployed or young people, is dependent on the availability of childcare to allow parents to take paid work. The Government has adopted an approach to childcare specifically targeted at the 20 per cent most disadvantaged wards in England to increase the supply of childcare provision[15].

It is proposed that childcare provision in Northern Ireland remains “woefully inadequate” and a survey undertaken for the Equality Commission NI, in 2003, found that nearly a quarter of employed mothers were constrained in the hours they worked by childcare problems, a further 20% were constrained in their choice of job and 67% of women surveyed cited the lack of affordable quality childcare as the main barrier to seeking employment[16].

Parents in the UK pay around 75 per cent of the cost of childcare, a higher proportion of childcare costs than in most OECD countries. Even working families on the lowest incomes who get help with the cost of childcare through the childcare tax credit still have to find at least 30 per cent of the cost of childcare. Countries with good quality universal provision such as Sweden and Denmark have set a maximum level for parental contributions. In Sweden, for example, over 80 per cent of the costs of childcare are met by the state in the form of supply subsidy and a maximum fee for parents has been set at £95 a month for the first child and less for subsequent children. In Denmark, the Government pays 70 per cent of childcare fees and families 30 per cent, but many low income families receive significant additional relief. Overall, parents pay approximately 19 per cent of costs[17].

Aside from cost other issues for parents in Northern Ireland include, particular childcare problems for those facing multiple disadvantages such as “low income, working part-time or outside the 9 to 5 pattern”[18] and families with one or more disabled members are more likely to be living in poverty. It is proposed that there is a “mismatch between the needs of children with disabilities and their parents and the services that are currently available to them”, specifically, “the lack of childcare services that exist in Northern Ireland is most acute for children with disabilities”[19].

Childcare in Northern Ireland

Current Childcare Policy and Relevant Funding in Northern Ireland

NB: An Early Years Strategy for Northern Ireland is currently in the planning stage with the Department of Education expecting to publish its Early Years Strategy for 0-6 year olds in July or August 2008. It is proposed that the Strategy will include the areas of education, care and development.

Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (1999)

Childcare is therefore currently under the direction of the previous Childcare Strategy Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999)[20], which targeted the age range 0-14. The Strategy was in response to three main childcare challenges in Northern Ireland[21]:

Quality of childcare was variable;

The cost of childcare was too high for many parents; and

In some areas there were not enough childcare places and access to them was hampered by poor information.

Four Area Early Years Committees (Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western) formed the basis of four new Childcare Partnerships, currently in operation, to implement the Strategy at a local level. Each was required to draw up a Childcare Plan setting out how needs in its area would be met[22]. The Principles of Children First were as follows[23]:

Social Inclusion - to promote social inclusion;

Quality - to promote quality in both provision of childcare and the quality of suitably trained childcare workers;

Affordability - to provide a range of affordable childcare, “more choice for all families, especially those on a modest income”;

Accessibility - access to childcare in every community with a “substantial increase in the number of childcare places available in different settings”;

Flexibility - the promotion of ‘family friendly’ policies among employers in Northern Ireland;

Information - access for parents to accurate information on childcare and advice on financial support; and

Partnership – a range of professions and agencies working in partnership with parents and employers.

Chapters three to seven of the Strategy outlined the specific actions under each of the Principles outlined above and some of the main actions were as follows:

Sure Start in Northern Ireland

Sure Start was implemented in Northern Ireland as a result of Children First as described above to promote physical, intellectual and social development of pre-school children. The projects are locally managed by the four Childcare Partnerships also established by Children First. According to the Sure Start website, there are now 25 Sure Start programmes across Northern Ireland and there is a “good urban/rural mix”. £9.3m was invested in 2006/07 and now means that 22,000 children aged under the age of 4 and their families have access to the services provided. Although the services are designed specifically to meet local needs there are core elements as described on the website as follows[29]:

DHSSPS Review of Children First

In 2003, the Interdepartmental Group on Early Years (IDGEY) and the Children First Advisory Group made the decision to review Children First. The DHSSPS published the Review of Children First[30] in 2005 to ascertain the progress made in the childcare sector since its publication in 1999 and to take account of developments within childcare policy in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland and how they might contribute to improved childcare services in Northern Ireland. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the DHSSPS Review outline the achievements made in the main areas of accessibility and affordability of childcare:

Accessibility

The report noted the difficulty in quantifying the precise improvement in accessing childcare due to “the lack of any baseline information”, however between 31 March 1999 and 2004 the total number of childcare places increased by 5.7% to 42,367 (split between childminders, playgroups and day nurseries); there are now 25 Sure Start projects in Northern Ireland with more than 20,000 children under the age of 4 and their families having access to Sure Start services; the number of free pre-school education places has increased “beyond targeted levels” and by the 2003/04 academic year places were available for “95% of children in their immediate pre-school year”; and considerable developments in out-of-school provision meant that 14,494 new out-of-school childcare places were created by 2004. In addition the Review describes an “increased focus…on providing childcare for children with special needs and increased resources have been directed to this area”[31].

Affordability

The DHSSPS Review noted “a number of initiatives have been driven by Children First which has improved the affordability of childcare in Northern Ireland”. These include[32]:

The Review noted that Children First was “launched at a time when external funding sources were available. Now Sustainability issues have arisen with the ending of short-term European monies”[34]. It proposed potential models for the delivery of childcare in Northern Ireland. The models “seek to achieve a phased movement from a silo based status quo to an optimum delivery model which is fully aligned with any future childcare strategy and future public administration structures”[35]. The phased delivery approach assumes a change to a strategy supported by mainstream funding rather than short-term funding. The Review proposed six recommendations to achieve the phased movement to an optimum delivery model. These are listed below as summarised from Section 5 of the publication[36]:

Recommendation 1 – Reshape the childcare vision for Northern Ireland

This includes developing and implementing a new childcare strategy for Northern Ireland

(As stated above an Early Years Strategy for Northern Ireland is currently in the planning stage with expected publication in July or August 2008). Subsequent inter-departmental and sub-regional action plans would be developed from the new childcare strategy. The core themes at inter-departmental level should be incorporated into the new childcare strategy including care, health, education, training, workforce development, neighbourhood renewal, anti-poverty and voluntary sector cooperation.

Recommendation 2 – Allocate mainstream funding to the childcare strategy

Mainstream funding should be allocated to the childcare strategy from block funding before monies are distributed amongst departments and the level of funding should be based on ‘good practice’ of at least 1% of Northern Ireland’s GDP.

Recommendation 3 – Strengthen accountability for childcare action

The childcare strategy should be more visible across government departments by ensuring childcare is embedded in Priorities for Action. Departments should be accountable for its implementation by assigning clear roles and responsibilities. The inter-departmental body should produce an action plan and be accountable to the lead department’s minister. There should be formal accountability from ministerial to local level.

Recommendation 4 – Create robust leadership structures for childcare

One department and one minister should have lead responsibility for the childcare strategy with a junior minister for children within the lead department’s structures. The current IDGEY model should include the Department for Social Development.

Recommendation 5 – Implement childcare from an integrated platform

Regional focus should be provided on critical functional areas such as training, and information through time limited sub-groups. Care and education should be integrated at sub-regional level by four subregional Children’s Fora.

Recommendation 6 – Strengthen local capacity to action childcare priorities

Local level capacity to implement the childcare strategy should be strengthened with local connections through sub-regional and regional coordinating staff. Coordination of action at the local level should be more formal with the creation of a Local Children’s Forum.

Ten Year Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland 2006-2016 (OFMDFM)[37]

Although the main Strategy document does not deal specifically with the issue of childcare, the related Children and Young Peoples Action Plan 2007-08 contains some pertinent action points:

Outcome Area 3: Enjoying, Learning and Achieving, paragraph 3.19 – provision of one year of high quality funded pre-school education in the year before compulsory education for every child whose parents wish it. This is ongoing and since the 2006/07 school year there have been sufficient places for every child in Northern Ireland whose parents applied;

Outcome Area 6: Living in a Society Which Respects their Rights, paragraph 6.39 - 6.40. Implementation of a play policy for Northern Ireland, an action plan for 0-11 year olds is to be developed by June 2008; paragraph 6.40 – Expansion of Sure Start provision in Northern Ireland, including expansion of the geographical boundaries of 19 existing Sure Start projects (by April 07), improve daycare provision within existing projects (by April 07), create 7 new projects (by April 08), and design and implement children’s centres model in Northern Ireland (by April 08).

The Children and Young People Funding Package
(NI Budget and Priorities 2006-08)

The Children and Young People (C&YP) funding package (2006-08) targeted more than £61m over 2006-2008 to “addressing directly the most pressing needs of children and young people”[38]. In the area of childcare the package was to provide[39]:

All of the above provision was planned to be made through or linked to the extended schools wherever possible.

Northern Ireland Programme for Government and Budget 2008-2011

Within the Public Service Agreements (PSA) of the Programme for Government, there appear to be no specific references to the childcare sector, however, PSA 3 and 6 have the potential to impact on childcare[40]:

With regard to the PSA Framework, the Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NICMA) noted, in their response to the NI Executive Draft Programme for Government and Draft Budget 2008-2011, their dismay “at the lack of any mention of childcare in the Draft Programme for Government and the accompanying Public Service Agreement Framework” and were further disappointed to note that there was no commitment to produce the Early Years Strategy by a given date within the next three years. NICMA did welcome the commitment given by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to address rural childcare issues as described in the final budget as “rural development antipoverty measures aimed at capacity building in rural areas and targeted specifically at children, childcare and communities”[41].

With reference to the consultation on the Draft Budget 2008-2011[42],

“the perceived lack of provision of high quality, affordable, age appropriate and assessable child care places in Northern Ireland was the main issue raised regarding services for Children. This was highlighted as also having a negative impact on the economy as women, particularly single mothers, were less able to return to work in the absence of accessible childcare. It was proposed that the Executive should consider introducing a Transformation Fund similar to that which operates in England and Wales….A further issue was the perception that the removal of a specific ring-fenced Children and Young People’s Funding Package would have a detrimental impact on the services provided for Children and Young People…Respondents felt that the draft Budget proposals did not adequately address the needs of Children and Young People, particularly those who are most disadvantaged”.

In recognition of the concerns expressed, additional funding made to the Department of Education in the final Budget was to help in addressing those issues.

Childcare in England

Childcare Policy – Historical Context
National Childcare Strategy (1998)

The most recent inter-departmental government childcare strategy for England was published in 2004, Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy for childcare (Dec 2004)[43]. However, prior to this Strategy there was a previous National Childcare Strategy entitled Meeting the Childcare Challenge (1998).

The Strategy recognised that children are often cared for by both formal childcare settings and informal care with parents and relatives in the home and that a Childcare Strategy was important as “For too long the UK has lagged behind in developing quality, affordable and accessible childcare”[44].

The overall aim of the 1998 Strategy was to “ensure good quality, affordable childcare for children aged 0-14 in every neighbourhood, including both formal childcare and support for informal arrangements” and it focused on addressing three key problems[45]:

The Strategy was implemented through 150 Local Authorities and their Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships[46]

National Audit Office Report (2004)

In 2004 the National Audit Office (NAO) published its report into what progress the Department of Education and Skills had made in improving the accessibility, affordability and quality of early years provision[47], since the 1998 Childcare Strategy.

The Department had achieved the 1998 target of providing a free part-time pre-school place to all four-year-olds whose parents wished it and it aimed to provide similar places for three-year-olds by 2004. By spring 2003, it had created enough places nationally to achieve this, although there were gaps in some localities[48].

From the launch of the measures announced in the National Childcare Strategy to spring 2003, 626,000 new childcare places for all ages were created in England. However, as a substantial number of places have closed, the NAO estimated that there will have been a net increase of 520,000 places by 2004 and most new places have been in out of school and holiday provision, mainly funded by the New Opportunities Fund. 96,000 places are for pre-school children[49].

The NAO reported that gaps in provision remained as follows[50]:

Affordability has improved for some parents but costs have risen for others and the NAO report that the affordability of provision affects whether parents use it.

“childcare costs more for under-twos, reflecting the availability of free early education provision for older children and higher per capita costs for this age group, and there is survey evidence that costs vary widely around the country. For instance, a full-time nursery place for under-twos varied from £168 a week per place in London to £107 in the West Midlands in January 2004”.

However the NAO reported that very few parents of children who did not use early years provision said this was because it was too expensive. Instead, “the most common reasons were that the child was too young or that they preferred to look after them at home”[51].

The NAO reported that the Department has put in place a detailed framework of measures to improve the quality of childcare provision,

“National standards, which address issues of physical safety, child protection and provision for special needs as well as care and learning, have been set for childcare provision, and group sizes are established in law. The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspects childcare providers against these standards every year…The Department has worked with local partners on a national recruitment campaign for staff, and developed new training routes, including an early years Foundation Degree. They have developed the Birth to Three Matters framework and the Foundation Stage curriculum, setting early learning goals for children below compulsory school age. There has been less progress in introducing quality assurance mechanisms for providers themselves. Fewer than 40 per cent of providers are accredited to one of the 67 quality assurance schemes currently in operation in the sector. To rationalise the situation the Department has developed an umbrella scheme, Investors in Children, which has now endorsed 24 schemes”.

The NAO noted that further improvements to accessibility and quality will depend on a faster expansion of the childcare workforce and stated that the Department faced a challenge in increasing the size and skills of the workforce in line with its targets for creating additional places.

House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts Report 2003-2004

On the basis of the above report from the NAO, the Committee of Public Accounts took evidence from the Department of Education and Skills and the interdepartmental Sure Start Unit on the progress made in increasing the supply of early years provision, improving choice for parents and delivering improvements in the standard of care. The Committee published its own report Early Years: progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all[52].

The Committee concluded that there “has been good progress in increasing the supply of early education, but the Department needs to tackle the risks to the viability of provision and the regional gaps in supply”. The Committee proposed a list of key priorities for the Government and these included[53]:

Current Childcare Policy and Relevant Funding in England
Choice for Parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy for childcare (Dec. 2004)[54]

Choice for Parents (2004) is the most recent Government childcare strategy. It outlines the improvements that have been made in the area of childcare since 1998, including substantial investment in the previous National Childcare Strategy (described above), and in Sure Start, leading to the number of childcare places having “increased dramatically by 525,000” and an “entitlement to 12.5 hours a week of free early education for all three to four year olds”[55],[56].

The Government wish the Strategy to be implemented throughout the UK and it covers both reserved issues (such as tax credits and maternity leave) and devolved issues (such as quality of childcare places). Responsibility for the delivery of the strategy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is therefore shared between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. Despite the progress the Strategy notes that challenges remain including[57]:

The three central principles of the Strategy are[58]:

1. “The importance of ensuring every child has the best possible start in life”;

2. “The need to respond to changing patterns of employment and ensure that parents, particularly mothers, can work and progress their careers”; and

3. “The legitimate expectations of families that they should be in control of the choices they make in balancing work and family life”.

The main objectives of the Strategy cover the areas of choice, availability, quality and affordability as follows, extracted directly from the document[59]:

Choice and flexibility: parents to have greater choice about balancing work and family life:

Availability: for all families with children aged up to 14 who need it, an affordable, flexible, high quality childcare place that meets their circumstances:

Quality: high quality provision with a highly skilled childcare and early years workforce:

Affordability: families to be able to afford flexible, high quality, childcare that is appropriate for their needs:

Childcare Act 2006

The Childcare Act 2006 is described by the Government as “a pioneering piece of legislation. It is the first ever act to be exclusively concerned with early years and childcare”[62]. The Act takes forward some of the key commitments from the Ten Year Childcare Strategy described above. It has four parts:

The main provisions, directly extracted from the Every Child Matters website (see footnote 8) are as follows:

Sections 1-5 require local authorities and their NHS and Jobcentre Plus partners to work together to improve the outcomes of all children up to 5 and reduce inequalities between them, by ensuring early childhood services are integrated to maximise access and benefits to families - underpinning a Sure Start Children’s Centre for every community

Sections 6, 8-11 & 13 require local authorities to assess the local childcare market and to secure sufficient childcare for working parents. Childcare will only be deemed sufficient if meets the needs of the community in general and in particular those families on lower incomes and those with disabled children. Local authorities will not be expected to provide childcare direct but will be expected to work with local private, voluntary and independent sector providers to meet local need.

Section 7 re-enacts the duty for local authorities to secure a free minimum amount of early learning and care for all 3 and 4 year olds whose parents want it.

Section 12 extends the existing duty to provide information to parents, to ensure parents and prospective parents can access the full range of information they may need for their children right through to their 20th birthday.

Sections 39-48 introduce the Early Years Foundation Stage, which will build on and bring together the existing Birth to Three Matters, Foundation Stage and national standards for day care and childminding. This new framework will support providers in delivering quality integrated early education and care for children from birth to age 5.

Sections 31-38 & 49-98 reform and simplify the framework for the regulation of childcare and early education to reduce bureaucracy and focus on raising quality and standards. All providers caring for children up to age 5 will be required to register on the Early Years register and deliver the Early Years Foundation Stage (unless exceptionally exempted). Childcare settings providing for school age children will be judged against a streamlined set of Ofsted Childcare Register standards. These criteria will be compulsory for all settings caring for children under 8. Other providers may join the register on a voluntary basis.

Sections 99-101 allow for the collection of information about young children to inform funding and support the local authority duties under the act.

Progress of the Childcare Strategy

In 2007 the Daycare Trust (a national childcare charity), published Childcare Nation? Progress on the childcare strategy and priorities for the future. The report posed a series of questions and described whether or not the Childcare Strategy for England had succeeded in each of the areas as follows:

The Daycare Trust propose that it is difficult to “disentangle the complex interplay of factors that shape parents’ childcare decisions” and believe that a “more sophisticated research model should be developed to disentangle the effects of parental attitudes towards childcare services from barriers that might restrict childcare choices”[67].

The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (Dec. 2007)[68]

The Department of Children, Schools and Families was created by the Government in the summer of 2007 and it subsequently published the first Children’s Plan (ten year plan) for the UK “to put the needs of families, children and young people at the centre of everything we do”[69]. The overall aim of the Plan is “to make England the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up”[70]. The Plan deals with certain aspects of childcare and notes that the number of registered childcare places has more than doubled since 1997 so that “there is now a registered childcare for 1 in every 4 children under 8”[71].

Chapter 3 of the Plan deals with excellence and equity and notes that “having raised the entitlement to free early education and childcare for 3- and 4- years olds from 12.5 hours to 15 hours a week, we will now invest £100 million over three years to extend the offer of up to 15 hours of free early education and childcare to 20,000 2-year olds in the most disadvantaged communities”[72].

Chapter 4 of the Plan deals with leadership and collaboration and with regard to early years and childcare will invest £117 million over three years in the early years workforce, including[73]:

Childcare in Scotland

Current Childcare Policy and Relevant Funding in Scotland

NB: In June 2007 the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning launched a

“process to develop a long-term early years strategy covering childcare, development and education that will be published in the summer or autumn of 2008. The strategy will reflect the Government’s view that by building self-confidence, social skills and an awareness of one’s impact on others, our investment in the early years will create the foundations for good health and positive economic and civic engagement later in life”[74].

The Cabinet Minister noted early commitments to progress in this area in the meantime, including from autumn 2007, “the (free pre-school education) entitlement for all three and four-year olds will be increased to 475 hours a year” [75],[76].

Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland

As with Northern Ireland, childcare is therefore currently under the direction of the previous childcare strategy, Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland (May 1998)[77]. The overall aim of this 1998 Strategy mirrored that of the 1998 English Strategy and was to “ensure good quality, affordable childcare for children aged 0-14 in every neighbourhood, including both formal childcare and support for informal arrangements”. The following information, directly extracted from the Executive Summary describes how the aim was to be achieved[78]:

To implement the Strategy, a Childcare Partnership was set up in the 32 local authority areas in Scotland, with a Childcare Partnership Development Officer appointed in each. The Partnerships included representation from the Local Authority (including education and social work interests), the Local Enterprise Company, local employers, private education sector and childcare providers, out of school forums, voluntary sector providers of early years education and care, further education colleges, NHS, registered childminders, employment service/New Deal Partnerships, and parents (including working parents[79].

Consultation on the Strategy at the time proposed certain concerns including[80]:

Recent Scottish Government Research in the Area of Childcare
National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce Consultation

A Scottish Executive Education & Skills Directorate consultation, “National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce” took place between 10 August 2006 and 22 December 2006. As part of this consultation, a written consultation document was issued aimed specifically at individual childcare workers and childminders in Scotland. Some of the pertinent findings were[81]:

Parents’ Access to and Demand for Childcare Survey 2006

The Scottish Executive Education Department, Children and Young People and Social Care Group commissioned research to provide an assessment of issues relating to parents’ perceptions of access to, and demand for, childcare. Although focused on Scotland, the findings, in many cases, are of general interest to the consideration of childcare policy. Some of the pertinent key findings are as follows (directly extracted from the Executive Summary)[82]:

Usage and Non-Usage of Childcare
Reasons for Use of Childcare and Motivating Factors
Childcare Preferences
Parents’ Opinions and Knowledge of Information Sources and Changes in Childcare Arrangements
Gaps in Provision and Constraints
Costs of Childcare

Childcare in Wales

The Childcare Strategy for Wales –
Childcare is for Children (2005)

The Welsh Assembly Government’s Childcare Action Plan published in 2002 set out the perspective that children should be at the heart of childcare policy in Wales. In 2004 the Assembly Government formed a new Childcare Working Group to build on the implementation of the Childcare Action Plan and the Group provided 77 recommendations. The Childcare Strategy for Wales – Childcare is for Children is the Assembly Government’s response to that report[83].

The Delivery of the Strategy is through existing Children and Young People’s Framework Partnerships. The Strategy supports three inter-related objectives[84]:

The Strategy notes that although the overall number of registered childcare places has increased by nearly 18,000 between March 1999 and March 2005 and the Assembly Government delivered on its commitment to a free half time term time education place for all three year olds, there are still many challenges, for example[85]:

The Welsh Assembly Government believes that its Strategy places children at the centre of childcare planning and supports the aims of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child in that good quality childcare supports[86]:

The following pertinent action points are taken from Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Strategy and address the areas of regulation, quality, affordability and the childcare workforce:

Genesis Wales

The Strategy describes Genesis Wales as the “unique strategic programme for childcare”, building on a pilot programme of outreach, measures to increase self esteem and available childcare to introduce women to work and training opportunities. Having won £10.1 million of ESF under Objective 1 and £2.5 million under Objective 3 over three years, the national targets it is planned to deliver on are[88]:

To assist 13,000 people;

To increase childcare places by 8,500;

50% of beneficiaries with children under 5 years in work at least 6 months after ESF support; and

40% of beneficiaries achieving a qualification.

Men in Childcare Network

The network is a partnership between Children in Wales, the Department of Childhood Studies at Swansea University and Trinity College Carmarthen to encourage more men into the workforce working with children and young people. The first meeting was in May 2007 and the remit agreed was as follows[89]:

Childcare in the Republic of Ireland

Childcare Policy – Historical Context
Equal Opportunities Childcare Programmes - EOCP I and EOCP II

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s there was an increasing awareness of the potential of the female labour force as an impetus for further economic growth and a corresponding awareness of the need for childcare services. In 1997 an Expert Working Group on Childcare was established, in the context of the Partnership 2000 national agreement, to develop a national childcare strategy. Their 1999 recommendations have informed much of the public policy response to childcare since[90].

The provision in 1998 of £11 million of EU coupled with Exchequer match funding (€14 million) “marked the first significant steps towards the provision of Government incentives to develop childcare services to address the needs of parents in employment, education and training”[91]. The first Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme (1998-1999) (EOCP I) focused on a number of small initiatives in areas of disadvantage. An element of EOCP I was a census of childcare providers to provide baseline childcare information and the results of this census formed the baseline for EOCP II, the 2000-2006 Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme[92].

The main objectives of EOCP II (2000-2006) were to[93]:

The Expert Working Group on Childcare recommended the establishment of a county based structure for childcare and subsequently City/County Childcare Committees have been established in 33 counties and cities to develop a coordinated strategy for childcare provision in their area. Financial support for the Committees was made available from EOCP II[94]. The €500 million EOCP II was funded by the Government and part-financed by the EU Structural Funds under the National Development Plan 2000-2006. It operated under three sub-measures to meet its aims and provide grant assistance in the form of[95]:

Capital funding for both community/not-for-profit groups and private providers;

Until recently EOCP II operated under the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but is now the responsibility of the Office of the Minister for Children and it will “run in parallel with the new National Childcare Investment Programme 2006-2010 until all its commitments have been honoured”. The Programme has exceeded its original targets to create 31,800 childcare places[96].

National Childcare Investment Strategy and National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010

National Childcare Investment Strategy 2006-2010 (NCIP)

The NCIP is a key element of the National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010 being implemented by the Office of the Minister for Children. It became effective from 1 January 2006 and succeeds the EOCP II, however, unlike EOCP II it is entirely Exchequer funded. The objectives and main elements of NCIP are as follows[97]:

The maximum Capital Grants available through NCIP are[98]:

The current funding stream will also assist with Staffing and other operating costs in community facilities that cannot meet the costs from fees alone and will also provide for the further development of the CCCs. In addition the National Childminding Initiative, administered locally by the CCCs, provides a capital grant of €630 under the Childminder Development Grant Scheme to purchase safety equipment, toys, make minor adjustments to the childminder’s home or to establish a childminding service[99].

National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010

The key objective is to “further develop the childcare infrastructure to meet the needs of children and their parents for quality early childhood care”[100].

The pertinent issues in the Strategy for Providers are as described above under the NCIP i.e. additional places, capital grants and training places. There are also new entitlements for parents under the Strategy as follows[101]:

Barriers to Providing Childcare

Barriers for Childminders

According to the findings of a study commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) published in October 2000[102] some of the main barriers for childminders in establishing and running a quality provision are:

The Northern Ireland Childminding Association (NICMA) state that registered childminding In Northern Ireland accounts for 63% of full-time daycare places and 37% of all childcare places. They propose that in many rural areas it is the only form of childcare provision[103]. NICMA note that adding to a “significant shortfall in childcare places in Northern Ireland….in the three years to March 2006, there was a 19% fall in the supply of places with registered childminders”[104].

In order to overcome the barriers individual childminders face in establishing and maintaining a quality service NICMA have proposed a Childminder Start-Up Package to provide a “cost-effective means for the Executive to begin tackling the shortfall in childcare”. The package would include a £400 Start-Up Grant for prospective childminders, combined with one-to-one mentoring for all those seeking to enter the profession, or just beginning to establish their businesses. NICMA estimate this would require an annual investment of £300K. The childminding support initiatives available elsewhere are[105]:

Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI)[106] also support a Childminder Start-Up Package and the establishment of mandatory pre-registration training for prospective childminders and thereby “addressing the registration issues that are hindering the development of childminding”.

In England, Ofsted intend to impose a rise in registration fees for both childminders, nurseries and other daycare providers from September 2008. The fee for childminders is planned to increase from £15 to £103 per annum[107]. Those caring for children aged 5 to 7 will face the increase in September and those caring for younger children will not pay the increase until 2010. Children’s charities and industry leaders believe that childminders may face “being driven out of business” by the increase. The rationale for the fee increases is that the Government wishes Ofsted to “start making money to cover some of its costs”[108].

Barriers for Private and Voluntary Providers

According to the findings of a study commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) published in October 2000[109], the main obstacles such child care providers face in setting up childcare provision are:

The main obstacles faced by providers in running the daycare provision are:

The main obstacles faced by providers in providing high quality childcare are:

It should be noted that there was “considerable consensus amongst providers of childcare about which policies would be most effective in increasing the level of provision. All providers in the survey….believed that the most effective way of increasing the number of providers was to give parents financial support to help meet childcare costs”[112]. Other issues identified to increase provision were[113]:

Barriers to Accessing Childcare

Cost

A Welsh Study of Parents’ Use, Views and Experiences of Childcare and Early Years[114] noted

“Currently, formal childcare and early years provision is affordable (though by no means easily affordable) to some, but less affordable – and sometimes a barrier to its use – by others. Lower income families found it harder, on average, to pay for their childcare and early years provision (in the local area), than those in the highest income group”.

The cost of childcare and early years provision is often seen as a barrier to employment, especially for mothers. How the cost should be shared between parents and the government is an issue of continuing debate and concern. Cost is, however, an area where there have been recent policy developments in the UK including the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit, and free part time nursery education places for three and four year olds. There does appear to be room for improvement in terms of increasing parents’ awareness of the financial help available[115].

According to the Daycare Trust Childcare Costs Survey 2008[116], the typical cost of a full-time nursery place for a child under two is:

In the same survey, the typical cost for a full-time place with a childminder for a child under two is:

With regard to Northern Ireland, research from the Derry Well Women Project, Childcare on the Borderline, revealed that the amount spent weekly on childcare in the North West ranged from £1.50 to £215, with the mean cost per household being £42.27 per week. Those who were in receipt of financial assistance for childcare cited a variety of sources including education and training providers, Social Services and ex-partners and “appears to highlight an inconsistency in accessing support for childcare costs”. The research noted that childcare is relatively more expensive for working lone parents than for two parent working families and for one parent families the lack of directly subsidised childcare provision “leaves parents with little choice in remaining on social welfare, thereby compounding the poverty trap”[117].

The Northern Childcare Partnership Report on Childcare Issues Affecting Families in Rural Areas (2007) noted that their survey revealed that the cost of formal childcare was seen as too high and as a result many rural families continue to rely on informal arrangements with relatives or friends and even with subsidy from Childcare tax credit component of the Working Families Tax Credit, some parents find it difficult to pay the rest of the cost as it often outweighs the financial gain of being in paid employment[118].

Rural Areas

The Northern Childcare Partnership (Northern Ireland) convened a task force in August 2006 to look at the experiences of families living in rural areas in relation to childcare. The following areas of concern emerged[119]:

The report made recommendations for improving rural access to childcare and early years services including[120]:

In June 2007 the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland set up a stakeholder (short-term advisory) group to look at the key issues relating to rural childcare provision. The aim of the group is to “identify the main factors in rural areas that affect access to childcare and consider ways to improve this”. The group will produce a report[121] detailing current difficulties in childcare provision in rural areas and make recommendations to improve provision[122].

Discussion

It seems evident from the main childcare and early years strategies described in this paper that there is little focus of addressing the issue of informal care (extended family and friends), despite the fact that it makes up a substantial proportion of childcare used. It is not merely an issue of cost but also of trust of the home environment and the care providers and the flexibility of arrangements which can be made[123].

Current strategies also pay little attention to those parents who chose to stay at home to look after, particularly pre-school, children. Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI) recommend support, in the form of home-based and group-based services for stay at home parents who chose to stay at home to look after pre-school children[124].

Indeed there is research that cautions against the current accepted approach to early years interventions, particularly those targeted at disadvantaged children. One such critique of Sure Start argues that the emphasis on parent education and home visits diverts attention from the inequalities of class and income and highlights ‘poor’ parenting and ‘un-stimulating’ homes as the root cause of compromised life prospects and that social ills can be solved “through suitably targeted interventions from early childhood professionals”[125].

The evaluation of three rural Mini Sure Start projects revealed that parents were often divided about whether they wanted more childcare services for their 0-3 year olds and when asked about preferred childcare options more than half the respondents said that friends and family would be their first choice and they were divided over whether they wanted to take up paid work at this stage of their children’s young lives. According to key workers, lone mothers were particularly reluctant to work when their children were very young as “it was middle-class professional women who wanted to work because the work available to them was more interesting and remunerative and made the juggling of time, transport, childcare and household management worthwhile financially”[126].

The Daycare Trust note that some issues require further research in the impact of childcare and early years education on outcomes for children. The Daycare Trust note that a “considerable body of evidence has shown the substantial benefits of early years education and care for children….as disadvantaged children already lag behind their middle class contemporaries in terms of cognitive development at the age of three, the provision of high quality early years education is clearly one very important way to counter this”[127]. However, the Trust proposes that further research is needed on the effects of spending a few long days, rather than many short days in childcare and also on the outcomes for children under two to establish further data on the hours of childcare that are most appropriate. For young children the Trust believe that secure attachment to their mother (or primary caregiver) is “particularly important and may reduce any negative impacts of childcare at an early age. Generous parental leave and pay policies are therefore very important to avoid the negative outcomes associated with non-parental care in the first months of a child’s life”[128].

Some academic commentators[129] go further and propose that current employment and social policies are lacking a proper consideration of gender and equality principles and are based upon a gender template which assumes women, especially mothers, should be natural carers. They propose that policies that seek to promote women’s entry to paid employment only do so by enhanced access to childcare and recreate the gender template by promoting low paid jobs for women as paid carers who are predominantly providing care services for other women.

In assessing the success or other wise of childcare and early years strategies the complexity of decisions regarding childcare should not be under estimated. Research has shown that mothers do not see childcare in terms their child’s cognitive development or their own employment but that they make childcare decisions according to their social grouping and often decide that close relatives provide the most secure environment for pre-school children. The research suggests that childcare choices result from complex moral and emotional processes in assessing both children’s needs and the mother’s own[130]. As stated earlier in the paper, the Daycare Trust propose that it is difficult to “disentangle the complex interplay of factors that shape parents’ childcare decisions” and believe that a “more sophisticated research model should be developed to disentangle the effects of parental attitudes towards childcare services from barriers that might restrict childcare choices”[131].

Appendix 1
Childcare Statistics for Northern Ireland

Source: Key Indicators of Personal Social Services for Northern Ireland 2006, DHSSPS

Table 1 Day Care Provision for Children Aged Under 5 at 31st March, by Type of Provision (2003-2005 – per 1000-population aged under 5 at 31st March)

 

Registered Childminders

Places in Day Nurseries

Places in Playgroups
  2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Board/Trust

Eastern

156.3

126.2

101.6

88.1

93.0

100.3

136.7

132.1

123.5

N&WBelfast

212.5

109.3

54.8

66.7

68.2

73.0

141.2

139.1

128.6

S&E Belfast

190.4

186.2

159.1

156.2

173.3

178.7

131.4

124.4

115.2

Ulster Comm. & Hosp.

111.4

105.8

83.8

68.5

68.6

86.6

155.8

149.6

144.0

Down Lisburn

112.7

100.0

99.7

57.6

57.5

60.6

124.2

120.9

112.0

Northern

115.6

120.8

126.1

68.9

72.8

86.9

126.2

118.9

116.4

Causeway

120.2

139.1

124.2

38.9

39.6

64.1

125.3

125.3

125.3

Homefirst

114.2

115.1

126.7

78.2

83.0

93.9

126.4

116.9

113.6

Southern

40.4

43.7

45.8

54.3

61.6

64.6

103.6

105.6

107.0

Armagh & Dungannon

47.2

55.8

63.1

33.7

35.1

42.6

126.9

126.1

123.9

Craigavon & Banbridge

65.7

66.9

66.3

78.8

98.5

92.0

84.1

88.5

90.3

Newry & Mourne

0.0

0.0

0.0

45.9

43.8

53.9

102.6

104.7

109.6

Western

54.5

56.2

56.2

39.7

46.4

45.9

134.8

131.9

129.4

Foyle

50.7

52.7

50.6

33.2

36.9

39.4

117.7

114.5

113.7

Sperrin Lakeland

60.4

61.5

64.6

49.4

60.8

55.8

160.8

158.3

153.3

NI

104.3

95.5

88.3

67.7

73.1

79.8

127.1

123.5

119.5

(Source: Table and information below extracted from Table 6.2 in Key Indicators of Personal Social Services for Northern Ireland 2006, DHSSPS)

At March 31st 2005, Playgroups were the main form of independent day care provision for children under 5, providing 13,770 places (119.5 places per 1000- population aged under 5); registered childminders provided 10,174 places (88.3 places per 1000 population aged under 5). Day nurseries provided the least number of places 9,197 for children under 5 (79.8 places per 1000-population aged under 5).

The number of independent care places provided by registered childminders for children aged under 5 varied significantly across Trusts, from 159.1 places per 1000-population aged under 5 in South and East Belfast to 0.0 places in Newry and Mourne.

Since 2003, the number of independent care places provided by registered childminders per 1000-population aged under 5 in N&W Belfast has fallen by 74%.

Day nurseries provided the least number of places (9,197) for children aged under 5, with 79.8 places per 1000-popualtiom aged under 5. Across Trusts this ranged from 178.7 places per 1000-popilation aged under 5 in S&E Belfast to 39.4 in Foyle.

Table 2 Day Care provision for Children Aged Under 12 at 31st March, by Type of Provision (2003-2005 – per 1000-population)

 

Places with registered childminders per 1000-population aged under 12 at 31st March

Places in out of school clubs per 1000-population aged 5-11 at 31st March

2003

2004

2005

2003

2004

2005

  

Board/Trust

            

Eastern

111.2

90.2

73.4

31.2

34.0

36.9

N&WBelfast

133.4

82.3

39.3

58.3

61.8

57.9

S&E Belfast

111.5

95.2

81.1

31.0

42.2

45.5

Ulster Comm. & Hosp.

118.1

109.6

97.7

16.5

13.8

14.7

Down Lisburn

87.5

78.6

77.5

18.0

17.5

27.0

Northern

77.8

85.5

85.6

16.3

21.0

31.3

Causeway

94.9

114.3

102.0

14.2

34.8

49.9

Homefirst

72.7

76.9

80.7

16.9

17.0

25.8

Southern

29.2

32.4

35.5

28.3

36.3

39.7

Armagh & Dungannon

34.2

41.6

47.6

32.2

43.8

51.3

Craigavon & Banbridge

42.6

44.6

46.4

32.8

43.8

51.3

Newry & Mourne

6.4

6.2

7.7

18.1

26.1

26.1

Western

35.2

36.6

36.4

32.8

37.1

36.0

Foyle

31.4

32.1

30.4

29.2

28.0

29.1

Sperrin Lakeland

40.9

43.4

45.5

38.1

50.6

46.3

NI

72.9

67.9

62.2

27.2

31.8

35.9

(Source: Table and information below extracted from Table 6.3 in Key Indicators of Personal Social Services for Northern Ireland 2006, DHSSPS)

Whilst some provision for children under 12 is made in day nurseries, the majority of day care places are provided by childminders and out of school clubs.

Registered childminders provided 18,065 places for children aged under 12 in NI at 31st March 2005, however across Trusts this ranged from 102.0 per 1000 of population under 12 in Causeway to 7.7 per 1000 in Newry and Mourne. Over the three years to 2005, childminding places per 1000-population aged under 12 fell from 72.9 to 62.2, across Trusts the largest decrease was from 133.4 (2003) to 39.3 (2005) in N&W Belfast.

Out of school clubs provided 6,288 places for children aged 5 -11 in NI at 31st March 2005. N&W Belfast had the highest number of such places (57.9 per 1000-population aged 5-11) and Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust had the lowest (14.7).

Funded Pre-School Education in Northern Ireland

Based on a Statistical Press Release from the Department of Education/NISRA (26 February 2008) there are currently 21,118 children in funded pre-school education:

In 2002/03 there were 21,076 children in funded pre-school education.

Appendix 2
Childcare Statistics for England

Figures and ‘Key’ Information Extracted from Ofsted, Quarterly Childcare Statistics as at 31 December 2007, Age Group 0-7. Published 25 January 2007

Table 3 Registered Childcare Places at 31 December 2007 – England
 

Total Places

Childminder Places

Full Day Care Places

Sessional Day Care Places

Out of School Day Care Places

Creche

Day Care Places

England

1,549,000

302,300

614,600

214,300

369,900

47,800

East of England

168,700

35,100

58,200

35,500

34,100

5,700

East Midlands

133,100

27,300

54,500

21,900

25,300

4,100

Inner London

86,500

12,300

37,600

5,800

26,600

4,200

Outer London

131,00

29,400

44,300

19,400

34,500

3,600

North East

68,400

15,900

27,300

5,500

15,100

4,600

North West England

225,200

36,600

93,000

21,800

67,200

12,615

South East England

282,900

58,100

106,700

47,100

64,300

6,700

West Midlands

164,800

28,100

71,700

17,300

43,600

4,100

Yorkshire and the Humber

135,100

30,300

58,500

14,500

27,900

3,900
Key:

Childminder – Registered to look after 1 or more children under the age of 8 to whom they are not related on domestic premised for reward and for a total of more that 2 hours in any day.

Full Day Care – Facilities that provide day care for children under 8 for a continuous period of 4 hours or more in any day in premises which are not domestic premises. Includes day nurseries, children’s centres and some family centres.

Sessional Day Care – Facilities that provide day care for children under 8 for a session which is less that a continuous period of 4 hours in any day in premises which are not domestic premises. Where two sessions are offered in any one day, individual children must not attend more than five sessions in one week.

Out of School Care – Facilities that provide day care for children under 8 which operate during one or more of the following periods: before school, after school or during the school holidays. The total care provided is for more than two hours in any 1 day and for more than 5 days a year. Includes Open Access Schemes.

Crèches – Facilities that provide occasional care for children under 8 and are provided on particular premises on more than 5 days a year. They must be registered where they run for more than 2 hours a day; even when individual children attend for shorter periods.

Table 4 Numbers of 3 and 4 year olds benefiting from some free early education and the part time equivalent number of free early education places filled by 3 and 4 year olds by type of provider[132]

Figures extracted from Tables 1 and 4 of Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England: January 2007, Department for Education and Skills, National Statistics, First Release, SFR 19/2007, 31 May 2007, Theme Education and Training[133].

Numbers of 3 and 4 year olds benefiting from some free early education

Providers

2003

2005

2007

All Providers

      

No. of children benefiting

1,100,900

1,103,400

1,126,100

Percentage of population1

94

98

98
       

Private and Voluntary

      

No. of children benefiting

365,100

396,700

420,700

Percentage of population

31

35

37
       

Independent Schools

      

No. of children benefiting

40,500

39,200

37,900

Percentage of population

3

3

3
       

Nursery Schools and Nursery Classes in Primary Schools

      

No. of children benefiting

331,300

312,300

318,900

Percentage of population

28

28

28
       

Infant Classes in Primary Schools

      

No. of children benefiting

359,500

351,500

344,900

Percentage of population

31

31

30

Special Schools

      

No. of children benefiting

4,400

3,700

3,700

Part time equivalent number of free early education places for three and four year olds

All Providers

      

Part time equivalent funded places filled

1,026,600

1,028,000

1,054,800

Part time equivalent funded places filled per 100 children in the population

88

92

92
       

Maintained Nursery and Primary Schools

      

Part time equivalent funded places filled

690,900

663,800

63,800

Part time equivalent funded places filled per 100 children in the population

59

59

58
       

Other Maintained Providers and Private, Voluntary and Independent Providers

      

Part time equivalent funded places filled

335,700

364,200

391,000

Part time equivalent funded places filled per 100 children in the population

29

33

34

Appendix 3
Childcare Statistics for Scotland

Table 5 Total Number of Centres and Childminders by main service type, management sector, area deprivation and rurality, January 2007

Figures extracted from, The Scottish Government Statistics, pre-school and childcare statistics 2007, Table 1: Total Number of Centres and Childminders by main service type, management sector, area deprivation and rurality, January 2007[134].

Main Service

Childminder

Nursery

Playgroup

Out of School Club

Creche

Children/family centre

Sitter service

Holiday play scheme

No single main service

Unknown

Centre closed or not operating

Total

Number and (percentage of all services)

Scotland

Total

6,020 (57.5)

2,412 (23.0)

574

(5.5)

774

(7.4)

168

(1.6)

132

(1.3)

20

(0.2)

88

(0.8)

86

(0.8)

61

(0.6)

142

(1.4)

10,477

(100.0)

Management Sector

Public

0

1,501

(80.6)

16

(0.9)

129

(6.9)

46

(2.5)

75

(4.0)

0

20

(1.1)

19

(1.0)

18

(1.0)

39

(2.1)

1,863

(100.0)

Private

6,020

(84.9)

658

(9.3)

55

(0.8)

190

(2.7)

51

(0.7)

11

(0.2)

11

(0.2)

15

(0.2)

26

(0.4)

18

(0.3)

33

(0.5)

7,088

(100.0)

Voluntary

0

237

(16.3)

502

(34.5)

431

(29.6)

67

(4.6)

39

(2.7)

9

(0.6)

51

(3.5)

37

(2.5)

23

(1.6)

59

(4.1)

1,455

(100.0)

Unknown

0

16

(22.5)

1

(1.4)

24

(33.8)

4

(5.6)

7

(9.9)

0

2

(2.8)

4

(5.6)

2

(2.8)

11

(15.5)

71

(100.0)

Area Deprivation

Most Deprived

1,050

(41.7)

773

(30.7)

81

(3.2)

261

(10.4)

86

(3.4)

90

(3.6)

8

(0.3)

35

(1.4)

37

(1.5)

30

(1.2)

64

(2.5)

2,515

(100.0)

Intermediate

2,170

(57.2)

937

(24.7)

226

(6.0)

258

(6.8)

45

(1.2)

24

(0.6)

5

(0.1)

29

(0.8)

30

(0.8)

17

(0.4)

52

(1.4)

3,793

(100.0)

Least Deprived

2,800

(67.2)

702

(16.8)

267

(6.4)

255

(6.1)

37

(0.9)

18

(0.4)

7

(0.2)

24

(0.6)

19

(0.5)

14

(0.3)

26

(1.3)

4,169

(100.0)

Rurality

Urban Areas

3,540

(55.9)

1,497

(23.6)

246

(3.9)

543

(8.6)

127

(2.0)

110

(1.7)

15

(0.2)

60

(0.9)

63

(1.0)

44

(0.7)

93

(1.5)

6,338

(100.0)

Small Towns

1,080

(65.7)

284

(17.3)

104

(6.3)

88

(5.3)

19

(1.2)

16

(1.0)

0

18

(1.1)

10

(0.6)

10

(0.6)

16

(1.0)

1,645

(100.0)

Rural Areas

1,400

(56.3)

625

(25.1)

224

(9.0)

143

(5.7)

22

(0.9)

6

(0.2)

4

(0.2)

10

(0.4)

13

(0.5)

7

(0.3)

33

(1.3)

2,487

(100.0)

Unknown

0

6

(85.7)

0

0

0

0

1

(14.3)

0

0

0

0

7

Appendix 4
Childcare Statistics for Wales

Table 6 Children’s Day Care Settings and Places at 31/03/07

Figures extracted from Children’s Day Care Settings and Places at 31/03/07 Care Services in Wales Annual Report 2006-2007, page 32

 

Childminders

Crèches

Full day Care

Open Access

Out of School

Sessional Day Care

Total
 

Settings

Places

Settings

Places

Settings

Places

Settings

Places

Settings

Places

Settings

Places

Settings

Places

Total

2405

11,958

67

1197

495

19,323

65

2987

554

18,100

806

17,116

4392

70,681

North West

252

1316

6

108

57

2176

29

1093

56

1461

158

3141

558

9295

North East

287

1461

8

198

87

3926

3

165

135

4459

155

3549

675

13,758

Mid

167

709

1

12

36

984

0

0

40

1050

86

1518

330

4273

South East

513

2031

17

311

89

3605

2

88

76

2949

103

2340

800

11,324

Cardiff

324

1753

16

335

55

2325

7

495

52

2378

52

1295

506

8581

Vale & Valleys

362

1941

11

128

49

1854

17

803

56

1569

74

1694

569

7989

South West

328

1795

4

44

79

2999

7

343

57

1914

70

1431

545

8526

West

172

952

4

61

43

1454

0

0

82

2320

108

2148

409

6935

[1] Early Years Strategic Alliance, Early Years Manifesto, Section 4, pages 8 and 9

[2] Skinner, C. (2006) How Can Childcare help to end child poverty?, www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781859355053.pdf

[3] Published by DHSS, Training and Employment Agency and DENI

[4] DHSSPS (2005), Review of Children First, Final Report

[5] Choice for Parents (2004), HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pension, Dti, Introduction and Summary, paragraph 1.7

[6] Smarter Scotland, The Scottish Parliament – Official Report, Wed. 20th June 2007, Col 880

[7] Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland (May 1998), The Scottish Office, www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm39/3958/summary.htm

[8] The Scottish Government, Social Research, Parents’ Access to and Demand for Childcare Survey 2006, www.scotland.gvo.uk/Publications/2007/12/13142214/1

[9]Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwales?lang=en

[10] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwales?lang=en, Introduction, paragraph 8

[11] www.omc.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=700

[12] National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010, Office of the Minister for Children, Dept. of Health and Children, A Guide for Parents

[13] Willan, J (2007), Delivering Sure Start in rural communities, Early Years, 27(1): 19-31, page 23

[14] www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art18

[15] Skinner, C. (2006) How Can Childcare help to end child poverty?, www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781859355053.pdf

[16] Early Years Strategic Alliance, Early Years Manifesto, Section 4, pages 8 and 9

[17] Skinner, C. (2006) How Can Childcare help to end child poverty?, www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781859355053.pdf

[18] Southern Area Childcare Partnership to Committee for the OFMDFM Inquiry into Child Poverty,

[19] Western Area Childcare Partnership, Memo to Committee for the OFMDFM Inquiry into Child Poverty, Nov. 2007, paragraph 7

[20] Published by DHSS, Training and Employment Agency and DENI

[21] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 1.6

[22] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 7.4

[23] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraphs 2.2 – 2.9

[24] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 4.2

[25] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 4.3

[26] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 4.4

[27] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 3.11

[28] Children First: The Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy (September 1999), paragraph 3.10

[29] www.surestart.gov.uk/aboutsurestart/help/contacts/northernireland

[30] DHSSPS, Review of Children First, Final Report, August 2005

[31] DHSSPS, Review of Children First, Final Report, August 2005, Section 3.3.1

[32] DHSSPS, Review of Children First, Final Report, August 2005, Section 3.4.1

[33] Employers who provide Childcare Vouchers for employees can save up to 12.8% on the value of the vouchers through exemptions from National Insurance Contributions.

[34] DHSSPS, Review of Children First, Final Report, August 2005, Section 4.1, page 60

[35] DHSSPS, Review of Children First, Final Report, August 2005, Section 4.2, page 62

[36] DHSSPS, Review of Children First, Final Report, August 2005, Section 5, page 71

[37] www.allchildrenni.gov.uk/tenyearstrategychildren1-2.pdf

[38] Budget 2006-08 Children and Young People Funding Package, Forward by the Secretary of State, 7 March 2006

[39] Budget 2006-08 Children and Young People Funding Package, paragraphs 7.1and 8.3

[40] www.pfgbudgetni.gov.uk/finalpfg.pdf, Annex 1

[41] www.pfgbudgetni.gov.uk/finalbudget.document.pdf, page 62

[42] www.pfgbudgetni.gov.uk/finalbudget.document.pdf, paragraphs 8.21-8.23 and 8.26

[43] Choice for Parents (Dec 2004), published by HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions and DTi

[44] Meeting the Childcare Challenge (1998), Executive Summary, paragraph ES4 and ES6, www.surestart.gov.uk/aboutsurestart/about/thesurestartprogramme2/challenge

[45] Meeting the Childcare Challenge (1998), Executive Summary, paragraph ES6, www.surestart.gov.uk/aboutsurestart/about/thesurestartprogramme2/challenge

[46] www.pm.gov.uk/output/page1430.asp

[47] Early Years - Progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 268 Session 2003-2004: 27 February 2004

[48] Early Years - Progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 268 Session 2003-2004: 27 February 2004, Executive Summary, paragraph 6

[49] Early Years - Progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 268 Session 2003-2004: 27 February 2004, Executive Summary, paragraph 7

[50] Early Years - Progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 268 Session 2003-2004: 27 February 2004, Executive Summary, paragraph 8

[51] Early Years - Progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 268 Session 2003-2004: 27 February 2004, Executive Summary, paragraphs 12 and13

[52] Early Years: progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, House of Commons, Committee of public Accounts, Thirty Fifth Report of Session 2003-04

[53] Early Years: progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all, House of Commons, Committee of public Accounts, Thirty Fifth Report of Session 2003-04, pages 4-5

[54] Choice for Parents (2004), HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pension, Dti

[55] Choice for Parents (2004), HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pension, Dti, Introduction and Summary, paragraph 1.7

[56] All children in England are eligible for a free part-time funded place from 1 Sept., 1 Jan. or 1 April following their third birthday for up to 2 years before they reach statutory school age. Local authorities make funding available to providers to enable them to provide free places.

[57] Choice for Parents (2004), HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pension, Dti, Introduction and Summary, paragraph 1.8

[58] Choice for Parents (2004), HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pension, Dti, Introduction and Summary, paragraph 1.4

[59] Choice for Parents (2004), HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pension, Dti, Introduction and Summary, page 1

[60] to £300/week (£175 for one child) from April 2005

[61] from 70 percent to 80 percent from April 2006

[62] www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/earlyyears/childcareact

[63] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: How has the quality of childcare changed?

[64] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: How has the strategy shaped market developments?

[65] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: Has the childcare strategy affected maternal employment?

[66] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: How has use of childcare changed?

[67] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: Recommendations from Daycare Trust

[68] The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families

[69] The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Foreword by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

[70] The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Executive Summary, paragraph 1

[71] The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Executive Summary, paragraph 1

[72] The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Executive Summary, paragraph 15

[73] The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures (2007), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Executive Summary, paragraph 20

[74] Smarter Scotland, The Scottish Parliament – Official Report, Wed. 20th June 2007, Col 880

[75] Smarter Scotland, The Scottish Parliament – Official Report, Wed. 20th June 2007, Col 880

[76] 475 hours per year equates to 2.5 hours per school day for 38 weeks a year

[77] Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland (May 1998), The Scottish Office, www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm39/3958/summary.htm

[78] Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland (May 1998), The Scottish Office, www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm39/3958/summary.htm, Executive Summary paragraph ES8

[79] www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Early-Education-Child-Care/15135/1088

[80] Responding to the Childcare Challenge, A summary of responses to the green paper, www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents-w7/ rtcc-oo.htm

[81] National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce Consultation: Analysis of Childminders’ and Childcare Workers’ Responses – Research Findings (2007), www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/07/25092713/1

[82]The Scottish Government, Social Research, Parents’ Access to and Demand for Childcare Survey 2006,
www.scotland.gvo.uk/Publications/2007/12/13142214/1

[83] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwal es?lang=en

[84] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwal es?lang=en, Introduction, paragraph 8

[85] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwal es?lang=en, Introduction, paragraph 10

[86] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwal es?lang=en, Chapter 2, paragraph 15

[87] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwal es?lang=en, Chapter 2, paragraph 19

[88] Childcare is for Children (2005), http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/Thechildcarestrategyforwal es?lang=en, Chapter 6 paragraph 93

[89] www.childreninwales.org.uk, Men in Childcare Network, Wales

[90] Developing Childcare in Ireland, A Review of the Progress to End 2003 of the Implementation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006, Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, paragraph 1.1.5

[91] Developing Childcare in Ireland A Review of the Progress to End 2003 of the Implementation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006, Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, paragraph 1.3.1

[92] Developing Childcare in Ireland, paragraphs 1.3.2, 1.4.1

[93] Developing Childcare in Ireland, paragraph 3.1.2

[94] Developing Childcare in Ireland, paragraph 3.6.1

[95] Office of the Minister for Children website, www.omc.gov.ie, Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006

[96] Office of the Minister for Children website, www.omc.gov.ie, Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006

[97] www.omc.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=700

[98] www.omc.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=700

[99] www.omc.gov.ie, Childminders, National Childminding Initiative and Guidelines

[100] National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010, Office of the Minister for Children, Dept. of Health and Children, A Guide for Providers

[101] National Childcare Strategy 2006-2010, Office of the Minister for Children, Dept. of Health and Children, A Guide for Parents

[102] Callender, C. (2000) The Barriers to Childcare Provision – Research Brief, South bank University and the Policies Studies Institute

[103] NI Executive Draft Programme for Government and Draft Budget 2008-2011, Response from NICMA (Dec 2007), page 5

[104] NI Executive Draft Programme for Government and Draft Budget 2008-2011, Response from NICMA (Dec 2007), page 2

[105] NI Executive Draft Programme for Government and Draft Budget 2008-2011, Response from NICMA (Dec 2007), page 5

[106] CiNI – Regional umbrella body for the children’s sector in Northern Ireland, representing 114 member organisations

[107] The fee for day nurseries will increase from £155 to £450 by 2010

[108] Childminders face huge rise in Ofsted fee (Feb.20 2008)
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3399677.ece

[109] Callender, C. (2000) The Barriers to Childcare Provision – Research Brief, South bank University and the Policies Studies Institute

[110] Wage levels also mentioned as an obstacle to running the provision, yet low wages are often a disincentive for childcare workers entering and remaining in the profession.

[111]The Early Years Strategic Alliance for Northern Ireland propose a Transformation Fund for the childcare workforce of Northern Ireland, equivalent to that currently operating in England. The fund would aim to raise the quality of childcare for the under fives, by supporting the development of the workforce without compromising affordability/availability of childcare.

[112] Callender, C. (2000) The Barriers to Childcare Provision – Research Brief, South bank University and the Policies Studies Institute

[113] The report recognised that many of these issues were being tackled in some way by recent Government policy such as Childcare Tax Credits and allocation of funds for the training and development of childcare staff.

[114] Bryson, C. et. al. (2006) Childcare and Early Years Provision in Wales: A study of Parents Use, Views and Experiences (March 2006), Welsh Assembly Government, Department for Training and Education Information Document No: 006-06, Executive Summary, page 5

[115] Bryson, C. et. al. (2006) Childcare and Early Years Provision in Wales: A study of Parents Use, Views and Experiences (March 2006), Welsh Assembly Government, Department for Training and Education Information Document No: 006-06, Executive Summary, page 4

[116] www.daycaretrust.org.uk/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=1003&page_id=354

[117] Western Area Childcare Partnership, Memo to Committee for OFMDFM, Committee Inquiry into Child Poverty, paragraphs 6 and 9.

[118] The Northern Childcare Partnership Report on Childcare Issues Affecting Families in Rural Areas (2007), page 22

[119] The Northern Childcare Partnership Report on Childcare Issues Affecting Families in Rural Areas (2007), Conclusion, page 21

[120] The Northern Childcare Partnership Report on Childcare Issues Affecting Families in Rural Areas (2007), Recommendations, page 23

[121] The group has not yet reported

[122] www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dard/news-dard-june-2007

[123] Bryson, C. et. al. (2006) Childcare and Early Years Provision in Wales: A study of Parents Use, Views and Experiences (March 2006), Welsh Assembly Government, Department for Training and Education Information Document No: 006-06, Executive Summary, page 7

[124] CiNI Written Evidence to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister Inquiry into Child Poverty, Nov 2007, Section 6

[125] Willan, J (2007), Delivering Sure Start in rural communities, Early Years, 27(1): 19-31, page 22

[126] Willan, J (2007), Delivering Sure Start in rural communities, Early Years, 27(1): 19-31, page 26

[127] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: How has the quality of childcare changed?

[128] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: How has the quality of childcare changed?

[129] McKie, L et.al. (2001), Gender, caring and employment in Britain, Journal of Social Policy, 30(2): 233-258

[130] Willan, J (2007), Delivering Sure Start in rural communities, Early Years, 27(1): 19-31, page 23

[131] Childcare Nation? (2007), The Daycare Trust, Section: Recommendations from Daycare Trust

[132] Parents do not necessarily take up all of their free entitlement, therefore the number of children benefiting from some free early education can exceed the number of part-time funded places

[133] www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/

[134] www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/09/2609451/10

Briefing Note:
Policies to Minimise the Impact of Fuel Costs on Families with Low Incomes

Introduction

Fuel poverty has been described as a complex, multi faceted social issue, influenced by a multitude of factors and covering a number of disciplines[1]. Government has responded over the last decade by formulating policy and measures to tackle the problem. Other help has come from partner organisations and fuel companies, in conjunction with government or separately. This note briefly summarises the major policies and measures to minimise the impact of fuel costs on vulnerable people, especially families on low incomes.

The UK

A Fuel Poverty Strategy for the UK was published in 2001[2] which focussed mainly on measures to improve energy efficiency for fuel poor households and measures to reduce the cost of fuel for fuel poor households. (Income issues were to be addressed in longer term wider poverty and social exclusion strategies). In the 2001 strategy the definition of fuel poverty was:

A fuel poor household is one that cannot afford to keep adequately warm at reasonable cost. The most widely accepted definition of a fuel poor household is one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth. This is generally defined as 21° C in the living room and 18° C in the other occupied rooms – the temperatures recommended by the World Health Organisation.

The main causes of fuel poverty in government’s view are

The UK strategy set the target of the ending of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010. Targets were set for UK regions – Northern Ireland for instance, by 2006, was to have assisted at least 40,000 households in fuel poverty through the Warm Homes Scheme and partnership programmes.

Government in GB passed the Utilities Act[3] in 2000 which introduced new powers and duties relevant to tackling fuel poverty. The Act introduced a new primary duty on the Regulator and the Secretary of State to “protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by the promotion of effective competition” and to have regard to the interests of certain vulnerable individuals – older people, people who are disabled or have a long term illness, individuals with low incomes, and people living in rural areas.

In its March 2008 budget statement, the UK Government made the following commitment to help vulnerable households heat their homes:

The Government’s Fuel Poverty Progress Report published in December 2007 outlines measures already in place to help tackle fuel poverty, including increasing energy efficiency. The Government believes further action is now needed to help vulnerable groups deal with rising energy prices. The Government welcomes the steps the energy companies have already taken to help vulnerable customers cope with higher prices. There is common agreement on the need to do more. Energy companies currently spend around £50 million a year on social tariffs; the Government would like to see that figure rising over the period ahead to at least £150 million a year. Acting with the companies and Ofgem, the Government will draw up a plan for voluntary and statutory action to achieve that. To underpin this as necessary, the Government will legislate to require companies to make a fair contribution.

Customers using prepayment meters typically pay around £55 more on their energy bill compared to standard credit, and £144 compared to direct debit. These differentials have increased since the Energy White Paper. It is not clear whether these simply reflect extra costs to the energy companies nor whether pre-payment customers are being given enough information on the availability of other tariffs. The Government believes that the time is now right to tackle this issue and is looking to Ofgem and the suppliers to bring forward proposals for treating prepayment customers more fairly. However, if sufficient progress is not made by next winter, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is prepared to use his statutory powers with a view to reducing the differential between prepayment and other forms of payment.[4]

Northern Ireland

Ending Fuel Poverty: a Strategy for Northern Ireland[5] was published in 2004 with the Department for Social Development (DSD) having responsibility for taking it forward. The following year an Inter-departmental Group on Fuel Poverty (IDGFP) was established to ensure effective co-ordination of policies and actions. This group publishes an annual report of progress.

Policies, Initiatives and Other Measures to
Tackle Fuel Poverty[6]

This section looks at:

UK Energy Company schemes:

A number of energy company schemes are in operation throughout the UK, some of which are delivered through statutory obligation (ie the Energy Efficiency Commitment[7]) or developed by the companies independently. BERR (the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) and DEFRA publishes annually the results of a monitoring exercise to evaluate the effects that schemes and initiatives delivered by gas and electricity companies have on fuel poverty in the UK.

See http://www.affordablewarmth.co.uk/

Transco – the Affordable Warmth Programme

This programme is led by energy company National Grid and involves government, key agencies, local government and housing associations. The programme aims to develop area based projects providing efficient heating to households in conjunction with energy efficiency measures and advice. The scheme supports the installation of gas fires, heating systems and insulation to customers through the use of operational leases.

http://www.affordablewarmth.co.uk/

TXU – Staywarm

This energy service is available to Powergen customers aged over 60 and aims to help reduce fuel poverty. Customers are offered as much gas or electricity as they need at a fixed annual cost with no reconciliation.

http://www.eonenergy.com/At-Home/Products/See-It-and-Save.htm?CCODE=IC466&WT.mc_id=IC466

Age Concern Energy Services

This is a joint initiative between the company e.on and Age Concern which operates through Age Concern’s network of local groups. It offers a number of benefits for customers, including a special tariff package, an energy efficiency survey and advice, a non disconnection policy, and free heating if the temperature falls below 0° C.

http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/energy.asp

Health through Warmth.

Funded by Innogy and operated by npower, Health through Warmth trains health professionals to offer energy advice, provide assistance to help the most vulnerable people and provide funding for community projects. It operates through locally based partnerships which seek to help vulnerable people whose health is adversely affected by cold, damp living conditions. This is achieved by facilitating the installation of appropriate energy efficiency and heating, along with the provision of related information and advice.

http://www.npower.com/health_through_warmth/index.htm

Here to Help

British Gas, in partnership with seven major national charities, is aiming to improve the quality of life for families, older people and disabled people in some of Britain’s most deprived communities. The Here to Help programme is a three-year, £150 million programme aimed at addressing poverty by providing simple, practical ways to help make 500,000 homes warm, safe and comfortable.

Under the programme, British Gas customers in receipt of income or disability related benefits, or who are over 70 may receive free insulation and other energy saving products as well as free benefit assessments.

http://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy-efficiency/products/home-insulation/help-on-benefits.html

The Royal Bank Key Account.

This joint initiative between the Royal Bank of Scotland and ScottishPower aims to bring direct debit savings to low income households. The Key Account enables ScottishPower customers, who have not previously held a bank account and who pay bills with cash or pre-payment meter, to benefit from direct debit savings, and other banking facilities.

http://www.rbs.co.uk/personal/current-accounts/g1/standard-accounts/key.ashx

Warm Deal

The Warm Deal was introduced in Scotland in 1999 and provides households on benefit with a package of insulation measures up to the value of £500. Warm Deal grants are managed by Scottish Gas in partnership with the Scottish government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/OlderPeople/Homeimprovements/Warmdeal

Measures and Initiatives : Government Departments/ Agencies
Fuel Direct

This scheme is operated in GB by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and deducts money from weekly or fortnightly benefit to pay off a fuel debt and/or to cover ongoing fuel consumption. Access to the scheme is restricted to households with an existing fuel debt who receive Income support, Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit. (Fuel Direct is also available in NI).

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10025592

Cold Weather Payments

These are weekly payments made during a period of exceptionally severe weather to vulnerable households in receipt of Income support, Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit. (Cold Weather Payments also apply to NI).

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Inretirement/DG_10018668

Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES)

HEES is a Welsh Assembly government funded initiative aimed at making homes warmer, healthier and more energy efficient. It was designed to tackle fuel poverty among the most vulnerable by providing grants for comprehensive packages of insulation and heating improvements, including central heating systems. The HEES grant currently provides a package of heating and insulation improvements up to the value of £3,600.

http://www.heeswales.co.uk/

Warm Front Team

Warm Front is the new branding for HEES (see above) in England. It advocates a team approach for tackling fuel poverty at the local level and stresses the need for partnerships between government, local authorities, health workers, caring organisations and the energy utility companies to ensure effective delivery of all schemes available to help the fuel poor. The Warm Front Grant provides a package of insulation and/or heating measures up to a value of £2,700 (or £4,000 if oil central heating is involved), less the value of all works previously completed in the property under Warm Front.

http://www.warmfront.co.uk/

Warm Zones

This was a GB pilot programme that aimed to draw together local partnerships involving energy utilities, local authorities and voluntary groups in a co-ordinated effort to tackle fuel poverty in defined areas in a systematic way.

http://www.warmzones.co.uk/about_us.html

Campaigns
Keep Warm Keep Well

This is a joint campaign in GB between the Department of Health, NEA, Age Concern, the Benefits Agency, DEFRA, Help the AGED, Department of Social Security and the Women’s Royal Voluntary Service. It comprises the Winter Warmth Advice Line and an information and advice booklet. A resource pack for health professionals is also produced by the campaign.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_069811.htm

National Right to Fuel Campaign

This was founded in 1975 with the initial priority of ending disconnections. Today the main focus is still on the protection of disadvantaged energy customers in the competitive energy market. The Campaign’s steering group included representatives from a wide range of voluntary and not for profit organisations.

http://www.righttofuel.org.uk/

Initiatives and Measures in Northern Ireland

Since the publication of Northern Ireland’s fuel poverty strategy in 2004 these have included:

The Warm Homes Scheme (DSD)

This provides insulation measures in the homes of owner-occupiers and private sector tenants who have a child under sixteen and are in receipt of a specified means tested benefit or householders in receipt of a disability benefit.

Warm Homes Plus offers full heating systems – either new systems for those that do not have central heating or replacement systems for those who have a system which is faulty or inefficient – for over 60s in receipt of specific means tested benefits.

http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/warm_homes_scheme.html

Decent Homes (DSD)

In July 2004 government decided the Decent Homes Standard was to be introduced to NI and that all such housing should reach the standard by 2010. The Decent Homes Standard requires all social landlords to ensure that their homes meet specific quality targets by 2010. A decent home is “one which is wind and water tight, warm and has modern facilities.” This definition is backed up by a range of technical standards.

http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/hsdivhousing/registered_housing_associations/ha_guide/hag.pt6/hag.pt6.app4

Energy Efficiency Partnership Schemes (DSD)

These are community based energy efficiency/fuel poverty partnership schemes supported by DSD. The partnership schemes have the potential to lever in funding from other sources. This has helped tackle fuel poverty among households that either do not qualify or do not apply for help under the mainstream programmes.

Tackling Fuel Poverty: the Inter-Departmental Group Report DSD Pages 12 & 13 http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/idg_group_report_fuel_poverty.pdf

Social Housing New Build Programme (DSD)

This provides new energy efficient social houses mainly for low income families where fuel poverty is prevalent.

Tackling Fuel Poverty: the Inter-Departmental Group Report DSD Page 12 http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/idg_group_report_fuel_poverty.pdf

Benefits payments

See arrangements for payment of benefits – including the Winter Fuel Payment and implementation of programmes to encourage benefit uptake.

http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/ssa/benefit_information/az_of_benefits/winter_fuel_payments.htm

Other Northern Ireland departments have been involved in schemes and programmes which tackle directly, or indirectly, the causes of fuel poverty.

Research Paper
18 April 2008

Children’s Services Planning

Zoë Robinson

This paper outlines the legislative basis for public bodies and authorities in the UK and Ireland to work together to ensure an integrated approach to planning and delivery on Government priorities for children and young people and to the planning and delivery of children’s services. It may also be of use to refer to Assembly Research Service papers 51/2008 and 52/2008, which contain complementary information in relation to childcare provision, including statutory duties for local authorities in England and Wales, and the position in Scotland respectively.

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Summary of key points

Contents

Background

Children’s rights

Whole child model

Legislative summary

Northern Ireland

England

Scotland

Wales

Ireland

Northern Ireland: regional structures

Conclusion

Background

1. Children have become an increasing focus of government policy throughout the UK and the Republic of Ireland in recent years. One of the main drivers of this has been the increasing influence of children’s rights. The emergence of children’s rights, not only as a stand-alone concept but as a useful and powerful framework for children’s policy, can be traced back to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which was opened for signature at the end of the 1980s. The importance of this document is evidenced by the fact that the United States and Somalia remain the only two states not to have ratified the UNCRC.[1]

2. In Northern Ireland, the effect of the political situation on children and young people has been recognised by Government.[2] Furthermore, it has been suggested that the prevalence of constitutional and security issues over recent decades meant that children’s issues were not a high priority.[3] However, the development of an Executive strategy for children and young people[4], and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, has illustrated that children and young people are high on the Executive’s agenda.

3. The UNCRC, which was opened for signature on 20 November 1989 and entered into force on 2 September 1990, outlines the principal civil and political and social, economic and cultural rights of children. Under the Convention, the duration of childhood is defined as until a child reaches 18 years of age. As with many international instruments, certain controversial issues were omitted and left for individual states to address, such as the point at which childhood begins and the age of criminal responsibility. However, the states parties that have ratified the UNCRC are bound by its provisions and principles. Furthermore, states are required to submit periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, detailing the status of children’s rights in their respective nations.

4. The growth in the status and influence of children’s rights in domestic policy is demonstrated by the establishment of children’s commissioners in the UK and the Republic of Ireland since 2000. In addition to providing an avenue for children to have their say in respect of the issues that affect them, the role of children’s commissioners as consultative bodies is important in respect of children’s planning. Furthermore, the powers of review and investigation held by children’s commissioners illustrate that children’s rights form a crucial element of governmental policy across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore, the development of national children’s strategies has been underpinned by UNCRC principles.

5. Focusing on the rights of children and young people has led to the development of the “whole child” model, which recognises that the various elements of a child’s existence and development mean that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Rather, by placing the child at the centre of the officialdom, services are tailored to a child’s particular needs, as opposed to the child having to work within the structures of various service providers.

6. There are two main overarching and interlinked themes that are common to all models for children’s services planning across the UK and Ireland: children’s rights, underpinned by the UNCRC, and the concept of the “whole child model”.

Children’s rights

7. Children’s rights have become an integral part of children’s services planning in recent times, with the UNCRC providing the guiding principles on which UK regions and Ireland have modelled their children’s strategies. The principles of the UNCRC have also been distilled into legislation and policy on children’s services planning. Two particularly relevant provisions of the UNCRC have influenced the development of children’s services planning. Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning that child. Article 12 binds states to ensure that children who are capable of forming their own views are afforded opportunities to express those views in all matters concerning them, and that those views are given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. This has often been referred to as the child being an ‘active participant’ in their world.[5]

8. In all actions involving children and young people, safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, and the principle of “best interest”, are central tenets. In addition, the principle of participation enshrined in Article 12 of the Convention has ensured that children and young people can have a direct input, where appropriate, into actions directed towards them. Furthermore, throughout the text of the UNCRC, the importance of the family and the development and maintenance of family relationships is very high. The status of the family is also given a high priority in child-related legislation in Ireland and in the UK.

Whole child model

9. The UNCRC has influenced children’s services policy, with a shift from a needs-basis (what a child needs) to a rights-based approach (how can a child’s rights best be realised). Recognising that children will require different levels of support, the influence of children’s rights has been accompanied by the development the “whole child model” of service provision.

10. The whole child model places the child at the centre of the planning process. Rather than agencies providing services separately, the whole child model ensures that agencies plan their services around the child and work together to the child’s agenda, instead of working in isolation to their own.

11. The definition of the whole child model differs slightly between regions, but can be best explained by two key points and the inter-relationship between them:

12. On a practical level, placing the child and their world at the centre of the planning process means that services are provided according to a child’s own needs, with the different elements of the child’s world impacting on the types of services that are provided. This approach lends itself to the concept of integrated children’s services planning, with the role that integrated planning, centred around the child, can play in maximising better outcomes for children.

Legislative summary

13. In England, Wales and Scotland, legislation exists that places duties on those responsible for children’s services planning to undertake integrated inter-agency planning. Children’s services plans are drawn up for all children and young people, whereas in Northern Ireland plans relate only to children and young people who are deemed to be in need.

14. In Ireland, there is no statutory duty to undertake integrated planning for children’s services, although integrated working is a central part of the strategic and policy direction of children’s services. At present, there are no plans to place integrated planning arrangements on a statutory footing.[6]

Northern Ireland

15. The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is the main statute governing the care of children in need in Northern Ireland. Under the Order, as amended by regulations, children’s services plans are prepared only in respect of children in need, and therefore in receipt of state assistance. Furthermore, the duty to prepare plans rests solely with the health and social services boards. While there is a duty to consult other agencies, there is no requirement for agencies to work together.

16. Part IV of the Order deals with support for children and their families. Under section 17 of the 1995 Order, a child is deemed to be in need if any of the following three criteria apply:

(a) The child is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by an authority;

(b) The child’s health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, with the provision for him of such services;

(c) The child is disabled.

17. Schedule 2 of the 1995 Order outlines the power and duties of authorities (currently, health and social services boards) and describes the range of service provision available to families. Article 18(4) provides the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety with a power to amend Schedule 2 by Order in Council to provide additional powers and duties to health and social services boards.

18. Included in the Schedule are duties on authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent neglect and abuse, to minimise the effect of disability on the lives of disabled children, reasonable steps to reduce the need for care proceedings, and requirements in respect of children living with their families.

19. The legislative requirement on authorities to take reasonable preventative steps is an important element, given the recognition of the importance and value of preventative and early intervention measures in respect of children, which can often reduce the need for further, more intrusive interventions.

20. The importance of maintaining the family unit is given legislative recognition through statutory requirements on authorities to provide assistance to maximise opportunities for children to remain within the family unit. The status of the family, and the level of importance attached to the family unit, forms part of the underpinning values that support the Executive’s strategy for children and young people. This is mirrored in the other children and young people’s strategies and is also a core element of the UNCRC.

21. The Children (1995 Order) (Amendment) Regulations (Children’s Services Planning) Order (Northern Ireland) 1998, which came into operation on 14 September of that year, introduced children’s services plans into Northern Ireland.

22. Under the Regulations, health and social services boards are required to prepare and publish plans in respect of services identified in the main 1995 Order. These are: provision for children in need and their families; accommodation of children; accommodation of children in police protection; accommodation and maintenance; and persons qualifying for advice and assistance. This can be contrasted with the statutory provisions applicable to other regions in GB, where the matters to be dealt with in the plan are more wide-ranging and refer to more general strategic concepts. Paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 2 of the 1995 Order, as amended by the 1998 Order, provides that the plan must be reviewed at least once in each financial year, and that authorities may modify or substitute their plans.[7]

23. Paragraph 2A(3) of Schedule 2 requires a health and social services board to consult a range of bodies on its plan or any modifications to it. The bodies include several named bodies, in addition to anyone whom the Board considers it appropriate to consult, or anyone whom the Department may direct the Board to consult. The named bodies are: relevant health and social services trusts; relevant education and library boards; district councils; certain voluntary organisations; the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; the Chief Constable and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.

24. The four Northern Ireland area children and young people’s committees undertake planning arrangements in respect of children, and partnership working has been established for some time. The committees have highlighted the importance of links across and between Government Departments. Integration at Executive level, through regional structures to local areas was also one recommendation emanating from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety review into ‘Children First’, the Northern Ireland childcare strategy.[8]

England

25. Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on children’s services authorities[9] in England to make arrangements to promote co-operation between the authority, its partners and any other appropriate persons or bodies. An authority’s partners include local police authorities, probation boards and youth offending teams, strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, those involved in providing education and training, and the Learning and Skills Council for England.

26. Section 10(2) states that the arrangements for co-operation are to be made with a view to improving the well-being of children in the area so far as relating to:

(a) Physical and mental health and emotional well-being

(b) Protection from harm and neglect

(c) Education, training and recreation

(d) The contribution made to them by society

(e) Social and economic well-being

27. These five elements directly correlate to the overarching themes of the national strategy Every Child Matters, in addition to being compatible with the UNCRC. In addition, section 10(3) provides that authorities are to have regard to the importance of parents and other carers in improving the well-being of children — again, a central tenet running through the UNCRC.

28. Section 10(2)(e) places a duty on authorities to co-operate to improve the outcomes for children in respect of their social and economic well-being. Although this duty relates to the wider issue of child poverty, it does not place any statutory duty on authorities other than to co-operate with partner agencies.

29. Section 17 of the 2004 Act provides for the preparation and publication of children and young people’s plans, which must specify:

“the authority’s strategy for discharging their functions in relation to children and relevant young persons.”

30. The section 17 duty is augmented by the Children and Young People’s Plan (England) Regulations 2005, which place a duty on all children’s services authorities to prepare, publish, consult on and review children’s and young people’s plans.[10] The matters to be dealt with in the plan mirror the areas of co-operation mentioned in section 10(2)(a) to (e) of the Children Act 2004, as outlined above.

31. Regulation 4(2)[11] provides that certain elements must be included in the children and young people’s plans:

(a)

(i) a statement referring to the integration of services provided by the authority and its partners to improve the well-being of children and relevant young people;

(ii) a statement referring to the arrangements made by the authority and its partners with regard to the discharging of functions to safeguard and promote the well-being of children;

(iii) a statement referring to the arrangements for early intervention and preventative action.

(b) a statement as to how the authority will achieve the improvement in the five areas outlined above;

(c) a needs assessment against the five outcomes detailed above;

(d) key actions designed to achieve improvements to the five outcomes;

(e) a statement on how the authority’s budget will be used to contribute to the improvements;

(f) a statement concerning performance management and review of services.

32. While Regulation 4(2)(f) requires a statement on performance management to be included in a children’s services plan, the duties on a local authority and its relevant partners relate to the preparation and publication of a plan, rather than assigning a statutory duty to attain particular targets or outcomes. In relation to childcare provision, however, local authorities in England and Wales are legislatively bound to secure improvements in the well-being of children, under section 1 of Childcare Act 2006.

33. The 2006 Act places a range of duties on local authorities in respect of early-years provision for young children.[12] The principal duty is contained in section 1 of the Act where a local authority must ‘improve the well-bring of young children in their area’.

34. In addition, section 1 also places local authorities under a statutory duty to reduce inequalities between young children in their areas in several areas related to the overarching outcomes of the Every Child Matters strategy, including social and economic well-being.

35. The 2006 Act also places proactive duties on local authorities in respect of early-childhood services. Section 3 requires local authorities in England to make arrangements to secure integrated early-childhood services that will facilitate access to such services and to maximise their benefit to parents, prospective parents and young children.

36. The importance of working parents in seeking to reduce and eliminate child poverty has been recognised by Government, through initiatives such as Sure Start and the Working Families Tax Credit. The Childcare Act 2006 further underlines the importance of adequate services for working parents by placing a duty on local authorities to secure, as far as is reasonably practicable, sufficient childcare provision that will allow parents to take up or remain in employment or to undertake education or training to assist them to enter the workforce. This duty extends to childcare provision for children up to the age of 14.[13] In addition, local authorities in England are under a duty to secure early-years provision that is available free of charge.

37. The statutory duties in respect of early-years and childcare provision place more onerous obligations on local authorities than the duty to produce children’s services plans, in that the former attach a requirement that improvements in child well-being be made. In respect of child poverty, it could be argued that these duties provide a more robust and outcomes-focused mechanism to work towards the Government targets for reducing and eliminating child poverty.

Scotland

38. Section 19 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 places a duty on local authorities to prepare and publish plans in respect of children’s services in their respective areas. In preparing plans, local authorities must consult with a variety of bodies, including NHS trusts, relevant voluntary organisations, the principal reporter to, and chairperson of, the local children’s panel and housing bodies.[14]

39. In addition to plans for children’s services, local authorities are also under a duty to engage in community planning in respect of public services under section 15 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003.[15] Several named bodies are required to participate in community planning, including health boards and police and fire services. Where appropriate, local authorities are permitted to jointly plan services across their respective areas.

40. In 2004, the Scottish Executive published guidance[16] for integrated children’s services plans, the aim of which was to combine various plans, ranging from children’s services plans, local health plans and youth justice strategies into one plan.

41. The legislative duties outlined above have led to the development of integrated children’s services planning, where relevant bodies determine the local priorities for all children and young people in the local authority area. Planning is undertaken within the context of the eight outcomes envisaged for all children and young people contained in the ministerial vision for Scotland’s children.

42. Under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, the Children’s Services (Scotland) Bill was drafted and issued for consultation. However, the Scottish elections in May 2007 resulted in a change in Administration, and the Bill has been removed from the legislative timetable while the Government reflects on the options offered by existing legislation.

43. The object of the Bill was to implement the aims of Getting It Right for Every Child. The Bill was intended to introduce overarching provisions in respect of the well-being of children, to update statutory duties on agencies that provide children’s service, to amend provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and to reform the Children’s Hearings system.

44. Clause 3 enshrined the principle of considering of the views of the child, with a duty placed on relevant agencies[17] to secure an effective means of ascertaining the view of children and other relevant persons, including parents or those with parental responsibilities. Article 12 of the UNCRC was also contained in the Bill, with relevant agencies required to take into account the age, maturity and capacity of the child. Clause 3(4) provided that a child of age 12 or older is deemed to be capable of forming views.

45. Clause 4 of the Bill placed a duty on relevant agencies to co-operate and engage in collaborative working. Clause (5) outlined the forms of co-operation envisaged, including consulting, exchanging information, providing advice, and other forms of collaboration such as sharing responsibility for action and joint funding of activities.

46. Where relevant agencies collaborate together, clause 5 of the Bill required the agencies to produce a joint plan and to designate a person to take responsibility for the plan’s implementation. However, responsibility for implementing a joint plan did not absolve an agency of their responsibilities to children.

Wales

47. The arrangements for Wales have the same legislative basis as in England in the Children’s Act 2004, with different sections of the Act applying to Wales and to England. Section 25 of the 2004 Act places a duty on children’s services authorities to make arrangements for co-operation with relevant partners and other appropriate bodies.

48. The Children and Young People’s Plan (Wales) Regulations 2007 came into force on 1 September 2007, and place duties on children’s services authorities in Wales to prepare, publish, consult on and review children’s and young people’s plans. The Regulations do not prescribe the content of plans, which are drafted by authorities themselves, with regard to guidance from Welsh Ministers.

49. The Childcare Act 2006, as discussed above, also applies to Wales, although the duties are not as numerous or onerous in comparison to England. Section 22 of the Act requires local authorities in Wales to secure sufficient childcare provision in order to allow parents to obtain or remain in work or to allow them to undertake education or training with a view to obtaining work.

Republic of Ireland

50. The development of children’s rights in the Republic has followed a similar path to that of the UK, with the establishment of a national strategy for children and the establishment of a children’s commissioner. Furthermore, a proposed amendment to enshrine children’s rights in the Irish Constitution will be put to a referendum during 2008.

51. At present, there is no legislative obligation on agencies to engage in integrated working or to develop multi-agency approaches to children’s services. The Health Service Executive (HSE), as the principal provider of health and social services in Ireland, is under a statutory duty to submit annual service plans to the Department of Health and Children. Under section 31 of the Health Act 2004, the HSE must publish an annual service plan detailing, amongst other things, the type and volume of health and personal social services, and how the service plan will implement ministerial and Government policy.

52. In respect of child and family services, section 7 of the Child Care Act 1991 provides that health boards must establish child care advisory committees, comprising individuals with a particular interest or expertise in child acre matters, including representatives from voluntary bodies that provide child services in the area. The advisory committees must also report on the child care and family services in their area and advise the local health board on their performance. Section 8 of the Act provides that health boards must submit an annual report on the adequacy of child care and family support services in the local area.

53. Although not implemented by statute, the Office of the Minister for Children has introduced the concept of the whole child approach to children’s services and the provision of integrated services through published ‘The Agenda for Children’s Services: A Policy Handbook’. Published in December 2007, the aim of the handbook is to provide a framework for the policy and strategic direction of children’s services. Following on from the National Children’s Strategy, Agenda for Children’s Services seeks to place integration at the heart of planning for children’s services:

Its aim is to assist policy-makers, managers and front-line practitioners to engage in reflective practice and effective delivery, to be informed by best Irish and international evidence, and to identify their own role within the national policy framework.[18]

54. In conjunction with the National Children’s Strategy, ‘The Agenda for Children’s Services’ aims to distil the process of integration at policy-making, senior management and front-line levels of the HSE, which is the main provider of support to children and their families.

55. Nationally, an implementation group for the National Children’s Strategy will be established at departmental level. Chaired by the Office of the Minister for Children, the implementation group will comprise relevant Government Departments, the HSE, local authority and education sector representatives and other key agencies.

56. Local arrangements will be co-ordinated by multi-agency children’s services committees, which will be established in every city and county council area. The Health Service Executive will have a lead role in these committees, which will aim to provide co-ordinated and integrated services. Pilot schemes for joint local planning arrangements are under development in Donegal, Dublin and Limerick.

Northern Ireland in depth: regional structures

57. Integrated planning in England and Wales and Scotland is facilitated by the fact that social services are provided by local authorities. Taking health and education as two of the prime areas affecting children, especially children who are looked after by the state, structures in Northern Ireland differ significantly. Northern Ireland is unique in that health and social care services are provided together by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Furthermore, education services are provided by different bodies, overseen by the Department of Education.

58. With responsibility for health and social care and education resting with separate Departments, and in the absence of a statutory requirement of multi-agency working, impetus for integrated planning would have to emanate from departmental level down to individual agencies. The Northern Ireland area children and young people’s committees have noted a lack of co-ordinated planning at Government level.[19]

59. Under current legislative provision, only health and social services boards are under a duty to prepare and publish plans. However, the plans relate only to particular functions of health and social services boards, and there is no requirement to engage in inter-agency planning. However, boards are required to issue their plans for consultation, including Government Departments and relevant education and library boards.

60. Proposals under the Review of Public Administration for the assimilation of education and library boards into the Education and Skills Authority and for the health and social services boards to be abolished and replaced by a regional health and social care board may help to facilitate multi-agency working and integrated planning.[20]

61. ‘Lifetime Opportunities’, the anti-poverty and social inclusion policy document published under direct rule, stated that directors of children’s services will be appointed to the Education and Skills Authority and the proposed health and social care board and intimated that they would work closely to ensure that the provision of children’s services are integrated.[21]

62. A statutory duty for departments and agencies to produce joint plans could help to ensure clear lines of responsibility and accountability, given the extent to which services and provision for children are a cross-cutting issue. Transfer of lead responsibility has previously occurred, with the transfer in 2006 of responsibility for early-years provision for children from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to the Department of Education.

63. Although co-operation and collaboration is already well established through the Northern Ireland area children and young people’s committees, they have highlighted the lack of a statutory requirement of joint planning. In their presentation to the ministerial subcommittee, the Northern Ireland area children and young people’s committees articulated their strong desire to have a statutory duty of joint planning:

there should be a legal requirement for a regional Children and Young People’s Plan — with legal requirements on all participating agencies to plan together the services needed to achieve jointly agreed outcomes for children, and for the plans of individual agencies to reflect that Plan. This would radically improve on current arrangements.[22]

Conclusion

64. The development of children’s strategies in UK regions and Ireland in recent years has ensured that services are focused on the child and seek to create the best scenario in which children’s rights can be realised. The outcomes frameworks attached to national children’s strategies apply to all children.

65. The statutory duty to prepare children’s plans in Northern Ireland incumbent on health and social services boards extends only to children in need, and then only to certain functions. Although consultation with other relevant partners and agencies is required by statute, the children’s services sector is keen for a wider statutory duty of joint planning to be replicated to Northern Ireland to augment the inter-agency planning already undertaken by the area children and young people’s committees.[23]

66. The situation in England, Wales and Scotland is different, where planning for all children is underpinned by statutory duties of collaboration and co-operation. Furthermore, the link between Government objectives articulated in children’s strategies in the rest of UK and joint planning arrangements for the delivery of children’s services are clearly established, with strategies and plans applying to all children. Commentators have asserted that universal outcomes can play a role in preventing or reducing the need for more intrusive actions at a later stage.[24]

67. The discrepancy in Northern Ireland, where the strategy applies to all children but the statutory duty of planning does not, is something that practitioners would like removed. The need for universal services for children in Northern Ireland to be planned alongside services designed for children with additional needs has been highlighted:

“It is our view that there needs to be strong linkage between the planning and delivery of universal services and targeted services. The advantage of an emphasis on universal services is that they can be delivered without stigmatising any children. If the principle of integrated universal services can be established, this will also establish the planning context for children who need additional services.”[25]

68. That said, partnership working has been established within and between the Northern Ireland area children and young people’s committees for some time. Introducing a statutory duty of joint planning may not radically alter current arrangements, but could give certainty and clarity. In addition, the committees have been working closely with the Children and Young People’s Unit of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

69. Linking joint planning arrangements for children with the aims and objectives contained within the Northern Ireland children’s strategy could also contribute to effective monitoring of the outcomes framework that underpins the Executive’s overall vision for children. With services in Northern Ireland provided at regional level, as opposed to local authority level in the rest of GB, the area children and young people’s committee’s have asserted that co-ordination needs to be at a higher level than at present: “the co-ordination of planning and commissioning needs to be carried out at the level at which major decisions about budgets are made.”[26]

[1] The United States and Somalia have both signed the Convention but have yet to ratify it. The UK ratified the Convention on 15 January 1992, with Ireland following suit on 28 October of that year.

[2] “Children and Young People in Northern Ireland, have for too long, lived in a society under stress.” Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (2006) Lifetime Opportunities – Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland, page 33.

[3] McTernan and Godfrey (2006) Children’s Services Planning in Northern Ireland: Developing a Planning Model to Address Rights and Needs Child Care in Practice, Volume 12, No. 3, page 222.

[4] The Northern Ireland strategy ‘Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge’ was launched by Maria Eagle MP, then direct rule Minister with responsibility for children and young people, in June 2006.

[5] Northern Ireland Area Children and Young People’s Committee (2003) The Whole Child and Family Support in Northern Ireland Children’s Services Planning.

[6] Pilot initiatives establishing children’s services committees are under development in Dublin, Donegal and Limerick. The outcome of these pilot schemes will inform the next steps to be taken.

[7] Local authorities in England must review their plans in the years when they are not required to publish a new plan. In Scotland, agencies must provide the Executive with annual updates of integrated children’s plans. From 2009, children’s and young people’s plans will have to be reviewed annually.

[8] Dr Janice Thompson (March 2008) Childcare in the UK and Republic of Ireland, Assembly Research Service, page 6. (Reference: Research Paper 51/2008)

[9] Section 65(1) of the Children Act 2004 defines a children’s services authority as a county, borough, metropolitan district or non-metropolitan district council.

[10] Regulation 3 of the 2005 Regulations state that all authorities must produce a children’s plan. However, an exception is made for local authorities that are categorised as “four-star” authorities. Under section 99 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Secretary of State may, by order, categorise local authorities pursuant to Audit Commission reports on local authorities’ discharging of their functions.

[11] Regulation 4(2)(a) was amended by the Children and Young People’s Plan (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007.

[12] Under section 19 of the 2006 Act, a ‘young child’ is defined from birth until 1 September after their fifth birthday.

[13] Section 6(5) does not apply the age limit of 14 in respect of disabled children.

[14] To implement the Scottish Executive’s childcare strategy, ‘Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A Childcare Strategy for Scotland’, childcare partnerships were established in each of the 32 Scottish local authorities, comprising representatives from the public, voluntary and private sectors, including employers, NHS bodies, childminders and parents. For further information, please see Dr Janice Thompson (March 2008) Childcare Provision in the UK and Republic of Ireland.

[15] This is a slightly different arrangement to England and Wales, where community strategies are provided for through the Local Government Act 2000, which states that local authorities are required to prepare community strategies to promote or improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area, and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK.

[16] Scottish Executive (November 2004) Guidance for Integrated Children’s Services Plans, available online from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1181/0009990.doc

[17] For the purposes of the Bill, clause 7 defined “relevant agencies” as local authorities, whether in reference to their functions as providers of social-work services or education or housing authorities, health boards, NHS trusts, police forces and other public bodies.

[18] Office of the Minister for Children/Department of Health and Children (December 2007) The Agenda for Children’s Services: A Policy Handbook, page 2.

[19] Extracted from Implementing ‘Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge’: A Joint Planning and Commissioning Framework to Improve Outcomes for Children and Young People, paper presented to the All Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People by the Northern Ireland Area Children and Young People’s Committees, 4 March 2008, page 4.

[20] The Education and Skills Authority is scheduled to become operational in April 2009, although an implementation team has been in place since 2006. Originally, RPA proposals under direct rule envisaged the four health and social services boards being merged into a regional health and social care authority comprising around 2,000 staff. On 4 February 2008, the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety announced to the Assembly that the four health and social services boards will be replaced by a regional health and social care board, which will have a staff of around 400 people and is scheduled for establishment around April 2009.

[21] Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (2006) Lifetime Opportunities – Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland, page 34.

[22] From Implementing ‘Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge’: A Joint Planning and Commissioning Framework to Improve Outcomes for Children and Young People, paper presented to the All Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People by the Northern Ireland Area Children and Young People’s Committees, 4 March 2008, page 15.

[23] From Implementing ‘Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge’: A Joint Planning and Commissioning Framework to Improve Outcomes for Children and Young People, paper presented to the All Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People by the Northern Ireland Area Children and Young People’s Committees, 4 March 2008, page 10.

[24] McTernan and Godfrey (July 2006) Children’s Services Planning in Northern Ireland: Developing a Planning Model to Address Rights and Needs Child Care in Practice Volume 12, Number 3, page 234.

[25] McTernan and Godfrey (July 2006) Children’s Services Planning in Northern Ireland: Developing a Planning Model to Address Rights and Needs Child Care in Practice Volume 12, Number 3, page 236.

[26] From Implementing ‘Our Children and Young People – Our Pledge’: A Joint Planning and Commissioning Framework to Improve Outcomes for Children and Young People, paper presented to the All Party Assembly Group on Children and Young People by the Northern Ireland Area Children and Young People’s Committees, 4 March 2008, page 12.

Research Paper
28 February 2008

The approach of the Scottish Executive to prioritising, resourcing and delivering on children and young people’s issues

Rosanne Cecil

This paper looks at children and young people’s issues and discusses the context in which decisions were made by the Scottish Executive to prioritise the well being of children and young people, the funding strategies adopted and the delivery of specific projects, programmes and initiatives.

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Summary of key points

This paper reviews some of the background to the development of programmes and initiatives by the Scottish Executive that address children and young people’s issues; the funding strategies, and the delivery of targeted programmes, projects and initiatives.

It is apparent from the range and the nature of the initiatives that issues concerning children and young people have been a high priority for the Scottish Parliament. Ministers have expressed the wish that children and young people have ambition for themselves and become confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens. Particular concern about the needs of vulnerable children and young people, and the wish to utilise children’s services most appropriately and effectively, have led to the development of Integrated Children’s Services (ICS).

In addition to block grants to local authorities and Health Boards, the Scottish Executive has given targeted funding, through, for example, the Changing Children’s Services Fund and Sure Start Scotland, in order to address specific priorities. The recent concordat, between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the government, has resulted in an increase in funding to local authorities and the end to many ring-fenced funded programmes.

Examples of initiatives, including legislation, that affect children and young people are given. These broadly reflect and address the eight needs of children and young people that must be met if children and young people are to fulfil their potential, as identified in the ‘Ministerial Vision’: children and young people need to be safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, included, respected, and responsible.

Contents

Introduction

Prioritising Children and Young People’s Issues

Resourcing Children and Young People’s Issues

Delivering on Children and Young People’s Issues

Conclusion

Introduction

There are two main features about the approach of the Scottish Executive to children and young people’s issues. First, it is apparent from the range and the nature of the initiatives that issues concerning children and young people were a very high priority for the last executive. Second, the concern about the well being of children and young people and the wish to employ children’s services most appropriately and effectively led to the development of ICS - Integrated Children’s Services.

The first section of this paper reviews some of the background to the development of programmes that address children and young people’ issues: a particular concern with inequality and a focus upon vulnerable young people is apparent. The second section gives information on the financing of projects and programmes, and the third section gives examples of specific projects and initiatives that have been delivered.

Prioritising Children and Young People’s Issues

‘With the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, children’s issues are a key priority’[1]

2.1 Even prior to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it is apparent that concern for children’s issues was to the fore: the government had designated a Minister for Children’s Issues in the Scottish Office and followed that, in 1999, by producing a Child Strategy Statement to ensure that all Scottish Office Departments identified and took proper account of children’s interests when developing policy that affect them, directly or indirectly. The Child Strategy Statement, which was re-issued in 2000 and 2007, stated that it was ‘important that consideration is given to the effects of policies from any departmental area on children’.[2]

2.2 The creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive led to the appointment of a Minister and Deputy Minister for Children. In the Programme for Government for the coalition published in 1999, the Minister for Children and Education wrote of the need to work together to give children the best start in life and stated that education was the highest priority for the government.[3]

2.3 A particular focus of the Scottish Executive has been the support and protection of vulnerable children. Aware that a lack of co-ordination in services had been implicated in a number of high profile child abuse cases throughout the UK, the Scottish Executive had already initiated a number of projects that promoted a more integrated provision of services to children. However, in 2001 the Executive set up an action team to identify obstacles to integrated working and to develop actions to overcome them. The result was the report, For Scotland’s Children,[4] which drew attention to the need to put children and families at the centre of public services, and set out an action plan for the integration of services.[5]

2.4 In May 2003, the Children and Young People Cabinet Delivery Group was set up. The Group agreed a set of priorities to improve the integration and quality of services for all children and young people in Scotland, of which there were six key elements:

2.5 The Local Government Act (2003) placed a duty on local authorities and their partners to develop Community Plans to bring together the delivery of local services, and introduced a statutory duty by local authorities to achieve Best Value by improving the quality and effectiveness of services. In 2004, the Executive issued the Integrated Children’s Services Planning guidance to local authorities, NHS boards and other planning partners asking them to draw together their separate plans and priorities for school education, children’s social work, child health and youth justice into integrated Children’s Services Plans from April 2005.[7] The 2006 publication, Quality Improvement Framework for Integrated Services for Children, Young People and their Families, recognised that a new and single quality improvement system for services for children and young people would not be appropriate, and that what was required was a framework to support the better integration of services, within which service providers could develop their existing quality improvement systems, and work collaboratively with partners to improve processes across service-sector boundaries. In order to help local children’s services partnerships develop approaches to self evaluation and service improvements, the Executive set out a number of indicators.[8]

2.6 In 2003 the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act was passed. This allowed for the appointment of a Commissioner whose main task was to promote and safeguard the rights of children and young people in Scotland by reviewing law, policy and practice relating to the rights of children and young people.[9] The first incumbent took up the post in 2004.

The aims of the Executive’s community regeneration strategy, Closing the Gap, published in 2002, were to prevent individuals or families from falling into poverty; to provide routes out of poverty for individuals and families; and to sustain individuals or families in a lifestyle free from poverty. It stated that important aims of the Government included ‘breaking the cycle of deprivation, raising personal and community ambitions, and lifting children out of the misery of poverty’.[10] While the strategy clearly encompassed adults and children and young people, four of the ten targets (of what became known as CtOG – Closing the Opportunity Gap), which were announced in December 2004,[11] had more specific application, namely (Target B) to reduce the proportion of 16-19 year olds who are not in education training or employment by 2008; (Target E) to ensure that children and young people who need it have an integrated package of appropriate health, care and education support (by 2008); (Target F) to increase the average tariff score of the lowest attaining 20 per cent of S4 pupils by 5% by 2008, and (Target G) to ensure that at least 50% of all looked after young people leaving care have entered education, employment or training (by 2007).[12]

2.7 In 2005, the Scottish Executive published Getting it Right for Every Child: Proposals for Action, which asked for views on a wide number of reforms to improve children’s services and the Children’s Hearings system.[13] It proposed that services for children in Scotland would no longer be determined by professional, agency or organisational boundaries but would be centred around the child and their family, with professionals empowered to act to ensure that every child receives the help s/he needs at the time when s/he needs it.[14] Many policies and documents set the context for the Getting it Right for Every Child programme, which was to be an umbrella programme to deliver improved planning, assessment and integration. The main aim of Getting it Right was to improve the response in all sectors to the needs of children, including the police, local authority, health, the voluntary sector, the Scottish Courts Service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Children’s Reporter. In June 2006, the Scottish Executive published its implementation plan. This set out the Executive’s approach to the reform of children’s services in terms of three areas: changes in practice, removing barriers, and legislation.

2.8 The influential ‘Ministerial Vision’ for all Scotland’s children, stated in Getting it Right, came to underpin subsequent key policy documents:

We have ambition for all our young people and we want them to have ambition for themselves and to be confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens. All Scotland’s children and young people need to be nurtured, safe, active, healthy, engaged in learning, achieving, included, respected and responsible if we are to achieve our ambition for them.[15]

The Executive developed many policies targeted at children and young people, mainly in the areas of education, childcare, child protection, youth crime, child health and increasing the involvement of children and young people.[16] Many of these clearly addressed needs of children and young people as identified in the ministerial vision (see section 3, below).

2.9 The approach that the current government is taking to issues of children and young people is not yet as clearly defined as it was with the earlier administration. The key strategic policy objectives of the current government are for Scotland to become wealthier and fairer; healthier; safer and stronger; smarter, and greener.[17] These encompass issues that affect the needs of children and young people. There are, for example, plans to develop a comprehensive long-term early years’ strategy and a fostering and kinship care strategy. It does appear, however, that the resourcing of policies and programmes for children and young people is to change.

Resourcing Children and Young People’s Issues

3.1 Under the previous Executive, the main sources of public funding for local children’s services were provided through block grants from the Scottish Executive to local authorities and NHS Health Boards. Local authorities are responsible for managing and delivering a range of services, including education and social work, and leisure and recreation. Roughly 80% of local authorities’ general fund finance comes from central government, while the remaining 20% comes from council tax and other sources such as rents and fees. It is mandatory for local authorities to provide schooling for all 5- to 16-year olds. The Executive also gave targeted funding to address specific priorities, in particular through the Changing Children Services Fund and Sure Start programmes.

3.2 The Changing Children’s Services Fund (CCSF) was set up in 2000 to support integrated services and other new approaches for vulnerable children and young people. The CCSF formed part of the Executive’s strategy to improve integration and effectiveness of children’s services, to tackle child poverty, and to achieve the Ministerial Vision (it received £65m for the 2006/7 and £65m for 2007/8). It was originally intended as a source of transitional funding to support local authorities, NHS Boards and voluntary organizations to work in partnership for more effective and integrated service delivery. COSLA,[18] the Health Boards and the voluntary sector were consulted as to its objectives, allocation and distribution mechanisms. The recognition that while some projects have only short-term implications, others require longer-term funding led to the decision to transfer £15m (of the total £65.5m of the CCSF) into GAE (Grant Aided Expenditure) in 2006-7, with a plan to increase this to £35m in 2007-2008.

3.3 In order to tackle child poverty, the Executive initiated projects and programmes through different departments and through various spending streams. For example, resources were channelled through Sure Start, the Child Care Strategy, the Working for Families Fund and the Hungry for Success initiative (which aimed to improve the diet of children and their achievement in school). It also supported a number of funding streams aimed at youth justice priorities that were directed either to individual local authorities, voluntary organisations or to specific projects identified by the Executive.[19]

3.4 Although the new government has retained some ring-fenced expenditure for other fields, the funding for a number of programmes that were to do with children and young people has been rolled up into the settlement agreed in the COSLA and government concordat. According to the government, this will halt the decline in local government’s share of total expenditure, increase the role of local government, and reduce bureaucracy. The concordat will substantially reduce the number of funding streams to local government. The amount given to local authorities will increase by 13%; in return local authorities agree to deliver on a specified set of commitments, and they can retain efficiency savings to re-deploy.

While the Scottish Government must set the direction of policy and the overarching outcomes ... it will stand back from micro-managing service delivery, thus reducing bureaucracy and freeing up local authorities and their partners to meet the varying local needs and circumstances across Scotland.[20]

Each council will have a Single Outcome Agreement based on a set of national outcomes, which are underpinned by agreed national indicators on a range of measures. Concern has been expressed, however, that the result of this change will be to deprive valuable programmes and projects of necessary funding.

Delivering on Children and Young People’s Issues

This section sets out some examples of initiatives, policies and programmes for children and young people, and groups them broadly in accordance with the influential ‘Ministerial Vision’ for all Scottish children’.[21]

4.1 The responsibility for the implementation of policies has been increasingly shared between different agencies as a result of the policy of Integrated Children’s Services. ICS had underpinned the development of policy making, planning and implementation across all areas of services for children and young people. For example, local authorities, NHS Boards, the police and other partners were required to work together to develop Integrated Children’s Services Plans (ICSP). Furthermore, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Act 2004 placed duties on local authorities, health and social services to work together to develop integrated support for children who require support to access and benefit from education.

4.2 Safe To be safe was the first of the ‘needs’ identified in the ministerial vision for children and young people. Policies in this area have been concerned with child protection, the needs of children living with drug-abusing parents, and with looked after children. For example, the 2002 review of child protection services, It’s Everyone’s Job to Make Sure I’m Alright,[22] led to the development of a three-year Child Protection Reform Programme (CPRP) to improve protection of children at risk of neglect and abuse and reduce the numbers of children who need protection.

4.3 Healthy In November 2005, the Scottish Executive decided that its programmes on health would focus on five key areas: health inequality, smoking, food, physical activity and alcohol, all of which impact, directly or indirectly, on children and young people. The legislation on smoking, which came into effect in March 2006, clearly has the potential to greatly contribute to the health of children and young people. There have also been a number of school-based initiatives such as the Health Promoting School concept, which required the adoption of a whole school approach to the promotion and protection of health for all pupils. In addition, the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 placed health promotion at the centre of schools’ activities.

4.4 Achieving Policies addressing the third ‘need’ for children and young people focused on education and on developing the curriculum and improving schools, for example Ambitious Excellent schools[23]. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 introduced a new framework to provide for children and young people who require additional help with their learning. The Act promoted collaborative working among all those supporting children and young people. In particular, it laid duties on the appropriate agencies to help education authorities to discharge their functions under the Act.

The recognition of the role of parents, foster carers and residential workers in children’s learning and educational achievements led to the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006, which requires every education authority to prepare a strategy for promoting parental involvement. Particular concerns about the educational achievements of looked after and accommodated children led to the report, Looked After Children: We Can and Must do Better, which set out 19 actions to be taken to improve the educational attainment of looked after children.[24]

4.5 Nurtured The Scottish Executive recognised the importance that parenting has in determining a child’s future and that poor parenting can be a factor in offending or antisocial behaviour. As a consequence, it supported a range of programmes, both directly and indirectly, to strengthen parenting capacity including Sure Start Scotland, as well as many voluntary sector groups that deliver support to parents in a range of areas such as relationship counselling and mediation, disability, poverty and substance misuse. It also supported the consortium Parenting Across Scotland, which aims to develop innovative approaches to addressing parenting issues, increase the efficiency and accessibility of services to parents, and engage parents in policy- making processes.

The review, Extraordinary Lives[25] identified good practice in the care of looked after children and made recommendations for further improvements. The authors of the review argued that the responsibility for looked after children and young people should not lie just with carers and social work staff but that local authorities need to recognize the importance of their role as corporate parent. The review highlighted the needs of particular groups of children and young people who may face additional problems due to their ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation and, in particular, noted that the needs of gay and lesbian young people who are looked after have not been widely recognised.

4.6 Active. The Active Schools Programme, which was funded by the Executive and managed by sportscotland, aimed to provide children and young people with the tools, motivation and opportunities to be more active throughout their school years and into adulthood.

4.7 Included. Children and young people need to be helped to overcome social, educational, physical and economic inequalities and to be accepted as part of the community in which they live and learn. They also need to be respected and responsible. Youth Justice depends on inter-agency co-ordination to ensure child centred and integrated responses to children who offend or are at risk of offending. The Youth Justice Improvement Group Report (October 2006) highlighted the need for universal services such as health and education to be more closely integrated with specialist areas such as youth justice and anti-social behaviour services.

The Executive’s programme to improve youth justice services incorporated actions on prevention, early intervention, assessment, information sharing, and workforce development. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 provided a range of new powers designed to deal specifically with young people involved in nuisance behaviour for whom existing measures had proved ineffective. It introduced a new measure – Intensive Support and Monitoring Service (ISMS) – that gave Children’s Hearings the power to impose conditions restricting the movement of a young person (where s/he met the criteria for secure accommodation) if it was considered that it would help stop persistent offending, or if the welfare needs of the child could be addressed through a ‘tag’.

Conclusion

The belief in the need to address issues concerning children and young people led the last Scottish Executive to develop a range of policies and programmes, including legislation, which had either a direct or indirect impact upon their well being.[26] It is currently unclear as to what extent the current administration will continue to support and deliver existing programmes or develop new initiatives. The changes in funding strategies coupled with the apparent lack of a focused commitment to children and young people has led to some concern that the approach of innovative thinking and targeted funding may have come to an end.

[1] Scottish Executive, Child Strategy Statement, 2000 (www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/social/css-00.asp)

[2] Scottish Executive, Child Strategy Statement, 2000 (www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/social/css-00.asp)

[3] Scottish Executive, Making it Work Together: A Programme for Government, 1999

[4] Scottish Executive, For Scotland’s Children, 2001

[5] See Exploring the Evidence Base for Integrated Children’s Services, a literature review of existing relevant evidence on Integrated Children’s Services. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ICSlitreview

[6] C. Kidner, Children’s Services, SPICe Briefing, 2007

[7]http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/children-services/17842/22341

[8] Scottish Executive, Quality Improvement Framework for Integrated Services for Children, Young People and their Families. See www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/27135008/3

[9]www.sccyp.org.uk

[10] Scottish Executive, Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap: The Scottish Executive’s Community Regeneration Strategy, 2002, www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46729/0031676.pdf

[11]www.scotland.gove.uk/Topics/People/Social-Inclusion/17415/CtOG/intro

[12] Other targets that apply to children and young people are the HEAT (Health Efficiency Access and Treatment) targets for the NHS, which are set for a three year period. Two targets that apply to children and young people concern mental health and admissions to adult beds. See www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/health/mental-health/servicespolicy/DFMH/antidepressantprescribing

[13] The Children’s Hearings system, which is unique to Scotland, provides a system of care and justice for vulnerable and troubled children and young people. It is a formal meeting of three children’s panel members for the local area, a Children’s Reporter, and normally a social worker, who has visited the family and prepared a report. The hearing is called in order to consider a child’s case and whether or not the child is ‘at risk’ and requires to be supervised and/or protected.

[14] Scottish Executive, Getting it Right for Every Child: Draft Children’s Services (Scotland) Bill Consultation, 2006

[15] Scottish Executive, Getting it Right for Every Child, 2005

[16] K. Berry, Equal Opportunities Scottish Executive Policy – Age, SPICe Briefing, 2006

[17] Scottish Executive, Principles and Priorities: The Government’s Programme for Scotland 2007

[18] Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

[19] K. Berry, Equal Opportunities Scottish Executive Policy – Age, SPICe Briefing, 2006

[20] Scottish Government, Concordat Between the Scottish Government and Local Government, 2007 www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/923/0054147.pdf

[21] Scottish Executive, Getting it Right for Every Child, 2005

[22] Scottish Executive, It’s Everyone’s Job to Make Sure I’m Alright, 2002

[23] Scottish Executive, Ambitious Excellent Schools: Our Agenda for Action,, 2004

[24] Looked After Children and Young People: We Can and Must do Better, Scottish Executive, 2007

[25] Scottish Executive, Extraordinary Lives: Creating a Positive Future for Looked after Children and Young People in Scotland, 2006

[26] For more detailed information see: C. Kidner, Children’s Services, SPICe Briefing, 07/40, 2007

Appendix 8

List of Other Evidence Considered by the Committee

Advice NI

Children in Northern Ireland

Combat Poverty Agency

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Department of Education

Department for Employment and Learning

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Department of Finance and Personnel

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Department for Regional Development

Department for Social Development

Institute of Public Health in Ireland

New Policy Institute

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister – Rebasing Child Poverty Estimates

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister – Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister – Further Information

Procedure for Conduct of Equality Impact Assessments –
Extract from guidance produced by the Equality Commission

Save the Children

Southern Health and Social Services Board

Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum

Western Area Childcare Partnership and Southern Area Childcare Partnership

Appendix 9

Other Evidence Considered by the Committee

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Advice NI

Working out of poverty
A study of the low-paid and the ‘working poor’

http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=581

Half of all poor children now have at least one working parent

Government should increase the financial support available via tax credits, says IPPR

Half of all poor children now have at least one working parent, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has said.

In new research published today, ‘Working out of Poverty’, the IPPR highlights that, whilst 600,000 children have been lifted out of poverty in the last ten years, the total number of poor children living in working households has stayed the same at 1.4 million.

As well as recommending action to boost the effectiveness of the minimum wage, IPPR is calling on the government to increase the financial support available to working parents by -

Kate Stanley, IPPR Head of Social Policy, said -

‘Significant progress has been made in the last 10 years in lifting nearly 600,000 children out of poverty. However, half of all poor children now live in households where someone is at work and the challenge is to ensure that work really is a route out of poverty.

Tax credits and the minimum wage have ‘made work pay’ relative to being on benefits but these don’t yet go far enough to ensure more children are lifted out of poverty. More action is needed to combine financial support and measures to boost parental employment with action to deliver fairness on pay and opportunities for progression at work.’’

Holistic and joined up approach to the benefits and tax credit systems needed to end child poverty

New study by Community Links, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and CPAG

December 2007

The government must take a holistic and joined-up approach to the benefits and tax credit systems if it is to achieve its objective of ending child poverty, according to a new study by three anti-poverty charities published today.

The study, carried out by Community Links, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG), and the Child Poverty Action Group, concludes that claimants often struggle to make sense of the financial support they are entitled to; are not always better off obtaining work; and that the benefit and tax credit systems are too fragmented with often one policy contradicting another in its effect on low-income families.

Among the study’s recommendations are that the government should -

In addition, the study proposes that -

Work is not an automatic route out of poverty, say MPs

New report from the Scottish Affairs Committee

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmscotaf/128/12802.htm

December 2007

Despite the introduction of the minimum wage and tax credits, work is not an automatic route out of poverty, the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee has said.

In a new report, ‘Poverty in Scotland’, the Committee welcomes the increase in employment levels over the past ten years which, it says, has greatly contributed to a reduction in poverty.

However, unless barriers such as disability, employer attitudes and unaffordable childcare are tackled, employment levels cannot continue to rise at the same rate, the Committee says, and even then work will never be a realistic prospect for some people, who must be lifted out of poverty through the benefits system.

In addition, the Committee expresses concern at the relatively poor progress made on reducing poverty amongst single adults of working age. Poverty is not just a problem for the unemployed, it also affects those in low paying jobs, especially where work is of poor quality, short-term or seasonal, the Committee says.

As a result work should not be seen as an automatic route out of poverty, the Committee concludes, and the tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no-one in full time work is living in poverty.

Graeme Cooke and Kayte Lawton
January 2008

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Children in Northern Ireland

Point 1 - Programmes Under Threat
Executive Children’s Fund

These were in the main Executive Programme Children’s Fund projects. This Fund closed on 31st March 2008 with the remaining projects now mainstreamed within departmental baseline budgets. However these projects have been given continuation funding for only one year, with the amounts of funding made available set to reduce significantly over the 3 years to 2011 and then end. We would ask that the OFMDFM Committee as part of the Inquiry recommend that these projects that are making a significant impact on tackling child poverty are absorbed and mainstreamed within departmental budgets beyond 2011.

Peace II Programmes

There is also an issue in relation to Peace II Programmes. Peace II has now also come to an end with Peace III due to come on stream shortly. However the objectives of these Peace Programmes are quite different and it is unlikely that those projects funded under Peace II will fit within and be provided for as part of Peace III. We would ask that the OFMDFM Committee as part of the Inquiry recommend that those Peace II programmes that will not be provided for under Peace III are protected and given the opportunity to access other relevant mainstream pots of money. We are aware of one particular Peace II initiative which is under threat. It provides alternative education provision to Traveller young people, who have significant experiences of living in poverty which impacts on their educational opportunities.

Efficiency Savings

There is also an extremely recent issue that has arisen re funding which will have quite significant ramifications for organizations in the voluntary and community sector providing services to children and families who live in poverty.

One of the new Trusts has informed all those organizations in the voluntary and community sector with whom it has contracts for the delivery of services that it will be requiring these organizations to deliver 3% efficiency savings each year until 2011 (9% in total). This is without any work to establish whether there are actually any efficiencies there to be found and on top of the fact that the services are unlikely to be funded to 100% of their actual cost anyway.

We would ask the OFMDFM Committee as part of their Inquiry to consider the role the new Performance and Efficiency Delivery Unit is playing in calculating where efficiencies are to be found in contracted organisations and whether a process been planned for this.

http://www.communityni.org/index.cfm/section/news/key/100308efficiencysavings

Point 2 Lone Parent Figures (Marie Cavanagh – Gingerbread NI)

By 1997, the proportion of people living in households below 50% of average income increased from 9% to 24% and child poverty increased from 6.6% to 29.1% (Lister, 2001). More specifically, lone parent families were found to be particularly vulnerable to poverty and to stay poor longer than other families (Ford & Millar, 1998)

High levels of child poverty in the UK have been linked to the increasing number of children growing up in workless households headed by a lone–parent (Hirsch, 2006). Evidence suggests that nearly 70% of children living in workless households live in households headed by a lone parents (HM Treasury, 22 March 2006) and that half of all children living with one parent are in income poverty (Palmer et al., 2005)

For lone parents, the Labour government has set an employment target of 70% by 2010. To achieve this target in Northern Ireland OFMDFM research indicates that an additional 10,000 jobs and 30,000 childcare places would have to be made available.

Scullion et al., (2005) found lone parents have the highest risk of poverty of any households in Northern Ireland and are more than twice as likely to be in poverty as all other households in the population. Their research, carried out on behalf of OFMDFM, found two-thirds of lone parents were living in poverty compared with one-third of other families. Lone parents whose youngest child was aged between 0-4 years had the highest risk of poverty.

Lone parents are found to have the weakest incentives to work and progress when in employment. A report by Adams et al. (2006) is underscored by evidence merging from Britain of high job exit rates among lone parents entering the labour market, particularly in their first year of employment (Evans et al., 2004). It is noted that while up to 15% of lone parents move into work each year – a rate similar to that of other non-employed people – lone parents have more than double the exit rate of non-lone parents. Low pay, especially when lined to part-time work and ill health were found to be important contributing factors. Their report questions how far lone parents who are more marginalized in the employment market should be encouraged to enter work if the outcomes for job retention are likely to be poor.

Over recent years considerable evidence has emerged to demonstrate the particular disadvantages faced by lone parents in Northern Ireland compared to other regions of the UK (Evason et al., 1998a; Horgan, 2005; Scullion, et al., 2005; Spence, 2005; Kenway et al., 2006). In general the picture is one of limited employment opportunities, higher rates of disability, higher costs of childcare and a lower level of childcare provision.

Analysis of date from DHSSPS (2005), reveals that the number of registered child minders and daycare places in Northern Ireland equates to only 1 place for every 7 children under four years old in Northern Ireland (Gray and Carragher, 2006), with significant variations in provision between the east and the west of Northern Ireland. Kenway et al. (2006) demonstrated that western areas (Fermanagh, Omagh, Strabane and Derry) have approximately half the number of nursery and childminder places per 1,000 children under 5 years as eastern areas (South and East Belfast and Castlereagh).

Gingerbread would strongly advocate that current benefit levels do not provide sufficient funds to enable lone parents and their children outside the labour market to lead a healthy lifestyle. While we understand the importance of maintaining financial incentives to encourage participation in paid work, living on the breadline is clearly detrimental to the health and well-being of lone parents and their children and ultimately makes participation in the labour market more difficult. Benefit levels need to be increased to address the financial problems experienced by one parent families.

Stress is a significant problem among lone parents. Most of this is poverty related, but also stems from the difficulties of coping alone. It is clear there is a need to expand the availability of welfare and support services for one parent families. This includes making it easier to access advice on benefits, work, tax credits etc.

Many issues facing lone parents stem from gender inequality. The Gender Equality Strategy published by OFMDFM in 2006 commits government to tackling the causes of gender inequality in key areas including: poverty, childcare, health and well-being, education and access to employment. Action plans need to be monitored in relation to impact on one parent families.

Point 3 Del Project (Marie Cavanagh – Gingerbread NI)

In Northern Ireland, the formulation of employment policy and administration of funding to support training and employment initiatives is devolved to the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). Policy developments have largely followed those in Great Britain, including the extension of the New Deal and Pathways to Work initiatives, although uniquely within the UK subsidies are available to employers for up to six months for employing participants of the NDLP. Also, participants on the NDLP in Northern Ireland can claim help with the cost of informal childcare. This departure from GB policy represents an attempt but the DEL to address two common concerns linked to childcare: flexibility and acceptability. Effectively, informal childcare encourages flexible working and can be a more acceptable childcare arrangement where the provision of formal childcare has traditionally been limited – as in Northern Ireland (see Bynner et al., 2004).

In line with Britain, Northern Ireland adheres to both employment and public sector efficiency targets agreed by the Westminster parliament. The efficiency programme has overlapped with substantial organisational change in Northern Ireland which has raised concerns about the impact of the efficiency programme for services and should efficiency gains result in a reduction in the number of front line staff or an under investment in support this would have serious implications for the delivery of the welfare to work strategy.

The current ND programme is soon to be replaced by Steps to Work (September 2008). Pathways to Work (WPPLP) was introduced in pilot format to Northern Ireland in 2007 in areas were the DE was introducing Extended Schools initiative (Limavady, Lisburn, Knockbreda and Shaftsbury Square). Despite these developments it is doubtful that Northern Ireland will achieve the 70% lone parent employment target by 2010. Northern Ireland is one of the poorest regions in the UK with more limited employment opportunities, high incidences of low pay, high rates of disability and high costs of childcare alongside low level of provision (Gray & Carragher, 2006). The employment rate for Northern Ireland (for people of working age) is the lowest in the UK at 68% (ONS, 2006c). Average gross weekly earnings in Northern Ireland are 13% below the UK level (ONS, 2006c)

Further, housing policy including the decline of public sector housing has resulted in low income groups relying heavily on the private rented sector where the cost of accommodation is often well in excess of Housing Benefit levels (Gray & Carragher, 2006). The overall net effect is reflected in the higher proportion of households dependent on benefit in Northern Ireland; nearly one-third of households with children are totally dependent on benefit compared to 19% of households with children in Britain (Horgan, 2005). The withdrawal of means-tested benefits, particularly Housing Benefit, creates the weakest incentive to participate in paid work.

Gingerbread would strongly advocate that Into Work initiative such as NDLP/Steps to Work and WPPLP should support lone parents who aspire to better jobs and assist them to follow a career development (longer term) path back to work. In addition support higher level courses and the provision of good non-gendered careers advice and guidance.

Into Work initiatives should support those with multiple barriers to employment. PA’s must be fully aware of the issues facing one parent families, they should have a good knowledge of the socio-economic profile of lone parents, knowledge of training opportunities generally and support organisations such as Gingerbread in particular.

Gingerbread is aware of the diversity of the lone parent population in Northern Ireland and would strongly advocate on the importance of not treating people with different needs as if they were the same – something which is incompatible with the principle of equality of opportunity. Some lone parents are better qualified than others and consequently may be more work-ready. Entry into the labour market may be prevented due to issues linked to childcare, transport, lack of employment opportunity.

Point 4 GB Disability Packages (Paschal Mckeown – Mencap)

In May 2007 as a result of CSR 07 a package of £340m was made available for disabled children’s services in England:

Key elements of the package include:

a specific grant of £280m to deliver a step change in the provision of short breaks; £35m to pilot accessible childcare; £19m for a Transition Support Programme, modelled on the Early Support programme but focussed on young disabled people in transition to adulthood; £5m to help more parents get involved in shaping services at a local level, including through parents forums.

http://www.edcm.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_5541sn_2904660246012x91w_20075201432r

Then in December 2007 a further £90m was made available in the context of the Children’s Plans, bringing the total monies made available for disabled children’s services to £430m for 08-11.

The further investment included:

£90 million of additional capital funding for short break services, and an increased grant of £8.4 million for the Family Fund, to allow them to make grants to disabled young people aged 16 and 17.

http://www.edcm.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_5914ag_84165945640084t54f_200712103126r

Under the Barnett Formula the NI share of the £340m equates to approximately £11.4m. We have asked that when the NI share of the total £430m comes to NI it is ring-fenced and protected so that it goes directly to frontline services for disabled children’s services (in the past our experience has been that where monies are not ring-fenced they are extremely vulnerable to being diverted to other competing areas e.g. back in ’99 monies which were to come to NI to set up Sure Start were instead diverted to stem the winter beds crisis in the hospital sector)

We would highlight that Northern Ireland has a higher incidence of disability in comparison to neighbouring jurisdictions. More children in Northern Ireland have severe disabilities 10 in 100,000 children compared to 8 in 100,000 in England (ONS, 2004).[1] We would also highlight the links to rates of child poverty and the higher risk of living on low incomes for families with one or more children with a disability[2]. So there is an even stronger rationale backing the need for additional investment of ring-fenced resources for children and young people with disabilities here in NI.

We would ask that the OFMDFM Committee as part of their Inquiry asks whether NI’s total share of these monies has come into the NI central black, and subsequently seek to ensure that where these monies are in the central block they are ring-fenced and protected so that they go directly to frontline services for disabled children.

Further we would ask the OFMDFM Committee as part of their Inquiry to recommend that a cross government inquiry is held into the state of disabled children’s services in NI (this could be lead by the Assembly Health Committee in conjunction with other relevant Assembly Committees). We need to make an assessment of the current level of provision across NI and identify where the gaps in provision are so that we can determine how best to allocate the monies and make an assessment of whether this is sufficient to meet the rights and needs of all disabled children and young people.

Comprehensive Spending Review 2007

Fundamentally we would highlight that CSR 07 was informed by a HM Treasury Policy Review which included a Children and Young People’s Review encompassing a Review of Disabled Children’s Services.

HM Treasury/DfES (2007) Aiming High for Disabled Children –
Support for Families

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/C/2/cyp_disabledchildren180507.pdf

This Review was informed by parents, professionals and most importantly children and young people themselves – they had an input into the spending decisions that were made. No such policy review informed CSR 07 in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge that in Northern Ireland CSR 07 took place over the period of the ending of direct rule and the return to devolved government which resulted in minimal real and meaningful engagement with stakeholders on the development of spending proposals and bids to the CSR process.

We would strongly advocate that one of the overarching recommendations of the Committee’s Inquiry should focus on the process by which spending decisions are made here in Northern Ireland. The Executive must put in place a transparent process whereby the PfG and Budget are developed in compliance with the section 75 duty to promote equality of opportunity.. An integral element of this must be real and meaningful stakeholder involvement including the involvement of children and young people themselves. Families and children living in poverty need to be asked their views on (a) what monies should be made available to tackle child poverty; and (b) how this money can be spent to best effect to tackle child poverty i.e. we need to see a robust evidence based rationale behind spending priorities.

[1] Referenced in NICCY The State of Children’s Right in NI 2004

[2] DSD “Households Below Average Income, Northern Ireland, 2005-06”

Presentation to Meeting to
Review Evidence on 30 April 2008

Combat Poverty Agency - Seminar presentation_apr08.pdf

Combat Poverty Agency - Seminar presentation_apr08.pdf

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

DARD response.pdf

DARD response.pdf

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Department of Education

Responses to issues raised during evidence session.
Question (i)
How is the Department specifically targeting the under achievement in young people, and in particular young male protestants in both urban and rural communities?

Ensuring that all our young people fulfil their potential is at the core of the work in the Department of Education. Our overall aim is to establish an education system which supports the highest standards of achievement for all.

In support of this there are a number of new policies at various stages of development/implementation – the implementation of the revised curriculum, a new school improvement policy ‘Every School a Good School’, the Revised Literacy & Numeracy Strategy and the SEN Review.

Overall standards are very high but there is too wide a variation in performance and we need to narrow this. Too many pupils are leaving schools with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills leaving them ill-prepared for working life.

Education needs the support of others to achieve the level of improvement required. Many of the young people who are leaving education with fewer qualifications are already contending with barriers to education, for example those from poorer backgrounds and young people with disabilities. The policies above will seek to ensure that schools and teachers are supported in meeting the needs of these pupils and alongside this the Department is working with other Departments and agencies to secure a co-ordinated approach at a local level, for example

Question (ii)
Officials from DHSSPS in their briefing to the Committee advised that under the legislation, responsibility for early years and day care for children aged from 0 – 12, transferred from DHSSPS to DE in 2007. Please can you advise who is responsible for childcare for school age children?

Answer

In the evidence session, Louise Warde Hunter, Head of Early Years, Youth and School Finance was asked a question and a supplementary by Francie Molloy and Naomi Long respectively, relating to the school aged childcare sector, in response to the DHSSPS briefing provided. In response Ms Warde Hunter replied to confirm that indeed responsibility for Early Years activities had transferred from DHSSPS to DE in November 2006, and that the policy responsibility for and funding of the school aged childcare sector had not transferred at that time, but remained with DHSSPS.

During the period April 2006 – March 2008 DHSSPS had been disseminating some £1.1m of CYP funding, using Playboard as an Intermediary Funding Body (IFB) to allow approximately 57 after school clubs to continue to operate. This portion of work did not transfer to DE with the Early Years policies as it did not link to the transferring policies, broadly relating to care of young children and the corresponding sections of the Children (NI) Order 1995.

The phrase ‘school aged childcare’ is widely used by Playboard to cover the remit of their sector. However it must be noted that this is a misnomer since it is only the after schools clubs portion of care for children of school age, for which nominal charges are met by parents, that is represented by the organisation. There are other types of childcare for which DE is responsible. In Ms Warde Hunter’s response to the Committee, she was making the point that the funding of this part of the sector i.e. after schools clubs, did not fall within DE’s remit.

Upon transfer of Early Years policy responsibilities to DE in 2006, responsibility for childminding and daycare (home based care, private full day care and sessional care) of children aged 0-12 transferred to DE. Thus DE is responsible for childcare in so far as it relates to these methods of care. Since policy and funding for after school clubs did not transfer to DE, they continued to fall within the remit of DHSSPS. DE is aware that DHSSPS did not bid for continuance of the CYP funding and Playboard has been advised to contact OFMDFM for consideration of future funding.

It should also be noted that no legislative change has been effected in relation to the Early Years policy transfer. Current arrangements are an interim solution until the establishment of the new Health Board and the Education and Skills Authority, during 2009. Primary legislation would need to be amended to give DE powers in relation to the relevant parts of the Children (NI) Order 1995.

Question (iii)
What specific measures are being taken by the Department to address the needs of children and young people with disabilities or special educational needs and how is it co-operating with the health sector in particular to ensure statemented needs are met?

Answer

Question (iv)
How does DE monitor the approach to the distribution and allocation of funding by Boards to the Youth Service to ensure that it complies with section 75 requirements? This is arose in the context of provision for young people with disabilities

Answer

The education and library boards, through an annual survey, collect data on the involvement of young people from certain categories of section 75 - disability and ethnicity. However, in line with the NI Youth Work Strategy, the Service follows the principle of “inclusion.” Other specialist disability groups are also assisted - for example, PHAB, Gateway, Riding for the Disabled. The approach makes it difficult to calculate the exact funding for section 75 groupings.

The 5 boards have carried out an EQIA on their policies on ‘registration’ and ‘grant aid’. The EQIA makes reference to the need to ensure that special initiatives are undertaken aimed at encouraging greater participation by under-represented groups. It suggests that greater efforts are required to better publicise the scheme and to ensure that more targeted outreach work is undertaken to encourage greater participation by the following groups:

The boards are working to a ‘draft action plan’ as the result of the EQIA and the Department has requested that the monitoring of the distribution and allocation of funds to comply with section 75 requirements be included.

Individual boards also have systems for monitoring activity. In the SEELB, for example, their Youth Section through a Questionnaire monitors the usage of Youth Services by young people in relation to Ethnic Origin, Disability and Perceived Religious affiliation. This provides them with a picture of those using the Service.

Additional Evidence Submitted by: Department of Employment and Learning

Department for Employment and Learning.ai

Adelaide House
39-49 Adelaide Street
BELFAST
BT2 8FD

Mr Damien Martin
Committee Clerk
Committee for the Office of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister
Northern Ireland Assembly
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3SW 12 May 2008

Dear Damien,

OFMdFM COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO CHILD POVERTY

1. In the process of the evidence session to this Inquiry on 2 April last, DEL officials undertook to write to the Committee on a number of issues and to provide some additional material. The Assistant Clerk to the OFMdFM Committee forwarded some specific questions on 16 April (see copy of letter attached). Our response is as follows:

(i) What steps are being taken by DEL to specifically target the under achievement of young male protestants and to raise the educational standard and achievement in both urban and rural communities?

2. The issue of underachievement by any young people in Northern Ireland is a matter of concern to this Department, regardless of background or geographical location in that it has significant implications, not only for the young people themselves, but also for the supply of skills to meet the needs of the local economy. The Department of Education will have provided the Committee with information specific to the issue and how it is being addressed in the context of schools. As indicated in the DEL evidence session, DEL’s primary role is in relation to promoting learning and skills, preparing people for work and supporting the economy. This includes, of course, enabling people to gain access to the opportunity to improve their skills and qualifications and it is in this context that DEL impacts on the development of young people.

3. DEL’s main engagement with young people is via the Careers Service and also through the operation of the new Training for Success Provision that replaced Jobskills in September 2007. The Careers Service is the first point of engagement with the young person and brief details of the work were included in the Written Evidence to the Committee.

4. Careers Advisers work with children and monitor the numbers that progress from school into education, training or employment. One priority work area for the Careers Service is to engage 30% of disengaged 16-18 years olds in education, training or employment. Work in this area is currently being collated for 2007 school leavers. For the previous year, a figure of 32% was achieved. In addition, during 06-07, Careers Service staff made 119,830 information, advice and guidance contacts with a range of clients, to assist in appropriate decision-making in relation to education, training and employment. To date for 07-08 the figure is 75,503 contacts.

5. Attached at Annex A is an outline of the Training for Success Provision, including details of the organizations that have been contracted to provide specialist support for those young people that might need it. In the evidence session, Mr Shannon enquired whether the Prince’s Trust was one of the organizations in question and I can now confirm that this is not the case. Whilst the Prince’s Trust is not one of DEL’s contracted organisations for this particular aspect of its activity, DEL is actively involved with the Trust in a number of its programmes for young people. Details of these are outlined in Annex B attached.

6. As indicated also in the evidence session, the Vocational Enhancement Programme developed jointly with DE has a major role to play in developing young people. Details of this provision are attached at Annex C.

7. Learner Access and Engagement is also a relevant issue. DEL is proposing to pilot new learner support arrangements between Further Education Colleges and third party organisations, including voluntary and community groups, commencing in September 2008. The pilot programme, which will run for three academic years, will provide opportunities for non-statutory organisations (mainly, but not exclusively voluntary and community bodies) to provide learner support services through a contractual arrangement with a Further Education College. The programme will operate throughout Northern Ireland, with all six FE Colleges participating. This learner support service will be targeted at those aged 19 – 65, not in work, who do not hold a qualification at Level 2 or above, who may have barriers to learning.

8. For unemployed jobseekers within the age group of 18 to 24 years New Deal is mandatory. Individuals are eligible for, and required to participate in New Deal when they have been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) for 6 months or more. After the initial ‘Gateway’ period (during which a New Deal Personal Adviser provides advice, guidance and assistance with jobsearch), jobseekers who have not found work enter one of four options offering work experience, training or subsidised employment. There is also provision under New Deal for those interested in self-employment.

9. Specifically in relation to the issue of young male Protestants, the Committee will be aware that the Renewing Communities Action Plan was developed to tackle disadvantage across all communities, paying particular attention to the findings of the cross Departmental Taskforce established by Government in March 2004, to consider the specific needs of Protestant working class communities.

10. DEL has responsibility for 8 of the 62 actions in the Action Plan published in April 2006. The DEL actions deal with improving life prospects by raising educational achievement, vocational attainment and employability, and growing civic and community leadership and active citizenship. The programme formally ended in March 2008, though some actions continue beyond that date. For example, a number of schools from working class areas, including Protestant areas, currently participate in the University of Ulster managed Step Up programme, the aim of which is to provide an opportunity for disadvantaged pupils, who have low attainment levels and relatively low expectations, to improve their academic performance, self-esteem and motivation and gain entry to and complete programmes of study at university. Coverage of this was extended from Londonderry to Belfast under the auspices of Renewing Communities, but is now being mainstreamed.

11. An evaluation of the Renewing Communities Actions that will report later in the year will establish the extent to which the Actions have, as a whole and, at an individual basis, achieved the overarching aims. The evaluation will provide the Department with:

(ii) What plans has DEL to roll out the Local Employment Intermediary Service (LEMIS) across the province?

12. LEMIS provision is available in those areas highlighted by the Noble Indicators as being the most disadvantaged in Northern Ireland, namely areas within Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane. There are currently no plans to extend the service outside of these areas.

13. LEMIS was introduced in April 07 and uses community based providers to deliver services. Half of the funding the providers receive is outcome-related and dependent upon getting positive results, especially jobs for their clients. We closely monitor the overall performance of individual providers, as does the locally based and independent LEMIS Stakeholder Fora. During 2007/08 a very credible and encouraging 23% of those engaged found jobs and, in 2008/09 we are hoping to build on that initial success by securing a10% uplift on the 364 who actually moved into work in the past year.

(iii) Is DEL taking any specific action to address the issues of skills development and employability for young people with a disability (or families with a child with a disability) and advise what funding, initiatives, activities and structures that are in place to support this.

14. The Careers Service focuses on the needs of young people with disabilities as part of its Social Inclusion Policy, set in the context of the Programme for Government priority to promote tolerance, inclusion and wellbeing. A number of Careers Advisers have been specially trained to work and support young people who have a disability. Careers Advisers have an active role to play in the Transition Planning process of clients with Statements of Special Educational Need. As part of the Service Level Agreement with Schools and Colleges, Careers Advisers are invited to attend Transition Plan Meetings of Year 10 pupils and subsequent Annual Reviews. In this role they work with a range of professionals and contribute to the clients’ transition plan by providing impartial Careers Information, Advice and Guidance on the range of educational, training and employment opportunities available to them. This allows the client and their parents to make informed decisions about the options available to them on leaving school or college.

15. In working with this client group Careers Advisers build, maintain and sustain an effective guidance relationship which values and respects the client. Each client is encouraged and supported with Careers Information, Advice and Guidance to enable them to make informed and appropriate decisions in relation to educational, training and employment choices that will contribute to individual, social and economic development.

16. There is a number of measures in place to facilitate access by young people with disability to DEL mainstream programmes. As indicated during the evidence session, Training for Success, DEL’s main programme for young people (see Annex A), has embarked on a review of access to and support within the programme for young disabled people. The outcome of this review is expected in the summer.

17. Further Education (FE) Colleges, as autonomous bodies, are responsible for determining their own provision linked to demand. However, they are required by legislation to “have regard to the requirements of persons over compulsory school leaving age who have learning difficulties”. Under the Special Education Needs and Disability Order (SENDO), Colleges are required to make adjustments to allow people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to access their mainstream courses. Where mainstream courses are not appropriate, Colleges collaborate with adult day centres to provide training and development opportunities on discrete courses in various locations for young people such as those with severe learning difficulties. In 2006/07, the last year for which figures are available, there were 1,338 students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities aged between 19 and 25 years inclusive enrolled in further education. This represents an increase of 55 since the 2002/03 academic year. 49% of the enrolments were on discrete (i.e. specialised) FE courses and another 11% were on courses delivered at out-centres such as day centres, with the remainder in mainstream FE classes.

18. To support the introduction of SENDO, the Inclusive Learning Project (ILP) was established with the aim of ensuring that all management, teaching and administrative staff are trained in the best procedures to accommodate students with disabilities, and that appropriate support arrangements are in place. The ILP identified a requirement for needs assessment training, enabling Colleges to develop a consistent approach to dealing with the needs of disabled students and to make any ‘reasonable adjustments’ required under SENDO. This training is currently being provided to staff from the six Colleges by the BRITE Centre, Edinburgh.

19. The new FE Funding formula ensures that Colleges are able to meet the costs of students with a disability who are integrated into mainstream classes and the Additional Support Fund (£1.5m) provides additional technical and personal support, such as braillers, signers, and specialist software. In 2007/2008 DEL made a further £1.5 million available to enable Colleges to meet the additional costs of discrete provision, including reduced classroom sizes, additional lecturer contact time and provision of classroom assistants.

20. DEL, in co-operation with the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges

(ANIC) and the Education and Training Inspectorate, is currently undertaking a review of the nature and extent of special needs provision throughout the FE network, to determine how best provision might be improved, within the terms of FE’s remit.

21. In addition, primarily for adults with a disability the Department continues to take forward Welfare Reform and supporting people to move from welfare to work via a range of programmes and services to assist people who are unemployed, economically inactive or jobseekers generally to move into economic employment and away from benefit dependency. (From a Benefit perspective working 16 hours or more is regarded as full time remunerative employment). These DEL products are available to clients with disabilities as are the additional specialist programmes and support offered through its Disablement Advisory Service (DAS). Details of these and other DEL mainstream programmes are provided in Annex D.

22. There are no specific DEL interventions targeted at parents of young people with a disability. The full range of DEL programmes and services would be available, subject to the relevant criteria being met.

23. The Vocational Enhancement Programme (VEP) is open to schools of all abilities and in 2007/08. 31 special schools are involved. An enhanced VEP funding formula was created to recognise children with special needs.

24. Within the special schools arena there are 1,041 vocational enrolments which accounts for 679 pupils (many enrol for more than one course). Children with special educational needs are also enrolled in mainstream schools and when these are included there is a total of 3,475 vocational enrolments (which represents 2,474 pupils) on the VEP for this year. Further details of the Programme are in Annex C.

25. Widening Participation in Higher Education - DEL is committed to widening participation in higher education by students from those groups who are currently under-represented, in particular, students with learning difficulties and disabilities as well as those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Department pays the universities a widening access premium for students with disabilities. Further programme information included at Annex D.

26. The Department has provided funding to QUB for its “Let’s Work” project. This project is aimed at students and graduates with a disability. A specialist careers adviser offers individual careers guidance and information sessions, supports access to work placements and part-time work and provides workshops on job-skills and options after graduation.

(iv) How will the funding of Lifelong learning be included in DEL’s budget?

27. In the context of the DEL Corporate Plan for the period 2008 to 2011 that is currently in the final stages of preparation, DEL has identified the following under a specific heading of Lifelong Learning.

 

2007/08 £m

2008/09 £m

2009/10 £m

2010/11 £m

Resource

257.9

245.9

258.0

270.8

Capital

40.9

26.2

23.0

17.0
Programme for Government Budget 2008-11

28. 28. Finally, in addition to the follow up questions, Ms Long asked for sight of some information on the Essential Skills Family Learning projects that were referred to in the evidence session. These are attached at Annex E.

Yours sincerely

C G McCONKEY

C G McCONKEY
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer

Annex A

Training For Success (www.trainingforsuccess.co.uk)

Training for Success is the replacement for the “Jobskills Programme”. This new provision with its flexible menu options commenced on 3 September 2007. It will target 16-24 year olds and allow them to enter training at an appropriate level and progress to a stage where they can maximise their potential through the development of personal and employability skills and the achievement of qualifications and employment. Those undertaking apprenticeships will be required to be in employment from day one. Full details of suppliers to the programme can be found on the website.

The Department’s new menu of professional and technical training for Northern Ireland will consist of three strands:

Level 2/3 Apprenticeships are open to all young people aged 16-24 and take between two to four years to complete although, unlike traditional apprenticeships, are not time served. They are a series of planned on- and off-the-job training and development which lead to an externally recognised National Vocational Qualification.

The Apprenticeships aim to provide apprentices with the knowledge, understanding and competence to work at a high level in their chosen occupation, and offer high quality training to fulfil the requirements of an appropriate Apprenticeship Framework. Furthermore, they contribute to raising the skills level of the NI workforce, provide opportunities for progression to further and higher education and training, and encourage the direct involvement of employers in training key personnel.

To be eligible to enter aTraining for Success apprenticeship, an unemployed person must:

JobReady - In addition to Apprenticeships, Training for Success provision contains a specific strand, Job-Ready, which caters for young people facing barriers to learning and work. Job-Ready is designed to enable participants to progress to higher level training, further education or employment by providing training to address personal and social development needs as well as the opportunity to complete vocational related qualifications, including essential skills training. It is delivered under four components:

(1) Personal Development

To address the personal and development needs of young people who have disengaged from learning and / or have significant obstacles.

(2) Skills for Work Level 1

To help young people gain skills and a vocational related qualification at level 1 to be able to gain employment or to progress to a pre-apprenticeship or apprenticeship provision.

(3) Employability Skills

To assist those young people unable to find employment immediately in order to commence an Apprenticeship. It will enable participants to sample different areas of work where they are unsure of the professional and technical training path they wish to follow and to further their personal development.

(4) Pre-Apprenticeship

To ensure that those who have been assessed by a Departmental Careers Adviser as being capable of achieving a vocational related qualification at level 2, but who have not secured employment, are prepared for future seamless progression to employment as an apprentice.

Participant Allowances

Participants in Job Ready will receive Minimum Training Allowance (£40 per week). In certain circumstances, allowances in respect of lodging and/or a contribution to childcare costs may be paid. For any young person who participates in this provision and has special needs, the Department funds a number of specialist support providers to assist their participation. The organisations funded by the Department are:

The client group for whom specialist support services will be provided includes young people who have psychological/physiological problems; have learning or physical disabilities; and are in, or have been in, care. Most of the specialist support providers have a great deal of experience in dealing with Looked After Children (LAC), which they are able to share with Training Suppliers who, in turn, can share with potential employers. The range of assistance and support provided includes:

Work is ongoing with DHSSPS in the context of the Care Matters in NI proposals to ensure that LAC get the help and support they need.

Annex B

DEL Linkages with the Prince’s Trust

Team Programme

The Team Programme has been designed by the Princes Trust to target hard to reach, socially excluded and marginalised young people, aged 16-25. The Programme is delivered in partnership with a range of delivery partners, including the FE sector.

2006-2008 Funding

The Princes Trust secured EU funding through DEL for its core running costs of the Team Programme 1April 2006 to 31 March 2008 under the European Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme - European Social Fund under Measure 2.2 - Tackling the Flows into Long-Term Unemployment for the period 1 April 2006 up to and including 31 March 2008.

2008 – 2011 Funding

The Prince’s Trust Team Programme has secured further funding for this project for the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011 under the Northern Ireland European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013.

It is hoped that around 550 young people will participate in the programme, all of whom will work towards a qualification and it is expected that over 1/3 will gain employment as a result of their participation.

Entrepreneurship Programme
2006-2008 Funding

The Prince’s Trust was successful in securing funding from the European Social Fund under measure 2.3 – Promoting a Labour Market Open to All - for the Entrepreneurship Programme. Funding for the 2 year period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2008 amounts to £628,006 which is inclusive of 35% match funding from the Prince’s Trust themselves. The aim of the Entrepreneurship Programme is to enable over disadvantaged young people between the ages of 18 – 30 to overcome historical barriers to become self-employed. The Prince’s Trust is the only provider of this support for encouragement of self-employment amongst this target group in Northern Ireland.

2008-2011 Funding

The Entrepreneurship Programme was also successful in securing funding under the new Northern Ireland ESF Programme 2007 – 2013 for the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011.

It is expected that more than 200 will participate each year with 2/3 gaining employment.

New Deal and the Prince’s Trust

The Team programme is available to 18 to 25 year olds in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, including New Deal jobseekers within the Gateway period of the programme. The normal 16 week Gateway period may be extended by up to 4 weeks to enable participants to complete the Prince’s Trust Team programme.

Young people in this age group may also avail of the Prince’s Trust ‘Get into Construction’ programme during their time on New Deal Gateway.

The ‘Get Into’ Programme

The aim of ‘Get Into’ is to support young people into the world of work by introducing them to specific sectors, developing vocational skills and opening up employment opportunities, which they would otherwise not have thought accessible to them. To date the Trust has run ‘Get Intos’ in the following sectors: Coffee, Cooking, Hospitality Parks & Leisure, Maritime and Social Care, Youth Work and Electronic DJ-ing as well as the ‘Get into Construction’ initiative mentioned above.

Volunteer Programme

DEL has also supported the Princes Trust Volunteer and Team programme by releasing staff for a period of up to 12 weeks.

Annex C

Vocational Enhancement Programme (VEP)

DEL and DE are working together to enhance the profile of “vocational education”. The VEP pilots aimed to produce a framework that will support local collaboration between schools and FE Colleges to provide 14-19 year olds (of all abilities) with exposure to a range of learning experiences which includes both academic subjects and vocational education. Many of the modules/units/options offered by the VEP will provide coherent progression routes into higher education, further education, training or employment. The purpose is to widen the pathways provided by 14-19 education and training to ensure that young people are aware of all the career choices available to them.

2007/08 will be the last academic year in which support for the delivery of the Entitlement Framework will be separated into two strands (VEP and School/school collaboration) and administered by DEL. From 2008/09, support for collaborative arrangements between schools, and/or between schools and FE colleges will be provided through a single programme co-ordinated on an area basis by DE.

Annex D

DEL Programmes for People with a Disability

Disablement Advisory Service (DAS)

DAS provides a range of vocational and pre-vocational programmes to meet the needs of people with a disability whatever their age. The particular programme that is appropriate for each individual is discussed and agreed with an Adviser based in Jobs and Benefits Offices/Jobcentres. DAS has a team of Occupational Psychologists to assist Advisers provide their services. Programmes include;

Job Introduction Scheme - Job trial of up to 13 weeks to enable a person with a disability and potential employer to work together to consider if this or work in general is an appropriate way forward for that individual.

New Deal for Disabled People - programme for people in receipt of health related benefits enables individuals who are nearly job ready to undertake a range of job preparation activities with a contracted Job Broker to assist them to find and keep a job. The Job Broker will continue to provide support in the work place for the first 26 weeks.

Access to Work - provides individually assessed support to assist people with a disability to find and keep suitable employment. A range of one off or longer term often indefinite, supports are offered, including help with travel to and from work; provision of a support worker; provision of equipment; adaptations to premises. Additional assessment services are available from Occupational Therapists, the RNID and RNIB.

Workable (NI) - introduced late in 2006, delivered by a range of organisations with extensive experience of meeting the vocational needs of people with a disability. It provides a flexible range of long term supports to assist people with a disability with substantial barriers to employment to find and keep employment. Each individual support needs are assessed. Provision can include a Job Coach to assist the worker and their colleagues to adapt to the needs of the particular job; financial subsidy to the employer; extra training; disability awareness training.

Ulster Supported Employment Ltd - USEL, an executive Non Departmental Public Body, provides direct employment opportunities in its factory in Cambrai Street, Belfast producing bedding products and industrial sewing.

Residential Training - The Department funds opportunities for people with a disability who are not ready to access mainstream training to undertake residential training at Parkanaur College, Dungannon.

Disability Liaison Group - DEL recognises the importance of working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector and established a Disability Liaison Group (DLG) to assist the department to examine and develop its programmes and services for people with disabilities. The DLG produced a “Strategic Review of the Disablement Advisory Service (DAS) Programmes and Services” report to provide the Department with the views of the sector on the programmes and services being delivered by DAS. The group is also involved with the review of disability in the context of Training for Success and DEL will continue to work closely with representatives of the disability sector to ensure that agreed actions recommended in this report are taken forward proactively.to ensure DEL’s services and programmes better meet the needs of disabled people in finding and keeping work.

Pathways to Work (Incapacity Benefits) - piloted in Northern Ireland since October 2005, it is aimed at providing the support that people with health conditions or disabilities need to help them make better decisions about getting (back) into work. As of 28 April 2008, Pathways is available throughout Northern Ireland. Key elements of support include:

DAS has assumed responsibility for managing the delivery of two important elements of the Pathways To Work initiative - the Condition Management Programme (CMP) and the Work Preparation Programme (WPP).

Condition Management Programme aims to address the health conditions of those clients in receipt of Incapacity Benefits with mild to moderate health conditions. It is based on short-term, work-focused support and advice supplied by healthcare professionals with a view to helping clients understand and manage their condition, in order to assist in their return to work.

Work Preparation Programme Delivered by Service Providers, WPP aims to develop the motivation and confidence of clients in respect of employment and work issues related to a range of disability or health conditions. It aims to develop a client’s capacity for seeking, finding and retaining employment. Through client placement in real working environments, WPP will develop the skills and competencies of clients to enable them to take advantage of future employment opportunities.

Permitted Work allows customers to work and earn a small amount of money to help them maintain contact with the labour market and for social inclusion purposes.

The DAS has been identified as a potential provider of Public Match Funding by a number of organisations that provide pre-vocational and vocational assistance to people with disabilities that have offered ESF funding from 2008/09 until 2010/11. The level of match funding to be provided is being considered at present.

Other Relevant Mainstream Programmes
New Deal

All the New Deal programmes provide participants with a Personal Adviser based in their local JobCentre/Jobs & Benefits office.

New Deal 25 +

Unemployed jobseekers aged 25 or over and on JSA for 18 months or more are required to participate in New Deal. After the initial ‘Gateway’ period (during which a New Deal Personal Adviser provides advice, guidance and assistance with jobsearch), jobseekers who have not found work participate in a Preparation for Employment Programme, which provides work experience, training and jobsearch, or enter subsidised employment. A self-employment route is also available within this New Deal.

New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP)

The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is a voluntary programme designed specifically to help lone parents aged 16 or over who are not working, or who are working less than 16 hours per week, and who have sole responsibility for the care of a child(ren) under the age of 16. Opportunities available include advice and assistance with job-search or interview skills, writing CVs, pre-employment training courses, NVQ courses, a self-employment route and access to any of the provision within the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds and New Deal 25+ programmes.

New Deal for Partners (NDP)

A voluntary programme, aimed at helping partners of benefit claimants to find work or improve their employment prospects, including self-employment. Opportunities available mirror those available within the New Deal for Lone Parents.

Childcare Allowances

For eligible participants on New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds, New Deal 25+, New Deal for Lone Parents and New Deal for Partners allowances are available to assist with the provision of childcare. This is calculated on a daily basis and on the number of children involved:

Applications for assistance can be made by:

No of Children

Registered Childminder

Relative

Full-Time Care

Out of School
Hours Care

Full-Time Care

Out of School
Hours Care

  

One Child

£19 per day

£11 per day

£11 per day

£7 per day

Two or more children

£28 per day

£17 per day

£17 per day

£11 per day

The maximum daily amount of childcare assistance payable is as shown in the table above and is subject to a maximum limit of £140 per week (£28 x 5 = £140) per family where care is provided by a registered childminder/nursery/creche or £85 per week (£17 x 5 = £85) per family where care is provided by a relative. The maximum amount of childcare assistance payable per family is subject to an overall limit of £140 per week where care is provided by a mixture of registered childminder/nursery/creche and relatives. The choice of childminder is the sole responsibility of the participant.

Self Employment option

For those New Deal participants who are interested in running their own business a New Deal self-employment route has been developed. This is available to eligible participants within the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds, New Deal 25+, NDLP and NDP.

New Deal for Musicians

This programme offers an open learning route for unemployed musicians who wish to pursue a career in the music industry. It is available to eligible participants through the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds and New Deal 25+.

New Deal for Disabled People

This voluntary programme aims to assist people who are on health-related benefits to find and retain work. The delivery mechanism changed from a twin track delivery service, using both Departmental staff and external contractors, to solely external contractors late in 2006.

New Deal 50 plus

This is a voluntary programme, open to clients who are aged 50+ and who have been in receipt of certain benefits. The programme has elements that are of particular benefit to older people. If the client moves into employment of 16+ hours per week, they can apply for the Working Tax Credit 50+ element (administered by HM Revenue and Customs) and an In-Work Training grant of up to £1500.

Steps to Work – A “Menu of Provision”

DEL has developed a more flexible, menu-based, modular approach to provision, better tailored to the individual’s needs and with a clear emphasis on increasing the participants’ employability prospects. The intention is to be better equipped to assist the more job-ready to move into employment quicker and will also provide help in addressing the employability needs of those furthest from the labour market. Through this new initiative the Department will extend the availability of New Deal 25+ provision to other groups not previously targeted. These groups include:

The flexible menu-based approach is being piloted for one year in four Jobs and Benefits offices (Shaftesbury Sq, Lisburn, Knockbreda and Limavady) from 2 April 2007. More recently Carrickfergus and Magherafelt have been added. An evaluation by Deloitte MCS Ltd is due to be completed by end May 2008 and providing the evaluation is satisfactory the plan is to rollout the initiative across Northern Ireland from September 2008.

Pathways to Work

Pathways to Work has already been mentioned earlier as part of the DAS-related section, and as well as this the following targeted initiatives are also provided:

Pathways to Work for Lone Parents

From January 2007 DEL is piloting a new range of measures under the Pathways to Work for Lone Parents initiative in 4 offices (Shaftesbury Square [South Belfast], Knockbreda, Lisburn, Limavady). (In GB this is known as New Deal Plus for Lone Parents). In Pathways to Work for Lone Parent pilot areas the Lone Parent receives the services of a dedicated Personal Adviser from the first work-focused contact, (including any subsequent compulsory or voluntary work focused interviews), through to accessing provision and receiving in-work support. The one to one contact will provide an opportunity for the Personal Adviser to develop an effective working relationship with the Lone Parent.

As part of the Pathways Programme, a new Work Preparation Programme for Lone Parents aims to help address issues that can contribute to exclusion from the labour market. This will be a voluntary modular programme designed to help those more distant from the labour market. Modules include personal improvement, specific advice on a range of topics that may be relevant to the client group and work-related advice. It is aimed to increase their chance of finding employment by providing advice and guidance on how to find the right job, and the practical skills and experience to retain it. The course lasts up to 12 weeks (6 weeks in house and 6 weeks work experience) and clients attend for 20 hours per week, without their benefits being affected.

New Financial Incentives
Progress2work (NI)

Progress2work is an initiative aimed at providing specialist employability support for people experiencing difficulty in accessing the labour market as a result of having a history of substance misuse, being homeless or who are ex-offenders or ex-prisoners. The service takes the form of one to one support provided by Support Workers who engage with participants to improve their employability by addressing e.g. disclosure of criminal convictions, residual addiction or accommodation issues in parallel with facilitating participants to undertake education, training and ultimately entry into mainstream provision or employment.

Education Maintenance Allowances (EMA)

The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) aims to help young people, aged 16 to 19, have the opportunity to fulfil their educational potential. EMA offers regular means tested payments of up to £30 per week to young people to encourage participation, retention and achievement, in post compulsory education, at either school or Further Education College. EMA was introduced for 16 year olds in 2004 and was extended to the entire 16 to 19 year old age group in the 2007/08 academic year.

Bridge To Employment

Bridge to Employment is a training programme that helps unemployed people (aged 18+) get jobs – whatever their experience of work. It provides customised training courses to equip people with the skills necessary to compete for new employment opportunities on an equal basis with others. Courses are provided mainly by FE Colleges or delivered by the employers themselves on site.

Participants on “Bridge” training courses develop the skills necessary to meet the recruitment profile for employment opportunities provided by inward investment companies and expanding indigenous companies.

“Bridge” is advertised in newspapers, JobCentres, Community Groups etc and applicants can obtain an application form and information leaflet from JobCentres. The next stage is an interview and/or test. Once the training course is completed a job interview follows.

Participant Allowances

Benefits will be paid while the training course is attended. Travel expenses, to and from training, are available. Lone parents or guardian may be eligible for childcare allowance whilst in training.

“Bridge” has been extended and now includes “pre-Bridge” training courses for people who are ‘furthest removed’ from the job market, in the Contact Centre, Construction and Retail Sectors.

Further Education Sector (FE)

On 1 August 2007 Northern Ireland’s 16 colleges merged to become six larger area-based Colleges. These Colleges offer vocational courses and qualifications in a wide range of subject areas leading to recognised professional and technical qualifications. For individuals who complete their college training, the acquisition of new skills and qualifications increases both their employability and their potential earnings.

DEL’s strategy document “’FE Means Business” sets out the Department’s strategic intention of enhancing collaboration between the FE sector and other providers, and in so doing, making best use of resources and expertise to increase levels of learner participation. Under the banner of FE Means Business the Department has recently published, for consultation, policy proposals for Curriculum Provision in FE to Support the Economy, to Support Social Inclusion and also for 16-19 Year old Learners. The consultation will inform provision in Colleges from the 2008/09 academic year onwards.

The “Care to Learn” scheme aims to address the need to provide childcare support to parents aged 16-20 in Further Education provision. The scheme provides childcare for 16-20 yr olds parents. To be eligible a student must either be or become a parent, be at least 16 years old and under 20 years of age at the start of their course and reside in Northern Ireland. A student who is expecting to become a parent during their course of study may apply in advance to establish their eligibility for assistance. Further information can be obtained through the local Colleges.

Higher Education (HE)

Completing a course of study within higher education brings benefits on many levels. In terms of future jobs, a degree can lead to increased earning potential, greater opportunities and a more rewarding career. For those already pursuing their careers, a higher education course can increase an individual’s employment prospects and many employers understand the value of ongoing lifelong learning programmes for their staff.

Higher Education in Northern Ireland is delivered through the universities, the teacher education institutions and the FE colleges. Both QUB and UU have established HE outreach centres throughout Northern Ireland. These offer wider local academic opportunities by providing a more flexible form of third level education provision.

Widening Participation in Higher Education

As mentioned above, the Department is committed to widening participation in higher education by students from those groups who are currently under-represented.

Since 2000, DEL has been addressing this issue through a number of policy initiatives and a range of specific funding mechanisms. In addition to paying the universities a widening participation premium for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and a widening access premium for students with disabilities, the Department also provides funding to both universities for special projects aimed at increasing participation in higher education by under-represented groups. Student Support measures include HE bursaries and maintenance grants for those from low income families.

The Department is now taking forward the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council (NIHEC) Expert Group Report on proposals for the future direction of the Department’s widening participation policies. The Department has recently received commitment in principle from DETI, DE and DHSSPS to work with them on the development and implementation of a regional integrated strategy to widen participation in higher education.

Annex E

Family Learning

Family Learning is seen as an important context of learning in DEL’s Essential Skills Strategy. Over the past number of years family programmes have featured prominently in the agenda for educational and social change. There is a heightened awareness that families are critical partners in the drive to raise levels of achievement in schools and in early years. Family learning is also a recognised strategy in widening participation in learning, renewing neighbourhoods and promoting social inclusion and active citizenship. It is now widely acknowledged that active parental encouragement and support at home has a significant impact on educational attainment at school. Inequality between home backgrounds is still the greatest source of difference in educational achievement. 77% of children of professional class children got five ‘good’ (A* - C) GCSEs in 2002, compared with 32% of children of parents in manual occupations. (ONS 2004 – figures for England).

The benefits of Family Literacy and Numeracy Programmes

An OFSTED report in England in 2000 reported that family learning programmes offer good value for money and result in the following benefits.

For parents

For children

The Northern Ireland Essential Skills for Living Strategy includes a capacity building strand aimed at developing a diverse range of provision. The Strategy aims to engage and progress adult literacy and numeracy learners through the vehicle of family learning provision.

Family Literacy in Northern Ireland

The most common family literacy programme in Northern Ireland is Read to Succeed which was introduced a number of years ago to engage parents in the primary school setting on the importance of speaking to and reading stories to their children. There is evidence to suggest that as many as 75% of parents progress to other provision in FE as a result of their participation on this programme. Other programmes include Count to Success, Families Learning Together, Parents as Co-Educators and the Better reading Partnership, some of which involve working with parents on their own and others involve both parents and children learning together. Accreditation, where it is offered, is largely provided by the Northern Ireland Open College Network which has developed a Regional Family Learning Framework of qualifications.

A full evaluation of all the projects is not yet available. However, the “Count It Write” project in East Belfast is an example of the work undertaken. The Project, funded under Peace II was awarded £68k in years 1 & 2 and £36k in year 3. 48 learners participated in years 1, 2 and 3. The project aimed to raise the self awareness of parents’ own essential skills needs enabling them to:

The project combined innovative activities of relaxation and craftwork with accredited literacy/numeracy/ICT into a 12 week programme which encouraged participants to engage in related activities with their children for a short time during the project.

Below is some feedback from the evaluation carried out on the above Project:

At present most family literacy projects are provided in the school setting by the FE sector in collaboration with the various Education and Library Boards. Many can be classed as wider Family Learning but there are a growing number of primary schools in Belfast which have recognised the need to engage directly with parents and are providing Essential Skills courses. In addition, a number of community and voluntary organisations have received funding under Peace II to develop innovative Essential Skills projects for families.

The Department of Education’s Extended Schools Programme includes a wide range of family learning programmes including family literacy and numeracy courses that focus on developing the skills of parents within the context of relevant family learning issues for example parenting, children’s health, play, children’s behaviour. These courses enable adults to achieve nationally recognised family learning and essential Skills qualifications from entry level to level 2.

Examples of good practice
Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC)

Family learning has benefited over the past few years from external funding ranging from Access Fund, EPF and Peace 11. This has allowed BMC to grow the sector and to maximise enrolment throughout the city, developing both the range of courses offered and developing community partnerships with schools.

Family learning was always seen as a ‘hook in’ provision that would enable the tutor to build up the confidence of the adult learner to move onto other accredited programmes. The courses are designed to work with parents and have a powerful impact on both the adults’ skills and on their children’s attainment therefore helping to prevent intergenerational cycle of low educational outcome. The college constantly respond to feedback from the adult learners and have expanded provision from three core courses to availability of 10 courses.

The numbers participating during the 2006/07 academic year totalled 257. Statistics for the 2007-08 year indicate 270 learners in 30 workshops. At present there are currently over 90 learners participating on courses.

The college are flexible in their delivery patterns, introducing short taster courses that act as a hook and encourage parents to progress to accredited courses. The provision has many strengths including:

The BMC Family Learning Programmes operate across the city mostly in Nursery and Primary schools.

Open College Network (OCN) Northern Ireland Family Learning Project

The Open College Network secured funding from Proteus, Peace 11 extension in 2006 to co-ordinate a 2 year family learning programme that offered family learning accreditation through the National Open College Networks (NOCN) Progression Qualifications embedding essential skills. These qualifications are available as either full qualifications or individual units. Each level contains a wide range of units that can be grouped together containing a selection of core and optional units and tailored to the requirements of each individual organisations needs. The progression qualifications contain various family learning units which can be utilised by organisations in offering family learning, providing their learners with a very clear progression towards achievement of a full qualification. Examples of some of the units are:

The OCN Family Learning Project has recruited organisations to pilot these units from the qualifications and hence progress learners on to achievement of full Essential Skills qualifications. The pilots are run by locally based organisations, which are best placed to identify and recruit learners. In total there are 12 pilot programmes recruiting 8-10 learners on each programme.

A list of the organisations participating in the pilot and the courses offered is attached. (Appendix 1)

The project will be completed in June 2008 and an evaluation will be carried out in the summer. OCN has recently advised that a family centred graduation event will be held in June 2008.

Family Learning Pilots

Family Learning Pilots
Open College Network NI

Organisation

No of Pilots

Areas Covered

Family Learning Accreditation

Essential Skills

Belfast Public Libraries

1

Whiterock

Exploring computers for Family Learning

Entry Level Literacy

Altnaveigh House

2

Lower Maze
Lisburn

Exploring computers for Family Learning

Entry Level Literacy

NEELB Library Service

2

Coleraine
Rathenraw, Antrim

Making and Using Story Sacks

Entry Level Literacy

Dairyfarm

1

Poleglass

Developing Parenting Skills

Entry Level Numeracy

Customized Training
L’Derry

3

Clooney Estate
Waterside
Caw

Exploring computers for Family Learning

Entry Level Numeracy & Literacy

St Vincent de Paul

2

Turf Lodge
Belfast

Developing Parenting Skills
Making and Using Story Sacks

Entry Level Numeracy & Literacy

The Learning Lodge

1

Magherafelt

Exploring computers for Family Learning

Entry Level Literacy

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Responses to issues raised during evidence session.

Financial Inclusion

As John Hinds indicated during the evidence session, HM Treasury lead on the area of Financial Inclusion on a UK wide basis. There are three strands to this work;

1. reform of the banking industry and practices to improve access to banking to the financially excluded,

2. work with third sector lenders to increase the supply of affordable credit and other products such as insurance,

3. the provision of free face to face debt advice.

DETI provides the free face to face debt advice service in Northern Ireland as this is a devolved matter, and has secured its own funding for this service, as John explained. The other two areas relate to financial services which is a reserved matter. We are, however, aware that HM Treasury are in contact with officials in the Anti Poverty Unit in OFMDFM, since many of the initiatives which the Treasury are taking forward make a contribution to the alleviation of poverty. Indeed, when HMT were preparing to publish the Financial Inclusion Action Plan back in December last year, officials in OFMDFM coordinated comments on the plan across a wide range of Departments to be incorporated in a NI response to HMT.

Foreign Direct Ivestment
Part input response to

“The Committee would also welcome clarity on the indicators used to prioritise Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and if details could be provided in relation to how an area like Dungannon, with high poverty levels as determined by income based measures but low unemployment, prioritise for FDI.”

1. Invest NI’s role is to promote the entity of “Northern Ireland” as an attractive and viable location for new inward investment opportunities. Invest NI has a network of offices located in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. These offices focus on promoting all areas of Northern Ireland as locations capable of providing solutions to the business needs of new investors wishing to establish here in Northern Ireland.

2. Invest NI’s regional office network works closely with local stakeholders, including those in Dungannon, to encourage the development of regional propositions which can help ensure that the offering for their area is maximised to attract visits by potential investors. Working with existing overseas investors in each area is also a key function.

3. Invest NI does not determine locations for visits for a potential investor: this decision is taken by the investor. Invest NI does however work closely with the company when preparing a draft visit programme to ensure that the locations to be visited meet their requirements and also provide the best opportunity for Invest NI to sell the Northern Ireland proposition.

Debt Advice Service
Part input response to

Further information to be provided on the areas covered by the debt advice service, the funding provided, the target set and performance against previous targets.

On 18 March the Minister for Enterprise Trade & Investment, Nigel Dodds announced the award of a contract to Citizens Advice for the provision of a free face to face debt advice service across Northern Ireland. The service will be provided over the next three years through dedicated debt advisers based in Antrim, Belfast, Ballymena, Coleraine, Enniskillen, Londonderry, Lurgan/Portadown, Omagh and Newry. The service is designed to be accessible to all and targeted at those most in need. The value of the contract is £1.2m spread over the three years. During 2006/07 the debt advice service assisted nearly 2000 clients dealing with £15m of debt. It is anticipated that the new contract will have the capacity to provide the same level of service.

DFP reply to OFMDFM Inquiry into Child Poverty

DFP reply to OFMDFM Inquiry into Child Poverty-1.psd

 

DFP reply to OFMDFM Inquiry into Child Poverty-2.psd

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

In relation to support for children with special needs during periods of transition and in relation to respite care I can confirm that funding is available and targets set.

In addition, the Committee may wish to be made aware of the following:

Improving outcomes for care leavers

The Committee was provided with information on a range of initiatives which the Department has developed or is developing specifically designed to improve outcomes for children in care and leaving care. The Committee may wish to note the following information.

The Fostering Achievement Scheme is run jointly by two voluntary sector organisations i.e. Include Youth and the Fostering Network.

Under this scheme

The Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety has put in place a Regional advocacy and mentoring scheme for young people in care provided independently by the voluntary sector (VOYPIC) providing advocacy services to young people and a mentoring scheme which focuses particularly on positive outcomes in terms of both employment and education.

The Committee may also be interested in other initiatives we have been piloting including a summer scheme for primary school age children focusing on fun learning and numeracy and literacy which operated at a pilot site in Belfast for one week last summer. We will be negotiating with the voluntary sector to run this summer scheme at several more sites across NI this summer. We have also co-funded with DE a pilot scheme attended by 38 young people in care over Easter 2008 providing an intensive course of tuition primarily in English, Maths and science as preparation for sitting GCSEs this summer. This pilot scheme ran across several sites in NI and will be evaluated in September by which time we will be seeking to identify any measurable improvement in GCSE results. Over the next two years we have plans to introduce further initiatives focusing on better preparing of young people in care for independent living and improving participation in Higher Education amongst young people from a care background. We also have plans to introduce a number of initiatives focusing specifically on supporting young people in care and care leavers aged 16+ into part-time and full-time employment.

Family Support Services

The DHSPPS is currently preparing the final version of its draft regional family support strategy ‘Families Matter: Supporting Parents in Northern Ireland’. The aim of the strategy is to empower and assist parents to be confident and responsible in helping their children to reach their potential. It aims to provide generic and universal support for all families and to give families the knowledge of how and where to get assistance when they need it and have timely access to those services when they need help in resolving difficulties.

Likewise DHSSPS have developed the UNOCINI assessment framework which provides an assessment and planning framework to assist professionals in identifying children and their family’s needs. The framework offers a logical framework within which children and their family’s circumstances can be considered, analysed and understood in order to develop robust plans that aim to improve outcomes for the child. The framework takes account of environmental factors, including financial constraints impacting on a family which must be taken account of in providing family support to children and families.

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Department for Regional Development

DRD-1.psd

DRD-2.psd

DRD-3.psd

Additional Evidence Submitted by: Department for Social Development

02 DSD response-1.psd

02 DSD response-2.psd

02 DSD response-3.psd

Institute of Public Health in Ireland

03 IPH response - version 2-1.psd

03 IPH response - version 2-2.psd

 

Presentation to Meeting to Review Evidence on 30 April 2008

04 New Policy Institute Seminar presentation.pdf

04 New Policy Institute Seminar presentation.pdf

04 New Policy Institute Seminar presentation.pdf

04 New Policy Institute Seminar presentation.pdf

04 New Policy Institute Seminar presentation.pdf

04 New Policy Institute Seminar presentation.pdf

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

05 OFMDFM - Cover.psd
Contents

Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. Method 1: Estimating child poverty in Northern Ireland using four years of
Great Britain Family Resources Survey data

3. Method 2: Estimating child poverty in Northern Ireland using three years of
Great Britain Family Resources data

4. Discussion

Appendix A

Executive Summary

Launched in November 2006, ‘Lifetime Opportunities’, Governments anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy for Northern Ireland, committed to the halving of child poverty by 2010/11 on the way to eradication by 2020.

This commitment mirrored that for Great Britain for which a raft of policies and initiatives, both GB and UK based, had been developed. Many of these policies and initiatives apply equally to Northern Ireland.

The baseline period against which progress will be assessed in meeting the child poverty eradication pledge for both commitments is 1998/99. However the Family Resources Survey (FRS) which provides the data for the relative low income poverty measure reported in the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, first ran in Northern Ireland in 2002/03 having run in Great Britain since 1994/95.

The aim of this paper is to update the previous publication by OFMDFM, ‘Estimating Child poverty in NI in 1998/99’[1]. That publication developed a methodology for estimating historic child poverty in the context of providing a plausible and evidenced estimate of the number of children in Northern Ireland who lived in relative low income households in 1998/99.

The basis on which HBAI data is calculated was revised for the publication of 2005/06 HBAI data, with historic data to be adjusted accordingly. As indicated in the previous OFMDFM publication, this necessitated a rebasing of the original child poverty estimates for 1998/99 on the basis of the new adjusted data.

The estimates within this report are updated to reflect the use of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) equivalisation scale used for the first time in the 2005/06 UK and NI HBAI reports. All income related figures within this report have been calculated using the OECD equivalence scale therefore they are not comparable with FRS data published before the 2005/06. Both the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department for Social Development (DSD) are currently updating key estimates from the HBAI series based on the newly adopted OECD scale to provide a comparable run of data over time.

The change in equivalisation scale was prompted by the UK Government’s 2004 spending review which stated that future child poverty measurements will report incomes before housing costs with equivalisation using the OECD scale. The government decided to use the OECD scale as it is used most often internationally, allowing comparisons with other countries especially in terms of the European Union (EU) where poverty rates are reported as part of the National Action Plans for Social Inclusion produced by member states of the EU.

Income in the HBAI reports is adjusted to take into account disparity in household size and composition of households. This process is known as equivalisation (explained in Appendix A), and allows for comparisons between different types of households. The modified OECD scale differs from the previously used McClements scale in the weights given to adults and children. A specific difference is that the Modified OECD scale allows for greater costs for young children.

On that basis, the preferred rebased estimate of child poverty in 1998/99, based on HBAI NI and UK data for the years (2003/04 to 2005/06) is:

1998/99 estimates

Before Housing costs

After Housing costs

Child poverty risk

29%

31%

Number of children in poverty

135,000

143,000

Whilst these estimates are provided as actual rounded numbers and actual percentages, they should not be regarded as having that degree of precision given that they are based on the application of household survey data to mid year estimates. The complexities of estimating confidence intervals or margins of error associated with the methodology employed in this paper precluded their assessment.

Introduction

1.1 The context

The Prime Minister in March 1999 announced Governments commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

The 2004 Public Service Agreement target associated with this commitment is to halve the number of children in relative low income households[2] between 1998/99 and 2010/11 with an interim target of reduction, by a quarter, in 2004/05. Given that it is not possible to reach zero on a relative low income measure, the DWP Technical note for 2005-2008 clarified the term ‘eradication’ as having a child relative low income poverty rate amongst the best in Europe.

Based on the EU Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (2007)[3] The best in Europe for the relative “child at risk of poverty rate” for 2004 (latest figures) would be around 10%. Across the EU the lowest rate was 9% in Sweden. The EU25 average in 2004 was 19%. The worst rates in 2004 were: Poland at 29%; Lithuania at 27%; Romania at 25%, compared with the UK at 22% and Ireland at 23%. The majority of the measures reported reflect a BHC approach.

There were 3.3 million children in poverty[4] in GB in 1998/99 before housing costs, the subsequent GB target for 2010/11 is therefore to reduce the numbers of children in poverty to 1.65 million children. After housing costs, there were 4.3 million children in poverty in 1998/99, to halve this by 2010/11 would mean a reduction of 2.15 million children.

Government subsequently set a further target, although not a Public Service Agreement Target, of there being no fewer than 1 million children living in absolute low income[5] by 2010/11 compared with 3.4[6] million in 1998/99.

In this broad context, and through a process of consultation in respect of how progress on the eradication of child poverty could best be measured, the Department for Work and Pension subsequently developed a ‘tiered’ child poverty measure incorporating three separate measures:

On the basis of the DWP tiered measure, success in eradicating child poverty by 2020 could be interpreted as: eradicating absolute child poverty baselined at 1998/99; having a material deprivation child poverty rate which approached zero; and of being among the best in Europe on relative low incomes[7].

Questions on material deprivation were introduced onto the FRS in 2004/05. These questions are used as an additional way of measuring living standards for children and their families. Preliminary analysis of these questions has been presented for the first time in the 2005/06 HBAI publication. A mixed low income and material deprivation measure has recently been defined and reported by the Department for Work and Pensions[8].

The data source for all these measures of child poverty is the FRS which has run in GB from 1994/95 and on which the publication ‘Households Below Average Income’ (HBAI) is based.

The FRS and subsequent production of HBAI reports were extended to NI for the first time in 2002/03. Northern Ireland currently has data for four time periods: 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06.

The figures within this report use the OECD equivalisation scales. HBAI reports prior to 2005/06 used the McClements scale. This change from using the McClements scale was prompted by the Governments 2004 spending review which stated that future child poverty measurements will report incomes before housing costs and equivalised using the OECD scale. The OECD scale as it is used most often internationally therefore allowing more similar comparisons with other countries and Europe in particular. The process of equivalisation is explained in more detail in Appendix A.

1.2 Aim

The aim of this paper is to rebase the calculations in the previous publication by OFMDFM, ‘Estimating Child poverty in NI in 1998/99’[9] on the basis of the new OECD equivalence scale. The aim of the original publication was to develop a methodology which provided a plausible and evidenced estimate of the number of children in Northern Ireland who lived in relative low income households in 1998/99.

The measure of child poverty estimated for 1998/99 is the relative low income measure, defined as children in households whose income is less than 60% of contemporary equivalised median household income. Estimates are produced on both a BHC and AHC basis.

1.3 Approach

The broad approach taken in the current paper is to:

Whilst forecasting data of this nature is fraught with difficulty, back-casting data, while also inexact, benefits from the ability to correlate with other existing sources of data which bear a strong relationship to the data being estimated. It is the strength of this broader comparative evidence which should determine whether estimates for child poverty in 1998/99 are plausible[10].

Notwithstanding the strength of the comparative evidence however, the procedures and estimates generated in this paper are based upon the four years of data available for NI to date. These figures have all been updated using the new OECD equivalence scale.

Method 1: Estimating child poverty in
NI using four years of HBAI data 2002/03 to 2005/06

The procedure used to back-cast measures of child poverty to 1998/99 is comprised of three discrete stages which are explained below.

Procedure 1

1. Calculate the average percentage point difference in child poverty risk between NI and GB for the four available years 2002/03 to 2005/06.

2. Apply these estimates to the NI mid year population estimates for 1998 onwards[11]
 

Number of children under 18 (population mid year estimates)11

GB estimate of child poverty risk (BHC +3.3)

Estimated number of NI children in poverty (BHC)

GB estimate of child poverty risk (AHC -2.3)

Estimated number of NI children in poverty (AHC)

1998/99

464,000

29.3

136,000

31.7

147,000

1999/00

460,000

29.3

135,000

30.7

141,000

2000/01

456,000

26.3

120,000

28.7

131,000

2001/02

451,000

26.3

119,000

28.7

129,000

2002/03

447,000

26.3

118,000

27.7

124,000

2003/04

442,000

25.3

112,000

26.7

118,000

2004/05

437,000

24.3

106,000

25.7

112,000

2005/06

435,000

25.3

110,000

27.7

120,000
Procedure 2
1. Estimate the average percentage relationship between the number of children in poverty in NI and GB for the four available years

In other words on a BHC basis on average over the four year period between 2002/03 and 2005/06, the number of children in poverty in NI was 4% of the total in GB.

2. Apply these percentages to child poverty estimates for GB from 1998 onwards:
 

Number of children in income poverty in GB (BHC)

Estimated number of NI children in income poverty (BHC) (4.0% of GB figures)

Number of children in income poverty in GB (AHC)

Estimated number of NI children in income poverty (AHC) (3.2% of GB figures)

1998/99

3,300,000

132,000

4,300,000

138,000

1999/00

3,300,000

132,000

4,200,000

134,000

2000/01

3,000,000

120,000

3,900,000

125,000

2001/02

2,900,000

116,000

3,900,000

125,000

2002/03

2,800,000

112,000

3,700,000

118,000

2003/04

2,800,000

112,000

3,600,000

115,000

2004/05

2,600,000

104,000

3,500,000

112,000

2005/06

2,700,000

108,000

3,700,000

118,000
Procedure 3

1. Average the estimated numbers from procedures 1 and 2. Using the average of procedures, calculate synthetic child poverty risk using mid year population estimates of all children aged under 18.

BHC

Procedure 1 estimate

Procedure 2 estimate

Average of procedures

Synthetic risk

%

1998/99

136,000

132,000

134,000

29

1999/00

135,000

132,000

133,000

29

2000/01

120,000

120,000

120,000

26

2001/02

119,000

116,000

117,000

26

2002/03

118,000

112,000

115,000

26

2003/04

112,000

112,000

112,000

25

2004/05

106,000

104,000

105,000

24

2005/06

110,000

108,000

109,000

25

AHC

Procedure 1 estimate

Procedure 2 estimate

Average of procedures

Synthetic risk
%

1998/99

147,000

138,000

142,000

31

1999/00

141,000

134,000

138,000

30

2000/01

131,000

125,000

128,000

28

2001/02

129,000

125,000

127,000

28

2002/03

124,000

118,000

121,000

27

2003/04

118,000

115,000

117,000

26

2004/05

112,000

112,000

112,000

26

2005/06

120,000

118,000

119,000

27

The overall outturn of these procedures results in a child income poverty rate in 1998/99 for Northern Ireland of:

Method 2: Estimating child poverty in
NI using three years of HBAI data 2003/04 to 2005/06

Estimates were also produced using the 3 years of FRS data (2003/04- 2005/06) from GB FRS. The same procedures were used that were described above.

Procedure 1

1. Calculate the average percentage point difference in child poverty risk between NI and GB for the three years data.

2. Apply these estimates to the NI mid year population estimates for 1998 onwards[12]
 

Number of children under 18 (population mid year estimates)12

GB estimate of child poverty risk (BHC +3.7)

Estimated number of NI children in poverty (BHC)

GB estimate of child poverty risk (AHC -2.0)

Estimated number of NI children in poverty (AHC)

1998/99

464,000

29.7

138,000

32.0

148,000

1999/00

460,000

29.7

137,000

31.0

143,000

2000/01

456,000

26.7

122,000

29.0

132,000

2001/02

451,000

26.7

120,000

29.0

131,000

2002/03

447,000

26.7

119,000

28.0

125,000

2003/04

442,000

25.7

114,000

27.0

119,000

2004/05

437,000

24.7

108,000

26.0

114,000

2005/06

435,000

25.7

112,000

28.0

122,000
Procedure 2

1. Estimate the average percentage relationship between the number of children in poverty in NI and GB for the three years 2003/04 to 2005/06[13].

2. Apply these percentages to child poverty estimates for GB from 1998 onwards:
 

Number of children in income poverty in GB

Estimated number of NI children in income poverty (BHC) (4.0% of GB figures)

Number of children in income poverty in GB (AHC)

Estimated number of NI children in income poverty (AHC) (3.2% of GB figures)

1998/99

3,300,000

132,000

4,300,000

138,000

1999/00

3,300,000

132,000

4,200,000

134,000

2000/01

3,000,000

120,000

3,900,000

125,000

2001/02

2,900,000

116,000

3,900,000

125,000

2002/03

2,800,000

112,000

3,700,000

118,000

2003/04

2,800,000

112,000

3,600,000

115,000

2004/05

2,600,000

104,000

3,500,000

112,000

2005/06

2,700,000

108,000

3,700,000

118,000
Procedure 3
1. Average the estimated numbers from procedures 1 and 2. Using the average of procedures, calculate synthetic child poverty risk using mid year population estimates of all children aged under 18.

BHC

Procedure 1 estimate

Procedure 2 estimate

Average of procedures

Synthetic risk
%

1998/99

138,000

132,000

135,000

29

1999/00

137,000

132,000

134,000

29

2000/01

122,000

120,000

121,000

26

2001/02

120,000

116,000

118,000

26

2002/03

119,000

112,000

116,000

26

2003/04

114,000

112,000

113,000

26

2004/05

108,000

104,000

106,000

24

2005/06

112,000

108,000

110,000

25

AHC

Procedure 1 estimate

Procedure 2 estimate

Average of procedures

Synthetic risk
%

1998/99

148,000

138,000

143,000

31

1999/00

143,000

134,000

139,000

30

2000/01

132,000

125,000

129,000

28

2001/02

131,000

125,000

128,000

28

2002/03

125,000

118,000

122,000

27

2003/04

119,000

115,000

117,000

27

2004/05

114,000

112,000

113,000

26

2005/06

122,000

118,000

120,000

28

2. The overall outturn of these procedures results in a child low income poverty rate in 1998/99 for Northern Ireland of:

Discussion

4.1 1998/99 Child poverty estimates

The approach taken in this paper was to provide an updated rebased estimate of the number of children in poverty and the child poverty rate for 1998/99. The following estimates were calculated.

Table 1: Four Year Procedure- 2002/03- 2005/06

1998/99

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

Child poverty risk

29%

31%

Number of children in poverty

134,000

142,000
Table 2 Three Year Procedure- 2003/04- 2005/06

1998/99

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

Child poverty risk

29%

31%

Number of children in poverty

135,000

143,000
Table 3 Three Year Procedure- 2002/03- 2004/05

1998/99

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

Child poverty risk

29%

30%

Number of children in poverty

134,000

141,000

Note detailed methodology for this estimate is not contained within this report but follows that for method one and method two.

On the basis that the 2002/03 HBAI NI data represented the first year of the Family Resources Survey in NI, it is probable that the succeeding years data (2003/04 to 2005/06) represents the outcome of a more mature and developed survey. On that basis, the preference here would be to rely on the estimates generated by the data from 2003/04 to 2005/06. In reality, there is no difference in the baseline estimates using any of the above combinations of the annual HBAI NI data available.

4.2 Implications for NI targets set in relation to eradicating child poverty

The overall target to eradicate child poverty by 2020 has two interim targets, to reduce the number of children living in low income households by one quarter by 2004/05, on the way to halving child poverty in 2010/11 baselined at 1998/99.

Table 4 Percentage reduction in modelled numbers of children in poverty 1998/99 to 2004/05- created using 3 years data (2003/04 to 2005/06)

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

1998/99 estimates

135,000

143,000

2004/05 estimates

106,000

113,000

% reduction

21%

21%

Using the modelled estimates for both the baseline period 1998/99 and for 2004/05, the BHC quarter reduction target, as was the case for GB, was missed.

Table 5 Percentage reduction in numbers of children in poverty modelled in 1998/99 (using 3 years data (2003/04 to 2005/06) with actual HBAI NI figures for 2004/05

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

1998/99 estimates

135,000

143,000

2004/05 HBAI NI

107,000

110,000

% reduction

21%

23%

Comparing the above 1998/99 modelled estimates with the actual HBAI NI figures for 2004/05 a similar picture in relation to the quarter reduction target for figures based on modelled estimates can be seen.

On the basis of the modelled estimates for 1998/99 based on the 3 years data 2003/04 to 2005/06, the target to halve the numbers of children in poverty by 2010/11 is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Challenge faced in halving child poverty by 2010/11

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

1998/99 estimates

135,000

143,000

To halve by 2010/11

67,500

71,500

As Table 6 indicates, to meet the target to halve child poverty by 2010/11 requires reducing, by around 67,500, the number of children measured in poverty on a before housing cost basis.

Appendix A
Equivalisation using OECD Scales

The income measures used in HBAI take into account variations in the size and composition of the households in which individuals live. This reflects the common notion that, in order to enjoy a comparable standard of living, a household of say three adults will need a higher income than a single person living alone. The process of adjusting income in this way is known as equivalisation and is needed in order to make sensible income comparisons between households.

Equivalence scales conventionally take an adult couple with two children, as the reference point, with an equivalence value of one. This process then increases relatively the income of single person households (since their incomes are divided by a value of less than one) and reduces relatively the incomes of households with three or more persons, which have an equivalence of greater than one.

Consider a single person, a couple and a couple with two children aged fourteen and ten, all having unadjusted weekly household incomes of £200 (Before Housing Costs). The process of equivalisation, as conducted in HBAI, gives an equivalised income of £299 to the single person, £200 to the couple, but only £131 to the couple with children.

The main equivalence scales now used in HBAI are the OECD scales, which take the values shown below in Table A1.1. The equivalent values used by the McClements equivalence scales are also shown for comparison alongside the OECD values.

In both the OECD and McClements versions two separate scales are used, one for income Before Housing Costs (BHC) and one for income After Housing Costs (AHC). The construction of household equivalence values from these scales is quite straightforward. For example, the BHC equivalence value for a household containing a

Couple with a fourteen year old and a ten year old child together with one other adult would be 1.86 from the sum of the scale values:

0.67 + 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.20 + 0.33 = 1.86

The total income for the household would then be divided by 1.86 in order to arrive at the measure of equivalised household income used in HBAI analysis.

A1.1 Chart.psd

Source: Department for Social Development Households Below Average Income NI 2005/06 p149-150

[1] Available on OFMDFM research website- http:/www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/index/equality/equalityresearch.htm

[2] Relative low income households are defined as those with incomes below 60% of contemporary equivalised median income. This may be on a before housing costs (BHC) basis or after housing costs (AHC) i.e. when certain costs associated with housing have been deducted. This report provides estimates on both a BHC and AHC basis

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/2007/joint_report/sec_2007_329_en.pdf

[4] For simplicity, unless indicated otherwise, all HBAI figures in this report are based on the modified OECD scale.

[5] Absolute low income households are those whose current income is below the 60% median household income level for 1998/99, adjusted year on year for the effects of inflation

[6] UK level figure

[7] See www.dwp.gov.uk/ofa/related/final_conclusions.pdf

[8] See www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/B/9/pbr_csr07_psa9.pdf

[9] Available on OFMDFM research website- http:/www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/index/equality/equalityresearch.htm

[10] Comparative data was provided in the previous OFMDFM report on estimating child poverty and the reader is referred to that report for the detail which can be accessed at http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/eliminatingchildpoverty.pdf

[11] The outturn of this procedure using data from 2003/04 to 2005/06 was identical to the outturn of the previous method using data 2002/03 to 2005/06.

[12] All population figures are calculated using NI mid year population figures published by NISRA. HBAI defines a child as aged under 16 or unmarried 16-18 year olds in full time education. However, the total number of children aged 15 and under, plus 75% of 16 and 17 year olds in full time education (department of Education statistics), and an assumption of 50% of 18 year olds in further or higher education yields a number equivalent to all those aged under 18.

[13] The outturn of this procedure using data from 2003/04 to 2005/06 was identical to the outturn of the previous method using data 2002/03 to 2005/06

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy
Outline Of Approach

Introduction

The Northern Ireland Executive has a statutory obligation within Section 16 of the Northern Ireland St Andrews Agreement Act 2006, to adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to tackle poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation based on objective need. Coordinating this agenda lies within the responsibilities of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

Both the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have repeatedly put on record their unequivocal commitment to tackling both these issues.

The principles of addressing these key issues were embedded throughout the Programme for Government and are reflected in many of the PSA targets. The Executive and OFMDFM is currently working on effective delivery mechanisms to ensure these targets are achieved.

OFMDFM intend submitting a paper to the Executive Committee early in 2008 within which it will be asked to formally adopt the broad ‘architecture’ and principles of ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ as the basis of its strategy to tackle poverty and Social Inclusion in Northern Ireland. This architecture is consistent with the principles agreed and adopted within the Programme for Government.

The Executive Paper will;

Background:

Lifetime Opportunities – Governments Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland was launched by the Secretary of State Peter Hain MP on Monday 13th November 2006.

The strategy replaced New Targeting Social Need (New TSN) which was Governments former high level policy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland.

The new strategy retains:

The two strategic targets of ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ are to:

We have fully considered the recommendations of the Programme for Government Committee prior to devolution, following their consideration of the Lifetime Opportunities strategy. Taking these into account, the new strategy will include, following consultation, short and medium term targets which will effectively measure progress. We will also be including into the relevant chapters, the specific issues around socially excluded groups such as lone parents and people with disabilities. A detailed report is due shortly on the issue of the social exclusion of lone parents and this will also inform the relevant elements of the strategy.

A ‘Lifecycle’ approach:

‘Lifetime Opportunities’ focuses on the different priority needs at different times in peoples lives and defines the following specific goals for each of four key stages in life:

Early Years (0-4) - that every child should have a chance to develop their full potential in infancy, within a nurturing environment regardless of social background

Children and Young People (5-16) - to allow all children and young people to experience a happy and fulfilling childhood, while equipping them with the education, skills and experience to achieve their potential. Working Age Adults - to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to fully participate in economic, social and cultural life.

Older Citizens - to ensure older people are valued and respected, remain independent, actively participate and enjoy a good quality of life in a safe and supportive community.

Lifetime Opportunities thus retains many key elements of the previous strategy, New TSN, but introduces important changes. Table 1 below summarises the main similarities and differences between the two strategies.

Table 1: comparison of lifetime opportunities and new tsn

New TSN

Lifetime Opportunities

Specific Budget

No - but strategy required that resources and effort within Departmental Programmes, were targeted at those in areas, groups and individuals in greatest objective need

No specific budget currently - but as with New TSN resources and effort are targeted at those in areas, groups and individuals in greatest objective need. Funding addressing relevant areas are usually streamed through other departments in line with the overall strategy.

Strategic Target

No

Yes

Specific strategic targets are contained within the strategy. The department will also set additional measurable targets in line with the strategic aims of the strategy.

Focus on Social Exclusion

Yes

Yes - Lone Parents identified as next priority group for specified policy development

We are also examining additional groups and aim to set specific targets for key socially excluded groups

Focus on Equality

Yes - recognised that different experiences of poverty and disadvantage by different groups in society leads to inequality and vice versa. Policy must address inequality and its cause.

Yes – as with New TSN resources and effort are targeted at those in areas, groups and individuals in greatest need

Regular Reporting Against Progress

6-monthly monitoring against Departmental actions and related targets.

Ongoing monitoring of progress against agreed indicators of progress

Ministerial Lead

No

Yes – through the proposed Executive Subcommittee and Ministerial led Poverty Forum

Focus on Different Priorities and Different Needs at Different Times of Life

No

Yes – including specific goals for:

Early Years;

Children & Young People;

Working Age Adults; and

Older People

Specific key government commitments within the strategy:

Within the Lifetime Opportunities strategy Government committed to:

Developments since Publication of Lifetime Opportunities

Work has continued both within and across Departments to deliver on the broad objectives outlined in the current Anti Poverty Strategy.

Adopting and Implementing a Strategy in line with the Section 16 Duty

The broad architecture of the ‘Lifetime Opportunities’, launched in 2006 as a policy framework, including its overarching strategic targets and goals for each key stage in the lifecycle, remains relevant and appropriate.

The view reflects that of the Shadow Programme for Government Committee which saw Lifetime Opportunities as a good basis for future policy and action.

We have continued to refine and develop the strategy to reflect changing needs and the restoration of political institutions

The Executive now needs to decide, as part of the process of adopting a Strategy to tackle poverty and social exclusion, what priority actions are needed to deliver on its Programme for Government targets, and which would form the ‘core’ of the Executive Strategy.

Recommendation to the Executive Committee:

The Executive Committee, in line with its requirement under Section 16 of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, will therefore be asked to formally adopt the broad ‘architecture’ and principles of ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ as the basis of its strategy to tackle poverty and Social Inclusion and patterns of deprivation, based on need including;

The Executive Committee will further be asked to identify those key actions including those which involve more than one Department, which will contribute most to achieving the goals set out in Lifetime Opportunities, the targets set in Programme for Government and which will form the ‘core’ of its strategy.

Conclusions

Many of the targets already set and included in the PFG are ambitious. Work has already commenced to address the most effective ways of meeting these targets. OFMDFM welcome the Committee’s Child Poverty enquiry and hope that the report can be used to supplement and inform the relevant chapters of the strategy.

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

12 May 2008

Department of the First and Deputy First Minister

Dear Damien

Following the evidence session with OFMDFM officials on 16 April the Committee sought further information on a range of issues to inform their inquiry into Child Poverty. This information is set out below.

(i) Rising fuel costs and impact on child poverty

The impact of rising fuel costs on the number of children in households experiencing fuel poverty is being investigated by the NIHE and the outcome is expected within four weeks. The analysis will take into consideration recent trends in household income from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and data from the House Condition Survey (HCS) as well as the fuel price index.

In addition to this OFMDFM statisticians have prepared a theoretical analysis of the differential impact of a range of increases in household expenditure on ‘necessities’ between low and high income households. A table of the findings is included in Annex A.

This shows that, for example, an increase of 20% in household expenditure on necessities represents an impact on overall expenditure of between 7-8% for lower income households. This contrasts with an impact for ‘higher income’ households of between 4-5%. Price rises will impact on a household’s spending power but not its level of income (the basis upon which poverty is calculated).

Given the cross cutting nature of Child Poverty and Poverty in general it is difficult to indicate specific measures proposed which will best impact in the short to medium term, but it is reasonable to assume that collectively all measures will have positive benefits.

(ii) Child Poverty Measurement

There is no one agreed poverty measurement. Three separate measures will be used to assess progress in the halving of child poverty by 2010/11 and the eradication of child poverty by 2020/21:

Assessing what progress has been made against targets set i.e. ‘to halve child poverty by 2010/11’ involves measurement as follows:

Junior Ministers have sought advice on indicators and measures in relation to ‘severe’ child poverty and work is continuing on this.

(iii) Disabled Children – Funding Package

When the UK Government reviews its spending plans, changes in the spending allocations to the Executive’s Departmental Expenditure Limits are, with some exceptions, determined by applying the population-based Barnett Formula to changes in planned spending on comparable services in United Kingdom Government departments.

Such Barnett consequentials are un-hypothecated which means that the Executive and Assembly can determine allocations to specific priorities and programmes, regardless of the nature of the spending on comparable English programmes which gives rise to the allocation. Departmental allocations are set as part of the budget process and adjusted through in-year monitoring rounds.

The £340m package for disabled children announced in May 2007, and referred to by the Committee, was funded from within the broader 3.1% real terms settlement for the Department of Children, Schools and Families (announced as part of Budget 2007), on which the Executive received Barnett consequentials in the normal way. As explained above, all allocations received from the Barnett formula are un-hypothecated and are available to the Executive to spend in correspondence with local needs and priorities. It is understood that Junior Ministers have raised this issue with the Minister for Finance and Personnel

(iv) Financial Inclusion

OFMDFM has lead co-ordination responsibility for Financial Inclusion matters although operational programmes which impact on financial capability and financial inclusion are delivered by other Departments e.g. DE, DETI. OFMDFM is represented on the UK Officials’ Group on Financial Capability and works closely with the General Consumer Council, the Financial Services Authority, Banks and other key stakeholders in progressing financial capability at regional level through the Financial Capability Partnership. OFMDFM officials will liaise with colleagues in DFP to determine whether any Barnett consequential has been received as a result of the UK package referred to by the Committee.

(v) Rural Poverty

As part of the CSR settlement DARD received additional resources to tackle rural poverty. OFMDFM officials will work closely with all Departments, including DARD officials, to ensure that programmes and actions across Departments are complimentary and address the key priorities in tackling poverty as part of the Executive’s PfG commitments.

The Committee has recently received a paper detailing proposals for ‘Lifetime Opportunities’. These proposals are based on a ‘life cycle approach’ to tackle poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation based on objective need. Rural poverty, including programmes and actions to tackle this issue, is an important part of the overall strategy.

(vi) BIC Report on Child Poverty with a focus on Lone Parents.

Officials are liaising with BIC officials with a view to providing the Committee with a copy of the BIC report into their work examining good practice in relation to tackling Child Poverty with a focus on Lone parents across the jurisdictions. This will be released as soon as possible.

(vii) Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) - PSI ‘Lone Parents’ and PSI ‘People with Disabilities’

Work is ongoing in relation to finalising reports on these two significant areas. I can confirm that, subject to Ministerial agreement, these reports will be made available to the Committee in due course but it is likely that these will not be available until June at the earliest.

I hope you find this information useful.

Yours Sincerely

Signed Gail McKibbin

Gail Mckibbin
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer

Annex A

Table 4: Impacts of UK inflationary expenditure increases of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% on commodities and services defined as necessities by household income decile in 2006

 

Household income decile (1=lowest; 10=highest)

  
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

All

Average household size

1.4

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.6

2.7

2.9

3.0

3.0

2.4
‘Necessities’                      

Food and non-alcoholic drinks

24.50

31.40

3.60

40.10

44.60

47.40

51.90

57.80

62.70

71.90

46.90

Clothing and footwear

6.60

9.10

12.80

15.70

18.10

20.70

26.00

33.50

39.40

50.50

23.20

Housing (net), fuel and power

32.20

35.20

42.50

43.30

45.40

49.90

48.90

52.60

51.10

74.30

47.60

Other expenditure

92.20

124.10

179.5

233.90

272.10

320.10

380.10

450.20

562.30

767.70

338.20

Total expenditure

155.60

199.80

271.40

333.00

380.20

438.10

506.90

594.10

715.50

964.40

455.90

Applying 5% to expenditure on ‘necessities’

                      

Financial cost

3.17

3.78

4.60

5.00

5.40

5.90

6.34

7.20

7.66

9.84

5.88

Percentage impact

2.0%

1.9%

1.7%

1.5%

1.4%

1.3%

1.3%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

1.3%

Applying 10% to expenditure on ‘necessities’

                      

Financial cost

6.34

7.57

9.19

9.91

10.81

11.80

12.68

14.39

15.32

19.67

11.77

Percentage impact

4.1%

3.8%

3.4%

3.0%

2.8%

2.7%

2.5%

2.4%

2.1%

2.0%

2.6%

Applying 15% to expenditure on ‘necessities’

                      

Financial cost

9.51

11.36

13.78

14.86

16.22

17.70

19.02

21.58

22.98

29.50

17.66

Percentage impact

6.1%

5.7%

5.1%

4.5%

4.3%

4.0%

3.8%

3.6%

3.2%

3.1%

3.9%

Applying 20% to expenditure on ‘necessities’

                      

Financial cost

12.68

15.14

18.38

19.82

21.62

23.60

25.36

28.78

30.64

39.34

23.54

Percentage impact

8.1%

7.6%

6.8%

6.0%

5.7%

5.4%

5.0%

4.8%

4.3%

4.1%

5.2%

Procedure for Conduct of Equality Impact Assessments – Extract from guidance produced by the Equality Commission

The Commission considers that equality impact assessment requires seven separate elements:

1. Defining the aims of the policy

2. Consideration of available data and research

3. Assessment of impacts

4. Consideration of:

4. Consideration of:

5. Consultation on the actual impact of existing policies and the likely impact of proposed policies

6. Decision by public authority and publication of report on results of equality impact assessment

7. Monitoring for adverse impact in the future and publication of the results of such monitoring.

Each of these elements is considered in more detail below.

1. Defining the aims of the policy

At the beginning of an EQIA, it is important to spend time determining the aims of the policy. This is the foundation stage in the development of an EQIA and should therefore be afforded due attention. The policy aim is the focal point defining the public authority´s intended outcomes, in terms of results and visible effects ultimately on members of the public, and will guide the subsequent development of an EQIA.

2. Consideration of available data and research

Public authorities will need to consider how they will collect the information which will enable them to make a judgment of the extent of impact on the nine equality categories. The Commission encourages public authorities to work collectively on this. For example authorities operating within the education or health and social services sectors may wish to work together both to ensure the most effective and efficient use of public resources and to access the optimum information.

Likewise, information available within the public sector should be made available to those likely to be affected by policies to enable them to be fully informed of the basis on which decisions are made. The following guidance outlines the approach to be adopted at this stage:

3. Assessment of impacts

The authority must use the information gathered to decide whether there is, or is likely to be, a differential impact, whether direct or indirect, upon the relevant group (or groups).

If an adverse effect on any of those groups can be identified, policy makers will need to assess whether the policy is unlawfully discriminatory taking into account that some policies are intended to increase equality of opportunity by requiring or permitting affirmative or positive action, or action to redress disadvantages. They will then have to decide how to ensure that the public authority acts lawfully.

Even if the policy is not unlawful, policy makers need to consider what to do in light of the adverse impact identified. The following is provided as guidance by the Commission:

4. Consideration of

The consideration of mitigating measures and alternative policies is at the heart of the EQIA process. Different options must be developed which reflect different ways of delivering the policy aims. The consideration of mitigation of adverse impacts is intertwined with the consideration of alternative policies. Mitigation can take the form of lessening the severity of the adverse impact.

Ways of delivering policy aims which have a less adverse effect on the relevant equality category, or which better promote equality of opportunity for the relevant equality category, must in particular be considered. Consideration must be given to whether separate implementation strategies are necessary for the policy to be effective for the relevant group. The following must be considered:

5. Consultation on the actual impact of existing policies and the likely impact of proposed policies

An equality impact assessment requires consultation. Consultation must be carried out with relevant interest groups as well as the Equality Commission, other public bodies, voluntary, community, trade union and other groups with a legitimate interest in the matter. Consultation should also include those directly affected by the policy to be assessed, whether or not they have a personal interest (detailed in the Equality Scheme, see Section 4 paragraph 3(b)). Consultation should be timely, open and inclusive, and conducted in accordance with the Guiding Principles detailed in Section 4 paragraph 2(c).

The method by which the public authority chooses to conduct consultation at this stage must ensure a fair opportunity to present pertinent information and to provide the public authority with a sound basis for decision, without rendering decision making by the public authority unmanageable. It will be important to ensure that necessary time and resources are dedicated to the consultation process to encourage and maximise participation particularly by marginalized groups.

Wide awareness raising of the consultation exercise is essential to inform the public and relevant groups about the policy being assessed, and to invite comments on it. This may include press releases, prominent advertisements in the general press and specialist press of affected groups, the Internet and direct invitations to groups which are likely to be interested in and able to represent interests and views which would otherwise be inadequately represented.

The information used by the public authority in assessing the impact of the policy must be made available on request to those consulted. This will include any quantitative and qualitative data and other documentation such as consultants´ reports. In making information available it will not be sufficient or appropriate for a public authority to state that no data are available and therefore no impact or adverse impact has been identified.

6. Decision by public authority & publication of report on results of Equality Impact Assessment

The legislation requires that in making any decision with respect to a policy adopted or proposed to be adopted by it, the public authority shall take into account any Equality Impact Assessment and consultation carried out in relation to the policy (Schedule 9 paragraph 9 (2)). A commitment to this is included within Equality Schemes. It is therefore essential that the public authority fully complies with this commitment. Clear evidence of the consideration of mitigation of impacts must be apparent, and details of mitigation and plans for its implementation must be included in the final recommendations presented during decision making. Justifications must be given if these alternatives have not been accepted.

On occasions the EQIA process may lead a public authority to conclude that the existing policy is appropriate and no opportunities exist to better promote equality of opportunity. However, this conclusion is in itself a decision on the policy and must be made by the public authority, with top level involvement, and arrangements for future monitoring planned and agreed.

The legislation (Schedule 9 paragraph 9) requires public authorities to publish a report on the results of Equality Impact Assessments. The equality scheme must detail both how and where the report on EQIA results will be published (see Section 3 paragraph 5). It is therefore essential that this commitment is fully adhered to.

7. Monitoring for adverse impact in the future and publication of the results of such monitoring

A system must be established to monitor the impact of the policy in order to find out its effect on the relevant groups and sub groups within the equality categories. The results of ongoing monitoring must be reviewed on an annual basis. The public authority is required to publish the results of this monitoring (Schedule 9 paragraph 4 (2)(d)). The results of monitoring must be included in the public authorities´ annual review on progress to the Equality Commission. The Equality Scheme must specify how and where such monitoring information will be published (see Guide Section 3 paragraph 5). It is therefore essential that monitoring is carried out in a systematic manner and that the results are widely and openly published.

If the monitoring and analysis of results over a two year period show that the policy results in greater adverse impact than predicted, or if opportunities arise which would allow for greater equality of opportunity to be promoted, the public authority must ensure that the policy is revised to achieve better outcomes for the relevant equality groups.

Save the Children

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Save the Children

Children and young people’s perspectives on child poverty in Northern Ireland

Introduction

Save the Children is an international non-governmental organisation working in over 50 countries worldwide to create a better future for children. All of our work is underpinned by a commitment to making a reality of the rights of children enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In Northern Ireland Save the Children works through a variety of partnership approaches to support community level action on children’s issues; facilitates children and young person-led initiatives; undertakes independent research and policy analysis and promotes children’s rights through public education and fundraising activities. Child poverty is one of our two main priorities in the North of Ireland, and we have engaged intensively in advocacy around the development of Lifetime Opportunities, the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy.

In October 2007 Save the Children gave a presentation to the Inquiry on the general terms of reference of the Committee and subsequently submitted a paper. Since then, we have completed four different pieces of research on the views of children and young people on child poverty in Northern Ireland. In order to ensure that the views of children and young people are taken account of by the Inquiry, a summary of each piece of research is presented below. One has been released in full, and the other three will be written up and released later in the year.

The four research projects are:

1. Voices of children living in poverty in Northern Ireland

2. Impact of poverty on young children’s experiences of education.

3. Children’s views on standard of living

4. Questions in the 2007 Young Life and Times Survey on young people’s attitudes to child poverty.

1. Voices of children living in poverty in Northern Ireland

Goretti Horgan and Marina Monteith

There is a lot of discussion about levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland and the impact that growing up in poverty can have on individuals when they reach adulthood. However, children growing up in poverty here rarely have the chance to have their views heard about what life is like for them as children. Over the last year, Save the Children in partnership with University of Ulster researchers spoke to more than 70 children aged 7 to 11 and 40 young people aged 12 to 17, from Protestant and Catholic, urban and rural areas, across Northern Ireland.

This Briefing reports on the views of the 6 – 11 year old children we spoke to; while from disadvantaged areas, these were not the poorest or most disadvantaged children. They were accessed through after-schools clubs while research shows that the most disadvantaged children rarely get to attend after-schools clubs. These younger children were asked to help a cartoon alien character who wanted to know about what life is like for children whose families don’t have much money. All the questions were about children generally, not about themselves or their own families.

What does it mean to be poor?

Most of the children we spoke to were living in disadvantaged areas in families on or below the poverty line but the children did not see themselves as poor. This is similar to how children in Britain and the South of Ireland see themselves in relation to poverty. This is reflected in what the children said they thought children whose families “don’t have much money” cannot do. Some of the younger children described absolute poverty where children don’t get enough to eat, have proper clothing or housing and don’t go to school.

- They wouldn’t be able to buy food

- They wouldn’t be able to go to school

But for most children, the kind of things that they said children wouldn’t be able to do if their families “don’t have much money” reflected an understanding of relative poverty. The children were not so concerned about children missing out on consumer goods like Nintendos or PlayStations, mobile phones or iPods. Rather, they worried about things which research across the UK and Ireland shows children living in poverty are likely to miss out on. Government surveys indicate that children living in poverty are deprived of leisure services, equipment like bikes, and access to out-of-school activities.

- They can’t go on trips from school. (9 year old girl)

- They aren’t able to go places and do stuff, like Funderland. (9 year old boy)


- You might not get so much treats like going to the pool and the cinema. (7 year old girl)

- You wouldn’t be able to come to a nice [after school] club, if they had no money. (7 year old boy)

Other research where young people were asked about their lives found that growing up in poverty can lead to social exclusion in a range of ways. What the children we spoke to had to say suggested that children can face severe exclusion even within their own communities.

This exclusion ranges from not having money to accompany their friends on outings, through not having fashionable clothes, to being excluded from playground games and not being invited to birthday parties or day trips because they won’t be able to reciprocate.

- [They can’t] go to parties or go to the cinema.

Researcher: Why wouldn’t they go to parties, they don’t have to pay to go like they do to go to the cinema?

- Because they might not have enough money to buy a present for the kid and they might not have enough money to buy a car to take them there. (9 year old girl, rural area)

- I think they might be picked on or something. Or they might be left alone rather than brought into lots of games. (8 year old girl)

- If their friends were going out, their mummy couldn’t give them money or something (8 year old girl)

These 7 and 8 year old boys agreed that children whose families don’t have much money would be treated differently by other children.

- Eh, they won’t treat you nicely and won’t take you anywhere.

- You won’t get taken to the beach or nothing.

- Hello, you’ll have to walk to the beach by yourself or you’ll have to take off all your clothes to go in the water.

Researcher - But do you think say if the other children were going to the beach, say and they had a space in the car, and their mum said you can bring somebody with you… do you think the other children wouldn’t bring them if they didn’t have much money?

- No…

- I would, but other children might not.

Awareness of difficulties parents face in making ends meet

We know from other research that parents go to great lengths to protect their children from the worst impact of child poverty. There is now growing evidence that children are all too aware of the difficulties faced by their parents in making ends meet and that they restrict their demands on parents because of that awareness. The children we spoke to were not asked anything about their own lives or about the cost of things, nonetheless they demonstrated an acute awareness of the demands on their parents’ pockets.

- …but mummies and daddies have to pay…in our school there was letters going out and you have to pay like £2 for, there was… £2 for the Peter Pan adventure wee thing, and then there was £2 for a trip and there’s £2 and £2 and there’s lots of different things. (9 year old girl)

- …they have to pay lots of money for schools and for they have to pay lots of bills for like… I go to Irish dancing, and my mummy has to pay like a fiver, I think it’s every month, so they have to pay that bill. And then to buy food and all they have to pay loads of bills. (9 year old girl)

The New Poor in Northern Ireland – the Migrants

Most of the children did not see themselves or their friends as living in families that ‘don’t have much money’, but they recognise migrant families as living in poverty. When pressed to think about any children they know whose families do not have much money, the answer was usually that they did not know any. The exception were children living in those areas where there are migrant families. The children were all agreed that these children are treated differently by the other children.

Researcher: Do you think there’s any children at your school whose parents don’t have much money?

- Yeah there is some people at my school. There’s two Lithuanian people in my school.

- There’s two Portugal, Portuguese people, one’s from Poland,

- Lithuania.

- We’ve got loads of people from Africa.

Researcher: And do those children… at your schools do those children get treated different?

- Yeah, their parents sometimes treat them differently, sometimes they make them walk over to school and walk back again.

- I was going to say that… maybe some people come to school and they don’t have the whole uniform on like we do, they only have like a wee shirt and the trousers, they don’t have like the tie and the jumper and all…

Researcher: And does that make the other children treat them differently do you think?

- Yeah, because they’re not really the same. (9 year olds, boys and girls)

The children were quite honest about the fact that both at school and playing on the streets, the immigrant children would be treated differently by other children.

- … if they had no socks or shoes they would have to walk about on the stones.

Researcher: Do you think that there are very many children who live in Northern Ireland whose families have so little money that they don’t have shoes or socks?

- There’s a person who lives in my street, he’s coloured, and there’s four wee kids and a mummy and they don’t have loads of money.

Researcher: And do you think other children would treat them differently if they were out playing in the street or whatever?

- Yeah.

Researcher: In what way would they treat them differently?

- Well they would slag them, you know, like call them racist stuff. (10 year old boy)

What can be done to help children who are living in poverty?

The last question the alien asked the children was to pretend that it’s the prime minister and in charge of the country. Then it asked if they have any ideas about what the Prime Minister could do to make things better for children whose families don’t have much money. The main response was that families should get more money. Helping families with housing also featured in a lot of the responses.

I would give them more money, send them money, like £400 (9 year old boy)

- Make them a free wee house and give them food and you could pay for it, and then when they get money they can pay you back for it.

- I would try to give them more money. (7 and 8 year old boys)

- I’d go round the houses who don’t have much money and I’d give them some money to like buy themselves food or clothes. (9 year old girl)

- Give them a better life, a better house, give them a car. That’s what I would do.

- Get them better clothes and all.

- A better house, and better clothes.

- Get them new houses, proper houses

- Get them a doggy if they like doggies! (laughter)

- And give them more fun.

- And get them more toys.

- Give them more electricity for lights and other stuff that they actually need.

(9 and 10 year olds, boys and girls)

2. The Impact of poverty on young children’s experience of education

Goretti Horgan, University of Ulster

This study, jointly funded by Save the Children and the JRF examines the extent to which poverty impacts on younger children’s experience of school and looks at life in primary schools in Northern Ireland from a child-centred perspective.

The role of education in providing a route out of poverty is at the centre of many policies to end child poverty. Improving educational attainment is important for the individual child, but it is also vital if the goal of eradicating child poverty in a generation is to be met. The Government has also committed itself to involving children and young people in decision-making, particularly in relation to education.

Two hundred and twenty children aged four to eleven took part in group interviews, in both disadvantaged and advantaged primary schools across Northern Ireland. Parents and teachers were also interviewed. Focusing on disadvantaged schools rather than pupils avoided stigmatising children living in poverty. The schools in the most disadvantaged areas had between 50 and 75 per cent of their pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), while schools in the most advantaged areas had between three and 14 per cent of their pupils eligible for FSM.

The children talked about:

Afterwards, what the children said was analysed to see what it showed about the impact of poverty on their school lives, as well as about the different experiences of those living in poorer and better-off circumstances.

Key points
The cost of school

Despite government policy aimed at keeping the cost of primary school uniforms as low as possible, all the parents interviewed reported spending about £50 on each child’s uniform, not including the cost of shoes. Some of the older children were keenly aware of the cost to their parents of school uniforms. Some schools, even in highly disadvantaged areas, displayed an inflexible attitude to uniforms.

School trips also proved expensive and few parents realised that schools are not allowed to charge for trips during school hours. Most saw the ‘donation’ that was asked for as a fixed charge. Residential trips, particularly those outside the region, were seen as too expensive by all the parents interviewed, even those who were relatively well-off.

Children and parents generally welcomed healthy eating policies in schools but felt that school dinners had not gone far enough towards providing tasty healthy options. The poor quality of meals in some school canteens meant that children who might rely on their school dinner as the main meal of the day refused to eat what was on offer. For families who were not entitled to free school meals but had several children at school, the cost of school dinners made them prohibitive.

Reasons for going to school

Younger children (four- to six-year-olds) all saw school as a place to learn for learning’s sake, or as many of them put it “to get smarter”. They said that making friends, meeting friends, playing and “having fun” were the best things about school.

Older children’s understanding of why they went to school had developed. So seven- to nine-year-olds still saw school as about learning and having fun, but started to say they went to school to learn so they could get a job when they were older. For ten- and eleven-year-olds, school was all about getting a good education in order to get a good job.

While all agreed that school was important for their future, the older children in the more advantaged schools tended to say they enjoy attending school. They had positive reasons for saying that school was important, to ensure a good life as an adult. Children in the disadvantaged schools, however, were less likely to say they enjoyed school and more likely to cite negative reasons for why school was important, such as to avoid problems in their adult lives. These comments illustrate the difference:

“School is important. On a scale of one to ten, school is about eight and a half … It’s important because we have to get a good education and if you want to go to university you have to get good GCSE and good A-level marks.” (Ten-year-old girl, advantaged school)

“Well, if you didn’t go to school you wouldn’t be able to learn. You wouldn’t be able to know anything when you grow up. Every time you go to speak to somebody, you’d be, like, d’oh!”
(Eleven-year-old girl, disadvantaged school)

Different experiences of school

Older children in disadvantaged schools complained about being shouted at by teachers. While both boys and girls complained about being shouted at, the boys were more likely to say that it was “unfair”. The girls tended to make excuses for the teachers and blame themselves to some degree for being shouted at. Children in more advantaged schools did not complain about teachers shouting at them.

As well as the attitudes of teachers, children in the disadvantaged schools complained about a range of issues:

Boys across the range of schools, but particularly those in the disadvantaged schools, complained about the length of the school day and about how brief they found break times. Girls complained about not having enough time to eat lunch and play but not about the length of the school day generally.

Tests were the single most cited reason for worrying about school. All the children worried about tests, but children in the advantaged schools were far more worried and under greater pressure to do well in all their tests. The children who planned to do the Eleven Plus (which remains in place in Northern Ireland until November 2008) said they found it “stressful”, that they worried about their parents’ expectations and feared they would “let them down” by not doing well enough.

All the children, whether or not they were doing the Eleven Plus, were aware of the distorting effect of the test on teaching in the year before it. In particular, those preparing for the test complained their curriculum had narrowed considerably and they were no longer included in some school trips and missed out on music, art and PE lessons. Those who were not doing the test complained that they were often set work to do by themselves while the teacher concentrated on those taking it.

“I think they just need to pay attention to everyone … because when we’re doing the tests, other people are doing easier stuff and we’re working hard but they aren’t working as hard as we are. I mean they should still be learning, they’re just doing stuff that they’ve already done and it’s not as if they’re learning any more.”
(Ten-year-old girl, socially mixed school)

Activities outside school

Children in the more disadvantaged schools were considerably less likely to participate in after-school activities. Some disadvantaged schools did offer some free after-school activities, but children were unable to take up these activities if they did not live within walking distance of the school. By contrast, in the better-off schools, parents, relatives or other carers picked the children up in cars from after-school activities. In the more advantaged schools, some children were able to recite a list of out-of-school activities for each day of the school week.

“I go to netball on Monday, and dance class on Tuesday, piano on Wednesday and then on Thursday go to choir.” (Nine-year-old girl)

Several ten- and eleven-year-old children in the more advantaged schools, in response to being asked about out-of-school activities, said that they “couldn’t be bothered”. These children, most though not all of whom were entitled to free school meals, were also among those who said that they “couldn’t be bothered” to go on school trips. These children seemed to be experiencing what Tess Ridge terms “exclusion from within” (Ridge, 2002).

Headteachers in the more disadvantaged schools, including the rural ones, were concerned to ensure that activities that could enrich a child’s life, such as art, sports and music, were available to all. Schools went to great lengths to make sure that children who had some musical ability would get music lessons without having to pay for them. By contrast, headteachers in more advantaged schools expressed concern that so much that used to be free was now subject to a charge. Some were fatalistic about the effect of these charges.

“The music tuition that we have … [is] not really accessible, practically not accessible, to children from lower income backgrounds.” (Headteacher, advantaged school)

Table 1: Boys already disengaging from school

Advantaged Schools

Disadvantaged schools

“I don’t think there is very many bad things about school.”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“I don’t like school, ‘cos you have to work. I think it’s too long.”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“I think you need to go to school and I really like school but I think we need more sports.” (Ten-year-old boy)

“No one likes it in our class, none of the boys like it, don’t they not?”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“See if you want to have a good job, you have to have a degree in Maths and English and science and everything.”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“All the boys in our school, all the boys in the school don’t like school. I wish school wasn’t invented!”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“You get a good education and all so you can get a good job when you’re older.”

(Nine-year-old boy)

“I hate school, doing work and teachers shouting at me.”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“It can be good to learn if they make things fun to learn.”

(Ten-year-old boy)

“If you don’t go to school, your Dad will go to jail.”

(Eleven-year-old boy)

Source: The impact of poverty on young children’s experience of school (Horgan 2007).

Early disengagement from school

A significant number of boys in the most disadvantaged schools were already starting to disengage from school at the age of nine or ten. Some of the differences in how boys from different backgrounds experienced school can be seen in Table 1. Older boys in the disadvantaged schools were the only children who talked in a positive manner about truanting. Older girls in disadvantaged schools spoke disapprovingly of boys who “tell their Mummies they’re going to school but they don’t really, they just stay off”. There was no discussion of truanting in the advantaged schools.

Boys in the advantaged schools complained more than girls about the amount of work, particularly homework, they had to do. In all schools, boys seemed more concerned than girls about being able to get outside to play, both during and after school hours. Girls in the disadvantaged schools were as likely as boys to complain about being shouted at, but only boys concluded that this led them to hate school. And it was only in the disadvantaged schools that the length of the school day, the amount of work and teachers shouting at them led to boys saying they hated or really did not like school.

3. Children’s views on standard of living

Goretti Horgan and Marina Monteith

The project consulted with over 90 children across the UK to determine their views on what constitutes a good standard of living for children and young people in the UK. This study included children and young people from Northern Ireland in the sample. The sample involved children and young people living in deprived areas across the UK. Two groups were also included from better off areas for comparison purposes. Children aged from 8 years old to 17 years from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland participated in the research. Younger children (8-11) completed a shorter version of the exercises completed by older children.

The interviews/group work started with general discussions about what makes a good life, what is important in school, for health, in your local area and social development. The children/young people then moved on to complete exercises where they were presented with a number of cards representing different issues under each of the topics (income, education, health, local area and social activities). They could also write up new cards based on the earlier discussions. Cards were then divided up into snakes and ladders – things which helped you in life and things which were barriers/made life hard. This helped get a discussion going on each of the issues and why it might be important to a good standard of life. Finally the children/young people were asked to select their top ten issues – the things which they thought we should use to measure a good standard of life. While the results reported here are summarised for the whole of the UK, children in each of the four countries talked about similar experiences and made the same sorts of choices when completing the indicators exercises.

Initial discussions

The early discussions were illuminating in that a very different picture was given by children and young people than that often portrayed in mainstream media. Children and young people’s priorities when asked were not necessarily the response we might expect. They chose immediately the more intangible, non-materialistic things, which is contrary to popular opinion that children and young people are very materialistic. This trend followed through in their later discussions of indicator cards and their decision making.

Many children mentioned a warm home as essential for a good quality of life at the very beginning of the sessions. Similarly healthy food and safety featured highly in early part of discussions and this was reinforced again later when making choices about indicators. Having a home and a loving family/parents or people who care for you were also popular responses to the unprompted question on what makes a good standard of living. Having fun and not getting into “fighting” were also regularly mentioned, as were having friends and pets.

Income

In the early discussions about what makes a good life, money only came up a few times. Rather the focus tended to be a warm home, being healthy and having healthy food, loving parents/family, being safe and having respect. However, when discussions progressed into what made school good/not so good for children, what made children healthy/sick, what made a place a good area to live, money came up over and over again in terms of not being able to participate in social or leisure activities or how not having money affected being educated or being healthy. Children and young people talked about not being able to afford the same things as other children and about parents’ difficulty in keeping the house warm or not affording things needed for the home.

These discussions were later reflected in choices children made for the income cards, with every group choosing cards about not being able to afford the right kinds of food and being able to afford enough food as well as concerns about low pay of parents. Discussions around affording the right kinds of food and enough food were often personalised and children/young people talked about their own experience. One teenage boy was insistent that he could not get enough fruit and that he no longer visited the leisure centre (since it went up from 90pence to over £1 for swimming). Yet most children discussed the need for healthy food and more fresh fruit and vegetables but it was evident that the lack was not down to choice but affordability.

Education

In the early discussion, teachers attitudes to children and young people (being shouted at/picked on) and the cost of schooling (school meals, trips, activities) were listed by many groups. Teachers who shout or get cross when children and young people had difficulties were seen as negative to having a good education. One group differentiated between teachers who “got at” children and young people and others who were “moany” i.e. stricter which was a positive experience. Most children and young people talked about being educated as being important for a good standard of life. Getting the help they needed in school was very important to achieve this. Alongside this were discussions about being confident in school and how children/young people felt about going to school.

The other important strand running through many discussions was safety in school. These issues were raised by children and young people themselves before any cards were introduced. The importance of these were also reflected in later discussions around the indicators and the choices children and young people made about what educational issues are important for them to achieve a good standard of living.

Health

In initial discussions about health and what makes a good standard of living all groups talked about importance of having healthy food. Many children and young people complained about not being able to get enough fresh fruit. This included the cost of fresh fruit in schools, families not being able to afford it, and it not being available at leisure and social venues. Children and young people talked about the importance of healthy eating and exercise. Cost was a major issue – not only for the cost of fruit but also access to leisure centres and participating in social activities.

Apart from discussions about healthy food and exercise, children and young people tended to then focus the discussion about health on illness. Of particular concern for both children and young people was cost of illness, particularly transport costs to visit doctor or hospital. In addition some children had concerns about the cost of actual treatment, believing that their families may have to pay if they visited the doctor or hospital. This may be due to influence of American television as this did come up in groups with younger ages.

Of particular concern to the researchers was the level of hopelessness portrayed by groups of young people in the most deprived areas. This was expressed through negatively about almost everything discussed including going on holidays or taking part in social activities and for example, one young person expressing the view that gambling should be legal for under 18s as that was the only route he saw out of his situation – it was worth the risk of being in debt for the gains that might possibly be made. Thus the extent of “hopelessness” itself, although not discussed or selected by young people, struck researchers as an important measure of well-being and health.

Local Area

Safety was a major concern for almost every group and this was reinforced in both early discussions and later when selecting key indicator cards. Safety issues ranged from gangs/fighting, vandalism and crime to safer play parks and not having to cross busy roads in the local area to get to social and leisure activities. For most children and young people access to affordable/free leisure and social activities in their local area was important for a good standard of living. These issues were reinforced in the selection of indicator cards. Several young people who were contacted through community run facilities referred to the importance of the free activities and trips organised for them in their lives and the role the youth worker played in this.

Social Development (social and leisure activities)

Having friends and places to go/things to do were the main concerns of children and young people in this area of standard of living. Again, costs came up with almost every group – being able to take part in leisure and social activities, afford transport to events, have places to go or play that are not vandalised or unsafe. Friends were important not only in socialising but also when support was needed. The importance of cost came up again in the discussion of indicator cards and when making selections of what contributes to a good standard of living.

4. Young Life and Times survey

Marina Monteith and Alex Tennant

Save the Children commissioned a number of questions on the 2007 Young Life and Times survey, an annual survey of sixteen year olds across Northern Ireland.

Defining what is ‘essential’ for children and young people in NI

Respondents were then asked to reflect on whether they considered a number of items to be essential for children and young people in Northern Ireland. These included

As Figure 1 indicates, the item that most young people considered to be essential was ‘a warm, secure home’ – nine in ten (91%) supported this position. While ‘three meals a day including fresh fruit and vegetables’, was the item next most likely to be described as essential (78%), it was followed closely by ‘educational items such as school books’ (74%).

Opinion was more divided on whether ‘new clothes when needed’ was essential (55%) or merely important (36%). Social activities outside school and being able to have a birthday celebration were much less likely to be considered essential (24% and 14% respectively), although they were still considered by the majority to be important. A week’s holiday away from home and a television were considered least essential or important by respondents.

Figure 1: ‘Essential’ and ‘non-essential’ items

missing image file

When responses are compared by gender, the order in which these items are prioritised by males and females is consistent, although there are differences in the degree to which each group considers the items to be essential. As can be seen in the figure below, females are more likely to consider a warm, secure home, three meals a day and educational items as essential than males. Males are more likely to consider new clothes when needed, participation in social activities, a birthday celebration, a holiday and a television as essential than females.

The financial situation of the young person’s family also seemed to impact on how likely respondents are to consider an item as essential. Those describing their family’s financial status as ‘not well off’ were more likely to consider a warm secure home, participation in social activities outside the home and a week’s holiday as essential than better off participants.

In general, young people were more likely to state as essential those most basic needs of any person – a warm place to live and adequate food to eat. Interestingly other items which high proportions of children stated as essential were items which are most likely to be noticed to be lacking on a daily basis such as educational aids and new clothes. It is important for children and young people that they do not seem different from their peers. Similarly being able to participate in social activities outside of school was more likely to be essential than having a birthday or a weeks holiday.

Perceptions of levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

The young people surveyed were then asked for their opinion on whether there was a little or a lot of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

Some people say there is very little real child poverty in Northern Ireland today. Others say that there is quite a lot. Which comes closest to your view – that there is very little real child poverty in Northern Ireland, or that there is quite a lot?

Almost half (45%) felt that there was very little, while a third (31%) felt that there was quite a lot. A significant proportion (24%) opted for ‘don’t know’.

Those living in ‘not well off’ families perceived there to be higher levels of poverty than those from average or well-off families. This is perhaps unsurprising – one might expect those experiencing poverty to have a heightened awareness of the levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland. Similarly the young people who described themselves as having much interest in politics were more likely to think that there is quite a lot of poverty in Northern Ireland compared to those who have some, little or no interest.

Reaction to levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland.

The respondents were then presented with the actual number of children living in poverty, along with a simple definition. According to government statistics at the time of designing the survey, just over 100,000 children in Northern Ireland were experiencing poverty – roughly one in four children (24%).[1] The young people were then asked to indicate which of five statements best described what they thought about the number of children living in poverty in Northern Ireland:

Almost nine in ten (88%) said that the figure of 100,000 children in poverty was higher than they had thought, the majority (71%) feeling that it was much higher. Only 1% felt that it was lower than they had thought. Even a majority of those who had previously said that they thought that there was quite a lot of child poverty in Northern Ireland said that the official figures were much higher than they had thought (54%). Eighty four percent of those who had thought that there was very little poverty said that the figures were much higher than they had thought.

Figure 2: Comments on level of child poverty, by previous perceptions

missing image file

Support for action to end child poverty

We have seen that young people are surprised by the official figures for child poverty in Northern Ireland, but does this surprise translate into a demand for political action? To test this, we then asked the following two questions:

The Northern Ireland Assembly was restored in May of this year. Do you think that child poverty should be a low or high priority for the new Assembly?

In Northern Ireland laws prevent people from being discriminated against, for example because of their age, their religion, their race, and whether they are disabled or not. Do you think that these laws should be changed in order to prevent people from being discriminated against because they are poor?

An overwhelming 85% said that child poverty should be a high priority, and only 2% felt that it should be a low priority. There was little divergence from this, and young people from Catholic and Protestant background were equally supportive of making child poverty a high priority. Females were slightly more likely to say that child poverty should be a high priority than males.

There was also strong support for putting in place legislation to prevent discrimination associated with poverty, with almost three in four agreeing (74%). Those describing themselves as ‘not well off’ were more likely to agree with this (80%) than young people describing their family’s financial situation as ‘average’ (74%) or ‘well off’ (70%).

Committed political leadership will be required over the next few years to ensure that the Executive meets its targets of halving child poverty by 2010, and eradicating severe child poverty by 2012. For organisations such as Save the Children who seek to engage young people in campaigning to ensure Government meets its commitments this analysis provides a useful insight, and evidence of strong support for action. Save the Children believes that a comprehensive dialogue needs to take place between government and civil society on how child poverty can be effectively tackled. This study has demonstrated that it is particularly important to include young people in this debate.

Conclusion

Save the Children commends the Committee for First Minister and Deputy First Minister for conducting this timely Inquiry into Child Poverty.

[1] Relative income poverty measure using a threshold of 60% median income, equivalised for different family sizes. AHC. DSD, Households Below Average Income 2005-6. By the time the questionnaire was in the field, more recent figures had been released, showing that 122,000, or 29% of children were then living in poverty in Northern Ireland.

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Southern Health and Social Services

09 SHSSB- further information dated 05.03_1.psd

09 SHSSB- further information dated 05.03_2.psd

09 SHSSB- further information dated 05.03_3.psd

09 SHSSB- further information dated 05.03_4.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_1.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_2.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_3.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_4.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_5.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_6.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_7.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_8.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_9.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_10.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_11.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_12.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_13.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_15.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_16.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_17.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_18.psd

10 SHSSB further information dated 05.03_19.psd

 

Department of Social Care
Tel: 028 37410041 Fax: 028 37414552
Director of Social Services: Fionnuala McAndrew

Our Ref: FMcA/CB
Your Ref:

20th March 2008

Mrs A Hoskins
Assistant Clerk of Committee for the OFMDFM
Northern Ireland Assembly
Room 402
Parliament Buildings
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

Dear Mrs Hoskins

Briefing to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister & Deputy First Minister on 6th February 2008 in relation to the Child Poverty Inquiry Please find below further information requested by Committee members

1. The requirement for inter-agency meetings is a statutory responsibility for the Health and Social Services Boards, contained in the Children’s Services Planning Order of 1998. This requires Boards to set up and run the Children’s Services Planning process, through Children and Young People’s Committees, with the involvement of statutory and voluntary agencies, and to draw up strategic multi-agency plans for vulnerable children and young people.

The four Children and Young People’s Committees have drawn up proposals to improve on the current arrangements, the core proposals of which are that there should be a regional process, that the statutory requirement to run the process should be a joint requirement on the Education and Skills Authority and the proposed regional Health and Social Care Board, and that the statutory duty should not just be on these lead agencies, but on all agencies – to take part in multi-agency planning and commissioning of services for all children and young people.

This latter proposal would address the current deficits, one of which is that the Social Security Agency is not an agency which was named in the Children’s Services Planning guidance as being needed for the planning process. The proposals would address this deficit by engaging SSA at regional level.

Having said that, SSA has been involved with the Children’s Services Planning process in the Southern Area through the detailed planning for young people leaving care, but not at Children and Young People’s Committee level.

2. Please find attached a document which sets out information on the multi-agency outcomes based planning model used in Vermont, USA.

3. An invitation will be sent to the Committee for the launch of the outcomes based. Please find attached a flyer and programme details.

Yours sincerely

Fionnuala McAndrew
Director of Social Services

Encs

Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum

12 copy of evidence presented by VSHPF evidence session-1.psd

12 copy of evidence presented by VSHPF evidence session-2.psd

Western Area Childcare Partnership and Southern Area Childcare Partnership

Additional Evidence Submitted by:
Western Area Childcare Partnership & Southern Area Childcare Partnership

Due to recording difficulties written responses were sought to issues raised during the evidence session on 13 February 2008.

1. Is there any duplication of work between the Southern Area Childcare Partnership and the Western Area Childcare Partnership? Is there any way of saving money on administration that could be applied towards the real problem? Are there groups and agencies working together?

No, the Western Childcare Partnership would be of the opinion that there has been no duplication of work between the Southern & Western Childcare Partnerships. Since their establishment the Childcare Partnerships have been tasked with establishing a Childcare Infrastructure sufficient to meet the policy directives contained within “Children First” the Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy. The Partnerships have successfully progressed this strategy. Additionally, under the recent 2 year Children and Young People’s funding package, the Childcare Partnerships were certainly needed to roll-out the successful expansion of the Sure Start Programme as well as the new Programme for Two Year Olds and the Day Care programme. Additionally, the Southern and Western Childcare Partnerships worked jointly with SELB and WELB to map existing childcare services to be shared with schools in receipt of Extended Schools funding in order to avoid duplication.

Having said this, the Partnerships would not be unwilling to look at the possibility of working even more closely together to share knowledge and expertise and add further value for money, if possible.

In terms of other groups and agencies working together the Partnerships are examples of this as indeed are Sure Start projects themselves. One example of partnerships working even more closely is where Children’s Services Planning in each area have come together to develop a single regional plan. There may be scope for CCP’s to do this and indeed to consider how they may work more closely with the SCP process generally.

2. With the movement of funding for Early Years / Sure Start from DHSSPS to Education has there been any significant change in approach to your funding?

No, from the WCP perspective there hasn’t been a significant change in our approach to funding, as we were informed that a “Memorandum of Understanding” had been undertaken between DHSS&PS and DE until such time as DE could fully undertaken the workload associated with the Early Years Sector and the Sure Start Programme. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant change in funding until the establishment of the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) on 1/4/09.

3. There are some good rural childcare projects, one of which is Eskragh. However there are barriers to childcare and pre-school provision in Eskragh and such places for meeting the needs and requirements of local families; for example they might be restricted to one social class. What barriers are in the way of those groups meeting the needs of rural childcare?

Elsewhere within the response provided by the Western Childcare Partnership suggestions are made which should be taken into consideration when planning service provision within the rural areas (i.e. Childminding Networks, better coordination of transportation schemes, etc.) It should also be noted that the Western Childcare Partnership shared its mapping of service information with the Rural Childcare Strategy Implementation Group, under DARD to assist in progressing solutions to this problem.

4. How does the lack of a strategic framework and detailed action plan hamper (a) your ability to monitor how much improvement is (b) better cooperation between your own projects and other projects that are going on in the same area?

In the absence of a strategic framework both the Childcare Partnerships and the Sure Start projects have continued to develop their own actions plans based on feedback from the Early Years Team within DE. This has tended to focus on the Expansion of Sure Start Services over the past two years and maintaining services during the current transition from DHSS&PS to DE and will continue to plan for the final transition to the Education & Skills Authority (ESA) by 1/4/09. This is the only way to ensure the continuity of early years service delivery. Improvement will be monitored under the Outcomes Focused Planning Mechanism introduced to the Partnerships and Sure Start projects during 2007/2008. The outcomes focus advocates for a partnership approach to tackling local issues and therefore fosters cooperation between service providers and avoids duplication of services.

We would take the view that the strategic framework should be based the 10 year strategy for children and that it should incorporate all services for children and young people. The regional Action Plan developed should also cascade to local Action Plans which should be a single document governing and linking all provision at the local level. Explicit outcome indicators would be used to measure progress and enable comparison which would inform best practice development.

5. Is the issue of affordable childcare a key issue and how does the issue of uncertainty of funding affect the ability to retain good staff?

Within the Daycare Research undertaken in the Western Area, parents identified cost and accessibility as the key areas of concern for them when choosing childcare. Quality childcare was not a priority for them (although trust in the providers staff was identified as a major issue in research in Dungannon) and anecdotally unregistered childminders are frequently used to meet their daycare needs. Unfortunately, until a mechanism has been secured to ensure childcare providers will obtain at least a minimum level of funding, it is often difficult for childcare facilities to remain viable and retain good quality staff. Good quality staff are often lost to other sectors (i.e. Health & Education) where they at least have the security of a regular salary and standard terms and conditions of employment.

6. Are you aware if there is good practice happening that the Committee could look at in relation to affordable childcare for children with disabilities?

Within the Western Area there are two facilities which stand out as good examples of care for children with disabilities: Rascals PlayStation in Fermanagh and Little Orchids in Derry/L’Derry. However, these groups struggle to remain open and are reliant on the dedication of their staff and Management Committees, as well as local funding sources.

7. In your submission under 4 and 5, you make reference to some key actions and targets. These are in some ways the legislative frameworks that are required, and the common assessment frameworks that are needed. Some research has been done on that, but no legislation exists to back it up. Please provide more information on the frameworks that are needed in Northern Ireland to promote joined up delivery?

The OFMDFM 10 year strategy for children and young people Our Children and Young People provides an Outcomes Framework around our shared vision for our children and young people. There is little evidence that this framework has been adopted by service providers although some partnerships are beginning to develop their work using this structure. There is an urgent need for legislation similar to the Children’s Acts in England which will require all organisations to work in partnership to develop single area based CYP Action Plans. These Action Plans would cover all areas of their work and not the existing partnership approach evidenced by CCP and CSP where only some aspects of their work are considered jointly. In England it is the local authority which acts as lead body for the CYP Action Plans and they have generally appointed a Director for Children’s Services to develop these. Whilst LA’s in England have responsibility for a wider range of services than is the position in N Ireland it may be that the proposed new council configurations, their proposed responsibilities around wellbeing and indeed local regeneration may make them an appropriate vehicle to drive this agenda.

Linked to the Outcomes Framework will be the need to develop a Common Assessment Framework and again there is a need for a legislative foundation which will require Departments to work together to develop this tool. Discussions should take place at Departmental level to establish whether UNOCINI which has been developed by the DHSSPS could be used as a CAF for N Ireland generally. If this is the case then legislation could be enacted requiring its usage by all statutory, voluntary, private and community providers. In terms of Child Poverty the 10 year strategy makes specific reference to child poverty and provided a range of indicators however the associated Action Plan 2007 – 2008 has dropped any reference to child poverty. In addition to providing the legislative basis for the 10 year strategy there is an urgent need to ensure that action on child poverty is included in future Action Plans.

The Anti Poverty Strategy, Lifetime Opportunities provide a good analysis of the issues which give rise to poverty and it and other strategies such as the fuel poverty strategy, supporting people and the neighbourhood renewal strategies should be brought together into the Outcomes Framework and the single local area Action Plans for Children and Young People.

Effective and timely service provision depends on appropriate and timely data collection. Where services come together to plan and deliver services there is a need for a common language and robust data collection methodologies incorporating a wide range of collection points including feedback from service users and from front line providers. Tools exist which measure how effective organisations are in planning and their performance in this regard should be regularly monitored. One particular area of concern has been the ongoing failure to agree on how information on service user’s nationality / country of origin / first language should be collected. It is understood that this has been under consideration at Department level for some 6 years.

8. In the absence of a Children’s and Young Persons’ Fund, what impact will it have on your organisation?

From the Childcare Partnership’s perspective, the Children and Young People’s Fund has been very welcome. It provided an opportunity to expand Sure Start Services and placed schools at the heart of communities through the Extended School Hours funding. However, feedback from parents seems to indicate that wraparound care is what is needed, from the time their child leaves school to when they get home from work, and this extends right across the age range to young adolescents. Additionally, the safe transportation of children from one facility was indicated as a concern for parents, especially in rural areas.

9. Is there a difference between agencies and the assistance that they give towards childcare? Why is there a difference?

The Day Care research within the West set out to identify the various childcare incentives attached to programmes on offer to parents, and did manage to identify several. The Western Partnership and Sure Start projects felt that this was important to know so that there would be no duplication in funding should they use some of their daycare funding to support a parent in returning to education or work. What is also necessary to determine is what courses DEL considers appropriate to allow a parent to get back into the workforce so that a Sure Start project could plan for the level of childcare support needed for the parent. These were the questions we set out to answer. With regards to why there is a difference, we were not able to determine this.

10. Are there too many organisations / plans with zones dealing with different aspects of childcare and early years support with nobody assuming overall responsibility?

The purpose of establishing and mandating Childcare Partnership to implement “Children First” the Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy was to ensure that all organisations with an interest in early years and childcare would work collaboratively to meet the early childhood education and care needs of children and their parents. This did indeed work well. However, in the absence of further dedicated funding streams, a continuation policy to Children First, and the uncertainty surrounding the Review of Public Administration, the various partners are pre-occupied with positioning themselves for their own long-term sustainability.

11. Childcare has been identified as an issue how does the level of assistance compare with the costs of childcare in this area?

The Day Care research within the West indicates that parents try to organise their working hours while their child/ren are at schools. The perception is that because of the low paying jobs on offer, even with childcare assistance they would not necessarily be better off in work. Indications are that if Back to work Initiatives are to be successful a coordinated effort to support parents (i.e. benefits analysis, support in form filling, support in CV writing, Interview Skills, Career Options, and childcare supports) all need to be addressed jointly by the agencies that have the remit for supporting people returning to the workforce.

12. Is there a means of identifying what those targets relating to Child Poverty should be for Sure Start?

Sure Start does not have a specific target for Child Poverty. However, those working within the Childcare Partnerships, the Sure Start, Early Years, and Childcare would like to ensure that the work they are doing with families makes a real difference to the lives of the children they work with. Hence the reasoning behind the Sure Starts within the West undertaking research into the Day Care needs of families. This was seen as one new area that the Sure Starts could possibly assist with. The research did reveal however that Sure Start could not do this on their own; it will take a joined-up effort at local level.

This joined up effort is in effect the local Children and Young Peoples Action Plan referenced earlier. This plan would indicate the Action required, Timescales for Delivery, Indicator of Progress, the Strategic context, Lead Department / organisation and the Delivery Partners

13. What is the single most important action the executive can take to reduce Child Poverty?

Full implementation of the 10-year strategy of children and an Action Plan which induces the child poverty indicators. There should be a particular focus on the final high-level outcome, which deals with children’s rights. This process would make all Departments, Agencies, and local stakeholders accountable for their actions in reducing child poverty.

Responses to further issues
1. Is there sufficient information on provision/access to childcare in Northern Ireland? How could this be improved?

Our experience is that there is a wealth of information available on childcare through a variety of sources:

Each organisation seeks to distribute their information as widely as possible, in a variety of formats, and through a variety of mechanisms (i.e. GP Practices, Libraries, Health Centres, Schools, Sure Starts, etc.) Unfortunately, there is a perception amongst the public that there is very little information available on childcare, possibly because parents tend not to look for the information until they are already on maternity leave or due to return to work.

Additionally, through the research just recently undertaken within the Western Sure Start Projects, it seems to be the experience of parents investigating the possibility of returning to work that they are not provided with information on childcare services by their Jobs & Benefits – Personal Advisor, unless they request it, and that would simply be a list of childcare providers.

From a parent’s perspective, our research seems to indicate that parents are interested in two main areas when seeking childcare: access and cost. Additionally, those interested in returning to work would need facilitative support, helping them to determine:

NICMA offer a vacancy list (by telephone and more recently online) for parents seeking childminders with capacity/vacancies. It is suggested that if all providers operated a similar service, and this information were held centrally (at a local level), this would facilitate parents in accessing local services.

2. Do you have statistics on the level of childcare in your areas? How does this compare with the level of need for childcare in your area? How does the level of childcare in your area compare with childcare in others parts of the UK and Ireland?

A recent audit of the childcare sector and undertaken by the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) responsible to the Sector Skills Council within Northern Ireland for Early Years Workforce development and supported by the four Childcare Partnerships (Northern, Western, Southern and Eastern) indicated the following:

Provision

No. of facilities

No. of Workers

No. of Registered Places provided

Day Nurseries

245

2,906

9,197

Playgroups

584

  

13,770

Childminders

3730 (Self-Employed)

3,730

18,065

Sessional Care Workers

  

2,250

  

Crèche Workers

  

464

  

Totals

4,559

9,350

41,032

Specifically in the Western Area:

Full Day care4

(based on information from childcare partnership reports July 2006)

Region

Numbers of groups

Staff Numbers

Western

28 + 4 family Centres

119

Southern

51

630

Pre Schools/Playgroups8

(based on information from childcare partnership reports July 2006 6,7,8,9)

Region

Numbers of groups

Staff Numbers

Western

102 + 6 Naiscoils

311 + 29

Southern

96

379 (includes naiscoils)

Crèches

(based on information from childcare partnership reports July 2006 6,7,8,9)

Region

Numbers

Staff Numbers

Western

27

31

Southern

8

  

Registered Childminders

(based on information from childcare partnership reports July 2006 and SfCD Isolated Workers Report 07) 12d,21

Region

Numbers

Western

530

Southern

442

Within the Western Area, this equates to: Within the Southern Area

Type of Provision

Number of registered childcare places

Number of Staff

Number of registered places in Southern Area

Number of staff

Playgroups

2,486

311

2390

379

Out of Schools Clubs

1,132

142

824

100

Naiscoils

230

29

- included in playgroup figure

  

Day Nurseries

824

119

2464

630

Creches

245

31

91

  

Childminders

2,544

530

1981

442

Totals

7,461

1,162

7750

1551

The Population of Children 0-14 years within the WHSSB Area as of Mid-Year 2006 = 63,426, which means that there is a childcare place for approximately 12% of the overall population of 0-14 year olds. with the majority of these being available to under-school aged children (approx. 10%). In terms of the under-school age population (0-3 yrs.), there would be a childcare place for approximately 46% of this population.

In the Southern Board area, there are 70,377 children aged between 0 - 14 years (source Article 20 Reports – August 07) There are some 7750 childcare places available in Registered facilities and this equates to 11% of the overall population of 0 – 14 year olds.

It should be noted that childcare workers would tend to work between different types of care provision. For instance, the playgroups normally operates during the morning sessions, and many of these staff would also work in a local Out-of-Schools facility in the afternoon, catering to older children (6-14 years) if they wanted full time employment. However, with the introduction of Extended Schools Care, a significant number of Out-of-Schools Providers have found themselves struggling to remain in operation. Extended Schools is a new initiative through the Department of Education and will take sometime to bed-down sufficiently to ensure that what the local schools are providing complements the care available through local Out-of-Schools providers. A further factor leading to the closure of significant numbers of Out of School services has been the lack of sustainability funding to support these organisations with staffing costs.

The Day Care Research undertaken by the Western Childcare Partnership and its 9 Sure Start Projects was to determine the demand for childcare within the area. Interestingly, the research has highlighted that quality is not a high priority for parents. Cost and accessibility are the main areas of concern for parents. This would tend to explain why informal childcare t(i.e. family members, unregistered childminders, etc.) tends to be used by parents.

Ireland

In general, childcare provision within the Republic of Ireland is less well developed in term of quality than in the North of Ireland or the UK. This is simply because the Republic started later in legislating and funding childcare on a national level more intensively as a result of the economic boom in recent years. An interesting article in The Sunday Times (Money Section), dated April 6th 2008, entitled: “The hands-on parent’s guide to getting by,” by Niall Brady, indicates that the cost of childcare in the Republic has become so prohibitive that one parent is opting to either work part-time or drop out of the workforce all together. Governmental support is 166 Euro for each of the first two children. For a third and subsequent child, the payment is 203 Euro per child. Families with children under six will also benefit from a higher early childcare supplement of 1,100 Euro per child in 2008. This is available irrespective of whether a child attends a crèche or is cared for at home. However, the article goes onto state the cost of childcare is in the region of 216 Euro – 276 Euro a week. Or close to 14,000 Euro/Year and in some cases as high as 28,000 Euro/Year (for some Dublin families to keep two children in full-time childcare). The high cost of childcare would indicate an excess of demand against supply. Such spiralling costs could also be as a result of an over-reliance on free-market forces in meeting the demand for childcare places, rather than a Government “not-for profit” mechanism to support the implementation of quality childcare (i.e. Sure Start, Pre-School Expansion Programme, etc.)

Interestingly, the article does not provide any insight into the quality of the childcare service being provided.

3. How does the quality of childcare in your area compare with childcare in other parts of the UK and Ireland?

Significant levels of funding have been invested in developing a quality childcare workforce (i.e. NVQs in Childcare and Play Work) and providing quality facilities from which to delivery programmes (i.e. NOF,-Building Quality Childcare, etc.). The Childcare Partnerships have provided funding to the support organisations (Early Years, Playboard and NICMA) to develop accreditation schemes for providers to improve the quality of service provision. Northern Ireland would be considered, particularly by the Republic of Ireland, as being very advanced in relation to the quality of services being delivered.

This approach would be in keeping with the recommendations contained in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Report, “Starting Out Strong”. Which advocates that current research indicates that a substantial investment in Early Years programmes and services mitigates against negative outcomes in later life. It is seen as an investment in “human capital” with the following desired targeted outcomes:

In comparison to the Mainland UK, childcare services within Northern Ireland are significantly under-resourced. It is not unusual for a Sure Start project in the UK to have £1 million annual budget. The majority of projects within the Western Childcare Partnership operate on an annual budget of anywhere from £314,623 - £651,000, averaging at £466,000 amongst the 9 projects. Servicing approximately 6,850 children at the moment, although this is will increase as the 3 new Sure Starts become more established within their local communities.

In the Southern Childcare Partnership Area there are six Surestart Projects, with an average budget of £519,949 per project. These six projects currently provide services to some 4775 children at present.

4. What improvement has there been in the level and quality of childcare in your area? How has this increase been brought about?

Various funding streams from Government Departments (DHSS&PS, DEL, and DE) as well as funding from a variety of Big Lottery and SEUPB programmes have supported the development of a quality workforce within the Western and Southern Areas. A recent audit (Jan. 2006) of the Western Childcare Workforce indicated the level of qualifications within the sector were proportionately higher than required under registration and inspection guidelines

Level

Description

Totals

Within the Southern Area

Level 0

No qualifications listed

30

119

Level 1

Initial Award – Child Development

NVQ Level 1 – Child Development

Introduction to Childminding

Orientation Programme (Entry Level)

0

36

Level 2

NVQ Level 2 – Early Years

NVQ Level 2 – Playwork

CACHE Certficate – Playwork

Intermediate Award in Playwork

Certificate in Work with Children

73

340

Level 3

Cert. of Higher Education

NVQ Level 3 – Early Years Care & Education

NVQ Level 3 – Playwork

CACHE Diploma – Playwork

NVQ Level 3 – Classroom Assistant

HNC Childhood Studies

356

771

Level 4

Bachelors degree

Graduate Certificate or Diploma

Foundation Degree

HND – Childhood Studies

NVQ Level 4 – Early Childhood Studies

NOS Level 4 – Playwork

58

136

Level 5

Master

Postgraduate Certificate or Diploma

2

3

Level 9

Other

67

  

Facilities needed to be brought-up to a quality standard in order to access funding under the Pre-School Expansion Programme funded by DE, and significant capital investment was secured. However, there are gaps in areas, particularly rural areas, where it is difficult from a sustainability perspective to justify the development of a childcare centre. Other gaps exist for example in Dungannon Town where there is a significant shortfall in preschool provision, at present, largely as a result of recent increases in the childbirth figures, coupled with significant increases in the number of minority ethnic families coming to live and work in this area.

5. How does the actual cost of childcare compare with the level of assistance provided to persons on low-income for childcare? Does the level of support provided for childcare vary between different government agencies? If so, how and why?

Our research indicates that the cost of childcare amongst the various type of childcare providers would average as follows:

Type of Provider

Cost per Hour

Total for 40 hour week

Day Nursery

£3.06

£122.40

Out of Schools Club

£2.72

£108.80

PlayGroup

£1.56

£31.20 (20 hrs/wk. Maximum)

Childminder (registered)

£2.10

£84.00

There are a variety of measures in place to support low income families that would also have a childcare element to them (i.e. Working Families Tax Credit, etc.) However, the best known of these would probably the Childcare Tax Credit, which has a number of criteria that the applicant must meet in order to be eligible, such as:

The problem with these types of incentives are not so much that that they don’t make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of the claimant’s childcare. Our research indicates that parents find these forms and criteria confusing, there is also a perception that they will be worse off working because most jobs are low-paying. Additionally, from the childcare providers perspective, the funding goes directly to the claimant, and therefore, it does not allow the provider to plan for sustainability. Parents also complained that they had to pay for day care sessions (1/2 day or full-day) even if they didn’t need it because they were working 16 hrs. as opposed to 20 or 40 hrs. per week.

There is no direct support available for parents who wish to stay at home with their young children such as is available in some other European countries.

Another element that we were made aware of through our research was that parents in rural areas felt that transportation services needed to be better coordinated for their children to attend Out-of-Schools or Extended Schools Programmes. Perhaps something could be done to coordinate the Rural Transportation Scheme with the School Transportation system to allow for this. Otherwise, older children are returning home to empty houses and no supervision.

Finally, through our research we attempted to determine which Back-to-Work Training Schemes offer a contribution towards childcare. We found that some do, but not all. Again, this is confusing for parents. One of the goals for us in undertaking our Day Care Research was to determine which Governmental schemes offer childcare, and which are considered comprehensive enough to guarantee people to get back into the workforce (i.e. A short-course in C.V. Writing and Interview Skills or, an NVQ in Catering?). These are only questions that DEL can advise on.

6. Are there examples of programmes that are helping to improve access to high quality, affordable childcare in your area? What are the barriers to the further development of such programmes?

The Western Childcare Partnership would consider all its Sure Start projects as being in a position to offer short-term, quality childcare services. Under the recent, Children and Young People’s Funding package a small amount of funding was allocated to each of the Sure Start projects to investigate the possibility of delivering this type of service. It became apparent that further information was needed (i.e. determine the level of demand), hence the need to undertake the Day Care Research Report, currently underway.

Preliminary findings from this report would indicate that Sure Start on its own can not deliver a successful full day care programme to support parents returning to work or education without additional resourcing, and the support of the DEL. The Sure Starts would need DEL to share:

Suggestions:

These are just a few barriers that could be addressed if Governmental Departments would be willing to make a small contribution (i.e. One Childcare Development Officer between 2 – 3 Sure Starts) or share their resources (i.e. school buses) towards the effective delivery of services on the ground.

7. What mechanisms are required to enable the Lifetime Opportunities Strategy to be implemented effectively at a local level? What changes should be made to the Children and Young People’s Action plan to ensure that it more effectively addresses child poverty?

Because the Northern Ireland Government has adopted the OECD approach to early years investment, the foundations are set for successful lifelong habits such as: healthy lifestyles, and lifelong learning. This approach is enhanced within the OFM/DFM’s 10 Year Strategy for Children & Young People as it attempts to ensure that all Government targets are focused and measured against the 6 High Level Outcomes: 1) Being Healthy, 2) Staying Safe, 3) Enjoying & Achieving, 4) Contributing Positively to Community & Society, 5) Economic & Environmental Well-Being, 6) Living in a Society that respects rights.

What is required is a shared vision of how each Government Department can support the effective implementation of their initiatives at ground-level. If a Childcare Officer would allow a group of local parents to successfully come off benefits and return to the workforce, this will meet both DEL’s targets, the local Sure Start’s targets (supporting the early development of the child) and support meeting the Child Poverty targets.

8. What changes need to be made to existing local/sub-regional arrangements and partnership for addressing the needs of children and young people to enable child poverty to be effectively addressed at a local/sub-regional level? Are there legislative changes required to make existing arrangement more effective?

As indicated throughout this response, local input is key to the effective implementation of Government strategies. Provided an overall structure is devised that ensures local knowledge and input into planning is assured, and that this is reflected back in Departmental Action Plans which target the 6 High Level Outcomes, it should be possible to effectively address the needs of children and young people.

Partnerships that are established at local level should have the appropriate mandate of their organisations to allow progress to be made on delivering the strategies.

Finally, seeking the views of service user’s is key to ensuring services are planned and delivered as effectively as possible. It is recommended that consulting with User’s is a practice that is embedded in all areas of service provision.

9. What are you doing to improve childcare services for children with disabilities? What barriers are there to further improving access for affordable, high-quality childcare for children with disabilities?

Over the past several years, the Western Childcare Partnership and the Southern Childcare Partnership has delivered training to the childcare sector in order to better equip childcare workers to work with children with disabilities. However, a new strategy is currently being written by the Department of Education for children 0-6 years, and the issue of future developments within the workforce will be taken into consideration within the strategy. Members of the Childcare Partnership participated in the Equality Subgroup to provide advice and support on future developments. However, the future in this regard will not be know until the strategy is out for public consultation.

The difficulty in delivering high-quality childcare for children with disabilities is that, depending on the type of disability, there is a need to ensure that the facility and staff can meet the child’s particular needs. This may require physically adapting the facility and providing further enhanced training for the staff, which will have an associated cost. Additionally, the ratio of staff to child may be higher when working children with disabilities, and this in turn will raise the cost of providing the service.

Having said that, there are excellent examples of inclusive childcare facilities where services are provided on a not-for-profit basis. Others could learn from these examples. Two very good examples within the Western Board would be Rascals Play Station, Co. Fermanagh and Little Orchids, Grasha Park, Derry/Londonderry. In the Southern Board, Orana Child and Family Centre and Willowgrove and Zero-18 projects are similar good examples of inclusive services.

In 2001/2002, the Southern Board area developed a Wraparound project for children with disabilities, which ensured the delivery of a range of support systems for children with disabilities and their families – including respite care, out of school, holiday scheme and Saturday clubs, many of these services have been delivered through the childcare sector, and staff working in this area have benefited from the training and skill development which has followed. A group of young people with disabilities (Sixth Sense) were formed and they have become involved in the commissioning process for future services in this area.

10. Are new policies or programmes required to address the childcare needs of traveller and minority ethnic communicates?

There are examples of services being provided to traveller families (i.e. Sure Start Shantallow, Orana Surestart, Early Years, Travellers Toybox Project and An Tearmann Coalisland) and all childcare providers are being affected by the influx of ethnic minorities. Much could be done at a Department level (i.e. translation of information and materials in the various languages required), and resources to train local ethnic parents, who could support Sure Starts and Childcare providers in translating information directly to other parents, more effectively. There are examples of this within other European Countries, which have proven successful (i.e. Holland amongst Moroccan and Antillian Groups).

11. What needs to be done to more effectively address rural childcare issues?

Ideas in relation to supporting childcare within rural areas are given throughout this response. Additionally, establishing a Childminding Network, supported by a Coordinator, who could bring training and ensure a quality standard within the childcare services being delivered, may be more feasible than developing a Childcare Centre within a local rural community. It is understood that the Rural Childcare Strategy document which is due to be launched on 23 April 2008 will include proposals for the development of childcare provision in rural areas, allied to specific funding opportunities.

12. What is the key change that the Executive needs to make if progress is to be made on tackling child poverty?

A commitment for tackling child poverty is needed from Department level right down to service delivery level. If parents are identifying barriers to returning to work (i.e. lack of childcare provision, adequate transportation, etc.) then those Departments in a position to do something about those barriers should encourage those at ground level to come up with workable solutions. The potential solutions should then be evaluated, resourced if practicable, and then monitored and evaluated for effectiveness. The goodwill exists at a local level where service providers can see that with a little extra resourcing (contributed by several Departments) a real difference can be made towards effectively delivering a number of strategies that can mitigate against child poverty.

Appendix 10

List of Abbreviations

DE Department of Education

DEL Department for Employment and Learning

DETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

DFP Department of Finance and Personnel

DHSSPS Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

DSD Department for Social Development

DWP Department of Work and Pensions

EU European Union

FRS Family Resources Survey

GB Great Britain

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HBAI Households Below Average Income Series

HMRC HM Revenue & Customs

LGD Local Government Districts

NIHE Northern Ireland Housing Executive

OFMDFM Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

PfG Programme for Government

PSAs Public Service Agreements

PSI Promoting Social Inclusion

RCN Rural Community Network

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound

SSA Social Security Agency

UK United Kingdom

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

WFTC Working Family Tax Credit

WHSSB Western Health and Social Services Board