what works scotlandwhatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/wwsactionstoprevent... · by...

WHAT WORKS SCOTLANDEvidence ReviewSeptember 2017

Tackling child poverty: Actions to prevent and mitigate child poverty at the local level

What Works Scotland Evidence Review: Tackling child poverty: Actions to prevent and mitigate child poverty at the local level

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.

This evidence review is one of a series of papers that What Works Scotland is publishing to share evidence, learning and ideas about public service reform. A summary version is available at www.whatworksscotland.ac.uk.

What Works Scotland

What Works Scotland aims to improve the way local areas in Scotland use evidence to make decisions about public service development and reform.

What Works Scotland is working with Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) and stakeholder partners to achieve its aims, namely to:

• IdentifyandbetterunderstandwhatisworkingandnotworkinginpublicservicedeliveryinScotland,andhowwecantranslateknowledgefromsettingtosetting

• ContributetothedevelopmentofaScottishmodelofservicedeliverythatbringsabouttransformationalchangeforpeoplelivingindifferentplacesacrossScotland

WhatWorksScotland(2014-2017)isacollaborativebetweenTheScottishGovernment,the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the University of Edinburgh and the UniversityofGlasgow.www.whatworksscotland.ac.uk

ThisreportwasproducedbytheWhatWorksScotlandEvidenceBank.Itwaseditedby Cara Blaisdell, Charlie Mills and Sarah Morton.

Research team

Dr Morag Treanor (lead researcher and author)Alexandra Macht (research assistant)Sarah Morton (What Works Scotland co-director)Karen Seditas (Evidence Bank lead, review co-ordinator)

Peer reviewer

ProfessorJohnMcKendrick,GlasgowCaledonianUniversity

User reviewers

MarionFairweather,ChildPovertyActionGroupGeorgeHowie,PrincipalHealthImprovementOfficer,AberdeenshireHealth&SocialCarePartnershipAnnetteJohnstonTacklingPoverty&Inequalities,AberdeenshireCouncil

Tocitethisreview:Treanor,MoragC. (2017)Actionstopreventandmitigatechildpoverty in Community Planning Partnerships, Edinburgh: What Works Scotland.


1. Summary points .................................................................................................. 12. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 2.1 About this report ......................................................................................... 13. Key terms and definitions ................................................................................... 24. Evidence overview .............................................................................................. 2 4.1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Gapsinresearch .......................................................................................... 2 4.3 Research in Scotland ................................................................................... 25. Findings: The causes and consequences of child poverty .................................. 3 5.1 Thecausesandconsequencesofchildpoverty .......................................... 3 Causes of child poverty ............................................................................... 3 Consequencesofchildpoverty ................................................................... 3 5.2 The wider policy context ............................................................................. 56. Findings: Mitigating and preventing child poverty ............................................ 5 6.1 Generaladvice ............................................................................................. 5 6.2 Incomemaximisation .................................................................................. 6 Whyincomemaximisation? ........................................................................ 6 Increasinguptakeofbenefitentitlements .................................................. 6 Money advice .............................................................................................. 7 DepartmentforWorkandPensionssanctions............................................ 9 Employment .............................................................................................. 10 Poverty premium ...................................................................................... 11 6.3 Education .................................................................................................. 13 Poverty-proofingtheschoolday ............................................................... 13 The role of targeted and universal services .............................................. 14 Parental engagement ................................................................................ 15 6.4 Childcare ....................................................................................................17 6.5 Lone parents ............................................................................................. 197. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 22 Community engagement.................................................................................... 22 Universal vs targeted services ............................................................................ 22 Services overview .............................................................................................. 23 Preventionandmitigation ................................................................................. 238. Appendices......................................................................................................... 24 8.1 About What Works Scotland ..................................................................... 24 8.2 Howtheresearchwascarriedout ............................................................ 24 8.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................... 28 8.4 References ................................................................................................. 28


Contents

1


1. Summary points

• LocalAuthoritieshavedutiesundertheCommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Act2015,theChildrenandYoungPeople(Scotland)Act2014andthebroadersocialpolicyframeworkoftheScottishGovernment,toimprove the health and wellbeing of children living in poverty. The 2017 Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill places arequirementonlocalauthoritiestoprepareandpublishalocalchildpovertyactionreport.

• LocalauthoritiesandCommunityPlanningPartnerships(CPP)donothavecontroloverthemacro-economicorpoliticalfactorsthatdrivetheincidenceandprevalenceofchildpoverty.Theycanharnesstheirresourcestothepreventionandmitigationofchildpovertylocally,andexerttheirinfluenceonScottishandUKpoliciesto support them.

• ItisimportanttoaddressthemisunderstandingsofthecausesandconsequencesofchildpovertyamonglocalauthorityandCPPstaffandtotakestepstoreducestigmaforthoselivinginpoverty,tocountertheconfusingnarrativesthatblamefamiliesfortheirownpoverty.

• The causes of child poverty are often confused with its consequences. Child poverty is not caused byindividualbehavioursbutbyacomplexblendofstructuralissuesrelatingtomacro-economicandpoliticalfactorsgoverningthelabourmarket,employmentandsocialsecurity.Socialfactorsmakeparticulargroupsespecially vulnerable to poverty, e.g. children, lone parents, disabled people and BME groups.

• Keystrategiesthatcanbeeffectiveinreducingpovertyinclude:

o Incomemaximisation.TheCPPcanincreaseuptakeofbenefitentitlements;provideaccessiblemoneyadvice services; prevent or mitigate the effects of benefit sanctions; review policy on economicdevelopmenttoensuregoodqualityandfamilyfriendlyemployment;andaddressthepovertypremium.

o Education.TheCPPcanencouragetakeupoffreeschoolmealsandschoolclothinggrants,investigatewhichcostsoftheschooldaycouldbeabolished,andbuildpositiverelationshipswithparentssothatthey feel comfortable accessing available supports.

o Childcare.TheCPPcantakestepstoimprovecurrentprovisionbyassessingwhetherthereissufficientchildcareavailableforworkingparents;exploringfundingmodelsthatuseaslidingscale;andsupportingvoluntary,communityorparent-ledprovidersofchildcare,andensuringprovisionisofhighquality.

o Support for lone parents. The CPP can take account of the needs of lone parents across council services ofwork,support,childcareandeducation.

• Wider factors including health, disability, housing, transport and area regeneration are important inimpactingfamiliesinpovertybuttoobroadtobeincludedinthisreview.

2. Introduction

2.1 About this report

ThisreviewpresentsevidencetosupportlocalauthoritiesandCommunityPlanningPartnerships(CPP)to:1. Identifyfactorsthatmaymitigatetheeffectsofchildpoverty.2. Makesuggestionsonhowthelocalauthoritycanacttopreventchildpovertyoccurring.3. Identifyearlytriggersignsthatmaysuggestanincreasedriskofpoverty.

These three issues are explored for families through pregnancy, in the child’s early years and in the primary school years,underthethemes:incomemaximisation,educationandchildcare.Afourththeme,loneparenthood,willbeexploredasastand-alonecross-cuttingtheme.Thereareothercriticalareasofworkthatarewithintheremit of the local authority and the CPP, which are not addressed in this review but strongly contribute to the incidence,prevalenceandexperienceofchildpoverty;namelyhealth,disability,housing,transportandarearegeneration.Bearing inmind the considerable resources,peopleand skills at thedisposalof local authoritiesandCPPs,thisreportsetsoutpracticablestepstomitigateandpreventchildpovertylocally.Thereviewbringstogetherevidence from the academic and grey literatures1since2010.Theappendixatsection8givesfulldetailson

2


themethodologyfortheevidenceused.Themainbodyofthereportatsection5and6presentsthefindingsfromeachofthethemes,addressedinnumberedsubsections.EachofthesethematicsubsectionsprovidesasummaryofthemainfindingsandencouragesreaderstoreflectonanumberofTalkingPoints.Signpoststofurtherreadingareincludedineachsubsection.

3. Key terms and definitions

Thetermchildpoverty isacontentious,contestedterm.Thedefinitionofchildpovertyused inthisreviewwillfollowtheoneusedbysupranational,nationalandlocalgovernments,academicsandotherorganisationsworking inthefieldofchildpoverty.Thetermchildpovertywillbetakentomeanwhena familydoesnothavetheresources“toobtainthetypesofdiet,participateintheactivitiesandhavethelivingconditionsandamenitieswhicharecustomary,orareat leastwidelyencouragedandapproved, insocieties inwhich theybelong” (Townsend, 1979: 31).

Thisdefinitionisdifferentfrom,yetcompatiblewith,thecommonlyusedmeasureofchildpovertywhichusesbelow60%ofmedianhouseholdincome(onarelativeandabsolutebasis)andanindexofmaterialdeprivation,inavarietyofcombinations,asitsthresholdforlivinginpoverty.Thisreviewwillnotfocusonthemeasureofchildpovertyperse,ontheunderstandingthatlocalauthoritiesandtheCPPsareworkingwiththiscurrentmeasure.

Itisimportanttodistinguishchildpovertyfromotherconcernssuchasinequality,wellbeing,areadeprivation,socialmobility,socialjusticeandsocialexclusion.Whilethesearerelatedtochildpovertytheyarenotthesamething (JRF, 2016: 12).

4. Evidence overview

4.1 Summary

Theevidencelandscapeforchildpovertyisverydiverse,withevidencefromthefieldsofEducation,Geography,HousingSociology,SocialPolicy,SocialWork,Psychology,Health,PublicHealth,HealthEducation,EducationalPsychology,PsychiatryandChildhoodStudiesincludedinthisreview.Thereareamultitudeofquantitativeandqualitativeresearchprojectsandpeer-reviewedjournalarticles.Thesecovertheareasofpovertygenerally,child poverty, education, childcare and lone parenthood. There are also many high quality research andresearchoutputsfromnon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)workinginthefieldofpoverty,childrenandchildpovertyspecifically.

4.2 Gaps in research

Whilethetopicofchildpovertyiscoveredextensivelyintheacademicandgreyliterature,thisreviewidentifiesgapsintheresearch.Thereislittleresearchandevidenceonincomemaximisation,whichisnotsurprisingasthisisanemergingfieldandstronglylocatedinScotland.

Thereisacleardifferencebetweenwhatisassumedandportrayedasthecausesandconsequencesofchildpovertyinpolicy,practiceandthemediacomparedwithwhattheresearchevidenceshows.ThisreportusesonlystrongevidencetogivelocalauthoritiesandCPPsanaccuratedepictionofchildpoverty.

4.3 Research in Scotland

WhilstthereismuchacademicresearchonchildpovertyintheUK,thereis lessthatisspecifictoScotland.However,thereisstillastrongbodyofpeer-reviewedevidencefromScotlandanditisafieldthatcontinuesto

1Greyliteraturereferstodocumentsthatarenotfoundthroughpublishersordatabases,suchasreportspublishedbynot-for-profitorganisationsandconferencereports.

3


http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/

grow.InScotlandthereisalsoawealthofresearchthathasbeenundertakenbyNGOs,oftenincollaborationwith academic partners.Please see Appendix 8.2 for a detailed account of how the evidence was chosen for this review.

5. Findings: The causes and consequences of child poverty

5.1 The causes and consequences of child poverty

ItisimportanttobeginanypovertymitigationandpreventionworkbyaddressingthemisunderstandingsofthecausesandconsequencesofchildpovertyamonglocalauthorityandCPPstaff,ascurrentresearchsuggeststhereisstillawidespreadlackofunderstandingamongthosewhocanhelpmitigateitseffects(Simpsonetal.2015;Spencer,2015).Thisextendstothegeneralpublictooas25%oftheScottishpublicthink‘parents’alcoholism,drug or other substance use is the main cause of child poverty in Scotland in 2014’ (McKendrick et al, 2016: 68). HavingabetterunderstandingofthecausesofchildpovertywouldenablethelocalauthorityandtheCPPtoidentifyearlysignsthatindicateaheightenedriskofpoverty,andreducestigmaforthoselivinginpoverty.

Causes of child povertyChildpovertyiscausedbyacomplexblendofstructuralissuesrelatingtomacro-economic,political,socialandindividual factors. Macro-economic factors, such as the structure of the labour market, the housing market, lowpay, irregularhoursandinsecureemploymentcausechildpoverty.Politicalfactors,suchasthelevelofsocial security payments and the recent social security cuts for families both in and out of work, are another cause. Social factors, such as gender, lone parenthood, disability, age and race/ethnicity result in a heightened riskoflivinginpoverty,althoughthisisnotinevitableaswillbeseenlaterinthereview.Andfinally,individualfactorsinrelationtocapacitiesandchoicesplayaparttoo,althougharguably“whatappeartobeindividuallevelfactorsoftenreflectunderlyingsocialandeconomicprocesses”(McKendrick,2016:60).

There are particular groups of children who are especially vulnerable if their situation interacts with theexperienceofpoverty,forexample;disabledchildren/childrenofdisabledparents;childrenincare;childrenleavingcare;childrenwithaparent inprison;childrenwhoarecarers;asylumseeker/refugeechildren;andtraveller/gypsychildren.Notonlyarethesegroupsmoreatriskofpoverty,theexperienceofpovertyforthemisoftenmoresevere,andthesupportrequiredwillbegreater.Whiletheseparticulargroupsarenotaddressedinthisreview,theCPPshouldconsiderthemwhencreatingstrategiesandinitiativestomitigateorpreventchildpoverty.

Thecausesandconsequencesofchildpovertyareoftenconflated,misunderstoodandmisrepresented.Howlocal or central governments understand the causes of child poverty is key to the steps they would be able and willingtotaketomitigateandpreventit.ThecurrentUK-levelpoliticalandmedianarrativethatattributeschildpovertytoparentalbehaviourshascreatedapoliticalbacklashandledtothosenotinpovertyblamingthoseinpovertyfortheirsituation.Bothhaveweakenedsupportforthemaintenanceofanti-povertystrategies.

Consequences of child povertyThe consequences or impacts of child poverty start before birth and accumulate across the life course.Povertyhasnegativeimpactsonchildren’shealth,cognitivedevelopment,social,emotionalandbehaviouraldevelopment, friendships, self-esteem, relationships, experience of education, educational outcomes andaccess to employment, amongst other areas (Treanor, 2012). Poverty does not just impact on children’s future outcomes.Povertyhasdetrimentaleffectsonchildrenduringchildhooditself,providingacompellingcaseforactiontoaddressit.

Theconsequencesof living inpoverty includesocialexclusion,socialdivisions, stigma,blameand isolation,and its impacts extend beyond those living in poverty to their families and the wider community (Asenova et al,2015).Theseconsequencesoftenarisefromthemisunderstandingsaboutthecausesofpovertyandareexacerbated by the messages coming from the UK government and the media. Those struggling to make ends meetfindthemselvesstigmatisedwithunhelpful(andusuallyincorrect)personalcharacteristicsattributedtothem.Wherechildrenare involved, thisextends topeople’sperceivedability tobea ‘good’parentand sochildrenarealsostigmatisedandmadetofeelshame.

4


Thereareconsequencesofpovertythataffectfamiliesmorewidely.Notonlyareparentslivinginpovertylikelytohaveexperiencedpoortransitionstoadulthoodduetotheirownexperiencesofpoverty(Harrisetal,2009),theywilllikelysufferfromthestructuralproblemsrelatingtothelabour,housingandemploymentmarkets.Parentsinpovertyarealsoatincreasedriskofargumentsaboutmoney,relationshipstrainandbreakdown,andpoorermentalandphysicalhealth(Harrisetal,2009,JRF,2016).

The higher levels of stress parents living in poverty experience can inhibit their ability to plan for the future, adoptcalmparentingstrategiesanddeveloptheirownortheirchildren’swellbeing(Schoonetal,2012;2010).Itisimportanttorecognisethatgoodparentingisachievedinfamiliesregardlessofincome,butthat“livinginpovertydoesmakeitundeniablymoredifficult”(JRF,2016:31).Thefactorsfamiliesemploytocopewithlowincomeincludeexpertiseinbudgeting(contrarytopopularbelief),supportfromfamilyandfriends(Treanor,2015), high-quality schools and health services, strong community groups, and their own resilience andparentingskills(JRF,2016:31).

To mitigate the impacts of poverty parents routinely sacrifice their own wellbeing to protect children byreducingtheirfoodintake,notbuyingclothes,notsocialising,andworkinglonghoursinlowpaying,lowqualityemployment,whichinitselfhasadetrimentalimpactonchildren(Harrisetal,2009;Green,2007;McKendricketal,2003).Childrenarealsoactiveinmitigatingpoverty.Theydon’tbringhomelettersfromschoolaboutactivitiesthatcostmoney,theydon’taskparentsformoneytojoinfriendsinsocialactivities,theyhelpoutathomecaringforyoungersiblingswhenparentsareworkinglong,unsocialhours,andtheyholdoffonreplacingwornoutclothinguntiltheirparentscanaffordit(JRF,2016;Ridge,2013,2011;RidgeandMillar,2011;Harriset al, 2009).

Morerarely,childrenlivinginpovertyareatincreasedriskofgrowingupwithadditionalcomplexneedsarisingfromissuessuchassubstancemisuse,domesticabuseor involvementwiththecriminal justicesystem(JRF,2016). Despite public belief, these are a minority of cases (approximately 3% of all people living in poverty), however,where these issuesdooccur theyhavehighlydevastating consequences for childrenand requirededicatedandspecialisedinputfromservices.WhilelocalauthoritiesandtheCPPscankeeptheseissuesinmind, they are outwith the remit of this review.

Arecentconsequenceofpoverty is thedramatic increase intheuseofemergencyfoodaid, intheformoffoodbanks. The use of foodbanks is directly associatedwith problemswith the benefits system including:maladministration, errors, delays, cuts, benefitwithdrawal due to eligibility changes, andbenefit sanctions(Perry et al, 2015). The use of foodbanks, and diversion from foodbanks back into statutory services where appropriate,e.g.theScottishWelfareFund,issomethingCPPscouldinfluence.

Key findings on the causes and consequences of child poverty

• Awidespreadmisunderstanding of the causes and consequences of child poverty exists amongpolicymakers,practitioners,themediaandthegeneralpublic.

• Thereareparticulargroupsofchildrenthataremoreatriskofandoftenmoreseverelyaffectedbypoverty,whorequiregreatersupport.Forexample,disabledchildren,childrenwhoarecarersorwho have a parent in prison, asylum seeker/refugee children and traveller/gypsy children.

• Poverty has negative impacts on children’s health; cognitive, social, emotional and behaviouraldevelopment; friendships; self-esteem; relationships; experience of education; educationaloutcomes and access to employment.

• Goodparentingisachievedinfamiliesregardlessofincome,buttheexperienceofpovertycreatesgreaterchallengesthatfamiliesovercomebyemployingskillssuchasexpertiseinbudgeting,anddrawing on support from friends, family, strong community groups, education and healthcareservices.

• To mitigate the impacts of poverty parents routinely sacrifice their own wellbeing to protectchildren.Childrenarealsoactiveinmitigatingpovertybyrestrictingtheiractivitiestosavemoneyand support the care of younger siblings.

5


5.2 The wider policy context

Theaveragechildpovertyrateacrossthe32localauthoritiesinScotlandis22%,rangingfromalowof10%fortheShetlandIslandstoahighof33%forGlasgow.Variationswithinlocalauthoritiesplacesomewardsoutwiththis range.

WhilelocalauthoritiesandCPPshavelimitedpowersoveralltheleversthatdrivechildpoverty,theevidenceshows that the experience of poverty varies according to where people live. This is due to the access their particularneighbourhoodprovidestoemploymentandtoservicessuchaseducation,transport,housingandchildcare,amongstothers(JRF,2016:14).Itisimportanttorememberthat:

“A local authority’s role as an employer, carer, corporate parent, landlord, educator, community leader andfunderplaces itattheheartof itscommunity. Inmanycases, it remainsthefirstportofcall forpeople in crisis, or who are vulnerable. Considered through this lens the role played by a local authority intacklingpovertycannotbeunderestimated”(Armstrong-Walter,2016:205)

ChildpovertyhastraditionallybeenlegislatedforbytheUKGovernmentatWestminster.Since2010,therehasbeenareductioninthesupportforpoliciesthatpreventandmitigatechildpoverty,themostvisibleofwhicharetheWelfareReformAct2012andtheWelfareReformandWorkAct2016.Thisaffectsin-workandoutofworkpoverty.Forexample,in2010,90%offamilieswithchildrenwereeligiblefortaxcredits.In2015,60%wereeligible.However,bythetimeuniversalcreditisfullyrolledout,thisfigurewillreduceto50%offamilieswithchildren(HMTreasury,2015:36).Thisisjustoneofmanyreformsthatwillreduceincometofamilies–pleaseseehttp://www.cpag.org.uk/Scotland/factsheets fora full list.Also important tochildpoverty is theabolitionoftheChildPovertyAct2010bytheUKGovernmentundertheWelfareReformandWorkAct2016.

While many of the economic and political levers remain reserved to Westminster, legislative powers areincreasinglycomingundertheauspicesoftheScottishGovernmentatHolyrood.UndertheScotlandAct2016theScottishGovernmentwillhaveincreasedlegislativepowersover(some)taxandwelfare.Inlightoftheseincreasedpowers,andduetotheabolitionoftheChildPovertyAct2010,the2017ChildPoverty(Scotland)Billplacesarequirementonlocalauthoritiesandtherelevanthealthboardstoreportonmeasuresundertakentotacklechildpovertylocally.ThisdovetailswiththeexistingdutiesundertheEducation(Scotland)Act2016,Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

6. Findings: Mitigating and preventing child poverty

6.1 General advice

Itisimportanttohavesetoutthemaincausesandconsequencesofchildpovertytoensurethatthisreviewproceeds with an understanding of the real causes of child poverty. Using research evidence to assess the needs oflocalchildrenandyoungpeopleandidentifyCPPprioritiescanbeveryeffectiveandevenleadtoacultureshifttowardsevidence-basedserviceplanning(Utting,2012).

StrategicstepsCPPscantaketobeginpovertymitigationandprevention:

• EnsureeveryoneacrosstheentireCPPhasownershipovertheapproachtochildpoverty.

• Involvelocalpeoplelivinginpovertyindiscussionsandplanning(coproduction).

• Keepawarenessraisingandstigmareductionatthecoreofservices.

• Implementevidence-basedpractice.

• ProvideongoingeducationandtrainingofCPPmembersandrelevantstaff.

6


Further reading• TheauthorofthisreviewhasbeeninvolvedwithNHSHealthScotlandtocreateanonlinemodule fortheinitialtraining/CPDofpublicsectorworkers(notjusthealth)whichisfreetoaccesshere: https://elearning.healthscotland.com/course/index.php?categoryid=132

Inthefollowingsectionssomekeyeffectivemeasuresfromtheresearchevidenceareexploredinmoredetail.

6.2 Income maximisation

Why income maximisation?Financial vulnerability, income insecurity and incomemaximisationare facetsof a theme that is extremelyimportant to child poverty. There are many reasons why maximising incomes is an increasingly important povertyreductionstrategy:

1. Theevidenceshowsnegativeeffectsonmaternalandchildwellbeingbecauseoffinancialvulnerability,overandabovetheeffectsofincomeandpoverty(Treanor,2016).Forexample,maternalemotionaldistressasaresultoffinancialhardshipcanleadtostressedparentingandpoorerwellbeingforchildren(Schoonetal2012;2010).

2. TheScottishGovernment’sfocusonincomemaximisationisdemonstratedwithinthethemeof‘Pockets’in its Child Poverty Strategy 2014-17, which focuses on maximising household resources. By focussing on incomemaximisation,CPPswouldbeworkinginsynergywiththeScottishGovernment,HealthBoardsandotherlocalauthorities.Thismaymeanaccessto,orsharingof,resourcestodevelopservicesthatwouldleadtoincomemaximisation,e.g.moneyadviceservices.

3. Incomemaximisationisoneofthefewpovertyreductionstrategiesthataffectschildrenandfamiliespre-,per-andpost-pregnancy.Withacoordinatedresponse,incomemaximisationisamenabletoimprovementatarelativelylowcost.Researchshowsthat“havingmoremoneydirectlyimprovesthedevelopmentandlevel of achievement of children” (Cooper and Stewart, 2013).

4. Includingincomemaximisationasathemeallowslocalauthoritiestoidentifythoseatriskofpovertyandtotakepreventativeaction,aswellasmitigatingagainstalreadyexistingpoverty.

5. Incomethat ismaximisedfromexternalsources,e.g.nationalwelfare, isbrought intothelocalareaandspent locally.

Increasing uptake of benefit entitlementsIt isarguedthat,duetocertainpoliticalbeliefs,benefitratesarekeptatpoverty levelsasadisincentivetothose who might otherwise be disinclined to work (McKendrick, 2016: 63). The argument is that by so doing claimantswillbeencouragedtofindworkinordertoescapepoverty.Whilethismayormaynotbethecase,itisundeniablethatbenefitlevelsarehistoricallylow,farbelowthepovertythreshold,oflowervaluecomparedtowagesthanatanytimeinthepast40yearsand,withplannedcutstoin-workandoutofworkbenefits,areprojected to fall further.

Forexample,theincomesofhouseholdswithchildreninreceiptofbenefitshavefallensubstantiallyrelativetotheminimumincomestandard.For“loneparentswithonechildbenefitsprovidenearly60%ofminimumincomestandardcomparedwithnearly70%in2008.Theirshortfallhas increasedby£44perweekat2015prices”(CPAG,2016c:11).Thisshortfallmeansthatacouplewithtwochildren,wherebothadultsareoutofwork,arearound£65belowthepovertylineandloneparentsarearound£45below.Thepeopleinthemostdesperateofcircumstancesareyoungpeoplelivingindependentlyastheirlevelofbenefitsleavesthem‘facingdestitution’(JRF,2016:185).Inaddition,thelowlevelofbenefitspaidtooutofwork,young,singlepregnantwomen means that these young women may struggle to eat healthily during pregnancy, which causes great concern for children’s prenatal and perinatal development (JRF, 2016: 104).

7


Even for families that areworking, the situation is somewhat grim.Despite the projected increases in theNationalLivingWage(NLW)andtherisingpersonaltaxallowance,plannedchangestoUniversalCreditin2020will mean that lone parent families are likely to drop into poverty even when they work full-timeontheNLW(JRF,2016,emphasisadded).Additionally, inworkingfamiliestheparenthastobeaged25yearsorovertobenefitfromthegreatestincreasesintheUKGovernment’sNLW.

Many changes to the benefit system have alreadycompletedwith stillmore to come. Between 2010 and2015, due to the change in the index used to decide benefitlevelsandthe10%increaseinthecostofliving,low income Scottish households are estimated to havelost£230millionperyear(McCulloch,2016).Yetbenefitsare being frozen for four years from April 2016, which will further exacerbate the disparity in the cost of living and benefit adequacy. For a full list ofwelfare reformswhichimpactonoutofworkandin-workbenefitsandtaxcreditsforfamiliesseehttp://www.cpag.org.uk/Scotland/factsheets.

A further concern is the under-claiming of benefits.Significant proportions of people living in low incomeworkingfamilieswithchildrenwhoareentitledtocertainbenefitsdonotclaimthem.Forexample,UKGovernmentstatisticsfor2013-14showthatonlytwothirdsofthosewho are eligible for Working Tax Credits actually claim theirentitlement.Therearemanyreasonswhya familymaynotclaimtheirfulltaxcreditorbenefitentitlement,notleastofwhichistheawarenessoftheirentitlementinthefirstplace.Thisisespeciallytrueofthosehavingtheirfirstchild,orthosewhomaybeexperiencingarelationshipbreakdown,whoarelikelytobenegotiatingtheconfusingtaxcreditandbenefitsystemforthefirsttime.

Whetherornotlevelsoftaxcreditsandbenefitsaresufficientforafamily’sneeds,itisunarguablythecasethatbeingeligibleandnottakinguptaxcreditandbenefitentitlementmustbedetrimentaltothefinancialwellbeingofafamilyandmustgreatlyincreasetheirfinancialvulnerability.Forthisreason,incomemaximisationcanhelpensureallpeopleareclaimingthein-workandout-of-workbenefitstowhichtheyareentitled.

Currently,localauthoritieshavearoleinadministeringcertainbenefits,forexampletheScottishWelfareFundandHousingBenefit.Asameansofmaximisingincomes,thelocalauthoritycouldmakeasignificantdifferencetofamiliesbyensuringtheirsystemsareworkingwell,withminimaldelay,errorandmaladministration.

There are alternative ideas to the current system of benefits, especially means-tested benefits, gainingpopularityacrossWesternsociety.Forexample, the ‘basic income’,whichprovideseverycitizenuniversallywithaminimumincome,withoutconditionsorresponsibilitiesandwhichwillnotbewithdrawninlinewithearningshasgained support fromacross thepolitical spectrum.Thoseon the leftbelieve itwill “eliminatepoverty and liberate people stuck in dead-end workfare jobs” while those on the right, believe “it could slash bureaucracyandcreatea leaner,more self-sufficientwelfare system” (Oltermann,2016).Abasic income isbeingpilotedacrossEuropeandbeyond:inUtrechtintheNetherlands,inFinland,perhapsinSwitzerland,inOntario,Canadaand,possibly,inFife,Scotland(FairerFifeCommission,2015).

Money adviceOnemeansofmaximising incomes is to facilitateaccess tomoney/benefitadviceand support.Adviceandsupport can be made “more accessible when embedded in services that people in poverty already use, for example,GP surgeries,employment supportproviders, servicesprovidedby social landlordsor communityorganisations”(JRF,2016:168).

££ ££££

££

££

£

£

£230,000,000lost per year

LOW INCOMESCOTTISH

HOUSEHOLDS10% increase in cost of living

£

££

change in index used to decide

benefit levels

8


TheCityofEdinburghCouncil,aspartofits1in5povertypreventioninschoolsinitiative,hasembeddedapilotmoneyadviceserviceinaprimaryschoolinanareawithahighpovertydensity.Thisisanexcitinginitiativewhichreliesonpositiverelationshipswiththefamiliesthatattendtheschool(moreofwhichundertheEducationsectionat6.3)andwillrequireongoingdedicatedresourcespost-pilotphase.InEdinburghtoo,inNHSLothianinGrantonandLeith,moneyadviceandincomemaximisationworkisbeing undertakenwhen families apply forHealthy Start vouchers. This has produced high financialreturns for local families. Fife CPP already have such a service which provides money management andadvice, referral to specialist support services,financial support forpurchasingenergyvouchersand goods, and easy access and support to apply for free school meals and clothing grants (Fairer Fife Commission, 2015: 31).

Analternativetoembeddingmoneyinformationandadviceinexistingservicesistoprovideawellsignposted,centrally-locatedservicewithahighlevelofpublictrustandefficacy.InWestLothian,theAdviceShopoffers“afree,impartialandconfidentialservicetohelpthepeopleofWestLothianwithafocustoalleviatepovertyandtopromoteinclusionandequalitythroughadvice,assistanceandadvocacy”2. This includes providing advice on energy,money,debt,housingandbenefits,aswellasrunninga‘MoneyWeek’whichhostseventsonfamilynetworking, employment with local employers, food shopping and volunteering. West Lothian’s Advice Shop isahighlyregardedinitiativethathasreceivedpraisefromtheChildPovertyActionGroup(CPAG)inScotland.Thistypeofadvicehub,oronestopshop,isaveryeffectivemeansofprovidingadviceandguidance(JRF,2016).

TheJosephRowntreeFoundationhaveissuedguidanceonwhatpracticalstepsCPPscantaketoprovidemoneyadviceandinformationserviceslocally(replicatedfromJRF,2016:168).

“TheJRFrecommendslocalauthorities[…]workwiththevoluntaryandcommercialadvicesectorto:

• auditexistingprovision,• identifyareasandgroupswiththegreatestneeds,• collectivelydevelopaplanforlocaladviceandsupport,• ensuremaximumuseofexistingnationalprovisionofadvice andsupportthroughwebsitesandhelplinestoavoidduplication,• marshalotherlocalresources–suchastheNHSandhousingassociations–todelivertheplan,• commissionservicestofillgaps,• monitorlocalprovision.”

Aswellasembeddingmoneyinformationandadviceservicesinexistingservicesandinonestopshopsorhubs,thereareinitiativesunderwaytobringmoneyadviceandinformationintothehomesofthoseatrisk of poverty. Thisisanimportantpovertypreventionaswellaspovertymitigationinitiative.OneexampleisNHSGreaterGlasgowandClyde’s(NHSGGC)HealthierWealthierChildrenprojectwhichisexplainedinthecasestudyboxoverleaf.TherearecallstorollthisinitiativeoutacrossScotland;theScottishGreenshavemadethispartoftheir manifesto3.

2http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/adviceshop(accessed10October2016)3https://greens.scot/news/alison-secures-commitment-over-project-that-helps-children-in-poverty(accessed10October2016)

9


Case study - Healthier, Wealthier Children project

Healthier,WealthierChildren(HWC)isaninitiativethatdevelopednewapproachestoprovidingmoneyand welfare advice to pregnant women and families with young children experiencing, or at risk of, child povertyacrossNHSGreaterGlasgowandClyde(NHSGGC).ItinvolvedarangeofpartnersincludingtheNHS,GlasgowCityCouncil,othercouncilpartners,money/welfareadviceorganisationsandthevoluntarysector generally. HWCwas primarily locatedwithin the frontlineNHS early yearsworkforce, such asmidwivesandhealthvisitors,andlocalmoney/welfareadviceservices.Healthstaffidentifiedtheneedforhelp and advice among pregnant women and families and referred them to partners in advice services.

IntheHWCproject,midwivesandhealthvisitorshavebeenintegratingreferralsformoneyadviceandhelpintotheirdailypractice-despitethechallengesofsizeablecaseloads-andrespondingtoarangeofneeds,includinghighchildpovertyratesinsomelocalareas(Navenetal,2012;NavenandEgan,2013).

Familiesalso receivedadditionalgains, suchashelpandsupportwithchildcare,housing, charitableapplications, advocacy, accessing cheaper utility options, immigration and social work issues, andincreaseduptakeofHealthyStartvouchersforlowincomefamiliesandpregnantwomentospendonmilk,fruitandvegetables.ThissnowballingofreferralsandsupportwasapositiveconsequenceoftheHWCproject.Familiesreportedbeingunawareoftheirentitlementsandwouldnothaveapproachedtraditionalmainstreamadviceservicesforhelp(Navenetal,2012;NavenandEgan,2013).Furthermore,a small sub-group of families reported reduced stress, improved mood and an increased sense of self-worthandsecurity.Somealsoreportedanimprovementinrelationshipswithfamilyandfriends.

Costs

• Between2010and2013,theHWCprojectreceivedjustover£1.32millioninfunding;comprising£1mindevelopmentcostsoverthefirst15monthsand,thereafter,justover£320,000tosupportsuccessfulmainstreamingbetweentheearlyyearsandadviceservicesoperatingacrosstheNHSGGCarea.

• AccordingtothelatestNHSGGCperformancereportupuntilMarch2017HWChasachievedjustover£13.6millionincumulativefinancialgainsforover12,500pregnantwomenandfamilies.

• Comparingthiscumulativefigureof£13.6millionwiththeinitialcostsof£1.3millionandcombinedannualcosts,theprojecthasconservativelyachievedabenefittocostratioofaround5:1;amajorachievementwhichexceededtheinitialremitandbestcasescenarioexpectations.

Treanor, M. (2016a)

Department for work and pensions sanctions“Sanctionsareareductioninbenefit,oftentonil.Theyareappliedtopeoplewhoareheldnottohavecompliedwithconditionsattachedtotheirjobseekersallowance(JSA),universalcredit,incomesupportoremploymentandsupportallowance(ESA).Theperiodofasanctioncanrangefromoneweektothreeyears.Forasingleperson,asanctioncouldresultinalossofincomeof£73perweekor£115perweekforacouple”(CPAG,2015:2).

TheuseofsanctionsintheUKincreaseddramaticallybetween2008and2013beforefallingfrom2014onwards.ThisrecentfallinthenumberofsanctionsisthoughttobeafunctionofthereductioninthenumberofpeopleclaimingJSAandnotareductionintheapplicationofsanctionsperse(CPAG,2015).Basedon2014figures,itiscalculatedthatonedependentchildwillbeaffectedforeverysixJSAclaimantssanctioned(CPAG,2015:2).

Evidence suggests that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is causing extended delays, errors and maladministrationinthebenefitsystemandthatmanysanctionsareduetotheirownpoorqualityofsystemsandcommunications (McCulloch,2016;CPAG,2015).CPAGargue that “inmanycases this led to seeminglyunfair,unnecessaryandsometimesapparentlyunlawfulsanctions”(CPAG,2015).Furthermore,CPAG’sEarlyWarningSystemresearchsuggeststhat“someDWPstaffmaybefailingtoconsistentlyinformclaimantsoftheirrights,bothinrelationtochallengingsanctiondecisionsandapplyingforhardshippayments.Inmanycases,peoplewerenoteveninformedthattheywerelikelytobesanctioned”(CPAG,2015:4).

10


Thereareincreasingreportsontheimpactsofsanctionsthatincludebutarenotexclusiveto:

CPAGinScotlandworkextensivelyinthefieldofsanctionsandarecollatingreportsandgovernmentresponseshere:http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/sanctions

CPPswillbeaffectedby sanctionsas therewillbean increase indemand for their services.Peoplewillbeaffectedbytheissuesoutlinedandmore.PossiblestepsCPPscantaketopreventandmitigatetheimpactofsanctionsare:

• Helppeopleavoidsanctionsinthefirstplace.• Supportpeopleaffectedbybenefitsanctions.• ProvideaccesstohardshipfundsandtheScottishWelfareFund.• Helpclaimantstochallengesanctiondecisions.

EmploymentThere is evidence that employment canmake families better off financially and bring non-income relatedbenefits.Generallyspeaking,employmentisstillthebestrouteoutofpoverty;however,itdoesnotguaranteeit.Increasingly,themajorityofpeopleexperiencingpovertyliveinworkinghouseholdsandalmosttwothirdsofchildrenlivinginpovertyliveinahomewhereatleastoneparentworks.In-workpovertyiscausedbytheinsecurity of the labour market, the role of temporary work and zero hours contracts, the enormous growth of poorerqualityworkandareductionofin-workbenefits(McKendricketal,2016;JRF2016).Therearespecialproblemsforchildrenofloneparentswithlow-qualityemployment,whichiscoveredinsection6.5.

Despiteassumptionsthatchangesinfamilystructureaccountforalargeproportionofchildrenenteringpoverty,analysis shows that more than half of all moves into or out of poverty for children are associated with changes inearningsasaresultofparentsleavingorenteringajob(MacInnesetal,2015).Incomparison,changestofamilystructurewereresponsibleforjust14%ofchildrenenteringintopoverty(MacInnesetal,2015).

Low pay is a problem in Scotland with 19% of, or 444,100, employees in Scotland earning less than the living wagein2014(McKendricketal,2016).Additionallywhiletheremayhavebeenanincreaseinemploymentlevelsince the last recession, there are higher numbers of people on zero hours contracts (McKendrick et al, 2016). A new facet of in-work poverty is the rise in self-employment. There is evidence to suggest that “these newly self-employed people are more likely to earn less and work less” (Kelly, 2016).

Increasedcriminality(shoplifting,prostitution)

Impacts of sanctions

Concerns about the impact on mental and physical health

Notenoughmoneyto pay for gas and electricity

Forcing people into extreme financialhardship

Discontinuedhousingbenefitpayments as the local authority doesnotknowbenefitshavereducedasaresultofsanctioning

Localauthorities’childprotectionteamshavingto become involved with sanctionedfamilies

Negativeimpactonchildren’ssocialcareservices–havingto focus on securing food, heat etc. for families rather thantheircorefunctions

Being unable to access other services, e.g. health, due to lack of money

Concerns about the welfare of children

Increasingdemandonsocialworkforsection12 and 22 payments

Increasedfoodbank use in the UK(McCulloch,2016;Perryetal,2015)

Nothavingthemoneytotravel for hardship funds

(SourceCPAG,2015,exceptstated)

11


Itisrecognisedthatlowpayandjobinsecurityalsohavenegativeimpactsonthelocalareabyinhibitinglocalspendingandreducingtheabilityofresidentstoengageinlocaleconomicopportunitiessuchassavingincreditunions(FairerFifeCommission,2015).ThereareanumberofactionsthatCPPscouldtaketoimprovethelevelsandqualityofemploymentinthelocalarea(JRF,2016;FairerFifeCommission,2015):

• Reviewitseconomicdevelopmentpolicyfortheroleitplaysincreatingandsupportinggoodqualityfamily-friendlyemploymentinrelationtopayingthelivingwage,writingintoprocurementcontractsthatthelivingwage is to be paid and no zero hours contracts are to be used, encouraging employers to provide secure and regular hours.

• Discouragetheuseofzerohourscontracts.ZerohourscontractshavebeenbannedinNewZealand(AingeRoy, 2016).Not only could CPPs discourage their use, especially in relation to procurement, they couldinfluenceotheremployersandlobbycentralgovernmentforaction.

• Providestrongersupportservicestoimproveskills,opportunitiesandprospects.• EngagepartnerssuchasSkillsDevelopmentScotland,ScottishEnterprise,UniversityoftheWestofScotland

and Ayrshire College.• Ensuretransportlinksfromwherepeopleinpovertylive,e.g.particularsocialhousingestates,towherethe

majority of training and employment are.• Providefreetravelcardsforthosemovingintowork.• BoostdigitalskillsandusepubliclibrariestofacilitateaccesstotheInternet.• Haveacentralhub,oronestopshop,thatbringstogetherskills,training,employmentsupport,employer

events,linkingthistomoneyadviceandinformationhubssothatthesegohandinhandandarenotseenasseparateactivities.

InScotlandtherehavebeenpositivestepstowardsfairworkwiththeestablishmentoftheFairWorkConventionin2015,thecreationoftheScottishBusinessPledge,andanincreaseinsupportforthelivingwagethroughthevoluntaryaccreditationschememanagedbythePovertyAlliance(Kelly,2016:166).Kelly(2016:167)suggestswhattheconventioncandotohelpreducein-workpoverty.CPPscouldapplythesesuggestionstotheirlocalcontext:

• “[Ensure]theprovisionofbusinesssupportiseffectivelytiedtothepromotionoffairwork.• [Ensure]thereisastrategytopromoteawarenessofemploymentrights,particularlytovulnerable

workers.• [Enhance]accesstoinworktrainingandsupportforlow-paidworkerstoensuretheprogressinthe

labour market”.

TheJosephRowntreeFoundationgoesfurtherinitsrecommendations.Itsuggestsbringingtogetherarange of services into one place:

Poverty premiumThe poverty premium is where low-income households pay more for the same goods and services than others dobecauseofthepaymentmethodsavailabletothem(Harrisetal,2009).Thepovertypremiumcanaddasmuchas£1000perannumorapproximately10%ofannualincometoalow-incomehousehold(JRF,2016;Harriset al, 2009). Services that create a poverty premium include gas and electricity, for example the smoothing ofseasonaladjustmentsinconsumptionmademoreaffordableviadirectdebitisunavailabletolowincomehouseholds;thosewhodon’thaveaccesstoacomputerortheinternetmaynothaveskillsandknowledgetoundertakeresearchintoswitchingutilitiesandmaybechargedforreceivingpaperbills.

(JRF, 2016: 169)

self-employment advice

working-age poverty advisers

careers advice

benefit checks and debt advice

employment support information on financial assistance

advice on transport and childcare Advice hub i.e. Scottish Welfare Fund

12


There are steps that CPPs can take to help reduce the poverty premium for local people:

• Providehelpinswitchingutilityprovidersandaccessingenergy-efficiencyprogrammes(JRF,2016).• Providehelpinaccessinginsurancecompaniesthatofferinsurancetosocialhousingtenants(JRF,2016).• The Joseph Rowntree Foundation notes that “local authorities and housing providers have also begun

entering markets, for example purchasing energy from the wholesale market or partner suppliers to become energyproviders,ordevelopinglocalelectricitygenerationcapacity”(JRF,2016:57).

• Createortapintoalocalcredituniontoencouragesavingsandtoallowaccesstocheaperborrowing(seefor example Scotcash4 and Fair for You5).

• Work with businesses to encourage them to provide a no-interest loans scheme similar to the GoodShepherdMicrofinance scheme inAustralia for low-income families. TheGood ShepherdMicrofinanceschemeworksinpartnershipwithcharities,communitiesandgovernmenttoofferno-interestloanstolow-incomehouseholdsinreceiptofcertainbenefitswhoareexcludedfrommainstreamcredit(JRF,2016:66).

• Provideadviceservicesandsupporttoaccessdebtreductionserviceswherefamiliesarealreadyindebt,especially as a result of high interest credit.

FifeCPPisdevelopingplansalongtheselines.Itaimsto:

• Createasocialenterpriselendingfacilitytoofferborrowingandmoneyadvicetothosewhowouldotherwiseusehighercostalternatives.

• Takealeadinsupportingcreditunionmembership,eitherbymakinglinkstoexistingfacilitiesorcreatingtheir own.

• Developplanswithhousingassociationsfornon-commercialtariffsfordigitalbroadbandforsocialhousingtenants (Fairer Fife Commission, 2015).

TheseareinitiativesthatCCPscouldreplicate,takingintoaccountanylearningFifehasmadeintheprocess.

Key findings on income maximisation• Incomemaximisationiswide-ranging.Itbringstogethermanyexistingservicesinamoreefficient andaccessibleway,resultingingreatgainsforlocalresidents.• Ensuringuptakeofbenefitentitlement,especiallyforthoseexperiencingabirth,separationora newjob,isthefirststepofincomemaximisation.• Anintegratedsystemforincomemaximisationwouldcoverallbasesandmightinclude: embeddingmoneyinformationandadviceinfrequentlyusedexistingservices,providingan outreachservicesuchastheHealthierWealthierChildrenproject,and/orhavingadedicated money and employment hub. • Employmentisnolongeraguaranteedrouteoutofpovertywithtwothirdsofchildreninpoverty livinginafamilywhereatleastoneparentworks.However,secure,well-payingemploymentisstill the best route out of poverty and confers other advantages to individuals, families and society.• Thepovertypremiumcostslowincomefamiliesapproximately10%oftheirannualincomes.

4https://www.scotcash.net/5http://www.fairforyou.org.uk/

13


Talking points• HowhastheunderstandingofmembersoftheCPPchangedinrelationtocausesand consequencesofchildpoverty?• HowawarearemembersoftheCPPofissuesaffectinglow-incomefamiliessuchasbenefit adequacy,inworkpoverty,sanctionsandthepovertypremium?• Whowouldbethekeypartnersfortakingforwardaonestopshopthatincludesincome maximisationandemploymentservices?

Further reading • CPAGScotland(2015c)‘Early Warning System findings on the impacts of benefit sanctions: Implications for policy and practice in Scotland’ • FairerFifeCommission(2015)Fairness Matters, Fife: Fairer Fife Commission• Kelly,P.(2016)Fairworkandpovertyreduction.InMcKendricketal(Eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG• Treanor,M.(2016)Apocketsapproachtofinancialvulnerability,Edinburgh:CRFR(abriefing paperonfinancialvulnerabilityandtheHealthierWealthierChildreninitiative). URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/15762

6.3 Education

Education is critical to mitigating the effects of poverty, but inclusion in the education system is sociallypatterned,privilegesthemiddleclassesandbringswithitcoststhatareoftenunseenandpoorlyunderstoodby educators but keenly felt by children and families living in poverty. This is a vast topic so it is discussed under sub-themeswhereCPPscanaffectgreatestchange:poverty-proofingtheschooldayandparentalengagement.

Poverty-proofing the school dayResearchhighlightsthecostofschoolingandthecorrosiveeffectsuchcostshaveonpoorerchildrenandyoungpeople’sabilitytoengageasfullmembersoftheschoolcommunity(Crowley&Vulliamy,2007;Ridge,2011).Children’sparticipationinschoolandout-of-schoolactivitiesandtripsisbeneficialtotheirlearningandtotheirsocialandculturaldevelopment(Hirsch,2007b).Wherechildrencannotaffordtoaccesstheseopportunities,they are disadvantagedonmultiple levels, not just in their lack of full participationwith their peer group.Children report feelings of shame, anxiety and anger due to the costs of the school day and may adopt strategies likenon-attendance(Horgan,2007).

For parents, the first problem associated with school trips is that for those on out-of-work benefits theyareusually subsidisedbutnot free and for thoseon in-workbenefits there is no reductionat all (Treanor,forthcoming).Often it is theParentCouncil or Parent TeacherAssociation that chooses to subsidise a trip,withoutanoverarchingpolicygoverningcosts forschool tripsmeaningthatdifferencesoccurbetweenandwithinschools.Secondly,schooltripsoftencluster,sometimesonaseasonalbasis,andsohavingchildrenindifferentyeargroups,oreveninthesameclass,canresultintheaccumulationofmoniesdue(Spencer,2015).

Low-income families can struggle toobtain costs associatedwithmaterial educational resources such as acomputerathome,accesstotheInternet,adictionary,acalculatorandafullyequippedpencilcase,(Elsley,Scotland’sCommissionerfor,Young,&SavetheChildren,2014).Amongtwenty-fourOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)countriestheUKhasthethirdhighestlevelsofinequalityinaccesstobasiceducationalresources,withonlyGreeceandSlovakiascoringmorepoorly(UNICEF,2010:6).

14


Parentslivinginout-of-workandin-workpovertyexercisecreativebehavioursandemployinnovativesolutions,suchaspretendingtoforgetpaymentsaredueasaholdingstrategyuntilmoniescomethroughtotrytoensurethattheirchildrenarenotleftbehindbythecostsofschool(Treanor,forthcoming).However,thereisonlysofarsuchstrategiescanreasonablysucceedandparentsareoftenputinthepainfulsituationofnotallowingtheirchildrentogoonschooltrips,especiallylargerresidentialones,whichservestoensuretheirchildren’sexclusion.Often,whenparentshavenotmadethisdifficultdecisionchildrentakeitforthem,exercisingtheirownagencyeitherbynotpassingoninformationabouttripsorbeingadamantthattheydonotwanttogo(Spencer,2015;MillarandRidge,2013;RidgeandMillar,2011).

The costs that poorer parents face during school holidays is a growing problem (Butcher, 2015). Families report findingdifficultywithfeedingchildrenoutwithtermtime,particularlythosefamilieswhoreceivefreeschoolmeals;difficultyinfindingwork-hourschildcare;andguiltthattheyareunabletogivetheirchildrenthetreats,trips and experiences that other children enjoy during school holidays (Butcher, 2015).

There isnowasubstantialbodyofevidenceinScotlandonthecostsoftheschooldayandtheEducationalInstituteofScotland (EIS) recently issuedguidance to itsmembersonhowto reducecostsassociatedwith‘school uniforms, equipment and resources, homework, school trips, and charity and fundraising events’(Bradley,2016).Incollaborationwiththeauthorofthisreport,CPAGScotlandandtheEISrecentlyproducedafilmcalled‘SchoolCosts’6 to highlight the experiences of children and families living in poverty.

Theprimarymodeof reducingschoolcosts is toprovideteacherswithhighqualitycontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentonthenature,causesandconsequencesofpoverty,suchastherecentinitiativebytheCityofEdinburgh Council’s 1 in 5 project7.AdditionalinitiativesincludeGlasgow’stheCostoftheSchoolDayprojectandtheNHSHealthScotlandchildpovertymodulementionedonpage6.

The role of targeted and universal servicesThereisdebateaboutwhethertargetingthosemost inneedorprovidinguniversalservices isthebestwaytomitigateandpreventchildpovertyand,evenwithareviewoftheacademicliterature,theissueremainsunresolved(GugushviliandHirsch,2014).Forexample,low-costorfreebreakfastclubsprovidemanybenefits;besidesnutritionalbenefitsforchildren,parentscanusethemasachildcarefacilityinordertoaccesstraining,educationoremployment.Somebreakfastclubsexistonlyinafter-schoolcarefacilitiesandsoincuracostofapproximately£4-£5perday.Insomeareas,low-costorfreebreakfastclubsaretargetedatchildrenlivinginpoverty, whereas in other areas there is universal provision with a sliding scale of costs, which is also free for children living in poverty.

Argumentsforuniversalservicesarethattheyare lessstigmatising,gathermoresupportfromfamiliesandcommunities,arethuslesslikelytohavefundingremovedorreducedcomparedtotargetedservices,arewidelyaccessedbypeoplewhocanaffordtopay(somayensureaservice’sviability),andhaveloweradministrativecostsbynotmeanstesting(GugushviliandHirsch,2014).Thestigmasurroundingmeans-testedbenefitsliesinthefactthattoqualifyapplicantshavetodemonstratethattheirownincomeisbelowathreshold level,whichcanmakepeoplefeeltheyhavefailedinasocietythatvaluesself-sufficiencyandindividualresponsibility(GugushviliandHirsch,2014:2).Stigma, inadditiontothecomplexityand invasivenessofmeanstesting, ispurportedtodiscouragemanypotentialbeneficiariesfromapplying,whichhelpstoexplainthegenerallylowleveloftake-upofmeans-testedbenefits(GugushviliandHirsch,2014:2).

Entitlement to school clothing grants is targeted and determined at the discretion of local authorities inScotland.However,thereisanewprovisionundertheEducation(Scotland)Act2016whichgivestheScottishGovernmentthepowertointroduceregulationthatwouldrequirealllocalauthoritiestoofferschoolclothinggrantsataspecifiedratetolowincomefamilies.Currentlyschoolclothinggrantsdifferacrosslocalauthoritiesfrom£20inAngusto£110(incash)inWestLothian.Theaverageamountgivenis£50eitherincashorvouchers,whichisbelowthe£70recommendationfroma2009ScottishGovernmentworkinggroup8. Awarding the grant incashratherthanvoucherscanminimisethestigmaofreceivingsupport.

6http://www.eis.org.uk/public.asp?id=3361(accessed10September2016)7http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2079/schools_all_set_to_tackle_child_poverty(accessed10October2016)8http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/920/0112280.pdf

15


Themaindrawbackofuniversalprovisionistheassociatedhighcostofprovidingaservicetoeveryone.Itisalsoarguedthatuniversalprovisionistheleastefficientstrategyforreachingpoorerhouseholds.Ithasevenbeenarguedthatuniversalprovisionmay‘providemoresupporttothebetter-offthantolowincomehouseholds’(GugushviliandHirsch,2014:4).Itisclearfromtheliteratureontargetingversusuniversalismthatitverymuchdependsonwhetherwearetalkingaboutfinancialtransfers(taxcreditsandbenefits)orprovisionofservices.

InWalesacomparisonwasmadebetweenchildren’sservicestargetedbyareadeprivationandonetargetedby individualfamilyneedwithinanareaof lowerdeprivation.Everyoneintheareaofhighdeprivationreceivedaservice,whereasinthelowerdeprivationarea,specificfamilieswerescreenedforeligibility intotheservice.Thestudydiscoveredthatfamilies fromtheareaof lowerdeprivationfound to be eligible for a service by screening in fact had far higher levels of need than those from the areathatwasconsideredtohavehigherdeprivation.Theauthorsconcluded‘thecomparisonofdatafromthetwosamplesdemonstratesthebenefitsofusingadditionaltargetingmeasures,suchasSED[socio-economicdeprivation]status,parentalstressand,dependingonthechild’sage,adevelopmentalassessmentormeasureofchildbehaviouraldifficultiesinadditiontogeographicaltargeting’(Hutchingsetal,2013).Thiswouldsuggestthatablendofuniversalandtargetedprovisionismosteffectiveifthescreeningprocessisofasufficientlyhighstandard.

Presently, many CPPs use the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation(SIMD) to target educational and other poverty prevention andmitigation services. However, approximately 50%of children living inpovertyliveinalowSIMDarea,meaningthatservicesusingtheSIMDthresholdfortargetingwillnotreach50%ofchildrenlivinginpoverty.

• ThisreportrecommendsusingSIMDinadditiontoeligibilityfortheschool clothing grant and free school meals to capture as large a proportionofchildrenlivinginpovertyaspossiblefortargetingitspovertymitigationandpreventioninitiatives.

Parental engagementOftenparents living inpovertyhadpooreducationalexperiencesandoutcomesthemselvesandfeel intimidatedby,waryofandunconfidentaboutfacilitatingorparticipating intheirchild’seducation(SimeandSheridan,2014;Harrisetal,2009).Fortheseparentsanycontactwithschoolcan be stress-inducing and perceived as a judgement on their parenting. Yet,we know thatwhen parentsbecomemoreinvolvedintheirchildren’seducation,itimproveschildren’sbehavioural,socialandeducationaloutcomes(SimeandSheridan,2014).Italsohasapositiveimpactonparentsthemselvesbyincreasingtheirconfidenceinparticipatingintheirchild’seducationandleadingtomorepositiveattitudestowardseducationgenerally.Thekeytoengagingparentsintheirchild’seducationisbybuildingrelationshipswiththeschoolandwith other parents (Bradley, 2016).

Onewaytobuildrelationshipswithparents istohavenon-threateningsocialengagementthat isnotaboutthechild’seducationper se,but is aboutencouragingparents’ inclusion in the school community (Barone,2010).Notonlywouldthisadvantageparent/schoolrelationshipsandsupporttheirchild’seducation,itcouldalsotieinwithotherinitiativesCPPsmaywishtoembedinschools,e.g.incomemaximisation.Aspreviouslynoted, in order for parents to access services held within the school, they have to be comfortable within the schoolenvironmentandfeelsupportedandnotjudgedintheschoolcommunity.Bybuildingrelationshipswithparents,schoolscanreapmultiplebenefits.

Forexample,intheUKapproximately300,000schoolpupilsdonottakeuptheirfreeschoolmealentitlementand many schools are reported to be unaware of the issue (Woodward, 2015). In one study a range ofinterventionswasdesignedwhichaimedto;ensureparentsknewabouttheirentitlement,maketheclaimingprocessassimpleaspossibleandensureprivacyforpupilsonfreeschoolmealsinordertominimisestigma(Woodward,2015).Eachinterventionfocusedonadifferentaspectandeachhadasuccessfulimpactonfreeschoolmealuptake(Woodward,2015).Anotherstudyfoundthatthequalityandchoiceoffoodofferedare

Children living in poverty in a high SIMD area

Children living in poverty in

low SIMD area

Community Planning Partnerships

TARGETING

+

16


factors for parents and children in the decision to take up school meals as is the assurance of anonymity to preventstigma(Sahotaetal.2014).InScotland,universalfreeschoolmealsforP1-P3childrenwasintroducedin2015.Anevaluationofthispolicyshowsthatallchildren,butespeciallychildreninlowincomefamilies,gainfinancialandnutritionalbenefitsfromuniversalfreeschoolmeals(McAdams,2015).

What CPPs can do (Spencer, 2015):

• Publicisefreeschoolmealsandschoolclothinggrantentitlementtoencouragetakeup.• Ensureprivacyforpupilsonfreeschoolmealsinordertominimisestigma.• Maketakingschoolmealstheusualmodeofeatingatlunchtime.• Makeschoolclothinggrantentitlementeasytoapplyfor,andgivemoneyinsteadofvoucherstominimise

parental embarrassment. • Acceptsupermarketuniformsratherthanbrandedschooluniforms,whicharealsousedtogeneratefunds

fortheschool.Ifschoolswishtohavebrandeduniforms,considerthesaleofsewonbadgesforjumpers.• Reducefundraising/charitablegivingthatcanhighlightpoorerpupils’lackofincome,e.g.moneyforbook

clubs, wear your own clothes day.• Schoolscanconsideranendofyearactivitythatisofminimalcosttoparents,ratherthanschoolproms

which can be expensive for parents.• Implementbreakfastandholidayclubsonaslidingscaleoffeesthatareavailabletoallpupils,butfreeto

those on the lowest incomes.• SupportyoungpeopleandtheirparentstoapplyforEducationalMaintenanceAllowance(EMA).• Provideteacherswithhighqualitycontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentonthenature,causesand

consequencesofpoverty,suchastherecentinitiativebytheCityofEdinburghCouncil’s1in5project.• Undertakeinitiativestobuildrelationshipswiththepoorestparentssothattheyarecomfortabletobe

intheschoolenvironment.Thiscouldhavepositiveeffectsbybuildingtrustsothatincomemaximisationinitiativescanbeimplementedthroughtheschoolaswellashavingapositiveimpactonparents’socialcapitalandchildren’sparticipationandsuccessineducation.

Key findings on education• Thecostofschoolinghasacorrosiveeffectonchildrenandyoungpeople’sabilitytoengageasfull members of the school community.• Children’sparticipationinschoolandout-of-schoolactivitiesandtripsisbeneficialtotheirlearning and to their social and cultural development.• Goodparentalengagementisvitaltochildren’seducationaloutcomes.• Buildingrelationshipswithparentswouldconfermanyadvantagestochildrenandschools.

Talking points• Whatunnecessarycostsinschoolscanbeidentifiedandhowcouldtheybeabolished?• Whatcouldschoolsdotobuildnon-threatening,non-judgementalrelationshipswithparentsliving inpoverty?

Further reading • SeetheEducationalInstituteofScotland’sshortfilmhighlightingtheimpactof‘SchoolCosts’on familieswithlowincomeshttps://youtu.be/-qAKiu9nneo• Spencer,S.(2015).The Cost of the School Day.Glasgow,ChildPovertyActionGroupinScotland. Availableathttp://www.cpag.org.uk/content/cost-school-day-report-and-executive-summary

17


6.4 Childcare

Theprovisionofchildcareisimportanttoenableparents,especiallywomen,towork.Scott(2016:175)notesthat“pooraccesstoqualitychildcareisyetanotherobstacletoovercomeinfindingarouteoutofpoverty”.InScotlandtoday,thereisacomplexarrayofpreschoolchildcareprovidersandtypesofprovision.Someoftheseareprivate,somepublicandothersareinthevoluntarysector.AsScottnotes,“itisamessyinstitutionallandscapeinwhichparentscannoteasilyfindthecaretheyactuallywantandprovidersfinditdifficulttoretainstaffoutsidelocalauthorityprovision”(Scott,2016:178).

TheJosephRowntreeFoundation(JRF)(2016:114)identifiesthreemainproblemswiththecurrentchildcareprovisionintheUK.Thefirstisthatfamiliesinareasofhighunemploymentpredominantlyhaveaccessonlytothe free childcare provision proved by the public sector. This is usually in school nurseries which have shorter daysandalackofflexibilityinthehoursprovided,althoughitisgenerallyofhigherqualitythanprivateandvoluntary sectornurseries. The secondproblem identified is that,excluding thepublic sector school-basedprovision,thequalityofchildcareisnotsufficienttosupportchilddevelopment.Thethirdisthatstatesupportfor childcare costs is poorly targeted, poor value for money and does not provide support for up-front costs.

In Scotland there is an additional problem of availability of childcare:Only15%oflocalauthoritieswerefoundtohavesufficientchildcarein2015 for parentswhoworked full-time (CCR, 2015). This compares toa figure of 43% in England. Also, 25% of local authorities in Scotlandreportedthattheycouldnotestimatetheextenttowhichagapexistedin childcare provision as they had no relevant data on childcare in their area (CCR, 2015: 24). The cost of childcare and its lack of availability is having a detrimental impact of the ability of families, especially poorer families,toworkortakeupeducationalandtrainingopportunities.Savethe Children (2011: 1) found that, in Scotland, 25% of parents in severe poverty had given up work, 33% had turned down a job, and 25% had notbeenabletotakeupeducationortraining,allbecauseofdifficultiesin accessing childcare. Scotland also has some of the most expensive childcare in the UK, which already has the most expensive childcare in the world (Save the Children, 2011: 1). This is of huge concern for Scotland.

JRF(2016)findthat inordertobalanceworkandcaringcommitmentsmanywomenoptforemploymentthatisfarbelowtheirskilllevel.Notonlydoesthishaveanegativeeffectonthesewomen’scurrentandfutureearnings,italsotakesupvitaljobsthatpeoplewithlowerlevelsofskillsandqualificationscouldusefullydo.JRF(2016:113)notethat‘enablingmorewomentostayinworkafterhavingchildrencouldreducepovertyintheshort,mediumandlongterm,withpotentialeffectsonwomen’sincomesinlaterlife’.

Aswellasitsroleinsupportingeducationandemployment,highqualitychildcareisalsogoodforchildren’sdevelopment.Goodqualitychildcareandearlyeducationcanhavepositiveeffectsonchildrennowandinthefutureasitcontributestobettereducationaloutcomesandtohigherlevelsandqualityofemploymentasadults(JRF,2016).Goodqualitychildcarecanmakeapositivedifferencetotheincidenceandprevalenceofpoverty.

InQuébec,affordable,accessiblechildcarewasintroducedandsucceededinreducingpovertybyhalfwithina10yearperiod(Scott,2016).Otherpositiveresultswerethatworkforceparticipationincreased,the number of hours people worked and their annual earnings increased, and fewer women were in receiptofbenefits(Scott,2016:176). InFinland,thereisaccesstodirectstatefundeduniversalfreechildcare,whichhasenabledparents’participationinpaidwork.Asthecountryusesa ‘taperedfeestructuregearedtoreducinginequalities,childcarehasservedasasignificantrouteoutofpovertyandameansofreducingincomeinequalityamongFinnishfamilies’(Scott,2016:176).

Percentage of local authorities in Scotland and England with sufficient childcare for full-time workers

15%

43%

18


Examplesof goodpractice fromScotland include:OneParentFamiliesScotlandoffershighqualityregisteredchildcareservicesinDundeeandtheEastofScotland,‘inthechild’sownhome,7daysaweekfromearlymorningtolateevening,asrequiredbythefamily’10(OPFSwebsite).Theserviceischargedonaslidingscaleaccordingtoabilitytopayandallowsloneparentstoaccesseducationandemployment.TheCityofEdinburghCouncil isoneofthefirst localauthoritiesinScotlandtoadoptaco-operativeapproachtocouncilservices.Ithasinitiatedanafterschoolclubco-operativechartertoprovideafter-schoolclubprovisioninassociationwithcommunity-basedandparent-leadservicesacrossthecity.However,atpresentthereislittleinformationpubliclyavailableonhowtheinitiativeis working.

Theprovisionofandaccesstoaffordablechildcareofsufficienthourstoenableparents,especiallyloneparents,totakeupeducation,trainingoremploymentisacrucialfactorinmitigatingandpreventingchildpovertyandispartiallywithintheremitofCPPs.Childcarethathelpsparentstobalancecaringresponsibilitieswithwork(including holiday provision) and that meets the needs of children (especially those in large families), is one of the main barriers to parents, again especially lone parents, being able to take up work (CCR, 2015). While much oftheoverarchingstructureofchildcareoperatesattheleveloftheScottishgovernment,CPPshaveauthorityover local provision and there is more they can do:

• Aswellasthecurrent600hoursperyearoffreechildcarefor3and4yearolds,additionalhourscouldbeguaranteedtoenablefull-timeemploymentbutchargedonaslidingscalewherebythosewhocanaffordtopayfullfees(fortheadditionalhours)andthoseinmostseverepovertypaynothing.

• CPPscouldworkwithprivate,community-basedandvoluntarysectorprovisiontoguaranteehoursandsubsidisechildcareforthepoorest(CCR,2015).Itissuggestedthatinsuchataperedfeemodel,feesshould be kept below 10% of a family’s disposable income (CCR, 2015).

• Freepre-schoolprovisionforvulnerable2yearoldscouldbeextendedbyofferingmorehoursandCPPscouldexertinfluenceupwardstothiseffect.

Othersuggestionsinclude:

• Exploretheideaofco-operativeafterschoolclubstoensurethatfamilieslivinginpovertyhaveaccesstoout of school hours care.

• Workinpartnershipwithvoluntaryorganisations,suchasSavetheChildrenandOneParentFamiliesScotland,toprovidelocalhigh-qualitychildcaretofamilieslivinginpoverty.

• Developsocialapproachesandparent-ledchildcareincommunitiesbasedonneedratherthanabilitytopay market rates as other CPPs such as Fife aim to do.

• Initiatebreakfastclubswithaslidingscaleoffeessothattheyarefreetochildrenlivinginpoverty.Suchprovision,whilefocussedonthenutritionofchildren,wouldusefullydoubleupasachildcareproviderandshould be welcomed as such.

• Provideholidayclubsduringtheschoolholidayswithaslidingscaleoffeeswithbetteroffparentspayingfullfeesandpoorparentspayinglittleornothing.

• Thinkaboutthebarrierstovoluntary,communityorparent-ledsectorprovidersincreasingprovisioninthelocalauthority–dotheypayrent?CouldthisbesubsidisedorCPPbuildings,orpartbuildings,begivenoverforchildcare?

One Parent Families Scotland argue that funding should shift from the demand side (parents through thetax credits system) to the supply side (childcare providers) so that they have guaranteed funding to provide childcare,makingtheirservicemoresecureandencouragingfurtherinvestment.CPPscouldexertinfluenceupto central government to help develop this provision.

9http://www.opfs.org.uk/service/flexible-childcare-services-dundee/(accessed10October2016)

19


Throughoutallthesuggestionsforanincreaseintheavailabilityandaffordabilityofchildcareistherequirementtomaintainqualityasquantityincreases.Scott(2016:179)sayswhen‘affordability becomes the main focus, quality can take a back seat’. She argues that any expansion in the childcare sector should also mean that the childcareworkforceisbetterpaid(livingwageasaminimum)withtrainingandcareerprogressionavailabletoall,irrespectiveofthechildcaresector.Giventheknownbenefitsofhighqualitychildcareandearlyeducationonchildren’seducationaldevelopmentandfutureemploymentoutcomes,thiswouldbeawiseinvestment.

Key findings on childcare• SavetheChildrenScotlandfoundthatahighproportionofthoseinseverepovertyhadtogiveup work,turndownajob,ornottakeupeducationortrainingbecauseofdifficultiesaccessingchildcare.• Theincreaseinchildcarecostsandthereductioninfiscalsupportviachildtaxcredits/universal creditwillresultingreaterdifficultyinpayingforchildcare.• WhiletheScottishGovernment’sapproachhaslargelybeenuniversalprovisionratherthan targetedprovisionofchildcare,thereisargumentforusingboth,byofferingmorefree childcare hours to poorer families.• Whenaffordable,accessiblechildcarewasintroducedinQuébecitreducedpovertyby50%in10 years,andresultedinanincreaseinworkforceparticipation,numberofhoursworkedandannual earnings,andfewerwomenwereonbenefits.

Talking points• WhatcouldtheCPPofferinpracticalterms(facilitiesetc.)tovoluntarysector,community-ledor parent-ledchildcareinitiativestosupportanincreaseinchildcareprovision?• Whatwouldbethefinancialviabilityofprovidingextrahoursonaslidingscaleoffees?

Further reading• CommissionforChildcareReform(2015)Meeting Scotland’s Childcare Challenge. Edinburgh: Commission for Childcare Reform • SavetheChildren(2011)Making work pay: the childcare trap. Save the Children: London• Scott,G.,(2016)Povertyandthechildcarechallenge.InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG

6.5 Lone parents

ThepreviouscoalitionandcurrentConservativeUKgovernmentadministrationsnamed ‘familybreakdown’astherootcauseofchildpovertywithnoevidenceandtogreatstigmatisingeffect (HancockandMooney,2013;Slater,2012;Mooney,2011).Intoday’spoliticaldiscourseloneparentsareportrayedasdeficientparents(Dermot et al, 2015).

Shameandstigmahaveseriousnegativeconsequencesforpeoplelivinginpoverty,notjustforloneparents.Walker(2014:49)explainsthat‘institutionalstigma,variouslymanifestintheframing,structure,anddeliveryofpolicyisoftendeliberatelyimposedasapunishmentordeterrenttoinfluencebehaviourbutissometimesanunintendedconsequenceofpoorpolicymaking’.HeisnotaloneinassertingthatshameandstigmahaveplayedadeliberateroleintheUKGovernment’sapproachtopoverty(Mooney,2011).Thenegativeeffectsofstigmaandshameleadto‘socialexclusion,limitedsocialcapital,lowself-worth,andalackofagencythatcouldallservetoprolongpoverty’(Walker,2014:49),whichmaybecounteractivetoinitiativestomitigatepoverty.

Therearemany,oftenincorrect,assumptionsmadeaboutloneparents(mainlymothers).Contrarytothemythof the young lone unmarried mother, the average age of lone mothers in Scotland is 36 years old and they haveusuallypreviouslybeenmarried(McKendrick,2016).Furthermore,inScotland‘only3%oflonemothers

20


are teenagers and only 15% have never lived with the father of their child’ (McKendrick, 2016: 104). Lone parenthoodisnotusuallyapermanentstatusforfamiliesinScotlandbutisoftenanotherstageinfamilylifethatlastsonaveragearound5½years(McKendrick,2016:104).Assuch,itisestimatedthataroundonethirdtoonehalfofallchildreninScotlandwillspendtimeinaloneparentfamilyformation(McKendrick,2016:104).

Lone parenthood itself does not cause poverty but ‘the way inwhich the labour market, taxation and welfare system operatein Scotland mean that lone parents are more likely to experience poverty’ (McKendrick, 2016: 99). Lone mothers are more likely to experience multiple disadvantages – the gender wage gap, lowincomes,povertyandmaterialdeprivation,andunstable, low-paid,poor-quality employment, which have consequences for maternalandchildwellbeing(Treanor,2016;MillarandRidge,2013;RidgeandMillar, 2011). Children in lone parent households are at greater risk of experiencing poverty than children in two-parent households. In Scotland, 41% of children in lone parent households are livingin poverty compared to 24% of children in two-parent households (McKendrick,2016:99).However,whenthe loneparentworks full-timethepovertyriskforchildrenfallsto20%whichisfarlowerthan

the 76% experienced by children in a couple household where neither parent works (McKendrick, 2016). Poverty isnotaninevitableoutcomeforloneparentfamiliesascanbeseenbytheexperienceofcountrieswithbetterpoliciestosupportloneparents,forexampleintheNordiccountries(OECD,2011).

EvidencefromtheGrowingUpinScotland10 study strongly indicates that it is not the state of lone parenthood, norseparations,normeetinganewpartnerthat isdeleterioustochildwellbeingbuttheimpoverishedandmateriallydeprivedconditionsthatloneparentsfindthemselveslivingin(Treanor,2016c).Furthermore,whenthemothersofchildrenlivinginpovertyhadstrongsocialtiesandsupport,theirchild’swellbeingextendedbeyond the average of all children in Scotland (Treanor, 2016c). Therefore, the state of lone parenthood itself is notnecessarilydetrimentaltochildwellbeingordevelopmentaloutcomesbuttheresultingpoverty,materialdeprivationandsocialexclusionis.

In longitudinal researchon the impactsof lonemothersworkexperienceon their children, itwas foundthatpriortomothersgainingemployment,childrenexperiencedseveredeprivation,stigmaandexclusionfromschooland leisureactivities (Ridge,2009).Whentheirmothersfirstenteredwork theyexperiencedawelcomeincreaseinincomeandmaterialgoodsandincreasedparticipationinthelifeoftheschoolandfriends(Ridge,2009).However,ittookthewholefamilytomanagethelongnon-standardhoursthatmothershad to work, with children taking responsibility for household chores and caring for siblings in the absence ofaffordable,suitablechildcare(MillarandRidge,2013;Ridge,2009).Furthermore,childrenreportedbeingworriedabouthowtiredandstressedtheirmothershadbecomeandwereofferingemotionalsupporttotheir mothers (Ridge, 2009).

When mothers’ employment was unstable, insecure, low-paid and of low-quality they rotated betweenperiodsofemploymentofthistypeandunemployment.Forchildren,thisledto‘thelossofopportunityanddwindling hopes of the improvement that work seemed to promise’ as well as a return to severely impoverished circumstancesateachtransition(Ridge,2009:507).Theevidenceshowsthatstableworkwithstandardhourshasapositiveeffectonbothmothersandchildren,but‘unstableemploymenttransitionscanthreatenwell-being and result in renewed poverty and disadvantage’ (Ridge, 2009: 504).

Lonemothers’employmenthascompleximpactsonmothersthemselvesaswellasontheirchildren.Inthe1990s the rates of depression among lone mothers was higher than in any other group, including unemployed men,with1in3lonemothersbeingdepressed(HarknessandSkipp,2013).Thisratewasthesameforlonemothers in and out of work. By the mid-2000s, rates of depression had fallen to the same rate as coupled mothersforlonemothersinworkbuthadincreasedforthoseoutofwork(HarknessandSkipp,2013).HarknessandSkipp(2013)exploredthisphenomenonandconcludedthatsupportive,enablingworkthatallowedthemto balance work and childcare was good for lone mothers’ mental health.

Lone mothers are more likely to experience multiple disadvantages – the gender wage gap, low incomes, poverty and material deprivation, and unstable, low-paid, poor-quality employment, which have consequences for maternal and child wellbeing. Lone mothers are more likely to experience multiple disadvantages – the gender wage gap, low incomes, poverty and material

10 www.growingupinscotland.org.uk

21


Being able to balance work and childcare is the condition of employment that lonemothers valuemost.Employment with the absence of support and out of kilter with childcare needs was seen as damaging. The authorsconcludedthat‘policiesdesignedtoencouragemorelonemothersintowork,ortoworklongerhours,mayactuallyriskpushinguptherateofmaternaldepressioniftheyarenotaccompaniedbyadditionalmeasurestohelpthembalanceworkandchildcareresponsibilities’(HarknessandSkipp,2013:2).Itshouldbenotedthatfrom April 2017 lone parents claiming universal credit will be expected to prepare for work when their youngest childturnstwoandtolookforworkwhentheiryoungestchildturnsthree(CPAG,2016c),whichmayexacerbateissues for lone parents.

Irrespectiveofworkstatus, thefactthat lonemothersexperiencesuchhigh levelsofdepressionandothermental health difficulties is a major issue for both mothers and their children. Research using data fromGrowingUpinScotlandshowsthatfinancialvulnerability,incomeandunemploymenthavethelargestnegativeeffectsizeonmaternalmentalhealthandthattheeffectsareadditive(Treanor,2016b).Furthermore,maternalmentalhealthproblemsareshowntohavehighlynegativeeffectsonchildren’sdevelopmentandwellbeing(Schoonetal,2012;2010).

Lonemothersareoftenmoresociallyexcludedthantheircoupledcounterparts.JRF(2016:167)giveanexampleofacommunitysupportprogrammefor lonemotherscalled ‘MurtonMams’ inCountyDurham: ‘MurtonMams is a social group in the villageofMurton set up toprovide enjoyable andsupportiveactivitiesforsinglemothers,whowerevulnerabletoisolationandlowwell-being.Anumberofparticipantssaytheincreasedconfidence,networksandwell-beingthattheyhaveexperiencedsincebeginningtoattendthegrouphavebroughtsignificantimprovementsintheirlifecircumstances.Theseincludepaidemploymentforsome,andareturntofurtherandhighereducationforothers’.

What CPPs can do to support lone parents:

• Addresstheirdeeperlevelsofpovertyandmaterialdeprivation.• Supportloneparentsintostableemploymentthatenablesthemtoearnadecentwageatatimethatis

right for them and their children. • Communicatetocentralgovernmentwhenpoliciesarepunitiveorresultinprecariousemployment.• Reduceandremovethebarrierstoemploymentbyimprovingtheaffordabilityandavailabilityofchildcare,

holidaycareandspecialisedcarefordisabledchildren;byincreasingmaternalskillsandconfidence,increasingmaternaleducationandvocationaltrainingandhelpingwiththecostsofchildcare.

• Supportprojectsthatbuildloneparents’socialcapital,socialrelationships,socialsupportandsocialengagement.

• Ensureadequatesupportformentalhealthdifficulties.

Key findings on lone parents

• Loneparentsareusuallyfemale(86%intheUKand91%inScotland)andaremorestrongly affectedbytheinequalitiesthataffectwomenmoregenerally,e.g.genderpaygap.• Lonemothersaremorelikelytohavelow-qualityinsecureemployment,whichhasdetrimental impacts on children.• Thekeyaspectofemploymentasarouteoutofpovertyisthatitneedstoallowloneparents to balance work and childcare.• Stigmaagainstloneparentscanexacerbatetheeffectsofpoverty.• Researchshowsthatitisnotlonemotherhooditselfthatisassociatedwithpoorerchildoutcomes butthepoverty,deprivationandlackofsocialsupportstructurestheyexperience.

22


Talking points

• WhatassumptionsdidyouholdaboutloneparenthoodinScotlandandtheUK?Wheredidyouget yourknowledge/information?Howaccuratewasit?Haveyourviewschanged?• WhatunintentionalstigmacantheCCP’spoliciesandinitiativescreate?• Howcouldthesocialsupportandwellbeingofloneparentsinthelocalauthoritybeincreased? Howcanthisbetiedintootherpovertymitigationmeasures,e.g.throughbuildingrelationshipsat keypointsviahealthvisitors,nurseryandschool?

Further reading

• Harkness,S.andSkipp,A.(2013)Lonemothers,workanddepression.London:TheNuffield Foundation• Ridge,T.,2009.‘Itdidn’talwayswork’:Low-incomechildren’sexperiencesofchangesinmothers’ workingpatternsintheUK.Social Policy and Society, 8 (04), pp. 503-513.• RidgeT,andMillar,J.(2011).‘Followingfamilies:Workinglone-motherfamiliesandtheirchildren.’ Social Policy and Administration 45(1): 85-97.• Treanor,M.(2016c).‘Socialassets,lowincomeandchildsocial,emotionalandbehavioural wellbeing.’ Families, Relationships and Societies 5(2): 209-228.

7. Conclusion

Acrossthe literaturetherearemanysuccessful initiativesthatprovidepointers toactionsthatmitigatetheeffectsofpoverty.

Community engagementItisvitaltoinvolvelocalresidentslivinginpovertyinanyreviewofgapsinprovisionandinanyproposalstomitigateorpreventpoverty.ThisisinkeepingwithwiderScottishpolicy,withPovertyAllianceandthePovertyTruth Commission at the vanguard of this approach in Scotland (Armstrong-Walter, 2016: 209) and fairness commissions being employed locally. Where CPPs in other local authority areas are making progress towards overcomingpoverty,theyincludelocalresidentslivinginpovertyinthedevelopment,deliveryandevaluationoflocalsolutions,withthemantra‘nothingaboutuswithoutusisforus’(Armstrong-Walter,2016:209).

Universal vs targeted servicesCareful consideration should be given to the issue of universal versus targeted policies and towards thequestion ofmitigating or preventing poverty. There are arguments on both sides,with universal servicesconsideredmoreefficientandcheapertoadminister,lessstigmatisingandwithfullbuy-infromwidersociety.However,anargumentcouldalsobemadefortargetingresourcesatthosewhoaremostinneedsoasnotto fund those who could easily fund themselves. A more balanced approach is to use a blend of universal and targetedservices,dependingontheserviceinquestion.Targetingfreebreakfastclubsatthepoorestisnotconsidered the best use of resources when there could be a universal service with a sliding scale of fees that wouldencouragewideruse,doubleupaspre-schoolchildcareandeliminatethestigmaofhavingtobefedbythe council. A service to build the social capital of lone parents living in poverty, however, should be targeted inordertoreachthosemostinneedoftheservice.Byconsideringeveryinitiativethroughthelensofpoverty-proofing,minimisingstigmaandmaximisingengagement,CPPscouldmaketheirdecisionsonacasebycasebasis.Asimilarsocialimpacttoolcouldbeusedtoassessthesocialimpactofallcouncilservices(Hastingsetal, 2015).

23


Services overviewWith the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 there are increased responsibilities for CPPs toreducesocio-economicinequalities.Also,the2017ChildPoverty(Scotland)Billplacesarequirementonlocalauthoritiesandtherelevanthealthboards,tocontributetomeetingchildpovertytargetsbyreportingonthemeasuresbeingtakentotacklepovertylocally.However,theCPPshouldtakestockofthefactthattheyarelikelyto‘underestimatetheworkbeingundertakentotacklechildpovertyinthelocalityprobablyduetothefactthatpovertyreductionisrarelythereasonwhylocalgovernmentanditspartnerscarryouttheirfunctions’(Armstrong-Walter, 2016: 208). CPPs would benefit from exploring and truly understanding the interplaybetween poverty and the services they provide (Armstrong-Walter, 2016).

Prevention and mitigationTheopportunity to identifywhenpeopleareat riskof,orhave recently fallen into,povertyandprevent itpresents itself throughout the themes covered in this review. Poverty prevention and mitigation are notnecessarilydifferentapproaches.Throughincomemaximisationservices,particularlythosedeliveredpre-,per-orpost-pregnancy,itwouldbepossibletoidentifysignsoffinancialvulnerabilitywiththerighttrainingsuchasthatprovidedbyHealthierWealthierChildren.

Giventherighttraining,suchasthepovertyproofingbeingundertaken inEdinburghandGlasgow,andtheChildPoverty,HealthandWellbeing11moduleusedintraininganddevelopedbyNHSHealthScotland,schoolsshouldbe able to recognise thosewhoarefinancially vulnerable. Signs include: being repeatedly latewithlunchmoney;missingoutonactivitiessuchasactiveschoolsprogrammesbecauseoflimitedresourcesortightdeadlinesforpayment;missingschoolwhenitiswearyourownclothesday,especiallywherethisbearsacost;and not accessing free school meals and school clothing grants where schools believe parents would be eligible.

Localauthoritiescanhelpidentifyfinancialvulnerabilitybyengagingwithresidentsinasupportivefashionthefirsttimetheyfallbehindinrent,counciltaxorotherservices.Peopleprioritisetheirhomessothismayindicatethattheyarealreadybehindinpayingotherbills,e.g.utilities.Andfinally,parents,butusuallymothers,sacrificetheirownfood,heat,clothing,activitiesandsocialengagementwhenincomeisverylow.Bybeingmindfulofthis any professionals in contact with families may recognise early signs of poverty and, again with the right training,beabletoofferhelpsuchassign-postingtoanincomemaximisationservice.

Talking points• HowcouldpovertytrainingbeimplementedacrosstheCPP?• Whowouldbeprioritised?

Further reading • HastingsA.,BaileyN.,BramleyG.,GannonM,WatkinsD.(2015).‘The cost of the cuts: a social impact tool for local authorities.’ JRF. • Treanor,M.(2016a).‘Apocketsapproachtofinancialvulnerability’.(Briefingpaperno83) Edinburgh,CRFR.URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/15762

11https://elearning.healthscotland.com/course/index.php?categoryid=132

24


8. Appendices

8.1 About What Works Scotland

What Works Scotland (WWS) aims to improve the way local areas in Scotland use evidence to make decisions about public service development and reform.

We are working with Community Planning Partnerships involved in the design and delivery of public services (Aberdeenshire,Fife,GlasgowandWestDunbartonshire)to:

• Learnwhatisandwhatisn’tworkingintheirlocalarea.• Encouragecollaborativelearningwitharangeoflocalauthority,business,publicsector and community partners.• Betterunderstandwhateffectivepolicyinterventionsandeffectiveserviceslooklike.• Promotetheuseofevidenceinplanningandservicedelivery.• Helporganisationsgettheskillsandknowledgetheyneedtouseandinterpretevidence.• Createcasestudiesforwidersharingandsustainability.

A further nine areas are working with us to enhance learning, comparison and sharing. We will also link with internationalpartnerstoeffectivelycomparehowpublicservicesaredeliveredhereinScotlandandelsewhere.During the programme, we will scale up and share more widely with all local authority areas across Scotland.

WWS brings together the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, other academics across Scotland, withpartnersfromarangeoflocalauthoritiesand:

• GlasgowCentreforPopulationHealth• HealthcareImprovementScotland• ImprovementService• InspiringScotland• IRISS(InstitutionforResearchandInnovationinSocialServices)• JointImprovementTeam• NHSHealthScotland• NHSEducationforScotland• SCVO(ScottishCouncilforVoluntaryOrganisations)

www.whatworksscotland.ac.uk

What Works Scotland is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Scottish Government.

8.2 How the research was carried out

About the Evidence Bank for public service reform

TheEvidenceBankprovidesappraised,accessibleandaction-orientedreviewsofexistingevidenceforWhatWorksScotland(MortonandSeditas,2016),inresponsetopolicyandpractice-relatedresearchquestions.

The Evidence Bank evidence review process is used to produce this evidence review. The process has been developedwithinpolicyandpracticecontextsandbuildsonmethodsdevelopedbyCRFR(CentreforResearchonFamiliesandRelationships)toaddresswell-documentedissuesaroundusingevidenceincludingaccessibility,relevance,andtimeliness.

Reviewsareconductedwithinalimitedtime-periodinordertoprovidetimelyresponses.Duetothetimescale,the purpose of reviews, resources available, and the types of evidence and variety of sources that are drawn on inaddressingpolicyandpracticeresearchquestions,theEvidenceBankdoesnotconductsystematicreviewsor meta-analyses. The Evidence Bank review process is informed by a range of review methods including

25


systematic review, rapid realist review,andqualitative synthesis.Theapproachaims tobalance robustnesswithpragmatismtoopenuptheevidencebaseforpublicandthirdsectorservices.

Evidence reviews are peer reviewed12 by an academic expert and user-reviewed by an expert working in the relevantfield.

How evidence was gathered and reviewed:

Theevidencereviewprocessfollowsaseriesofstagesinwhichthereviewteamidentifiesgapsinknowledgeand then further refines the researchquestionsposed throughdevelopinga researchstrategyandscopingtheresearchquestions.Thescopingwascarriedoutbyusingtheacademicdatabase‘WebofScience’andthesearchengineofTheUniversityofEdinburgh’slibrary,‘DiscoverEd’,whichaccessesawiderangeofdatabases.Thesearchusedacombinationofterms(seekeywords).Theinitialsearchtermcombinationof‘childpoverty’withnogeographicalrestrictionsreturned4930references.ByrestrictingthistotheUKonly,thereturnswerereducedto705.Thenthesearcheswererepeatedextensivelyusingdifferenttermsandcombinationsofterms.Theresultswerefilteredbythesubjectareasofthejournalsuntil342remained.ThesewerethencopiedintothereferencingsoftwareEndnote.

Thesameprocesswasundertakenwithadifferentdatabase(DiscoverEd)whichresultedin590returnsfortheUK.Thiswasreducedfurtherto124returnsbylimitingthegeographytoScotlandonly.Allthereferenceswerethencombinedintothereferencingsoftwareandtheduplicatesremoved.

Thefinallonglistof255referenceswasreducedtothe63notedinthebibliographyattheendofthisreportaftera review of the abstracts of all the peer-reviewed papers by the academic expert. References were removed thatweretooconceptualinnature,thathadadifferentgeographicalscope,thathadaparticularangletothepaper(e.g.thegenderimplicationsofwelfarereform),orthatpertainedtoareasnotcoveredbythescopeofthis review (e.g. impact of childhood sexual abuse).

Addingresearchtermsfortheespeciallyvulnerablegroupsofchildrennotedintheprevioussectionresultedinmanyreturns.Itissuggestedbytheleadresearcherandauthorthatthesegroupsofchildren,whiletheycanbeaddedtothereviewinonesinglesectioninordertohighlightthattheyareparticularlyatrisk,aredeservingoftheirowninquiryanditwouldnotbepossibletodojusticetothesegroupswithinthescopeofthisreview.

Additionally,reportsandpapersfromtheleadresearcherandauthor’spersonalliteraturefolderwerereviewedfor inclusion. This resulted in a long list of 94 resources from the grey literature13. These were reviewed and filteredbydate(post-2010),geography(Scotlandmainly)andsubjectarea.Thisfilteringprocessresultedinareduced list of grey literature of 56.

Afteradiscussiononwhichkeythemestoincludeinthefinalevidencereview,thenumberofresourceswasreduced to 63: 4 books, 20 academic papers and 39 items of grey literature.

The primary geographical focus is Scotland with a secondary focus on the rest of the UK. This is appropriate giventhesimilar legislativeandpolicycontextsofScotlandandtheUKandthe fact thatmany factors thatinfluencechildpovertywerepreviouslyreservedtoWestminster,althoughthatissettochangesomewhatwiththe increased powers being devolved to Scotland.

Evidence sources• WebofScience• DiscoverEd• Google(IncludingGoogleScholar)• Leadresearcherandauthor’spersonalliteraturefolder• FairerScotlandwebsite

12Peerreviewisaprocessusedtoensurethequalityofacademicworkthroughaprocessofacademicswithsimilarexpertisereviewingeach others’ work.13Greyliteraturereferstodocumentsthatarenotfoundthroughpublishersordatabases,suchasreportspublishedbynot-for-profitorganisationsandconferencereports.Suchliteratureisgenerallynotpeer-reviewed.

26


• CPAG(Scotland)• JosephRowntreeFoundation• GlasgowCentreforPopulationHealth• PovertyAlliance• Oxfam• SavetheChildren• Barnardo’s• SavetheChildren• Journals:

ArchivesofDiseaseinChildhood/BritishEducationalResearchJournal/BritishFoodJournal/BritishJournalofSchoolNursing/BritishJournalofSchoolNursing/CambridgeJournalofRegionsEconomyandSociety/ChildDevelopment/ChildIndicatorsResearch/Children&Society/ChildrenandYouthServicesReview/CriticalSocialPolicy/Development/EducationalPsychology/EducationalResearch/EducationalReview/EuropeanChild&AdolescentPsychiatry/EuropeanEducationalResearchJournal/Families,RelationshipsandSocieties/Geography/Health&Place/HealthEducation/ImprovingSchools/InternationalJournalofEarlyYearsEducation/InternationalJournalofSociologyandSocialPolicy/JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth/JournalofFamilyPsychology/JournalofPaediatricsandChildHealth/TheJournalofPovertyandSocial Justice/ JournalofSocialPolicy/ JournalofTheRoyalStatisticalSociety;SeriesA(StatisticsInSociety)/JournalofYouthandAdolescence/LongitudinalandLifeCourseStudies/OxfordReviewofEducation/PolicyandPolitics /PrimaryHealthCare /PublicHealthNutrition/Relationships&Resources / Social Policy andAdministration / Social Psychiatry andPsychiatric Epidemiology / SocialScience&Medicine / Sociology /TheTimesEducational SupplementScotland / InternationalReviewofEducation/Economical

Key words:Searcheswereconductedusingcombinationsofwords.

Childpoverty / low income famil*/ SIMD / Scottish IndexofMultipleDeprivation / inworkpoverty / foodpoverty / food insecurity /povertyprevent* / transition toprimary school / early yearspoverty /welfarereform/benefitsanctions/benefits/welfarebenefits/benefitconditionality/incomemaximisation/accesstochildcare/childcare/homelearningenvironment/earlydevelopmentpoverty/educationandpoverty/educat*aspirationandpoverty/loneparentsandpoverty/singleparentsandpoverty/mitigat*poverty/prevent*poverty/ruralpovertyScotland/deep-endpoverty/sharp-endpoverty/chaotic-endpoverty/pay-cycle/PhilomenadeLima(academicworkingonruralpovertyinScotland)/lookedafterchildren/childrenin care / children leaving care / teenage parents / large families / children with parent in prison / children with disabilities/childrenwithdisabledparents/childrenwhoarecarers/asylumseekers/travellerandgypsychildren/financialinclusion.

ANDonthewebsitesofeachorganizationbelow:

• CPAGScotland(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,incomemaximisation)• SavetheChildrenScotland(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,income

maximisation)• GlasgowCentreforPopulationHealth(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,

incomemaximisation)• Barnardo’sScotland(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,income

maximisation)• JosephRowntreeFoundation(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,income

maximisation)• Oxfam(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,incomemaximisationetc.)• PovertyAlliance(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,incomemaximisation)• Scottishgovernment(+childpoverty,sanctions,welfarereform,benefits,conditionality,income

maximisation)

27


The terms ‘child poverty’/‘poverty’/‘disadvantage’/ ‘disadvantaged families/parents’/‘young people’/ ‘poorparenting’and‘parenting’/‘parentalandinvolvementorengagementorinvestment’/‘low-incomechildren’or‘parents’or‘families’/‘childoutcomes’[severaltypesindicated]/‘familyincome’,‘adverse/adversity’,‘hardship’,‘income’, ‘cuts’, ‘benefits’, ‘deprived’, ’(material)deprivation’wereusedconsistentlythroughout.Other less-frequenttermssuchas‘wellbeing’/‘aspirations’/‘home-learningenvironment’/‘policytechnology’/‘inequalityand austerity’/‘early years’/‘risk’ were also used consistently throughout. Lower frequency terms such as‘poverty sensitivity’/ ‘food poverty’/‘free-meal take-up’were also used consistently throughout. Poverty isdescribed inmany differentways as persistent’/‘relative’/‘continuous’/‘cumulative’/ ‘absolute’ but this is inkeepingwiththestillofficialquadripartitemeasureofchildpoverty.Thetermsusedinthegreyliteraturewereusedconsistentlythroughoutandarethesameastheonesusedintheacademicliterature.‘Devolvedpowers’,‘cost of school holidays’, ‘theunder-fives’ and ‘destitution’ appear here as newadditions compared to theacademic literature.

Date range searched: 2010 - 2016

Research summary:

Theacademicareasthatgovernthedomainofchildpovertyarebroadandoftencross-disciplinary.Thetablebelowshowsthenumberofacademicarticles/booksandreports/briefingsfromthegreyliteraturethatfallintothe various categories.

Academic fields Academic literature Grey literatureSociology 9 0Social Policy 6 4Social Work 5 7Psychology 3 0Health 6 0PublicHealth 1 3Psychiatry 1 0Housing 0 0Education 15 12PublicAdministration 1 10Food 1 0Childhood Studies 4 20Geographical focus Academic literature Grey literatureScotland 13 31UK 37 25Other 2 0

Research standards:Toensurehighquality,acriticalappraisalprocesswasapplied.

Literaturepublishedinpeerreviewjournalswas judgedashavingmetthequalitythreshold,thoughpaperswereexcluded if, for example, theydidnot articulatemethodsused to collectdata, featuredunaddressedlimitations,orweretooconceptualorproblem-focussedfortheneedsofthereview.

Toqualityreviewotherliterature,criticalappraisalcriteriaforqualitativeresearchwasdrawnon.

Anylimitationsinmethodologyandrobustnessoffindingsarehighlighted.

Thedraftreportwaspeer-reviewedanduser-reviewed.

28


Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Includedgeographies:UK,Scotland,England,Wales,NorthernIrelandandtheRepublicofIreland.

Data extraction and recording: Data recording: Data included in the evidence review was recorded in an evidence log. Data extraction:astandardiseddataextractiontemplatewasusedtosummarisestudy/publicationfeatures,linkfindingswithresearchquestions,andcaptureanyotherrelevantthemesorqualityissuesarising.Relevance checking: feedback was sought from the commissioning council, as needed, to ensure relevance and accessibility. Dates of searches: thereviewwasconductedbetweenthemonthsofJulyandOctober2016.

8.3 Acknowledgements

ThisreportwasproducedbytheEvidenceBank. ItwascommissionedbytheCouncilofSouthAyrshireanddeveloped in collaborationwithTheCentre forResearch forFamiliesandRelationships, tohelp inform theregional council on the potential causes of, and preventivemeasures they can undertake tomitigate childpoverty at a local level.Researchteam:WWSTeam–DrMoragTreanor,AlexandraMacht,SarahMortonandKarenSeditasPeerreviewer:ProfessorJohnMcKendrick,GlasgowCaledonianUniversityUserreviewers:MarionFairweather,ChildPovertyActionGroup,GeorgeHowie,PrincipalHealthImprovementOfficer,AberdeenshireHealth&SocialCarePartnership,Annette Johnston,TacklingPoverty& Inequalities,Aberdeenshire CouncilEditors: Cara Blaisdell, Charlie Mills and Sarah Morton

8.4 References

AingeRoy,E.(2016).Zero-hourcontractsbannedinNewZealand.TheGuardian.Asenova,D.,etal.(2015).Redistributionofsocialandsocietalrisks:theimpactonindividuals,theirnetworksandcommunitiesinScotland.York,JosephRowntreeFoundation.Armstrong-Walter,A(2016)Theroleoflocalgovernment.InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG.Barone,D.(2011).“WelcomingFamilies:AParentLiteracyProjectinaLinguisticallyRich,High-PovertySchool.”EarlyChildhoodEducationJournal38(5):377-384.Bradley,A.(2016)Theroleofeducationintacklingpoverty:aprogressreport.InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG.Browne, J. and R. Joyce (2011). Child and Working-Age Poverty from 2010 to 2020,InstituteforFiscalStudies.Butcher, D. (2015). The Cost of School Holidays - Executive Summary,CPAG-Scotland.Commission for Childcare Reform (CCR) (2015) Meeting Scotland’s Childcare Challenge. Edinburgh: Commission for Childcare Reform. Cooper, K., K. Stewart F. (2013). Does money affect children’s outcomes? A systematic review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.CPAGScotland(2014)Policy Bulletin on Sanctions 1A: November 2014 update.CPAGScotland(2015)Early Warning System findings on the impacts of benefit sanctions: Implications for policy and practice in Scotland. CPAGScotland(2016a)Reducing child poverty before and after birth – Information for midwives.CPAGScotland(2016b)What is welfare reform and how is it affecting families?

29


CPAGScotland(2016c)Welfare reform: the impact on families in Scotland.Crowley,A.andC.Vulliamy(2007).Listen up! : children and young people talk about poverty.Cardiff,SavetheChildren. Dermott,E.andM.Pomati(2016).Theparentingandeconomisingpracticesofloneparents:policyandevidence,Critical Social Policy 36(1): 62-81.Eisenstadt,N.(2016).Shifting the curve - a report for the First Minister.IndependentAdvisoronPovertyandInequality.Egan,J.andG.Inglis(2015).Improving partnership working between primary care and money advice services. GlasgowCentreforPopulationHealth.Elsley, S. (2014). Learning lessons: young people’s views on poverty and education in Scotland, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Save the Children. Fairer Fife Commission (2015) Fairness Matters, Fife: Fairer Fife Commission Green,M.(2007).Voices of people experiencing poverty in Scotland.York,JosephRowntreeFoundation.Gugushvili,D.andHirsch,D(2014)Means-tested and universal approaches to poverty: international evidence and how the UK compares. CRSP Working paper 640.Hancock,L.andMooney,G.(2013)“WelfareGhettos”andthe“BrokenSociety”:TerritorialStigmatizationintheContemporary UK, Housing, Theory and Society, 30:1.Harkness,S.andSkipp,A.(2013)Lone mothers, work and depression.London:TheNuffieldFoundation.Harris,J.,M.TreanorandN.Sharma(2009).Below the Breadline: A year in the life of families in poverty. London, Barnardos.HastingsA.,BaileyN.,BramleyG.,GannonM,WatkinsD.(2015).The cost of the cuts: a social impact tool for local authorities. JRF.Hirsch,D.(2007).Experiences of poverty and educational disadvantage.York:JosephRowntreefoundation.HMTreasury(2015).Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015.HMTreasury.London.Horgan,G. (2007).The impactofpovertyonyoungchildren’sexperienceof school.York: JosephRowntreeFoundation.HutchingsJ.,Griffith,N.,Bywater,T.,Williams,ME,andBaker-Henningham,H,Targetedvsuniversalprovisionofsupportinhigh-riskcommunities:comparisonofcharacteristicsintwopopulationsrecruitedtoparentinginterventions, Journal of Children’s Services,Vol.8Iss:3,pp.169-182JosephRowntreeFoundation(2016)UK Poverty: causes, costs and solutions, JRF: YorkKelly,P.(2016)Fairworkandpovertyreduction.InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG.Kenway P. (2014). Referendum briefing: child poverty in Scotland, York: JRF.MacInnes,T.,TinsonA.,HughesC.Born,TB,andAldridge,H.(2015)Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2015, York: JRF.McAdams,R.(2015).MonitoringchangesinschoolmealuptakefollowingtheintroductionofUniversalFreeSchoolMealsforP1-P3pupilsinScotland.N.H.Scotland.Edinburgh,NHSHealthScotland.McCulloch,H.(2016)Socialsecurity:atoolfortacklingpoverty.InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG.McKendrick,J.H.,etal.(2016).Poverty in Scotland 2016: Tools for Transformation,CPAG:London.McKendrick,J.H.,(2016)Wholivesinpoverty?InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG.McKendrick,J.H.,etal.(2003).LifeinLowIncomeFamiliesinScotland:ResearchReport.Edinburgh,ScottishGovernment.Millar,J.andRidge,T.M.,(2013).Lonemothersandpaidwork:The‘family-workproject’.International Review of Sociology, 23 (3), pp. 564-577.Mooney,Gerry(2011).Stigmatising poverty? The ‘Broken Society’ and reflections on anti-welfarism in the UK today.Oxford:Oxfam.

30


Morton, S. and Seditas, K. (2016). Evidence synthesis for knowledge exchange: balancing responsiveness and qualityinprovidingevidenceforpolicyandpractice.Evidence & Policy.Fastrack:http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/pre-prints/content-evp_103.Naven,L.andJ.Egan(2013).AddressingchildpovertyinScotland:theroleofnurses,Primary Health Care (2013) 23(5): 16-22.Oltermann, P. (2016) State handouts for all? Europe set to pilot universal basic incomes (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/02/state-handouts-for-all-europe-set-to-pilot-universal-basic-incomes accessed6October2016).OPFS(n.d.).Single Parents’ Programme for Change: Policy Priorities to Support One Parent Families.Perry,J.,Williams,M.,Sefton,T.,andHaddad.M.(2015)Emergency Use Only Understanding and reducing the use of food banks in the UK.Oxford:TheChildPovertyActionGroup,ChurchofEngland,OxfamGBandTheTrussell Trust.Ridge,T.(2013).‘WeareAllinThisTogether’?TheHiddenCostsofPoverty,RecessionandAusterityPoliciesonBritain’s Poorest Children, Children & Society 27(5): 406-417.Ridge,T.(2011).TheEverydayCostsofPovertyinChildhood:AReviewofQualitativeResearchExploringtheLivesandExperiencesofLow-IncomeChildrenintheUK.Children & Society 25(1): 73-84. Ridge, T. and Millar, J., (2011) Following families: working lone-mother families and their children. Social Policy and Administration, 45 (1), pp. 85-97.Ridge, T., 2009. ‘It didn’t alwayswork’: Low-income children’s experiences of changes inmothers’workingpatternsintheUK.Social Policy and Society, 8 (04), pp. 503-513.Sahota,P.,etal. (2014). ‘Factors influencing take-upof freeschoolmeals inprimary-andsecondary-schoolchildren in England.’ Public Health Nutrition 17(6): 1271-1279.Save the Children (2011) Making work pay: the childcare trap. Save the Children: London.Schoon,I.,etal.(2012).‘Familyhardship,familyinstability,andcognitivedevelopment.’Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 66(8): 716-722.Schoon, I., et al. (2010). Familyhardship and children’sdevelopment: theearly years.Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 1(3): 209-222.Scott,G.,(2016)Povertyandthechildcarechallenge.InMcKendricketal(eds.)Poverty in Scotland 2016: tools for transformation.London:CPAG.Sime,D.andM.Sheridan(2014).‘‘Youwantthebestforyourkids’:improvingeducationaloutcomesforchildrenliving in poverty through parental engagement.’ Educational Research 56(3): 327-342.Simpson,D.,etal.(2015).‘Pre-schoolpractitioners,childpovertyandsocialjustice.’The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 35(5/6): 325-339.Slater,T.(2014)TheMythof“BrokenBritain:WelfareReformandtheProductionofIgnorance.AntipodeVol.46no.4,pp.948–969.Spencer, S. (2015). The cost of the school day.Glasgow,ChildPovertyActionGroupinScotland.Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: a survey of household resources and standards of living. Harmondsworth,Penguin.Treanor, M. (2012). Impacts of poverty on children and young people.Stirling,ScottishChildcareandProtectionNetwork.Treanor, M. (2016a). A pockets approach to financial vulnerability.(Briefingpaperno83)Edinburgh,CRFR.Treanor,M. (2016b). ‘TheEffects of Financial Vulnerability andMothers EmotionalDistressonChild Social,EmotionalandBehaviouralWell-Being:AStructuralEquationModel.’Sociology 50(4): 673-694.Treanor,M.(2016c).‘Socialassets,lowincomeandchildsocial,emotionalandbehaviouralwellbeing.’Families, Relationships and Societies 5(2): 209-228.UNICEF(2010).The children left behind: a league table of inequality in child wellbeing in the world’s rich countries. Florence,InnocentiResearchCentre.Utting,D.(2016).Building better outcomes for children through evidence based practice: an evaluation of the

Evidence2Success project in Perth & Kinross.York,JosephRowntreeFoundation.Walker, R. (2014) The Shame of Poverty.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Woodward,J.,etal.(2015).‘Interventionstoincreasefreeschoolmealtake-up.’Health Education 115(2): 197-213.

what works scotlandwhatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/wwsactionstoprevent... · by...

Documents