Friday, 25 January 2013

Family stability is not a measure of child poverty

As I’m working on two poverty-related projects at the moment, one of which is aimed directly at the government’s consultation on measuring child poverty, I was intrigued to read the Poverty and Social Exclusion research team’s paper slamming the consultation document (deadline 15 February), which it describes as being ‘of very poor quality’.

The paper includes the PSE team's responses to the consultation. Given the tendency in some policy circles to try to associate poverty with certain kinds of family, and to distance it from the structural effects of policy decisions, I particularly appreciated this note:

Q21: Which experiences associated with family stability should be captured in a measure?

None. Again family stability is not a measure of child poverty. Neither is family structure. Most poor children live in two-parent families. There is a higher risk of child poverty in lone parent and cohabiting families but this is a function of our social policy in the UK…

 

25 Jan 2013 09:03:45 | Social exclusion, Social policy

1 Comment

I agree with this study. This is evident in our place. Child delinquency mostly happen to broken families and single parenthood.

This study is worth reflecting to all the married couples around the globe.

Posted by: Niven Villasenor | Wednesday, 20 March 2013 at 08:10

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Towers or not, could we please have decent housing? (And get on with it) There doesn’t seem to be much chance of the economy being stimulated to get the badly needed house-building underway (most cabinet ministers have got enough for the time being), so it’s a good time to give the housing industry something to do. The Policy Exchange calls for the widespread demolition of tower blocks. I’ve spoken to quite a few people who love living the high life, but if the PX findings from their recent study are accurate, then there are clearly too many children and young people cooped up in box flats too far from the outdoors. They claim that: 52,000 households with children who are social renters live on the third floor or above (40,000 of which are in London) 20,000 households with children who are social renters live on the fifth floor or above (16,000 of which are in London). The argument may need a little more nuanced understanding. The press release says that: ‘Studies have shown that residents of high-rise blocks or large estates suffer from more stress, mental health difficulties, neurosis and marriage breakdowns’ - and it’s worth asking about the extent to which these dysfunctions might be caused by, exacerbated by, or coincidental to, the housing conditions. Do they occur to a statistically significant extent in well-designed, well-built, well-maintained towers? Meanwhile, we seem to be witnessing an increase in the construction of highly secure high-rise buildings for the wealthy. Is a pattern going to emerge, the posh with their heads in the clouds and the plebs brought down to earth? Perhaps we need to emphasise that design and build quality really must be part of the argument. It’s all very well calling for low rise, but maybe this image can serve as a reminder that bad low rise can be problematic. It would help to breathe life back into the archived CABE (decommissioned by the present government in 2011), because this was their business. It seems to me to be hard for the present government to escape the charge that they have squandered previous progress on decent homes standards.
PREVIOUS POST
Privacy and the 'neighbor across the hall' Even doing what she regards as nothing, Debbie seems to have a neighbour who invades her privacy: 'Did it ever occur to you that I didn't turn on the TV or stereo because I know you're spying on me and I'd like to be able to just be AWAKE without you knowing about it?'

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments