Childhood poverty is unacceptable. From the pure humanitarian perspective no innocent child should be living in substandard conditions, whilst from a harshly capitalist perspective poor children are less likely to grow up into contributing citizens and in the meantime are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases and many other problems which cost society. Regardless of political bias, all reasonable viewpoints acknowledge both extremes and agree that childhood poverty should ideally be eradicated. And so, all civilised societies will take measures to endeavour that childhood poverty is eliminated: mostly through some combination of social subsidies, supportive interventions and family enablement.
But, what do we mean by childhood poverty? Much of the world, including the UK, presently defines a child as being raised in poverty if they are living in a household where the income is below 60% of the median national income. The 2010 Child Poverty Act set a target that no more than 10% of children should live in households with an income below 70% of the national median, and a maximum of 5% below this 60% and none in poverty for more than three years. This approach, whilst relatively easy to measure, is flawed. Given that we live in a society where minimum household income is defined by a minimum wage and state benefits, this means that during a recession where median income drops, then the rate of child poverty will apparently decrease. That is patently absurd since the family without enough money for their children’s food or money for clothes, still hasn’t enough. Similarly if the economy is booming, then this will make the number of children in poverty appear to increase – which may be happening, but is certainly not demonstrated by this measure.
Also, 5% of Britain’s children in severe poverty, however measured, is 5% too many. Right now, Barnardo’s estimate 3.6m children living under the 70% threshold, and 1.5m below the 60% threshold. Even if we were achieving the targets in the 2010 act, we would still see half a million children in poverty in Britain. In the world’s 5th largest economy, that should be deemed unacceptable.
A more rational definition of poverty would be based upon absolutes. In simplistic terms we can define what those are: a child should be living in a way that gives them a healthy and adequate diet, protection from harm caused by their environment, adequate clothing and healthcare, and a chance to be well educated.
It’s much harder however to put detail on this. What do we mean by a healthy diet? – scientists can argue about this, and the same answer may not be identical for any two children. Protection from harm could be defined in terms of environmental factors such as pollution, or protection from crime, or from domestic violence: each of which get progressively harder to measure. Is adequate clothing defined by simple comfort, or by fitting in with their peers? Should education be to age 16, 18 or 21? And how good should it be? Do you define children only able to attend a failing school as in poverty by definition? Clearly, whilst the use of an absolute definition of poverty is preferable, actually creating that definition is incredibly difficult.
In reality, we can’t do so by defining the environment – to do that would require a level of detail, and interference with individual citizens’ lives, that is both practically unachievable and morally unacceptable. However, it would be feasible to define and cost a series of “sample environments” – let us say a minimum standard of housing, clothing, diet, educational and healthcare access – that are appropriate in a particular time and place. It’s likely that this will require some regional variation: just as the newly renamed “living wage” does – things are different in spread out rural communities and city centres, but this could be done: with buy-in by society, to a fair degree. And once this has been done, it can be costed.
At which point, the UK will have a really valuable piece of information – a meaningful, verifiable, and updateable definition of child poverty by which Britain can really know the scale of the problem. Child poverty certainly does exist in Britain, and every effort should be made to eliminate it: ultimately to a better standard than that targeted by the 2010 act – but that can only be done by having a truthful value of how much money is needed to raise a child properly in any given region and time: that’s not done by using the present crude measure based upon national median income.
We should be clear that doing this may make child poverty appear worse than the present measure, and certainly gives no government any way to duck this incredibly important issue. But, it would give a measure by which we can genuinely know the extent to which child poverty exists in Britain, and a tool to measure the success of every player: from national government to individual families, in eliminating it. That measure is an important step in moving towards an ideal of genuine eradication of child poverty,