a post by Lizzie Flew, Senior Communications and Campaigns Officer, for the CPAG blog
“It’s a fundamental principle in a democracy that governmental bodies must have reasons for their decisions… that they should be able to explain what those reasons are… [and any] decision should be open to review or appeal.” So begins our latest report, Computer says ‘No!’ These words are from former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, who offers the benefit of his many years of legal experience to something that often gets overlooked as too technical, but which can affect the day-to-day lives of many people: what information claimants are given about decisions relating to their universal credit support, and what information they have about challenging any of those decisions.
Our new report exposes how people claiming universal credit are kept in the dark about what they are getting – the online statements do not explain in full how universal credit amounts are calculated. This means that people cannot easily check if they are getting what they should be getting, and find it harder to predict how their payment will change if their circumstances do. This matters not just because we know the government does get things wrong when calculating benefits, but also because there is a vital principle at stake. In our social security system, decisions are made all the time about what support people are entitled to (for example when they are awarded help with rent, deemed fit for work, or given a sanction). If people cannot clearly see what those decisions are, they cannot challenge them when errors are made.
Continue reading
A difference of £400 a month between what has been allocated and what should have been is extreme but I read other sources where the amounts are of the order of £30-40 a week. That is the difference between eating and not having enough money for basic foodstuffs.
Showing posts with label CPAG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPAG. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Wednesday, 1 May 2019
Is universal credit working for working people? – Usdaw members’ experiences
a post by Kelly-Marie Jones (Welfare Rights Adviser | Early Warning System) for the CPAG blog
Since 2010, the government has ignored rising child poverty while repeating the mantra that work is the best route out of poverty. Work is indeed a factor in escaping poverty, but it needs to be secure work, with a decent wage, decent hours and prospects. In-work poverty is on the rise with 70 per cent of children growing up in poverty having a parent who works. Together with colleagues at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (Usdaw), we set out to discover how the introduction of universal credit has affected Usdaw members.
Usdaw recently surveyed members receiving universal credit (UC). The results show that UC is not always supporting people out of poverty through work, or even upholding the early promise that “no-one will experience a reduction in the benefit they receive as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit”. Only one out of 25 respondents said they were better off on UC and nearly half reported being worse off. The biggest losses were borne by families with children, with one couple reporting a loss of £250 a month and a single parent losing as much as £320.
Getting hold of their entitlement, such as it was, wasn’t an easy process. Nearly half of survey respondents reported finding the claim process difficult, very difficult or even impossible – and only two of those received help with their claim. Difficulties included having to attend Jobcentre appointments around work hours and having their claim closed so having to start the claim process again.
Continue reading
Since 2010, the government has ignored rising child poverty while repeating the mantra that work is the best route out of poverty. Work is indeed a factor in escaping poverty, but it needs to be secure work, with a decent wage, decent hours and prospects. In-work poverty is on the rise with 70 per cent of children growing up in poverty having a parent who works. Together with colleagues at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (Usdaw), we set out to discover how the introduction of universal credit has affected Usdaw members.
Usdaw recently surveyed members receiving universal credit (UC). The results show that UC is not always supporting people out of poverty through work, or even upholding the early promise that “no-one will experience a reduction in the benefit they receive as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit”. Only one out of 25 respondents said they were better off on UC and nearly half reported being worse off. The biggest losses were borne by families with children, with one couple reporting a loss of £250 a month and a single parent losing as much as £320.
Getting hold of their entitlement, such as it was, wasn’t an easy process. Nearly half of survey respondents reported finding the claim process difficult, very difficult or even impossible – and only two of those received help with their claim. Difficulties included having to attend Jobcentre appointments around work hours and having their claim closed so having to start the claim process again.
Continue reading
Monday, 15 April 2019
Tackling Child Poverty in Schools: a role for school librarians?
a post by Sophie Howes (Senior Policy and Research Officer) for the CPAG blog
Child poverty in the UK
Child poverty in the UK is rising. The Institute for Fiscal Studies projects that child poverty will rise from the current level of 4.1 million to 5.2 million by 2021/22. This is largely due to cuts in the social security system that many children and families rely on. At the same time, other public services have seen significant cutbacks, which can leave families struggling on low incomes with little support.
Increasing child poverty is worrying for schools, because poverty at home is the strongest statistical predictor of how well a child will achieve at school. On average poorer children have worse cognitive, socio-behavioural, physical, and mental health than their better-off peers. They are less likely to do well at school; in 2015 only 33% of students eligible for free school meals got five ‘good’ passes at GCSE (A*-C) compared with 61% of those not eligible. Poorer children are more likely to be persistently absent and four times more likely to be permanently excluded from school, with obvious impacts for their education. Evidence suggests that these impacts are both a result of direct deprivation (e.g. inadequate housing leading to poor sleep or lack of space to do homework, difficulties providing healthy food, less ability to afford computers and extracurricular activities) and the impact of coping with poverty on parents’ mental health.
Whilst this paints a depressing picture, schools don’t have to wait for direction from central government to take action on child poverty. On a local level, there is much that can be done by schools and other key public services to tackle child poverty. At CPAG we have been involved in some projects that focus on working with schools to prevent and mitigate the impact of child poverty on children’s education.
Continue reading
Child poverty in the UK
Child poverty in the UK is rising. The Institute for Fiscal Studies projects that child poverty will rise from the current level of 4.1 million to 5.2 million by 2021/22. This is largely due to cuts in the social security system that many children and families rely on. At the same time, other public services have seen significant cutbacks, which can leave families struggling on low incomes with little support.
Increasing child poverty is worrying for schools, because poverty at home is the strongest statistical predictor of how well a child will achieve at school. On average poorer children have worse cognitive, socio-behavioural, physical, and mental health than their better-off peers. They are less likely to do well at school; in 2015 only 33% of students eligible for free school meals got five ‘good’ passes at GCSE (A*-C) compared with 61% of those not eligible. Poorer children are more likely to be persistently absent and four times more likely to be permanently excluded from school, with obvious impacts for their education. Evidence suggests that these impacts are both a result of direct deprivation (e.g. inadequate housing leading to poor sleep or lack of space to do homework, difficulties providing healthy food, less ability to afford computers and extracurricular activities) and the impact of coping with poverty on parents’ mental health.
Whilst this paints a depressing picture, schools don’t have to wait for direction from central government to take action on child poverty. On a local level, there is much that can be done by schools and other key public services to tackle child poverty. At CPAG we have been involved in some projects that focus on working with schools to prevent and mitigate the impact of child poverty on children’s education.
Continue reading
Monday, 8 April 2019
Why food is not the answer to hunger in the UK
a post by Alison Garnham (Chief Executive) for the CPAG blog
In a week when CPAG has published the brilliant new book Living hand to mouth – children and food in low income families by Rebecca O’Connell, Abigail Knight and Julia Brannen, it might seem strange to suggest that food is not the solution to hunger.
The book documents, in heart-breaking detail, children and families’ experiences of going without, being hungry to the point of experiencing pain and re-visiting an empty cupboard in the hope that some food might have appeared since the last inspection. It also recounts the everyday episodes of stigma and shame children experience from not being allowed their choice of food from their canteen-style free school meal or making excuses to avoid social occasions with friends because they can’t afford the costs involved.
Yes, the children and families in the book are going hungry. They should not be, and the fact that they are should make us rightly outraged that our friends and neighbours are living like this in 2019. We live in a country where food is plentiful – we don’t lack food, but some of us lack the resources to buy it. The same goes for money for rent, fuel to heat our homes and cook the food, nappies for children, clothes, household equipment, travel and toiletries.
Continue reading
In a week when CPAG has published the brilliant new book Living hand to mouth – children and food in low income families by Rebecca O’Connell, Abigail Knight and Julia Brannen, it might seem strange to suggest that food is not the solution to hunger.
The book documents, in heart-breaking detail, children and families’ experiences of going without, being hungry to the point of experiencing pain and re-visiting an empty cupboard in the hope that some food might have appeared since the last inspection. It also recounts the everyday episodes of stigma and shame children experience from not being allowed their choice of food from their canteen-style free school meal or making excuses to avoid social occasions with friends because they can’t afford the costs involved.
Yes, the children and families in the book are going hungry. They should not be, and the fact that they are should make us rightly outraged that our friends and neighbours are living like this in 2019. We live in a country where food is plentiful – we don’t lack food, but some of us lack the resources to buy it. The same goes for money for rent, fuel to heat our homes and cook the food, nappies for children, clothes, household equipment, travel and toiletries.
Continue reading
Sunday, 31 March 2019
The new face of child poverty
a post by Lizzie Flew for the CPAG blog
Every March the government releases raw data on poverty – called Households Below Average Income. Presented without government spin, we can look at the numerous tables and work out what these numbers – which look so benign on a spreadsheet – mean for actual children. Children growing up worried about money, missing out on things other kids take for granted, and taking the effects of poverty with them into adulthood. What can we learn from the stats this year? Child poverty remains at 4.1 million according to the main measure we focus on (children whose families live below 60% of the median income) – not something to celebrate given this is still half a million more than 2010, but at least it hasn’t risen. But there is a lot to be concerned about beneath this headline figure.
First, despite the continued government rhetoric that work is the best route out of poverty, 70% of children in poverty now live in working families – up from 67% last year. We now have record levels of employment and record levels of families working for their poverty.
Second, the face of child poverty is getting younger – the proportion of children in poverty who are under the age of five has risen from 51% to 53% (over 2 million children) and this is really worrying. Poverty is bad for children at any age, but given what we know about how important the early years are for development, and the recent rise in infant mortality among disadvantaged children, this is of particular concern. Parents with very young children are less likely to be working full time. The benefit cap – which limits benefits for families where no one works more than 16 hours a week or earns more than a certain threshold - disproportionately affects single parents with very young children (who are not expected to work, so might reasonably not be expected to work to avoid the cap), further holding their incomes down.
Third, the risk of poverty for children in families with three or more children has gone up from 32% in 2012 to 43% today. The two-child limit, brought in for babies born after April 2017, may be pulling these families under. They are also hit hard by the freeze on benefits as the cost of essentials has risen, and in some cases by the benefit cap.
Fourth, it’s important to look at how far below the poverty line some children are living. Today’s stats show that there are 200,000 more children in severe poverty (in families on less than 50% of the median income). There are 600,000 more children in severe poverty than five years ago.
Continue reading
Lots of links to the original statistical reports etc.
Every March the government releases raw data on poverty – called Households Below Average Income. Presented without government spin, we can look at the numerous tables and work out what these numbers – which look so benign on a spreadsheet – mean for actual children. Children growing up worried about money, missing out on things other kids take for granted, and taking the effects of poverty with them into adulthood. What can we learn from the stats this year? Child poverty remains at 4.1 million according to the main measure we focus on (children whose families live below 60% of the median income) – not something to celebrate given this is still half a million more than 2010, but at least it hasn’t risen. But there is a lot to be concerned about beneath this headline figure.
First, despite the continued government rhetoric that work is the best route out of poverty, 70% of children in poverty now live in working families – up from 67% last year. We now have record levels of employment and record levels of families working for their poverty.
Second, the face of child poverty is getting younger – the proportion of children in poverty who are under the age of five has risen from 51% to 53% (over 2 million children) and this is really worrying. Poverty is bad for children at any age, but given what we know about how important the early years are for development, and the recent rise in infant mortality among disadvantaged children, this is of particular concern. Parents with very young children are less likely to be working full time. The benefit cap – which limits benefits for families where no one works more than 16 hours a week or earns more than a certain threshold - disproportionately affects single parents with very young children (who are not expected to work, so might reasonably not be expected to work to avoid the cap), further holding their incomes down.
Third, the risk of poverty for children in families with three or more children has gone up from 32% in 2012 to 43% today. The two-child limit, brought in for babies born after April 2017, may be pulling these families under. They are also hit hard by the freeze on benefits as the cost of essentials has risen, and in some cases by the benefit cap.
Fourth, it’s important to look at how far below the poverty line some children are living. Today’s stats show that there are 200,000 more children in severe poverty (in families on less than 50% of the median income). There are 600,000 more children in severe poverty than five years ago.
Continue reading
Lots of links to the original statistical reports etc.
Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Localisation of social security: what can the advice sector tell us?
a post by Alice Woudhuysen (London Campaign Manager) for the CPAG blog
In the last few years, a slew of reports have been published focusing on the impact of the coalition government’s decision to localise various elements of the national social security system, including council tax benefit (now council tax support) and the discretionary social fund (now local welfare assistance). See CPAG and Zacchaeus 2000 Trust’s report Still Too Poor To Pay on the impact of council tax support on Londoners and Greater Manchester Poverty Action’s study on the collapse of crisis support in England.
In 2011, the government saw localisation as: “…the most effective means of ensuring sufficient local flexibility to secure the planned reduction in expenditure, reflecting local circumstance and priorities...” In other words, it believed that handing decision-making on entitlement to local authorities was the best way of ensuring that limited resources reached those who were most in need. While the government made blunt cuts to budgets, it called upon local authorities to add the nuance to local schemes, in order to protect the most vulnerable.
The reports mentioned above have focused on the effect of localisation on vulnerable people and on local authorities. They have concluded – somewhat depressingly - that localisation has enabled central government to reduce local authority budgets, leading to great financial uncertainty, which in turn has led to local social security provision being cut back and vulnerable people effectively slipping through the net.
Continue reading
In the last few years, a slew of reports have been published focusing on the impact of the coalition government’s decision to localise various elements of the national social security system, including council tax benefit (now council tax support) and the discretionary social fund (now local welfare assistance). See CPAG and Zacchaeus 2000 Trust’s report Still Too Poor To Pay on the impact of council tax support on Londoners and Greater Manchester Poverty Action’s study on the collapse of crisis support in England.
In 2011, the government saw localisation as: “…the most effective means of ensuring sufficient local flexibility to secure the planned reduction in expenditure, reflecting local circumstance and priorities...” In other words, it believed that handing decision-making on entitlement to local authorities was the best way of ensuring that limited resources reached those who were most in need. While the government made blunt cuts to budgets, it called upon local authorities to add the nuance to local schemes, in order to protect the most vulnerable.
The reports mentioned above have focused on the effect of localisation on vulnerable people and on local authorities. They have concluded – somewhat depressingly - that localisation has enabled central government to reduce local authority budgets, leading to great financial uncertainty, which in turn has led to local social security provision being cut back and vulnerable people effectively slipping through the net.
Continue reading
Friday, 9 March 2018
Local child poverty estimates are difficult, but essential to expose the stark realities of geographic inequality
a post by Donald Hirsch (Loughborough Univerisity) for the CPAG blog
Which of the following statements tells you more?
Around 4 million of Britain’s 14 million children live in households classified as in poverty because they have below 60% of median income after housing costs.
Among the 2,200 children who live in the Notting Barns area of Kensington, site of Grenfell Tower, nearly a thousand are in families with very low incomes. Just over half a mile away, among the 2,200 children living in three wards around Kensington High Street and Cromwell Road, only 150 are in this situation.
In fact each statement is useful: the first shows the overall extent of child poverty and the second what it looks like on the ground.
Continue reading
but if you really can’t then do, please, read this final paragraph from the Director of the Centre for Research in Social Policy. Donald Hirsch knows what he's talking about.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts that child poverty will continue to rise at an alarming rate, more than wiping out the considerable falls that took place in the 2000s. This will have very real impacts at the local level, which we will continue to estimate. A government that simultaneously publishes these figures but boasts about its progress on another measure purporting to show the opposite has its head stuck very firmly in the sand.
Which of the following statements tells you more?
Around 4 million of Britain’s 14 million children live in households classified as in poverty because they have below 60% of median income after housing costs.
Among the 2,200 children who live in the Notting Barns area of Kensington, site of Grenfell Tower, nearly a thousand are in families with very low incomes. Just over half a mile away, among the 2,200 children living in three wards around Kensington High Street and Cromwell Road, only 150 are in this situation.
In fact each statement is useful: the first shows the overall extent of child poverty and the second what it looks like on the ground.
Continue reading
but if you really can’t then do, please, read this final paragraph from the Director of the Centre for Research in Social Policy. Donald Hirsch knows what he's talking about.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts that child poverty will continue to rise at an alarming rate, more than wiping out the considerable falls that took place in the 2000s. This will have very real impacts at the local level, which we will continue to estimate. A government that simultaneously publishes these figures but boasts about its progress on another measure purporting to show the opposite has its head stuck very firmly in the sand.
Tuesday, 27 February 2018
OBR sceptical about DWP's claims about Universal Credit
a post by Johnathan Bradshaw (Emeritus Professor of Social Policy | University of York) for the CPAG blog
The roll-out of Universal Credit may be running five years later than planned, having wasted £40 million in botched IT, and been emasculated by austerity cuts since 2015, but its advocates in the DWP still argue that it is all going to be worthwhile in the end because its labour supply effects will get people into work and onto higher earnings. Sir Robert Devereux, the DWP Permanent Secretary, claimed this in a retirement interview: “the roll-out will see unemployment rates fall as disincentives are taken out of the system”. Esther McVey, the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, even seemed to claim that 3.1 million extra people were in work as a result of UC when at the time only 700,000 were on it.
The impact assessment for UC in 2012 estimated that between 100,000 and 300,000 people would enter work and between 1 million and 2.5 million more hours would be worked as a result of UC. A parliamentary question in 2017 reduced the entering work number to 150,000 and made no claim on extra hours. The DWP presented estimates of the impact of UC in reports published in 2015 (the initial report and an update) and a further update in 2017. The latter found that that UC claimants were 3 percentage points more likely to be in work after six months than matched jobseeker’s allowance claimants (56 per cent versus 53 per cent).
Continue reading
There’s links to different reports and primary sources. The general feeling of the post is that Universal Credit is a mess (as if most of us did not know that already).
The roll-out of Universal Credit may be running five years later than planned, having wasted £40 million in botched IT, and been emasculated by austerity cuts since 2015, but its advocates in the DWP still argue that it is all going to be worthwhile in the end because its labour supply effects will get people into work and onto higher earnings. Sir Robert Devereux, the DWP Permanent Secretary, claimed this in a retirement interview: “the roll-out will see unemployment rates fall as disincentives are taken out of the system”. Esther McVey, the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, even seemed to claim that 3.1 million extra people were in work as a result of UC when at the time only 700,000 were on it.
The impact assessment for UC in 2012 estimated that between 100,000 and 300,000 people would enter work and between 1 million and 2.5 million more hours would be worked as a result of UC. A parliamentary question in 2017 reduced the entering work number to 150,000 and made no claim on extra hours. The DWP presented estimates of the impact of UC in reports published in 2015 (the initial report and an update) and a further update in 2017. The latter found that that UC claimants were 3 percentage points more likely to be in work after six months than matched jobseeker’s allowance claimants (56 per cent versus 53 per cent).
Continue reading
There’s links to different reports and primary sources. The general feeling of the post is that Universal Credit is a mess (as if most of us did not know that already).
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Six key points from 'The Austerity Generation: the impact of a decade of cuts on families with children'
a post by Alison Garnham, Chief Executive in the Child Poverty Action Group blog
Today [6 November 2017], CPAG publishes a major new study on the impact of austerity on families with children: ‘The Austerity Generation: the impact of a decade of cuts on family incomes and child poverty‘.
Here are the key points:
1. The promise of greater rewards from work under universal credit - its organising idea - has been broken.
Universal credit (like tax credits) has been mercilessly cut by the Treasury. The universal credit system we have today isn’t the same as the one that was sold to us.
Working families in the UK stand to lose £930 a year on average from cuts in the tax credit system and £420 a year from cuts to universal credit – these are losses across the population, so the losses for tax credit and universal credit recipients would be much higher.
2. David Cameron’s single mother is a good example of how badly universal credit is failing
In 2009, in his last party conference speech before being elected as Prime Minister, David Cameron had an angry riff on tax credits leaving a single mother with two children, earning £150 a week, facing an effective tax rate of 96p (factoring in the withdrawal of benefit and additional taxes) if she worked another hour. You can watch the short clip here: https://twitter.com/imran_1/status/926381637511843840
Our new report includes a lone parent with children as a model family. Earning £150 a week means working about 18.5 hours. Although universal credit reduces the effective tax rate to 74 per cent, this lone parent and her children would be £2,336 a year worse off (see box 4.2 and figure 4.10 of the report). In other words, like many others on universal credit, this family’s finances have been thrown down a deep hole with only a very short ladder thrown in to get them out of it.
3. It is almost impossible for many to make up these losses by working more hours
Freezes and cuts to universal credit work allowances will leave lone parents worse off by, on average, £710 a year, couples £250 a year (again, losses here are across the whole population – they’ll be much higher for those affected).
In order to make up the losses caused by the cut in work allowances in universal credit, for example, a full-time working couple on the so-called ‘national living wage’ would have to work 17 extra days a year.
A lone parent already working full time for the ‘national living wage’ would have to work 41 extra days a year to recoup their loss – equivalent to a fourteen month year. In any case, working extra days will depend on family responsibilities and whether it’s actually possible to increase your hours at work.
4. Families already at greater risk of poverty will lose most
The poorest 10 per cent will lose 10 per cent of their income (£450 a year) on average compared with what was promised by universal credit.
For larger families, cuts to universal credit mean the average family with three children will be 10 per cent (£2,540 a year) worse off, and the average family with four or more children 19 per cent (£5,000 a year) worse off due to universal credit cuts.
Cuts to universal credit mean families containing someone with a disability will be £300 a year worse off; families containing someone with a severe disability will be £530 a year worse off.
5. We’re creating an austerity generation
Since 2010, rather than investing in our children, government policy has been creating an Austerity Generation whose childhoods and life chances will be scarred by a decade of political decisions to stop protecting their living standards.
A major study by the LSE found poorer children have worse cognitive, social-behavioural and health outcomes because they are poor, and not just because poverty is correlated with other household and parental characteristics.
Our study today estimates that the cuts to universal credit would put 1,000,000 children in poverty and 900,000 in severe poverty by the end of the decade (assuming it was fully rolled-out by then).
6. Universal credit needs a full-scale rescue mission
This month’s Budget is an opportunity for the Chancellor to mount a full-scale rescue mission for universal credit. CPAG was the first to sound the alarm about the 6 week wait for universal credit, so progress on that would be very welcome, but this report makes it clear that the problems are more fundamental – the whole point of universal credit is being undermined.
The Chancellor should use this month’s Budget to:
Restore work allowances – the income level at which universal credit starts to be withdrawn. This would benefit all working families by an average of £150 a year – so those on universal credit would benefit by much more than this figure.
Triple-lock child benefit and the child element of universal credit: this would be the single most effective intervention to reduce child poverty (it would reduce numbers by 600,000).
Full report (PDF 98pp)
Today [6 November 2017], CPAG publishes a major new study on the impact of austerity on families with children: ‘The Austerity Generation: the impact of a decade of cuts on family incomes and child poverty‘.
Here are the key points:
1. The promise of greater rewards from work under universal credit - its organising idea - has been broken.
Universal credit (like tax credits) has been mercilessly cut by the Treasury. The universal credit system we have today isn’t the same as the one that was sold to us.
Working families in the UK stand to lose £930 a year on average from cuts in the tax credit system and £420 a year from cuts to universal credit – these are losses across the population, so the losses for tax credit and universal credit recipients would be much higher.
2. David Cameron’s single mother is a good example of how badly universal credit is failing
In 2009, in his last party conference speech before being elected as Prime Minister, David Cameron had an angry riff on tax credits leaving a single mother with two children, earning £150 a week, facing an effective tax rate of 96p (factoring in the withdrawal of benefit and additional taxes) if she worked another hour. You can watch the short clip here: https://twitter.com/imran_1/status/926381637511843840
Our new report includes a lone parent with children as a model family. Earning £150 a week means working about 18.5 hours. Although universal credit reduces the effective tax rate to 74 per cent, this lone parent and her children would be £2,336 a year worse off (see box 4.2 and figure 4.10 of the report). In other words, like many others on universal credit, this family’s finances have been thrown down a deep hole with only a very short ladder thrown in to get them out of it.
3. It is almost impossible for many to make up these losses by working more hours
Freezes and cuts to universal credit work allowances will leave lone parents worse off by, on average, £710 a year, couples £250 a year (again, losses here are across the whole population – they’ll be much higher for those affected).
In order to make up the losses caused by the cut in work allowances in universal credit, for example, a full-time working couple on the so-called ‘national living wage’ would have to work 17 extra days a year.
A lone parent already working full time for the ‘national living wage’ would have to work 41 extra days a year to recoup their loss – equivalent to a fourteen month year. In any case, working extra days will depend on family responsibilities and whether it’s actually possible to increase your hours at work.
4. Families already at greater risk of poverty will lose most
The poorest 10 per cent will lose 10 per cent of their income (£450 a year) on average compared with what was promised by universal credit.
For larger families, cuts to universal credit mean the average family with three children will be 10 per cent (£2,540 a year) worse off, and the average family with four or more children 19 per cent (£5,000 a year) worse off due to universal credit cuts.
Cuts to universal credit mean families containing someone with a disability will be £300 a year worse off; families containing someone with a severe disability will be £530 a year worse off.
5. We’re creating an austerity generation
Since 2010, rather than investing in our children, government policy has been creating an Austerity Generation whose childhoods and life chances will be scarred by a decade of political decisions to stop protecting their living standards.
A major study by the LSE found poorer children have worse cognitive, social-behavioural and health outcomes because they are poor, and not just because poverty is correlated with other household and parental characteristics.
Our study today estimates that the cuts to universal credit would put 1,000,000 children in poverty and 900,000 in severe poverty by the end of the decade (assuming it was fully rolled-out by then).
6. Universal credit needs a full-scale rescue mission
This month’s Budget is an opportunity for the Chancellor to mount a full-scale rescue mission for universal credit. CPAG was the first to sound the alarm about the 6 week wait for universal credit, so progress on that would be very welcome, but this report makes it clear that the problems are more fundamental – the whole point of universal credit is being undermined.
The Chancellor should use this month’s Budget to:
Restore work allowances – the income level at which universal credit starts to be withdrawn. This would benefit all working families by an average of £150 a year – so those on universal credit would benefit by much more than this figure.
Triple-lock child benefit and the child element of universal credit: this would be the single most effective intervention to reduce child poverty (it would reduce numbers by 600,000).
Full report (PDF 98pp)
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Britain Works
a post by Jane Mansour for the Child Poverty Action Group blog
Work has been the biggest anti-poverty policy of recent decades, with support delivered under banners of ‘making work pay’, and calls for people to ‘work their way out of poverty’. However, people living in poverty are increasingly likely to be working. The UK’s wage fall since the 2008 financial crisis has been unmatched by any other large economy. This will be exacerbated by the Universal Credit roll out. Families are being pushed into financial hardship and work incentives damaged, particularly for second earners, single parents and those moving into self-employment.
Whether the focus is on stagnant or falling wages, rising prices, use of zero hour contracts, self-employment, impact of automation or retailers’ warehouses – work has barely been out of the news in recent years. The last decade has seen significant changes in the way we work at the same time as systems set up to provide support through social security payments and skills training have been cut. The most effective way to increase earnings is to move jobs, but doing so requires confidence in the social security safety net. A confidence that has been eroded by cuts and conditionality.
Employers are facing a number of competing demands from consumers, their employees, Government and the wider economic impacts of policy, particularly Brexit. Some sectors are under significant pressure from new businesses with new ways of working. Flexibility and insecurity are becoming interwoven as employers defend their on-demand payment models as facilitating flexible working. But they can also lead to a lack of breaks, below minimum wage earnings and, in some cases, to court.
Just over 1 in 5 (21% or 5.7m) people are in low paid work. New polling commissioned by Child Poverty Action Group, out today, shows that 47% of working parents with an annual household income under £30,000 say they don’t have enough money to support their families. The temporary workforce in the UK is also significant. Groups disproportionately represented in the ranks of the low paid include women, young people, part-time workers, temps, those in low-skilled work, and people in the retail, hospitality and care sectors.
Changes in support systems often appear to have been conceived in a vacuum – not taking into account changes in the labour market. There is also a lack of access to training, with many low-paid workers now expected to fund their own through loans. This ‘risk swap’ combined with significant cuts to the Further Education budget has seen a fall in the number of adults accessing education and training. As the gap between the two grows, so the lives of many people with a foot on both sides of this chasm become increasingly precarious.
The Taylor Review focused on ‘good work’. While there is significant evidence of the value of work for both physical and mental well-being, the quality of that work is central - ‘bad work’ is worse for health than unemployment. There is little analysis of the types of jobs people take and their impact on poverty. Carnegie Trust and the RSA are in the process of considering what national quality measures would look like.
Continue reading
Work has been the biggest anti-poverty policy of recent decades, with support delivered under banners of ‘making work pay’, and calls for people to ‘work their way out of poverty’. However, people living in poverty are increasingly likely to be working. The UK’s wage fall since the 2008 financial crisis has been unmatched by any other large economy. This will be exacerbated by the Universal Credit roll out. Families are being pushed into financial hardship and work incentives damaged, particularly for second earners, single parents and those moving into self-employment.
Whether the focus is on stagnant or falling wages, rising prices, use of zero hour contracts, self-employment, impact of automation or retailers’ warehouses – work has barely been out of the news in recent years. The last decade has seen significant changes in the way we work at the same time as systems set up to provide support through social security payments and skills training have been cut. The most effective way to increase earnings is to move jobs, but doing so requires confidence in the social security safety net. A confidence that has been eroded by cuts and conditionality.
Employers are facing a number of competing demands from consumers, their employees, Government and the wider economic impacts of policy, particularly Brexit. Some sectors are under significant pressure from new businesses with new ways of working. Flexibility and insecurity are becoming interwoven as employers defend their on-demand payment models as facilitating flexible working. But they can also lead to a lack of breaks, below minimum wage earnings and, in some cases, to court.
Just over 1 in 5 (21% or 5.7m) people are in low paid work. New polling commissioned by Child Poverty Action Group, out today, shows that 47% of working parents with an annual household income under £30,000 say they don’t have enough money to support their families. The temporary workforce in the UK is also significant. Groups disproportionately represented in the ranks of the low paid include women, young people, part-time workers, temps, those in low-skilled work, and people in the retail, hospitality and care sectors.
Changes in support systems often appear to have been conceived in a vacuum – not taking into account changes in the labour market. There is also a lack of access to training, with many low-paid workers now expected to fund their own through loans. This ‘risk swap’ combined with significant cuts to the Further Education budget has seen a fall in the number of adults accessing education and training. As the gap between the two grows, so the lives of many people with a foot on both sides of this chasm become increasingly precarious.
The Taylor Review focused on ‘good work’. While there is significant evidence of the value of work for both physical and mental well-being, the quality of that work is central - ‘bad work’ is worse for health than unemployment. There is little analysis of the types of jobs people take and their impact on poverty. Carnegie Trust and the RSA are in the process of considering what national quality measures would look like.
Continue reading
Thursday, 4 May 2017
Britain Works
an article by Jane Mansour (independent policy consultant) published in Poverty: Journal of the Child Poverty Action Group Issue 156 (Winter 2017)
Child Poverty Action Group and Working Families have launched a new project, ‘Britain works’, looking at in-work poverty and how work can be improved for families living on a low income. Here, Jane Mansour sets out the context, examining a range of evidence on the characteristics of low-paid work in Britain today, and reports on what employers say about their policies on and practices towards their low-paid staff.
Full text (PDF 4pp)
Child Poverty Action Group and Working Families have launched a new project, ‘Britain works’, looking at in-work poverty and how work can be improved for families living on a low income. Here, Jane Mansour sets out the context, examining a range of evidence on the characteristics of low-paid work in Britain today, and reports on what employers say about their policies on and practices towards their low-paid staff.
Full text (PDF 4pp)
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Two thirds of children in poverty living in working families
A press release from the Child Poverty Action Group says:
See also Alison Garnham’s blog: We are leaving our children utterly exposed
The newly-released annual statistics for 2011/12 showed no change to relative poverty, but 300,000 more children in absolute poverty. The relative poverty statistics also showed that two-thirds of the children below the relative poverty line are now from families in work. Read more on the statistics
See also Alison Garnham’s blog: We are leaving our children utterly exposed
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
The Double Lockout: How low income families will be locked out of fair living standards
a CPAG report
The report finds that:
- The bill is poverty-producing and means that both absolute and relative child poverty will increase (chapter 1, Lindsay Judge)
- Contrary to arguments made by Ministers, welfare spending on workless families has been falling and most Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants find new jobs within months (chapters 2 and 4, Declan Gaffney, Tracy Shildrick and Rob MacDonald)
- The bill puts the economy at risk by failing to protect the economy’s ‘automatic stabilisers’ (chapter 3, Jonathan Portes)
- Contrary to popular perception, benefit fraud is at its lowest ever recorded level and the ‘scrounger’ stereotype is grossly inaccurate (chapter 5, Ben Baumberg)
- The government must focus on the root causes of social security and tax credit demand and prioritise progress on full employment, living wages, affordable housing and affordable childcare (chapter 6, Alison Garnham)
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Ending Child Poverty by 2020: Progress made and lessons learned
In this landmark report (edited by Lindsay Judge), CPAG (Child Poverty Action Group) has brought together leading academics and campaigners to reflect on the progress made towards ending child poverty in the UK, as well as to consider the risks for the future.
The report sets out where we are today, exploring the official poverty statistics alongside broadening measures of child well-being and social mobility.
It also shows that ongoing efforts to redefine “poverty” are disparaging what has been achieved to date. Many of the crucial programmes that have enabled over a million children to be lifted out of poverty over the past decade are now under threat. If the pledge to end child poverty in a generation is to be fulfilled, urgent action is needed now.
First published June 2012, updated December 2012.
Full report (PDF 92pp)
Print copy is available for £10 + p&p from CPAG’s online shop
The report sets out where we are today, exploring the official poverty statistics alongside broadening measures of child well-being and social mobility.
It also shows that ongoing efforts to redefine “poverty” are disparaging what has been achieved to date. Many of the crucial programmes that have enabled over a million children to be lifted out of poverty over the past decade are now under threat. If the pledge to end child poverty in a generation is to be fulfilled, urgent action is needed now.
First published June 2012, updated December 2012.
Full report (PDF 92pp)
Print copy is available for £10 + p&p from CPAG’s online shop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
