a research paper by Vidhya Alakeson and Giselle Cory for the Resolution Foundation
Summary
One third of Britain is effectively off-limits to lower-income working families looking to rent a home privately because they can no longer afford a property in those parts of the country.
An alarming new report, Home Truths, is the first to give a comprehensive assessment of where less affluent families can reasonably afford to live, revealing that even a very modest rented home is beyond the reach of low income households in 33 per cent of all local authority areas.
Full text (PDF 38pp)
Very useful maps which show clearly where the unaffordable places are. And they’re not all predictable.
Showing posts with label low-income_families. Show all posts
Showing posts with label low-income_families. Show all posts
Monday, 22 July 2013
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
Child Benefit cuts
via ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC by Richard Exell
Today’s [30 December 2012] new TUC report – Child Benefit: a bad case of neglect? – spells out the effect on families of the government’s Child Benefit freeze followed by the 1 per cent cap in increases. By the end of 2015, a family with two children will have lost a cumulative total of over £1,000, compared with the policies on cost-of-living increases the government inherited from its predecessor.
In 2013-14 alone they will lose £234 – a time when the Office for Budget Responsibility expects average earnings to rise 2.2 per cent, while CPI inflation will be higher, at 2.5 per cent. Child Benefit provides another example of the Coalition inheriting the mantle of Mrs Thatcher. She was every bit as hostile to CB, but the freeze from 1987 was ended as soon as she ceased to be Prime Minister, with John Major increasing the benefit by more than inflation in 1991.
The impact on the poorest people of real-terms cuts in benefit after benefit is beginning to sink in.
In terms of child poverty, the current government is actually going further than Mrs T: low-income families will also be hit by the real-terms cuts in tax credits. We estimate that some families will be as much as £3,000 worse off.
Today’s report reminds us that changes to uprating may be less dramatic than other welfare reforms but their potential impact can be even more significant. Today we have focused on a key benefit for parents, but the 1 per cent uprating cap is also going to hit low-paid workers, disabled people, carers, pregnant women and new mothers.
The Welfare Uprating Bill must be a key target for campaigning in 2013.
Full text (PDF 5pp)
Today’s [30 December 2012] new TUC report – Child Benefit: a bad case of neglect? – spells out the effect on families of the government’s Child Benefit freeze followed by the 1 per cent cap in increases. By the end of 2015, a family with two children will have lost a cumulative total of over £1,000, compared with the policies on cost-of-living increases the government inherited from its predecessor.
In 2013-14 alone they will lose £234 – a time when the Office for Budget Responsibility expects average earnings to rise 2.2 per cent, while CPI inflation will be higher, at 2.5 per cent. Child Benefit provides another example of the Coalition inheriting the mantle of Mrs Thatcher. She was every bit as hostile to CB, but the freeze from 1987 was ended as soon as she ceased to be Prime Minister, with John Major increasing the benefit by more than inflation in 1991.
The impact on the poorest people of real-terms cuts in benefit after benefit is beginning to sink in.
In terms of child poverty, the current government is actually going further than Mrs T: low-income families will also be hit by the real-terms cuts in tax credits. We estimate that some families will be as much as £3,000 worse off.
Today’s report reminds us that changes to uprating may be less dramatic than other welfare reforms but their potential impact can be even more significant. Today we have focused on a key benefit for parents, but the 1 per cent uprating cap is also going to hit low-paid workers, disabled people, carers, pregnant women and new mothers.
The Welfare Uprating Bill must be a key target for campaigning in 2013.
Full text (PDF 5pp)
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
‘You have to choose your childcare to fit your work’: Childcare decision-making among low-income working families
an article by
Heather Sandstrom and Ajay Chaudry (Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population, Urban Institute, Washington, DC)
Journal of Children and Poverty
Volume 18 Issue 2 (2012)
Abstract
Regardless of their economic background, most working parents face the task of arranging childcare at some point. The decision-making process they experience is often complex, and this complexity is intensified for particular groups of families with limited financial and social resources.
In this paper, we present findings from a three-year qualitative study of the childcare choices of low-income working families, many of whom were immigrants, had limited English proficiency, were parents of children with special needs, or represented some combination of these factors.
The study explored families’ current care arrangements, their reasons for selecting a particular form of childcare, and the characteristics of their ideal arrangements. Data were coded to identify themes in parental preferences, decision factors, and the barriers families faced in accessing their preferred care arrangements.
Most significantly, the parents studied described their preferences for an environment where their children could learn and be in the presence of caring and trustworthy caregivers. About a third of the families said they preferred relatives as caregivers, and selected relatives to provide childcare. Other parents selected care according to cost, location, and availability of the provider; they described the challenges of locating affordable, high-quality care that met their nonstandard schedules.
These findings have important implications for childcare policy.
Abstract
Regardless of their economic background, most working parents face the task of arranging childcare at some point. The decision-making process they experience is often complex, and this complexity is intensified for particular groups of families with limited financial and social resources.
In this paper, we present findings from a three-year qualitative study of the childcare choices of low-income working families, many of whom were immigrants, had limited English proficiency, were parents of children with special needs, or represented some combination of these factors.
The study explored families’ current care arrangements, their reasons for selecting a particular form of childcare, and the characteristics of their ideal arrangements. Data were coded to identify themes in parental preferences, decision factors, and the barriers families faced in accessing their preferred care arrangements.
Most significantly, the parents studied described their preferences for an environment where their children could learn and be in the presence of caring and trustworthy caregivers. About a third of the families said they preferred relatives as caregivers, and selected relatives to provide childcare. Other parents selected care according to cost, location, and availability of the provider; they described the challenges of locating affordable, high-quality care that met their nonstandard schedules.
These findings have important implications for childcare policy.
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Universal Credit: without urgent changes the Government risks undermining it.s own reforms
via JRF - Combined Feed by Tony Wilson
The government’s arguments for welfare reform are well rehearsed.
There is a fiscal case but also an economic and social one: too many people are only marginally better off in work, while the design of the system has trapped people in poverty and worklessness.
Universal Credit, we are told, will fix these economic and social problems.
However research published today [30 October 2012], supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, tells us that without urgent changes the Government risks undermining its own reforms.
Continue reading
The government’s arguments for welfare reform are well rehearsed.
There is a fiscal case but also an economic and social one: too many people are only marginally better off in work, while the design of the system has trapped people in poverty and worklessness.
Universal Credit, we are told, will fix these economic and social problems.
However research published today [30 October 2012], supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, tells us that without urgent changes the Government risks undermining its own reforms.
Continue reading
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Educational relationships in out-of-school-time activities: ...
are children in poverty missing out again?
an article by Kate Bullock, Yolande Muschamp, Tess Ridge and Felicity Wikeley (University of Bath) published in Education, Citizenship and Social Justice Volume 5 Number 2 (July 2010)
Abstract
Poverty may be the major obstacle to positive life chances in the UK. Ennals and Murphy (2005) suggest that escape from the poverty trap is more likely for those who remain in education after the age of 16. However, school life may bring problems for children from low-income families, with learning assuming a lower priority than social acceptance (Ridge, 2005). This article argues that young people in poverty are also less likely to participate in other learning activities. The nature of learning in out-of-school-time settings is explored and the distinctive features of the educational relationships that underpin out-of-school-time learning are discussed. We conclude that children from disadvantaged backgrounds who have acquired an understanding of educational relationships are more likely to develop positive attitudes to learning. Strategies to redress the added disadvantage that non-participation in leisure activities creates for young people in low-income families are suggested.
an article by Kate Bullock, Yolande Muschamp, Tess Ridge and Felicity Wikeley (University of Bath) published in Education, Citizenship and Social Justice Volume 5 Number 2 (July 2010)
Abstract
Poverty may be the major obstacle to positive life chances in the UK. Ennals and Murphy (2005) suggest that escape from the poverty trap is more likely for those who remain in education after the age of 16. However, school life may bring problems for children from low-income families, with learning assuming a lower priority than social acceptance (Ridge, 2005). This article argues that young people in poverty are also less likely to participate in other learning activities. The nature of learning in out-of-school-time settings is explored and the distinctive features of the educational relationships that underpin out-of-school-time learning are discussed. We conclude that children from disadvantaged backgrounds who have acquired an understanding of educational relationships are more likely to develop positive attitudes to learning. Strategies to redress the added disadvantage that non-participation in leisure activities creates for young people in low-income families are suggested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
