# Unicef: Children of the recession



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

How has the recession affected children in the UK? - Unicef UK Blog



> Families in many countries have suffered a huge drop in household income since the recession began. In Greece in 2012, median *household incomes for families with children sank to 1998 levels* – the equivalent of a loss of 14 years of income progress. By this measure Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain lost a decade; Iceland lost nine years; and Italy, Hungary and Portugal lost eight.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

And the level of child poverty in the UK has risen by 1.6% since 2008, to 25.6%. Shameful!

So what is "child poverty"? UNICEF no longer defines it simply in terms of family income.



> The UN General Assembly has recognised the special nature of poverty for children, stating clearly that child poverty is about more than just a lack of money, and can only be understood as the denial of a range of rights laid out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
> 
> According to this new definition, measuring child poverty can no longer be lumped together with general poverty assessments which often focus solely on income levels, but must take into consideration access to basic social services, especially nutrition, water, sanitation, shelter, education and information.
> 
> UN General Assembly adopts powerful definition of child poverty


I expect someone will come along and blame the immigrants. But how does immigration explain the fact that while child poverty has risen, so has the gap between rich and poor? Britain is one of only three countries where the "wealth gap" has increased since the start of the recession.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

The poverty level in the UK is fixed at 60% of average wage.
This is arbitrary and I have yet to find an explanation as to why it's set at 60% and not 80% which would put more in poverty or 40% which would put fewer below the line. 
Also as benefits rise or stay the same and wage levels drop, perversely the number 'in poverty' could fall.
But it is right to include other than lack of material factors. Emotional impoverishment, parental neglect, these can be as if not more damaging than lack of material things.
All poverty is relative. I worked in an area of social deprivation in terms of unemployment, underemployment, ill-health, substance abuse, suicide, one-parent families.. you name it, we had it in abundance. Yet there was very little 'child poverty' in the sense that children went without food, adequate clothing, decent housing. Many children were badly nourished in that their diet was poor and consisted mainly of convenience food and takeaways. Many children had all the latest gizmos but little parental attention.
The way to bring all children up to a decent standard of living is to provide their parents with a job with a living wage and to provide them with a good education that provides skills training with literacy, numeracy, what is now known as 'life skills' and most importantly aspiration and self-esteem.
Immigration has nothing to do with it and I've yet to hear even Farage bring that up.
Come to think of it, though, he rarely talks of the real problems of working people.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

.
Incidentally, what does UNICEF or the UK Government for that matter plan to do about inadequate parenting?


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> The poverty level in the UK is fixed at 60% of average wage.
> This is arbitrary and I have yet to find an explanation as to why it's set at 60% and not 80% which would put more in poverty or 40% which would put fewer below the line.
> Also as benefits rise or stay the same and wage levels drop, perversely the number 'in poverty' could fall.
> But it is right to include other than lack of material factors. Emotional impoverishment, parental neglect, these can be as if not more damaging than lack of material things.
> ...


I know I'll risk sounding like a lifelong DM reader here, but do you think that the problem of more and more children being brought up by people with little or no parenting skills, and seemingly not much interest in or time for their children, has anything to do with the fact that the children were brought into the world not because they were wanted, but because they are effectively a passport to more benefits? People who are in work tend, for the most part, to limit their families to an affordable level - after all, no employer gives anybody a pay rise whenever they have another child (they receive extra Child Benefit, but that doesn't represent anything like the cost of supporting a child). For those on benefits, however, it's a different story. The more children, the higher the benefits, more Housing Benefit and larger accommodation, etc, etc.


----------



## Isobella (Oct 16, 2014)

Poverty figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. They are relative and the indicators they use are crazy.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Lynn R said:


> I know I'll risk sounding like a lifelong DM reader here, but do you think that the problem of more and more children being brought up by people with little or no parenting skills, and seemingly not much interest in or time for their children, has anything to do with the fact that the children were brought into the world not because they were wanted, but because they are effectively a passport to more benefits? People who are in work tend, for the most part, to limit their families to an affordable level - after all, no employer gives anybody a pay rise whenever they have another child (they receive extra Child Benefit, but that doesn't represent anything like the cost of supporting a child). For those on benefits, however, it's a different story. The more children, the higher the benefits, more Housing Benefit and larger accommodation, etc, etc.


I don't think that it's to do with easy access to benefits, but I do think, from experience, that a lot of it is down to sheer fecklessness, lack of awareness of connection between cause and effect, i.e. if one has frequent unprotected sex, one could well become pregnant...
About ten years ago my school catchment area had a sudden increase in the number of young teenage pregnancies, mainly among fourteen year-olds. I was i/c sex education (this wasn't my fault) and these kids had condoms practically shoved at them. I also made sure that as well as the mechanics there was a strong element of common sense and responsibility for actions included in the programme of education.
Yet there were pregnancies...
I have given thought to this and I think that there are many reasons. .lack of aspiration for an 'interesting' future, being brought up in single parent families, the media, lack of positive role models,parental neglect, sheer stupidity...but poverty never came into it.

I had a look at the UNICEF press release. It states that Poland and Slovakia 'reduced child poverty levels by 30%'. Anyone who knows these countries - and I know them quite well - and who can therefore compare the lives of children in those countries with those of children in the UK can only shake their heads in bewilderment.
Children in Poland and Slovakia rarely have access to smartphones, Nike trainers or Gameboys.....

UNICEF does an excellent job in many ways but putting out meaningless press releases like this does a disservice to a real problem. To say that children in Spain, for example, have 'ten years of lost income' means nothing. You have to look at many other factors - price movements, employment statistics, welfare provision - to draw any conclusions.

There is a problem all over Europe but in the rich states it is a problem of inequality not poverty and you don't deal with the two problems in the same way. Inequality must be dealt with by redistribution i.e. the tax and benefit system and the structural problem of appallingly low wage levels at the lower and middle end of the scale in the UK .


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Isobella said:


> Poverty figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. They are relative and the indicators they use are crazy.


To claim that a quarter of British children are 'living in poverty' is an insult to the children of Burkina Faso.

To state that the UK has one of the most unequal societies in the developed world is no more than the truth.

The two should not be conjoined.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> All poverty is relative. I worked in an area of social deprivation in terms of unemployment, underemployment, ill-health, substance abuse, suicide, one-parent families.. you name it, we had it in abundance. Yet there was very little 'child poverty' in the sense that children went without food, adequate clothing, decent housing. Many children were badly nourished in that their diet was poor and consisted mainly of convenience food and takeaways. Many children had all the latest gizmos but little parental attention.





Isobella said:


> Poverty figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. They are relative and the indicators they use are crazy.





mrypg9 said:


> To claim that a quarter of British children are 'living in poverty' is an insult to the children of Burkina Faso.


Agreed, poverty is relative, but it doesn't mean that the children in rich, developed countries who are described in this, or in other reports, as "poor" have an easy life, a good life or a worthwhile life.
In other words I would not like my children to be living in the conditions of the poor in the UK and Spain and I very much doubt that either of you would.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Starting on page 12 of this document there are definitions of poverty according to UNICEF, Save the Children, a Canadian organization a South American organization... All waiting to be scrutinised and picked to pieces.
http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/files/child_poverty_final_draft_4_05.pdf
To me the important thing to be gleaned by reports like this is that looking after the vunerable in society is a issue that is going backwards, not forwards. This does not only refer to how much money is being invested, but also how such factors as empathy, integration, marginalisation, socialisation develops, or how it doesn't, in different areas of the world at different times.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Agreed, poverty is relative, but it doesn't mean that the children in rich, developed countries who are described in this, or in other reports, as "poor" have an easy life, a good life or a worthwhile life.
> In other words I would not like my children to be living in the conditions of the poor in the UK and Spain and I very much doubt that either of you would.


I know what you mean. But we are talking here of the affluent first world even when we talk of Spain and the UK. 
I grew up in a household that by today's standards would be classed not as 'poverty' but as utter, abject deprivation. Widowed mother who scrubbed floors for a living, living with grandparents in rented house with no hot water on tap, outside loo, inadequate heating....in the post-war years where rationing was still in force. I rarely if ever had new clothes, I wore hand-me-downs from family members and neighbours.
So by all material standards even of those days we were pretty low on the scale.
But....I was never hungry, never cold and most importantly never felt unloved or uncared for. I had few books of my own but I can remember vividly my mother taking me to the public library. I must have been five or six. I was encouraged to be polite to my elders, to do as I was told and work hard at school. I was given aspiration.
I brought my son up in the same way. Of course I was better off than my mother especially before I was divorced. My son and his father have always kept in regular weekly contact. I never allowed my son the freedom or indulgences other parents allowed their children. To me, it seemed more like licence than liberty. 
Very few children in Spain or the UK are 'poor' in terms of lack of food or housing or clothing. Much of the inadequacy that there is is down to poor parenting. What gives children a worthwhile life: good parenting and you would be a good parent whatever your material circumstances, as I tried to be.
Where children of less well-off families in the UK lose out is in terms of life chances. 
Inequalities in income can not only buy expensive trainers and smartphones...they can buy a better life through private education, aspiration, contacts....
That's what we should be focusing on, closing the gap, not on a 'poverty' which exists in dodgy graphs and statistics.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Starting on page 12 of this document there are definitions of poverty according to UNICEF, Save the Children, a Canadian organization a South American organization... All waiting to be scrutinised and picked to pieces.
> http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/files/child_poverty_final_draft_4_05.pdf
> *To me the important thing to be gleaned by reports like this is that looking after the vunerable in society is a issue that is going backwards, not forwards. This does not only refer to how much money is being invested, but also how such factors as empathy, integration, marginalisation, socialisation develops, or how it doesn't, in different areas of the world at different times*.


Now that is beyond dispute.
Trouble is, there are few solutions.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> To claim that a quarter of British children are 'living in poverty' is an insult to the children of Burkina Faso.


I don't think there is any intention to compare British poverty and Burkina Faso poverty on the part of UNICEF. The report has to be read in its context, and I think you said you had read it...
Children of the Recession 
The impact of the economic crisis 
on child well-being in rich countries
The title is 
*Children of the recession*
*The impact of the economic crisis on child well being in rich countries*


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> by all material standards even of those days we were pretty low on the scale.
> But....I was never hungry, never cold and most importantly never felt unloved or uncared for.


And this is the all important information. It's irrelevant to a study of this sort whether you were polite or not or if your mother worked in a shop, as an executive or driving a bus or if you lived in a bedsit or a draughty mansion.
You can bet there are a LOT of children in rich old Blighty, and sunny Spain, that don't get enough to eat, who are cold and inadequately clothed and who are not in a secure family unit, but no, they're not as poor as children in the slums of India. However, as I said before I'm more than happy that my daughter didn't have to live in those conditions!


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> And this is the all important information. It's irrelevant to a study of this sort whether you were polite or not or if your mother worked in a shop, as an executive or driving a bus or if you lived in a bedsit or a draughty mansion.
> You can bet there are a LOT of children in rich old Blighty, and sunny Spain, that don't get enough to eat, who are cold and inadequately clothed and who are not in a secure family unit, but no, they're not as poor as children in the slums of India. However, as I said before I'm more than happy that my daughter didn't have to live in those conditions!


I think that the most important factor in the richer countries s the quality of parental care. 

And yes, I have seen far too many cases of children who are inadequately clothed and fed. Our junior school started a Breakfast Club because there were children who came to school having had nothing to eat.
But we discontinued the Club after two terms because the 'clients' were mainly children of families with two working parents...saved them a bit of time in the morning.
Most of the children who needed the Club didn't come because their mothers or fathers or both were still in bed when the child left for school.

Where are the statistics that show that? Or how many children are given 50p and told to get a bag of chips for their dinner? Or are left playing on the streets until midnight or even later?

That is the kind of very real child poverty I encountered in my working life. As for 'not being in a secure family unit'........that was the case for most of our students. Very rare to find a child living a stable life with both parents. To me, that is an important deprivation. The words 'stable life' are of course important. It doesn't have to be a traditional family unit. 
How, I wonder, does UNICEF think children can be provided with a secure, stable family life?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> I don't think there is any intention to compare British poverty and Burkina Faso poverty on the part of UNICEF. The report has to be read in its context, and I think you said you had read it...
> Children of the Recession
> The impact of the economic crisis
> on child well-being in rich countries
> ...


Yes, I know it's about rich countries. That's the point I'm making.
I think the concept of 'child poverty' is vague and needs redefining or even abandoning altogether.
Inequality is THE problem, not poverty. We should concentrate on that because with a will we can do something about it.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Last commentbefore I watch Bournemouth play Norwich...

Looking back at what Lynn wrote, it's probably true that a majority of the quarter of UK children ' living in poverty' are in single parent families, some as a result of relationship break-up, some because there was no relationship to start with.
There's a danger of falling into a right- wing agenda here. Some might ask how governments can be held responsible for people's lifestyle choices, or lack of? Might the rise in one- parent families not be due to the decline in traditional morals, the lack of respect for the traditional family, excessive permissiveness etc.etc.?

One factor in determining whether a school qualifies as an Educational Priority Area used to be the number of pupils qualifying for free school meals. Now that is meaningless as a guideline because it gives no indication as to the quality or stability of the family life of each qualifying child.

Statistics are just that, figures. They have to relate to the real- life experiences of real people, which are richer and more complex than any figures can show. They can often serve as a handwringing exercise and are then swiftly forgotten. No solutions are forthcoming.
I do have a few suggestions for policy but not tonight, Josephine!


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Statistics are just that, figures. They have to relate to the real- life experiences of real people, which are richer and more complex than any figures can show. They can often serve as a handwringing exercise and are then swiftly forgotten. No solutions are forthcoming.
> I do have a few suggestions for policy but not tonight, Josephine!


I think statistics are, if nothing more, a starting point. Here's an interesting one that came to light recently
0.02 physicians/1,000 population (2010) in Sierra Leone. 
I don't know what that really means, but I think we can all say this statistic about the UK is infinitely better
2.77 physicians/1,000 population (2011)

I'd like to hear your ideas of how to improve this situation as you have hands on experience.
UNICEF and most governments and social organisations do have ideas of how to move forward, of course. I wonder why you think no solutions have been offered? Maybe you think they are not specific enough? According to the index of the document I gave a link to previously section 4 deals with policies to reduce child poverty from page 24. Here's the link again
http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/files/child_poverty_final_draft_4_05.pdf
I haven't read them. I'm supposedly working but I am watching Scott and Bailey (the only police type programme I have ever liked) and writing on here


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Bournemouth played West Brom...and won.

It seems odd to me that the term 'child poverty' is used at all when the focus should be on the whole family. It's also a sad fact that because of the way housing works in the UK, poorer families tend to congregate in areas. This on the one hand is a negative for obvious reasons but also a positive as it gives a focus for solution building and 'economies of scale'.

I think a dual approach is needed, one focusing on community/ social issues and the other on the family unit. The obvious duty of government should be to legislate for a decent living wage funded by wealth taxes of one kind or another. But work needs to be done at grass roots too, building local support systems and giving pride, aspiration and self- respect to families and communities. This should not be viewed as a 'social workers are coming to help you' job. There is an enormous amount of undiscovered and unused talent in these poorer communities.
In my school we worked with parents, mainly apparently clueless young women, to build networks where people could come together to learn to take control of their own lives. Such basics as parenting skills, nutrition classes, basic diy. My Housing Association had active community centres with local tenants management groups, giving tenants some real control over their lives.
Many young single mums are really very isolated, often with little contact with their own families. 
Giving people confidence, self- respect, some control over their lives, is an important step. It has to be done WITH people not FOR them.
As a local politician and activist I was very much a 'street fighter', not in terms merely of marches and protests but in terms of ' being there' and listening, trying to get people to take such power as there was locally for them to get their hands on.
Bringing ourb'underclass' back into the mainstream won't happen overnight, though.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

My ex- husband was asked by the Government via the Rowntree Foundation to compile a report on the problem of 'social exclusion'. He wrote a book I've got somewhere with practical suggestions for inclusive social housing development.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Just a point about UNICEF'S list of 'Children's Rights'.
Rights should come accompanied by responsibilities. UNICEF does not say whose responsibility it should be to ensure that these 'rights' are delivered ad therefore more than words on paper.
As sadly with many UN organisations including the General Assembly itself.


----------



## Horlics (Sep 27, 2011)

Hey Pesky,

May I ask where you get the unemployment figures in your signature from. I am looking for sources of official information for a project, that's the reason I ask.




Pesky Wesky said:


> Starting on page 12 of this document there are definitions of poverty according to UNICEF, Save the Children, a Canadian organization a South American organization... All waiting to be scrutinised and picked to pieces.
> http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/files/child_poverty_final_draft_4_05.pdf
> To me the important thing to be gleaned by reports like this is that looking after the vunerable in society is a issue that is going backwards, not forwards. This does not only refer to how much money is being invested, but also how such factors as empathy, integration, marginalisation, socialisation develops, or how it doesn't, in different areas of the world at different times.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Hello everybody,
got a lot on in the next couple of days. I'll get back to you soon. If I don't remember, post again, ok??!
PS I think the unemployment figures were from the INE. I can't be sure, but it was an "official" source giving the latest figures for 2014. Doesn't it come up if you Google the figures with a Spanish reference ie desempleo españa 2014?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

PW, when you have time I'd welcome further input from you.
There are times when I really miss not being involved in UK politics in a 'hands-on' way.
Much as I dislike UK current politics.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Isobella said:


> Poverty figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. They are relative and the indicators they use are crazy.


That is true, but if there are no statistics there is no discussion. Perhaps it's not the statistics themselves that should be criticised, but people's interpretation of them...
Also, from forum experience some kind of figures are usually all but "demanded" from posters!


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Bournemouth played West Brom...and won.
> 
> It seems odd to me that the term 'child poverty' is used at all when the focus should be on the whole family. It's also a sad fact that because of the way housing works in the UK, poorer families tend to congregate in areas. This on the one hand is a negative for obvious reasons but also a positive as it gives a focus for solution building and 'economies of scale'.
> 
> ...


Yes, your idea of focussing on the whole family is vital I think and I can only presume that UNICEF realises this too!
Inextricably linked with this is personal evaluation, as you say self respect and self confidence. I have found this, but really need to dedicate some time to other things. I will try to read some of it though
http://www.unicef.es/sites/www.unic...OPUESTAS_CONTRA_LA_POBREZA_INFANTIL_final.pdf


----------

