1. The impact of austerity on children's well-being
Jonathan Bradshaw and Gill Main
Social Policy Association
University of Sheffield
14-16 July 2014

2. Outline At the end of the 1990s children in the UK not doing well
Things improved in the 2000s
National and
Comparative evidence
Now the burdens of AUSTERITY have fallen heavily on children
Evidence on outcomes not good (preliminary) but worrying signs

3. AUSTERITY 2010 Coalition announced £81 billion deficit reduction
Almost all of it to come from cuts in benefits and services (85%)
Main target for cuts families with children
Pensioners benefits protected by triple lock
Between and the median incomes of working age households have fallen by 6.4%; in contrast the median incomes of retired households have increased by 5.1%.(ONS)
Only half way there!
Up to 2015/16 expenditure as a % of GDP is planned to fall by 4.7% points and by the end of the next review period in 2018/19 it is expected to have declined by 8.2% points(Office of Budget Responsibility 2014)

4. Distributional consequences already unfair – between generations and incomes

5. Cuts in spending per capita by child poverty rate
Cuts in spending per capita by child poverty rate. Local authorities in England

6. Mean equivalent disposable income £ per annum

7. Ratio of average income of retired household to households with children

8. Anchored child poverty rate rising

9. Poverty rate <60% median income threshold AHC

10. Proportion of children under 16 in households with severe deprivation in the EU. Ranked by increase

11. Difference in changes in poverty rates pensioners and children 2008-2012 anchored threshold

12. Happiness with life as a whole 11-15. Falling

13. Youth suicides have stopped falling

14. Child homelessness up

15. Children are aware of the crisis

16. Poorer children report greater impacts

17. Stronger impacts and financial problems

18. Impacts of poverty and crisis on subjective well-being (SLSS)
Odds of low SWB
Gender (boys as ref)
1.4
4.7
<0.001
0.5
Family type (both parents as ref)
Lone parent
-1.3
-3.6
2.1
0.001
Step family
-1.2
-2.7
0.006
1.9
0.012
Poverty and impact (not poor and low impact as ref)
Poor, strong impact
-3.8
-8.0
4.0
Not poor, strong impact
-3.0
0.003
1.6
0.078
Poor, not strong impact
-2.3
-5.0
2.0
0.014

19. Parents protecting children
Children’s own reports:
10% report own material situation as average or above, while family has less than average (only 5% report converse).
Adult perceptions of children’s needs:
Food: meals 93% children, 91% adults; fruit/veg 96% children, 83% adults; meat/fish: 90% children, 76% adults
Clothes: warm coat: 97% children, 79% adults; two pairs shoes: 93% children, 54% adults
Leisure: celebrations: 91% children 80% adults; hobby: 88% children, 70% adults; holiday: 52% children, 42% adults
Adults in households with children prioritising children’s needs:
Food: Fresh fruit: 95% children have, 89% adults have
Clothes: warm coat: 97% children have, 90% adults have; two pairs shoes: 94% children have, 85% adults have
Leisure: hobby: 86% children have, 63% adults have; holiday: 64% children have, 55% adults have
In 93% of households where children lack adequate food (three meals, fresh fruit and veg, meat/fish), at least one adult is skimping on their food to provide for others in the household

20. Conclusions Children not being given sufficient priority in UK
Child Poverty Act
UNCRC
Children’s Commissioner for England (2013)
“Overall, the evidence in this report suggests that the best interests of children are not being treated as a primary consideration (Article 3) in the design of fiscal measures relating to welfare benefits, tax credits and taxes.’ (p.6) …‘the cumulative impact of the measures included in the analysis, place the Government at risk of not meeting its obligations to children and young people.’ (p.7).
Austerity unfair – distributionally, spatially and generationally
Stigmatising rhetoric
‘Feckless parents’
‘Troubled families’
‘Skivers vs strivers’
Too far, too fast
We do not need to be doing this

21. We do not need to be doing this Coalition aspirations for public expenditure as % GDP (IMF WEO database March 2014)