1. Measuring Child Poverty Jonathan Bradshaw and Gill Main
Second Peter Townsend Memorial Conference Measuring Poverty: The State of the Art
University of Bristol
22 and 23 January 2011

2. State of child poverty is not good
No reduction in the UK since 2004/5 – target missed
All but seven OECD countries increased their child poverty
In EU child poverty increased in swe, ger, fra, ita, gre and ire – flat in many others and higher than pensioner poverty in half
In developing world despite economic growth – child poverty flat lining.

3. Outline Measurement of child poverty in theUK
EU (and OECD)
Developing countries
Shift from income to deprivation
Shift from poverty to material well-being
Shift from material well-being to
Social exclusion
well-being
Asking children about poverty in The Children’s Society Survey
Pilot work for PSE 2010 on child deprivation

4. Flawed nature of much child poverty measurement
Household surveys (or registers) though some administrative stats in spatial analysis (ie ID) and international (SOWC)
Child the unit of analysis (only recently by WB)
Adult the informant
Mainly indirect - consumption/income
Arbitrary thresholds –
Too low in poor countries
?Too high in rich countries
Equivalence scales with no scientific base
Usually relative

5. (Official) Child Poverty measurement in the UK
Relative low income = Equivalised net household income less than 60% median
2020 target: <10% of children
Combined low income and material deprivation = Material deprivation >20% and equivalised net household income less than 70% median
2020 target: <5% of children
‘Absolute’ low income= Equivalised net household income falling below 60% of the ‘adjusted base amount’
Persistent poverty= Equivalised net household income less than 60% of medianfor 3 years prior to current year
2020 target: not yet set
+Frank Field

6. Child poverty in the UK in the last decade

7. Child Poverty in the EU and rich nations
Sources:
OECD Growing unequal - every five years
Luxembourg Income Study - every five years
EU SILC now annually
EU social inclusion indicators from SILC – child poverty key focus
At risk of poverty rate<40,50,60,70% of national median
At risk of poverty gap 60%
<60% anchored
Lacking 3+ (out of 9) deprivation items
Persistent – to be developed
Now 2020 target =<60% median or lacking 4+ deprivation items or workless
SILC 2009 includes special module on child poverty/well-being
University of York work on extreme poverty recommends ‘consensual’ overlaps of deprivation and a budget standards income threshold
Relative income poverty thresholds too low in EU10

8. Child poverty rates in the EU (<60% median)

9. Child poverty in EU SILC 2008

10. Overlaps of child poverty by three dimensions 2008

11. Developing world World Bank dominates survey data and analysis
Child rarely the unit of analysis
Very low thresholds $x per day per capita completely arbitrary
Best work
Bristol method – lacking in one or more of seven domains
Mekonen Child Friendly Governments in Africa

12. Bristol method - Domains of child poverty
Severe Food Deprivation– children whose heights and weights for their age were more than -3 standard deviations below the median of the international reference population, i.e. severe anthropometric failure (Nandy et al, 2005).
Severe Water Deprivation - children who only had access to surface water (e.g. ponds, rivers or springs) for drinking or who lived in households where the nearest source of water was more than 15 minutes away.
Severe Deprivation of Sanitation Facilities – children who had no access to a toilet of any kind in the vicinity of their dwelling, including communal toilets or latrines.
Severe Health Deprivation – children who had not been immunised against any diseases or young children who had a recent illness causing diarrhoea or acute respiratory infection (ARI) and had not received any medical advice or treatment.
Severe Shelter Deprivation – children living in dwellings with five or more people per room (severe overcrowding) or with no flooring material (e.g. a mud floor).
Severe Education Deprivation – children aged between 7 and 18 who had never been to school and were not currently attending school (no fessional education of any kind).
Severe Information Deprivation – children aged between 3 and 18 in households which do not possess a radio, television, telephone or computer.  

13. Absolute child poverty rates E and SA – (Shailen Nandy)

14. Child-friendly governments measure
“one which is making the maximum effort to meet its obligations to respect, protect and fulfil child rights to ensure child well-being” Mekonen, Y. Child Ind. Res. (2010)
Three dimensions based on indicators
Laws and policies
Allocation of resources
Child Outcomes: access to education, health, water, sanitation, survival, nutrition, poverty
Overall

15. Child-related outcomes E and SA

16. From income to deprivation
Peter Townsend Poverty in the UK
Mack and Lansley Breadline Britain
PSE x 2
Child deprivation index in PSE 1999 not very discriminating
Every item a necessity
Lacking 1 or more the threshold
Must do better this time

17. From income to social exclusion
Bristol SEM
Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Task Force Social Inclusion Over the Life Course
B-Sem operationalised for families with children (Oroyemi et al 2009).
Used data from the Families and Children Study (FaCS).
Eighteen markers of risk were constructed from the data, ranging from income poverty to lack of social contact to overcrowded accommodation.
They found that 45% of families with children were exposed to multiple risk markers (i.e. two or more markers of risk) in 2006,
less than 2 per cent experiencing 10 or more risks.
Cluster analysis was used to group families into nine relatively homogeneous ‘clusters’. :

18. From income poverty to material well-being
Material well-being combines
Income poverty
Rates and
Gaps
Deprivation
Parental worklessness

19. Overall child well-being versus material well-being (Bradshaw and Richardson 2009)

20. Correlations between matieral well-being and other domains in EU countries (Bradshaw and Richardson 2009)
Table 3.11: Correlations between the domains of well-being in the European Union.
Domain
Correlation coefficient
Education
0.64***
Risk
0.59**
Housing
0.56**
Health
0.52**
Subjective
0.45*
Relationships
0.20

21. IDACI correlated with other well being domains England (Bradshaw et al 2009)

22. Issues How do children understand child poverty?
Can children be a useful data source in measuring child poverty?
How can child poverty be measured at the level of the child, rather than the family?
How useful are deprivation indicators in the measurement of child poverty?

23. Children’s perceptions of poverty: Ridge’s findings
the extent to which children seek to protect their parents from their own feelings of deprivation, sometimes including hunger
the extent to which they feel unable to invite their friends for meals or to stay
the importance of grandparents and other relatives in providing extras that mitigate the deprivation in their lives
the costs and inconvenience of public transport, particularly in rural areas, which restrict their lives
the value of holiday schemes that give children the chance to get away
the sense of shame and embarrassment when they are unable to dress like their peers and
their experience of schools as exclusionary – their inability to go on trips and outings, to contribute to school funds, to dress well and the frequent identification as ‘free dinner’ children.

24. Children’s Society Surveys of Child Subjective well-being (Rees et al 2009)
Asked
Number of workers
Free school meals
Pocket money
Very weak association with subjective well-being
Stronger with
Happiness with possessions 11 point scale
How well off do you think your family 5 point scale
Worry about reliability of responses
Ran focus groups with children asking them to identify socially perceived necessities
Then piloted them with 300 children and their parents

25. Items: Children’s Society survey
Answer codes: Have, don’t have, don’t have and don’t want
Short list
Additional items
Pocket money
Treats/snacks
Money to save
Being part of a club
Designer/brand name trainers
Mobile phone
Computer and internet
iPod/similar
Games console
Cable/satellite TV
Pet
Garden/similar
Bedroom
Car
Presents
Clothes to fit in
Holiday once a year
Day trips with family

26. Results
93.6% parent-child couples agreed on the number of adults in paid employment
98.6% parent-child couples agreed on whether the child received free school meals
50.7% parent-child couples agreed in their subjective assessment of the family’s wealth
For deprivation items, agreement varied between 82% (family day trips on a monthly basis) to 99% (computer with an internet connection at home)
Conclusion 11-16s can report material well-being

27. Associations with other poverty measures
The 20 item deprivation scale:
Moderate correlation with parental report on household income (r=0.4**)
No significant relationship with number of adults in paid work
Children not receiving free school meals owned on average 3.3 more items than those receiving free meals (t=2.7**)
Significantly associated with children’s perceptions of their family’s wealth (F=21.6**)
Scalability within acceptable range (Cronbach’s Alpha=0.86)
Shorter 10 item scale devised and tested with minimal change to Cronbach’s Alpha (0.82)
Adopted for survey of now in field

28. Conclusions from the pilot
Children’s reporting of objective poverty measures highly similar to parental reports, supporting further research with children as respondents.
Within deprivation items that children lacked, differences between parents and children tended to be in the form of parents reporting that children did not want an item whilst children reported that they did want it.
Support for the idea that children may conceptualise poverty differently to adults, or hide their experiences of poverty from parents.

29. PSE pilot work
Improve the socially perceived necessities items for children
Children’s Society work
Review of questions in other surveys

30. Items: PSE 2011
From PSE99 (items considered necessities and lacked by 3%+):
Leisure equipment
Friends round for tea/snack fortnightly
Celebrations on special occasions
For consideration from PSE99:
Hobby or leisure activity
At least 50p a week for sweets (considered necessary by poorer parents)
Educational games
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent at least twice a day
Computer suitable for schoolwork (considered necessary by poorer parents, more universal now)
Bedroom for every child of different sex over 10 years
At least 4 pairs of trousers
Computer games (more universal now)
Swimming at least once a month
Garden to play in
From FRS (higher proportion lacking than in 1999):
Some new, not second hand, clothes
Play group at least once a week
Construction toys
School trip at least once a term
Holiday away from home at least one week a year
Bike (new/second hand)

31. Items: PSE 2011 From EU SILC: iPod/similar
A suitable place to study or do homework
Mobile phone
Computer and internet
Access to all the GP/specialist treatment needed
Games console
Cable/satellite TV
Their own bedroom
Access to all the dental examinations/treatment needed
Presents on special occasions
A family car
From Children’s Society:
Access to public transport
Pocket money
Clothes to fit in with their peers
Money to save
Books of their own
Designer/brand name trainers
Day trips with their family once a month
Treats/snacks once a week
Being part of a club