|
Memorandum submitted by A4e (CP 02)
Introduction and Summary 1. A4e is a private sector organisation with a strong sense of social responsibility. Our aim, in everything we do, is to improve people's lives. We are a £140m, 3000-strong, global organisation focused on innovation, delivery and social change. Finding fresh approaches to entrenched situations is our speciality and we want to do all we can to support the fight against child poverty.
2. From our origins as a
small local company providing training and opportunities for people made
unemployed by the decline of the steel industry in
3. A4e (www.a4e.co.uk) provides products and services
across five pillars: Employment and Work; Education, Learning and Skills; Exclusion
and Advice;
4. We offer this submission in our capacity as providers of services to lone parents, the unemployed and the financially excluded. Through our wide-ranging experience of frontline delivery we have developed a deep awareness of the challenges faced by economically deprived and workless families. We understand how to support them in building a better future and are pleased to be able to respond to the Committee's call for views following the Budget 2009 announcements.
5. Our main points are: § A4e supports the Government's 2020 vision for eradicating child poverty; § A holistic approach should be adopted in the consideration of issues relating to children that considers educational and emotional, as well as economic, dimensions of child well-being; § The proposed 'building blocks' that make up the Government's 2020 vision should not be allowed to develop as silos since the issues they address are related; § The welfare-to-work and childcare agendas need to be more closely co-ordinated; § The system of benefits and tax credits should be less complex and easier to use; § Local government should take the lead on reducing child poverty, but fresh approaches to funding, commissioning and delivery are needed.
The Government's Role in Eradicating Child Poverty 6. A4e supports the Government's 2020 vision for eradicating child poverty. We agree it is vital that every child, regardless of background, should be able to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes. Health, personal safety, enjoyment, achievement and economic well-being are vital if children are to grow up as happy, productive members of society.
7. A holistic approach needs to be adopted in the consideration of issues relating to children that considers their well-being in a wider sense - including for instance educational and emotional, as well as economic, dimensions[1]. The Every Child Matters framework incorporates a broad range of aspects and Government efforts to tackle child poverty should be situated within this wider agenda. Economic poverty is just one dimension of child well-being, so that economic considerations should not override other vital factors such as ensuring children are healthy, happy and adequately cared for.
8. Earlier this year, the Government set out the four 'building blocks' at the core of its vision, namely: i. More parents in work that pays; ii. Financial support that is responsive to families' situations; iii. Improvements in children's life chances so that poverty in childhood does not translate into poor outcomes; and iv. Safe, cohesive communities that support children to thrive.[2]
9. We agree that these 'building blocks' are likely to be helpful in focusing efforts to reduce child poverty. It will however be important to ensure these blocks do not develop as discrete silos since the issues they address are related. Education services under block 3 for example are linked to the employment element of block 1 - the educational attainment of children has implications for their employment prospects. Inter-relationships and feedback effects between different blocks should be kept in mind. Joined-up thinking and coordinated action is essential to tackle child poverty.
10. An important interdependency can be identified between parental employment (block 1) and childcare services (block 3). A4e supports reforms aiming to help more parents, and particularly lone parents, into employment. Sustainable employment is the best route out of poverty. However, we believe the employment and childcare agendas need to be more closely coordinated. Parents who cannot access high-quality, affordable, age-appropriate childcare will be reluctant to enter the labour market and should not be forced to do so.
11. Despite great improvements, gaps in childcare provision remain, especially during school holidays[3] and for parents who work atypical hours or who have disabled children[4]. Affordability is also a problem, particularly for disadvantaged families[5]. Much has been achieved in providing free care for children aged two years and above, yet there remains a gap between paid maternity leave and free childcare entitlements of over a year.
12. Another factor is that free childcare is for only 15 hours a week for 3 year olds and 10 hours a week for 2 year olds, while a job must be for 16 hours or more to enable a parent to come off benefits. Lone parent reforms affect families with school-age children, for whom finding age-appropriate childcare can be particularly problematic, and extended schools have not yet been fully implemented across the country[6]. In this way, there is a mismatch between developments in childcare and welfare-to-work reforms that needs to be bridged if families are to be lifted out of poverty. Coordination between these two agendas is of paramount importance.
13. In relation to block 2, financial support, the Government has made great strides in tackling child poverty through the improved system of tax credits and in-work benefits. However many families remain concerned about the implications of take-up. The system is perceived as complex by many low-income families, and tales of difficulties in accessing the Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit abound. Problems are reported to arise where individuals apply for in-work credits and are mistakenly overpaid. Claw-back of overpayments is said to occur in a drastic fashion, leaving low-income families with very little to live on.
14. Such maladministration can exacerbate family poverty and anecdotes on this theme detrimentally affect take-up. The Government has promised to develop ways to help parents navigate the financial support available, but arguably the system of benefits and tax credits should be less complex and easier to use. We would encourage the Government to persevere with moves towards benefit simplification and to ensure that the positive changes made are effectively communicated so that negative perceptions are dispelled.
A Leadership Role for Local Authorities 15. Local authorities have traditionally provided their local communities with an array of core services, from education to refuse collection. More recently, aspects of the 'place shaping' agenda have seen councils become responsible for services such as those that aim to reduce worklessness and promote economic growth. A4e believes local government should take the lead on reducing child poverty. Poverty is experienced locally so the local focus is critical, and arguably actions taken at this level can have a greater impact than national initiatives. Local authorities are less familiar with providing these kinds of services however, so that fresh approaches to funding, commissioning and delivery are needed.
16. New programmes that local authorities have begun to assume responsibility for include the Working Neighbourhoods Fund (WNF), the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI), and the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive (LAGBI). Child Poverty Family Interventions have also been announced, which require participating authorities to develop fresh approaches to intergenerational worklessness and disadvantage. Currently each of these services is separately managed. Local authorities either commission a third party to deliver the service or provide it themselves in-house. Funding is fragmented so that the realisation of efficiencies through integration is not supported. The risk of failure is also high as scarce funds are less likely to achieve discernible outcomes.
17. A4e believes that far-reaching improvements and efficiencies could be achieved by pooling existing pots of funding under a single overarching contract. Services aiming to reduce child poverty could be combined with worklessness and recession-beating initiatives to create a larger fund. Major national and international providers in the welfare to work and wider public service industry markets experienced in frontline delivery would then be able to compete for contracts and use their expertise for the benefit of local communities. Service and cost efficiencies could be more easily achieved. Combining projects would eliminate duplication and reduce the commissioning and contract management burden on the local authority.
18. We support proposals to introduce a duty on local authorities to promote action to tackle child poverty, and to require all local public bodies to consider this issue when exercising their functions. Child poverty is a local phenomenon that must be addressed as a priority at the local level. A4e also agrees that it would be beneficial to introduce a specific child poverty target for all local authorities, to focus on the percentage of children living in low income families. This would require councils to monitor family poverty in their area and would provide the clearest indication of the effectiveness of poverty reduction initiatives. This target could potentially be incorporated within the next round of Local Area Agreements, which already provide a robust framework for goal-setting and attainment.
19. A4e can make additional proposals based on our experiences of working in partnership with local authorities. We have found that a focus on alleviating the debt problems of low-income families can be a highly effective way to tackle poverty. We currently deliver the Advice 4 Stoke service on behalf of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which has been independently confirmed to have a substantial positive impact on reducing poverty[7]. This innovative programme provides financial advice to council tenants struggling with rent arrears and debt issues who risk eviction from their homes. The average customer receives an annual increase to their income of £1,153.12 in previously unclaimed benefit, and has £4,472.52 of debt rescheduled. Many Advice 4 Stoke customers are parents and between March 2008 and January 2009 we enabled them to access over £70,000 of Child Tax Credits. Advice 4 Stoke is funded by the City Council at an annual cost of just £115,000 - an amount that is far outweighed by the savings the service accrues to the council through assured rental income and avoiding the cost of evictions. This is a highly effective model that could be easily replicated in other areas to tackle poverty and financial exclusion.
20. Finally, it is likely to be beneficial for the Government to take a wider view of local partners than simply restricting proposals to local authorities. The energy and influence of Regional Development Agencies, City Strategy Pathfinders and local Employment and Skills Boards could also be harnessed to tackle child poverty, while not only Local Area Agreements but also the Multi-Area Agreements currently being rolled out could be used to develop an effective target-setting and measurement framework.
May 2009 [1]
Unicef (2007). "Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being
in rich countries", Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, [2] HM Government (2009). "Ending Child Poverty: Making it Happen". [3] HM Government (2009). "Next Steps for Early Learning and Childcare: Building on the 10-year strategy". [4] London Development Agency (2007) "Listening to Parents of Children with Disabilities and Special Educational Needs". [5] Childcare costs continue to increase at a rate well above inflation and earnings, as evidenced in: Daycare Trust (2009). "The Eighth Annual Childcare Costs Survey". [6] Wallace, E., Smith, K., Pye, J., Crouch, J., Ziff, A. & Burton K. (2009). "Extended Schools Survey of Schools, Pupils and Parents: A Quantitative Study of Perceptions and Usage of Extended Services in Schools". [7] Johnson, J. (2008). "Assessing and Evaluating the Impact of A4e's Advice 4 Stoke Outreach Advice Services", Report for Independent Debt Research Ltd. |