Category: Child Poverty

When organizations are faced by a common problem, the best way to approach it is no other than the famous saying that ‘two heads are better than one.’ In business, collaboration and partnerships are inevitable when there is a need to improve business outcomes. A coalition is a denotation of a temporary or permanent union of organizations which is usually formed with the aim of owning common goals. The coalition brings together organizations and makes them realize goals which could not be easily realized by either of the individual organizations forming the coalition. However, many reasons can bring organizations together. Whenever there is a partnership, the organizations enjoy some advantages that could not be enjoyed in the ‘do-it- alone’ approach. A good example of such coalitions is the End Child Poverty Coalition which is operating globally.

End Child Poverty Coalition was formed in 2001 by some groups of children’s charities, groups of social justice and trade unions with the aim of combining efforts to reduce the high levels of poverty among the children in the UK. All the founders of this coalition had a common goal of eradicating child poverty in the United Kingdom. They believed that combining effort would mean a better approach to the challenge hence faster realization of their common goal. As a coalition, they would also stand a better funding chance from donors who also believed that eradication of child poverty was fundamental. The success of the coalition was a clear indication that ‘two heads are better than one’ since the outcome of the coalition was far much greater compared to the added efforts of the individual organizations forming it. Throughout the partnership, the shared goal was kept as the North Star making every stakeholder to have self-motivation of creating an experience that would have a positive impact on the lives of young children. The partnerships have made a significant impact in creating awareness over boarders through working together as a coalition as well as individually. This has attracted other players like childhood trust to join hands to achieve a world where all children grow up free from poverty, exclusion, and deprivation. The most notable achievement is that the government has retained the legal commitment of measuring the number of children being affected by poverty. There have been huge amounts of attention from the public where everyone has shown their interest in alleviating child poverty. The major political parties also have been called upon by the government to respond to the UK vision of having a child poverty-free state ahead of the next general election. This is because it has been found that child poverty is also having a cost to society as a whole. It has been noted that child poverty can result from the high cost of living including high prices of goods and services as well as huge costs of housing for the families renting privately. The freeze on the child benefit and child tax credit is also contributing negatively to the increased child poverty.

Despite being a developed country, the United Kingdom has been faced by some poverty cases especially those at the lower end of the income distribution leaving them in the struggle with low living standards. According to the reports, the most affected are families with children. It has been estimated that in a class of thirty children, nine of them are living in poverty. The effort of end child poverty coalition has made an impact in reducing the number of families having relatively low living standards. However, with the current trends of poverty levels calls for government and non-governmental organizations to join hands to mitigate the enormous global challenge. This effort will mean a significant reduction in the number of children living below the poverty line.

Child poverty means something different to different people, as it can be ‘measured in varies ways’ (Full Fact team, 2015). One way to describe child poverty is when the environment the child is living in, is “damaging their mental, emotional, spiritual and physical development” (UNICEF, 2004) Child poverty at a basic level means that parents cannot afford the necessities of food, clothing and shelter. Child poverty statistics are rising in the UK; there are currently more than 4 million children considered to be living in poverty. With the number of children in poverty is expected to increase to 5 million this year, the situation is failing. (The Children’s Society, 2020, Online) Approximately, one third of the children in the UK are perceived to be living in poverty. To relate this to a classroom environment, this means that about 9 children in an average classroom of 30 children live in poverty. (The Children’s Society, 2020, Online) Throughout this essay, I will be evaluating the impact poverty has on educational opportunities as I believe it is one of the main issues we face in education.

Primary poverty means not being able to afford to meet their basic needs for example, not being able to afford food, clothing and housing. This level of poverty is considered ‘living below the poverty line’. (Relative vs Absolute Poverty: Defining Different Types of Poverty, 2018, Online) Secondary poverty is when individuals earn just enough to cover their basic needs but spend a small amount of it on “coping mechanisms” to cope with financial and work-related stress but still end up struggling to manage. (Relative vs Absolute Poverty: Defining Different Types of Poverty, 2018, Online) Relative and absolute poverty are two types of poverty. Absolute poverty is when a household income is under a certain amount which makes it difficult for families to meet the basic needs of life that includes housing, clean water, food, education, and healthcare. Relative poverty is when households receive fifty percent less income for their household than normal meaning, they have some money, but it is not sufficient enough to buy anything that cost more than the basics. However, depending on the economic growth of the country, relative poverty can be improved. (Relative vs Absolute Poverty: Defining Different Types of Poverty, 2018, Online)

Children poverty is harmful to children, to their chances of life and to communities. Child poverty has a negative effect on children as it has an impact on children’s being able to enjoy their childhood and to fulfil their goals. (The effects of poverty, Online) Children living in poverty are at a disadvantage as they are going to school hungry, being bullied at school for wearing old uniform, or losing out on activities with their friends. More than a quarter of children from the poorest families have stated they were bullied because their parents were unable to cover school costs. (The Children’s Society, 2020, Online) However, this is not to say that it is has stopped children from achieving as many have gone onto achieving great things, but it has not been an easy process for these children as they are living in unsuitable housing or sleeping in a cramped bedroom, going to school on an empty stomach and missing out on opportunities. Children from low-income households frequently miss activities and school trips. (The effects of poverty, Online) This is unfair on those young children living in poverty as they will have to go through extra lengths to provide themselves with a good future. This suggests that pupils from poor backgrounds have to put in extra effort to be able to catch up to their peers and not fall behind. This shows the inequalities poverty forms in education for pupils. There may not be the same opportunities for children from poorer backgrounds as other young people their age. They may not have access to the same learning opportunities, or they may miss out on going out with their friends because they simply cannot afford it. Many of those young people living in child poverty will have to work part-time jobs alongside school. They will have to work harder to overcome the barriers that modern life throws in front of them. According to Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) 72% of children who grow up in poverty live in a household where at least one parent works. (Child poverty facts and figures, 2020, Online)

Many working families who have low paid jobs, and zero-hour contracts have to live with just enough for the basic, immediate necessities. With the Covid-19 crisis, people in poverty face further difficulties in the face of rising costs and loss of income. (Covid-19, low incomes and poverty, 2020) Also, due to the Covid-19 crisis, there have been job cuts, school closures and more bills, this will have a big impact on child poverty. With school closures, this has placed an additional strain on low-income families that are already struggling would be impacted by additional expenses for children being at home with school closed while possible experiencing lower income, unemployment or not being able to work due to childcare. Also, with closure of schools, this has made food shortages worse and for majority of poorer pupils, it means losing out on nutritious daily meals. (Covid-19, low incomes and poverty, 2020) As a result, those living in poverty either had no home schooling at all or found it extremely difficult to study at home and because of this pandemic, the education gap has expanded, and many vulnerable children will fall behind. (The State of Child Poverty 2020 | Buttle UK, 2020, Online) Overall, the pandemic has plummeted almost 700,000 people in the UK, including 120,000 children into poverty. (Butler, 2020, Online)

Child poverty is a state that involves children living in poverty. The situation mainly arises due to family-related financial difficulties that force a minor to live in such conditions. Many factors cause child poverty, such as government policies, unemployment, adult poverty, discrimination and disabilities, and economic and demographic factors. According to the North East Child Poverty Commission (NECPC), the condition is a structural issue and not an individual’s fault. In consideration of source materials and research interventions, most scholars establish a significant cause of child poverty. Therefore, the article seeks to support that the primary cause of child poverty is low household income since the factor leads to the existence of financial difficulties.

In an article concerning a study conducted in South Africa, the researchers identified that household income was the primary cause of child poverty. However, the report established other essential factors, such as the household size and qualification of the head, which are all factors affecting or affected by a person’s income. Moreover, the study categorized the causes of poverty into either structural, fate, and individualistic measures (Dunga et al., p27). In this perspective, support for household income as the main factor supports the stand of NECPC that poverty is a structural issue. The results, however, came from responses of adults associated with child poverty to avoid the existence of a multivariate response. In this consideration, the factor relates to other causes such as unemployment and adult poverty hence creating a correlation between the elements. Apart from the study, in an interview with one of my Social Science professors to see her thoughts on the causes of child poverty, the responses were income as the most significant, followed by unemployment, and government policy. Other points were made, such as stress, but these 3 causes were the main points. In this perspective, the explanation provided was that low income exists in the presence of employment and appropriate government policies.

Furthermore, in another article, the authors sought to establish and elaborate on theories causing child poverty. The text proposed that political, behavioral, and structural theories were the most significant concepts explaining the existence of child poverty. In an explanation of the ideas, behavioral relates to a people’s traits, political theory entailed policymaking, and structural concept involved issues related to the labor market and demographics. Moreover, the article further explained that ‘structural theories emphasize the demographic and labor market context, which causes both behavior and poverty’ (Brady et al.). This means that the factor is the most significant since it serves as the independent variable in this case scenario. Regarding household income, the factor lies under structural factors, which means that the article supports the thesis for the paper (Brady et al.). Behavioral factors entail factors such as disability and discrimination, whereas political element involves government policies.

Additionally, in another article that compared child poverty in the United States to that of other nations, the researchers identified ‘Among child poverty drivers, household composition and parent’s labor market participation matter a great deal’ (Smeeding et al.). The latter related to the issue of household income since the labor market defines wages. Moreover, the inclusion of the word participation in the text connects more to income since the more the intervention, the higher the returns. In this regard, the article indirectly argues that a person’s income depends on an individual’s involvement in the market. Similarly, the paper identified that government policy plays an essential role in determining child policy through the implementation of friendly measures (Smeeding et al.). In an elaboration of the point, this factor still supports that income is an essential consideration since the policies suggested a focus on improving the participation of people in the labor market. Moreover, in another article that elaborates on child poverty in the Scandinavian context, the researchers identified that most poor-stricken children faced issues related to lack of basic needs and education. The paper continued to state that the most significant cause of the situation was due to a family’s financial state (Harju et al. p290). In this regard, the paper established that children are mostly powerless to situations facing them within the family context.

Furthermore, in a text that sought to determine the cause of child poverty, the authors established that ‘understanding the root causes of poverty cannot ignore the legal structures’ (Minujin et al. p22). The book further explains that these structures create wealth and income imbalances within the community. On the contrary, this point establishes that the situation leads to financial difficulty in families and society. However, the book identifies that legal structures influence child poverty the most since it states that with appropriate legal frameworks, there are minimal hurdles facing the economy (Minujin et al. p24). Moreover, in another text, the authors established that household monetary metrics are not efficient in the determination of a child’s poverty level. In this regard, the article identifies that household composition is vital in defining child poverty since the factor determines the allocation of resources within the home. Additionally, the paper argues that it is crucial to consider other factors such as health and education (Chzhen et al. pg708). Despite the argument, the article supports that household income is an essential factor in defining child poverty.

In conclusion, five of the six articles establish that household income plays an essential role in determining child poverty. However, in one of the materials, the author explains that legal structures have the most influence on the situation. Therefore, the thesis that the primary cause of child poverty is low household income since the factor leads to the existence of financial difficulties is supported by the majority. Furthermore, the contrasting article states that legal structures affect wealth and income distribution. In this regard, it is evident that the main concern entails situations relating to financial circumstances.

According to the 2018 Kids Count Factbook, almost 20% of children under 18 years old in Rhode Island are living in poverty. As stated by the director of Children’s Incorporated, Shelley Callahan, “Poverty not only includes a lack of income, but also a lack of resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods, such as food, clothing, clean water, and proper shelter. Poverty has many detrimental outcomes for children – hunger and malnutrition, ill-health, limited or a lack of access to education and other basic services, just to name a few”. The 2017 Report on Hunger in Rhode Island informs that at 12.8%, Rhode Island has the highest rate of child poverty in New England (Borg). Poverty in Rhode Island is significantly high because 11.6% of families’ income is below the poverty line, affecting many children in physical and mental health negatively (Refer to p.# 5).

Child poverty in Rhode Island is caused because around 130,000 people live in households with an income under the poverty line, which depends on the number of people living in a house. For instance, the poverty level for a house of four is an annual income of $25,750. (Borg). “According to the 2018 Rhode Island Standard of Need, it costs a single-parent family with two young children $55,115 a year to pay basic living expenses, more than two and a half times the federal poverty level for a family of three” (Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook 2019,36 ).

Moreover, the National Center for Children in Poverty states that 42% (33,578) of children who live in low-income families in Rhode Island has at least one parent who is employed full-time, year-round compared to 89% (113,876) of children who do not live in a low-income household. The other 35% (28,333) of children who live in low-income families have at least one parent who is employed either part-year or part-time compared to 9% (12,031) of children in an above low-income household. And another 23% (18,711) of children who live in low-income households do not have an employed parent compared to 2% (2,048) of children who don’t live in a low-income household.

According to the Child Count Factbook 2019, “Rhode Island’s unemployment rate has declined”, many parents are not able to find jobs to live a comfortable life with their children. “Conditions at low-wage jobs, such as fluctuating work hours, lack of paid time off, and strict attendance policies can harm children’s development by making it difficult for parents to find and keep affordable high-quality child care and education for their children” ( 2019 Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook).

“Rhode Island and Connecticut have similar reasons why the kids and families in their communities are under the belt of poverty. Both of these states have families where the parents earn a low income and then most of that income ends up going towards their bills” (Laudat). The low income is so bad for some families in the state that “One in eight Rhode Island households can’t afford to buy enough food for their families, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture” (Schiff).

The Children’s Society Organization specifies the negative effects poverty has on children. First, they are likely to have poor physical health because they can’t afford to buy healthy food. As stated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, “Children who are poor have higher rates of hospital admissions, disability days, and death rates. They have inadequate access to preventive, curative, and emergency care and are affected more frequently by poor nutrition, single-parent families, dysfunctional families, and poor housing.”

In agreement with the 2019 Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook, children under the age of 6 years old are at higher risk of developing health problems than any other age group. Living in poverty results in poor nutrition, maternal depression, trauma and it can also affect their physical and mental development. “They may experience mental health problems, have a low sense of well-being, underachieve at school, have employment difficulties in adult life, experience social deprivation, feel unsafe, experience stigma and bullying at school” (Children’s Society).

“One in ten children experience mental health problems to some degree in any year; and the impacts of mental health problems ripple out to affect many more people through their social networks of family, education, work, and community. Poverty increases the risk of mental health problems and can be both a causal factor and a consequence of mental ill-health. Mental health is shaped by the wide-ranging characteristics (including inequalities) of the social, economic and physical environments in which people live” (Poverty and Mental Health)

In addition to the high risk of developing health problems, living in an old house can also affect children’s health. In accordance with the American Academy of Pediatrics, “ Exposure to lead hazards is an example of how poverty directly impacts child health. Four to five million children, the vast majority of whom are poor, reside in older homes with lead levels exceeding the accepted threshold for safety. More than 1.5 million of these children (younger than 6 years) have elevated blood lead levels”.

Children who live in low-income families are less likely to finish school. According to the Urban Institute statistics, Children who are poor from birth to age 2 are 30 percent less likely to complete high school than children who are poor for the first time later in their life. That can limit these children’s future both economically because they are less likely to get well-paid jobs as adults. (Operation Warm).

“Poverty during a child’s early years has a more powerful influence on grade completed than poverty during school years. The high school dropout rate for central cities is 14% compared with 7% for adolescents in the suburbs. In areas with high poverty, graduation rates approach only 50% of those who started high school. It is estimated that an increase in mean family income of $10 000 during the child’s first 5 years of life results in almost 1 full year of schooling” (Wood).

In conclusion, Poverty does not only includes money. Poverty is a combination of unfortunate situations that many families have to go through because they don’t have the money to rent a good apartment and buy enough food or healthy food for the family. That can cause them malnutrition, and other health problems. Because 11.6% of families have a low income below the poverty line, almost 20% of children are poor in Rhode Island. As a result, many children are living in very difficult conditions that cause them permanent physical and mental damage that doesn’t guarantee them a good economic future because of the lack of education most of these children receive and because most poor children do not finish school. “Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.” (Nelson Mandela)

Introduction

An adverse childhood caused by low income status and poverty can act as an unstable base for one’s adulthood. The issue of child poverty is surprisingly an ongoing country within high-income countries, such as Canada. In Canada, the demographic most impacted by poverty are the indigenous populations. These specific populations are generally disadvantaged in Canada and thus struggle with providing their families with quality necessities. Quality necessities opposed to basic needs differ because it they allow an individual to thrive and progress in their lives rather than simply get by. For an example, having the financial ability to buy a well balanced meal rather than buying fast food help an individual through its nutritional benefits rather than simply filling up one’s hunger. As impoverished families are unable to support themselves and even struggle providing basic needs, this negatively affects their children. Children within impoverished environments are exposed to increased stress, mental, cognitive and physical health issues (Rita et al., 2007).

Health issues caused during childhood attributed by poverty translate into adulthood. Highlighting a child’s inability to control such situation raises the question as to who should take responsibility for providing a quality and secure life for them. As the parent has guardianship over the child should the responsibility be placed on them despite their financial issues? Or should the government be responsible for taking care of children who suffer under an impoverished environment as it concerns the overall population health of the residents of their country? My position on the issue of the government’s responsibility for child poverty in the indigenous populations of Canada is that they should create more policies and programs to aid children who suffer from these conditions.

The Canadian Government’s Responsibility in Indigenous Child Poverty

The following essay will explain why the Canadian government should take a more proactive role in allowing children in poverty a higher quality upbringing. The arguments will outline the negative feedback loop of child poverty, the impact of more quality childhoods on the future of the country’s economy, and the lack of fairness in relation to a child’s control of their environment. These factors all combine to support the idea that the government invest more into child poverty in Canada as a means to prevent a poverty cycle from continuing.

How Children Suffer from the Poverty Cycle

Children who suffer from poverty are victims of the poverty cycle which is a continuous set of events which can be broken through the aid of intervention of the government. The cycle of poverty is a situation in which individuals who suffer from poverty are more likely to remain in poverty (BBC, 2014). The reason for this is due to the lack of resource availability for them to have the opportunity to advance their situation into a higher position. Lower income families which lack these resources are unable to provide for their children and do not receive the chances to do so. This leads to generational poverty. Generational poverty relates to the poverty cycle by viewing it through a broader perspective which looks at how poverty is passed down from generation to generation (Wagmiller and Adelmen, 2009).

Supporting Evidence

An imperative example in relation to the poverty cycle and generational poverty is the state of the indigenous people of Canada. The government of Canada has history of oppressing the indigenous people from colonization of their land to residential schools. This history has lead this population to their current state where they suffer from the poverty cycle. An article from the BBC states that a report displayed that “40% of indigenous in Canada live in poverty” (BBC, 2013). Indigenous children suffer the consequences of living on reserve and therefore have less resource availability. Evidence from a study by Dahl and Lochner suggests that, generally, a child with lower cognitive and behavioural abilities tends to have parents with a lower income status (Dahl et al., 2012). The second piece of evidence suggests that because of the lack of resources available to indigenous children due to the financial state of their parents they suffer from lower cognitive and behavioural abilities.

How the Evidence Relates to the Poverty Cycle

The issue with the statistic displaying that there is a heightened likelihood of lower cognitive and behavioural abilities in indigenous children is that their environment is preventing them from reaching their full potential. It displays how their environment prevents them from thriving in terms of their mental and physical health. The environmental conditions in which they are subjected to are related to social determinants of health. One determinant that has already been discussed income status of the parents. Other social determinants of health that contribute to child poverty are their social networks, working conditions, social environments and coping skills thus relating to the socio-environmental model of health (Gillet et al., 2016). If the parents are stressed due to unemployment and low income status, they may turn to coping mechanisms such as drinking and smoking. When children are surrounded by this environment they may often adopt behaviours from their parents or adopt their own negative habits. If there is no communities built around populations suffering from child poverty, it leads to isolation and a lack of support. Majority of the time, the environment of these children will not change as they grow up and they may be exposed to worse conditions thus perpetuating generational poverty. This relates to the life course approach which emphasizes how childhood affects the outcome of one’s adult life (Gillet et. al., 2016). The government must intervene with such cases because this cycle will be difficult to break without help from a larger community and funding as they could provide more quality resources and support to these children.

Long Term Effects of Child Poverty on the Economy

Canada’s intervention in child poverty in indigenous populations has the potential to create a mutually beneficial relationship by improving the economy therefore raising another reason as to why there should be further investment in programs aiding in child poverty among indigenous children. Strengthening the childhoods of indigenous children living in impoverished conditions in Canada would lead to a greater progression of Canada’s future economy as well as prevent generational poverty from lingering. By providing programs to improving things such as education and food security, it creates a domino effect by improving the psychological and physical health of that population.

Supporting Evidence

To further explain this point, Japan can be used as an example to illustrate the government’s focus on improving certain areas positively affects their health, leading to a better economy. Japan is a country with one of the highest life expectancies. A report stated that the average life expectancy of Japan was 83 (Ikeda, 2011) which was achieved through focus on lowering communicable diseases and stroke mortality rates (OECD). Japan’s life expectancy displays that the country’s healthcare is adequate enough for its citizens to live to such an age. Such healthcare cannot be achieved without quality and high education rates. According to the Guardian, Japan ranked 5th in reading, 4th in math and 2nd science among a number of countries as displayed by data from the OECD (Shepherd, 2010). Japan’s life expectancy and education rankings exemplify a society’s positive progress which contributes to their economy. There has been evidence tying better education rates to economic growth. (Hanushek, 2005). The opposite has also been shown by displaying that areas with lower education rates for girls are positively correlated to a slower economic growth.

How the Evidence Relates to Economic Growth and Child Poverty

The reason that the information about Japan is relevant to the topic on child poverty of indigenous children is that it proves the correlation between an improved life quality and economy. It displays that when countries decide to focus on improving and capitalizing on certain areas, such as education and health, it improves the overall economy. This was reflected by Japan’s focus on reduction in communicable diseases leading to a higher life expectancy.

If Canada were to invest more into funding programs for indigenous children in poverty then it would help them break out of the poverty cycle. This would push Canada from a liberalist society to following social democratic societies. Canada is known as a liberalist society which means that not much funding is put into redistributive policies (Gillet et al., 2016). Social democratic societies place more emphasis on funding redistributive policies which in turn have shown improved overall health of the population (Gillet et al., 2016). Therefore if more funding was put into indigenous child poverty then they would have more resources to improve their health and education. As they grow up, these resources could help them find better jobs, leading them to be able to support their future families thus breaking the generational poverty cycle. Once they are able to break out of the cycle, they would be able to positively contribute back into the Canadian economy. This displays how the government’s intervention could allow these children to gain control in an environment they have no control in through creating more policies and programs to support them.

The Unfair Gap in Childhood Life Quality Between Indigenous and Other Populations

As a child lacks the control of regulating their environmental conditions, it is unfair they should suffer from the consequences of their family’s lack of economic stability and income; therefore more investment should be put into mitigating indigenous child poverty. Being born into a certain financial situation is by chance and not choice. Individuals who are more privileged tend to have better health due to their resources while individuals who suffer from poverty experience the opposite. The disparity between these experiences is unfair in relation to children as they have no control over financial status and resource availability.

Supporting Evidence

Research has supported that there is a negative feedback loop keeps individuals in an unfair cycle where people in poverty are unable to escape (Kim et al., 2013). As discussed, the only way to alleviate this burdensome cycle is through government intervention which has been proven to work. Programs have been put in place which have been proven to improve a child’s academics, however, these programs lack the funding to continue running (Vinopal, 2001).

How the Evidence Relates to the Unfair Health Disparities between Children

If these programs have shown results then investing into them would make sense. However, by avoiding funding redistributive policies, the government creates a larger gap between the rich and the poor of this country. This can be viewed as extremely discriminatory because most of the individuals from low income neighbourhoods tend to be people who are generally disadvantaged by society by their individual determinants of health. The individual determinants of health are things about a person which cannot be changed (Gillet et al., 2016). In the case of indigenous children, their individual determinants of health are developmental and constitutional (Gillet et al., 2016). Under the constitutional determinants is their ethnicity as it is genetic while their developmental determinant is their age (Gillet et al., 2016). Their ethnicity ties them to their history of oppression from the Canadian government which has constantly neglected them and still continues to do so. Meanwhile, the young age of the indigenous children contribute to their lack of control of their lives because they are unable work and vote thus being unable to support themselves. These factors combine together to overall negatively impact their health. This disadvantage that they face should usher the government to aid their situation as most Canadian children do not face the same difficulties, pointing to the lack of fairness in terms of the issue of indigenous child poverty in Canada.

Conclusion

This essay discussed the reasons why the Canadian government should put more effort into supporting indigenous children who suffer from poverty. Individuals in poverty generally suffer from its cycle because how does someone improve their health if they don’t have the resources to do so? Poverty is already an issue within itself, however, the added layer of being an indigenous person an a child makes the issue much more difficult as it places them lower in terms of privilege. For an example, if white young adult were to suffer from poverty in Canada then it would be easier for them to access resources than an indigenous child suffering from poverty. If the most disadvantaged groups are financially supported by the government then they would have an increased likelihood to contribute more to society which could lead to increased economic growth. It is the government’s responsibility to take care of its country so it should do that by placing more emphasis on the individuals who are most disadvantaged.

Poverty and hunger are nothing new to third-world countries, especially to the people of Ethiopia, as almost half of the people live below the poverty line. Many of the people affected by this are children under the age of 15. Unfortunately, as these children work day and night on the streets to provide for their families, they are exposed to many bad things such as drugs.

With a limited perception of these issues, I thought this only happened in the streets of Addis, but later I came to know that I was wrong. Last year I was visiting relatives in Dire Dawa during one of our family gatherings. It was a good experience until I decided to take a stroll down the streets by myself. After returning from the walk, I managed to see some kids sitting together and smelling petroleum. As I inspected closely, I saw one of my younger relatives with them. Seeing my relative like this filled my head with many emotions, mainly anger and pity. Not knowing what to do, I entered the home and locked myself in one of the guestrooms. After I calmed down, I went outside to talk to him. When I asked him where he had been, he told me he was playing football. When I told him that I knew everything, he started crying at my feet and begging me not to tell his parents. I comforted him and asked him why he was doing this. He told me that poverty and hunger were the main reason and that since he wanted to help his parents financially, he started working on the street and then he got exposed to this. Feeling bad, I wanted to help him, but instead of giving him money, I went out with him and bought him books to read.

That night I really thought about what had happened and came to the conclusion that education is the best way to keep children, especially in third-world countries like Ethiopia, away from drugs and mainly poverty, and hunger.

After a while, I met the same kid again. He rushed to hug me and told me the things I did for him really made a difference. Not only did he accept my advice and stop the bad habits he had, but he also improved in school and got ranked second in his class. Seeing a change for the better in this kid inspired me and gave me hope that maybe if I could change the life of a young boy for the better through education, then maybe as a country we could keep our streets clean, our people fed, and reduce poverty by educating the young generation.

Everyone has felt hungry before or has felt embarrassed by the clothes they were wearing. Some of us have the choice to go into the kitchen and grab something out of the fridge or change the outfit we were wearing, but others don’t. More attention should be focused on ways to lower the number of children is growing up in poverty. 1-in-4 children don’t have the option to eat whenever they want or go shopping when their clothes are torn up or the weather is getting colder they don’t have enough money to buy a new coat. Although many believe it is the parent’s responsibility to provide for their children without the aid it can make it harder for the parents causing the children to be the victims. Poverty is the greatest threat to children in the nation. It is causing the children physical harm, affecting their ability to learn, and behavioral problems. This all happens is a silent painful way.

Poverty means the state of being extremely poor; and the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. Kids living in poverty are lacking food and proper clothing. Just alone in the U.S., eleven million kids don’t have enough food. The lack of food can cause the heart to weaken, lowering the blood pressure to an unhealthy state. In addition to this, it could affect the growth and density of bones and there are many more problems. In addition to this, the lack of nutrition can also lead to a lack of focus, causing them to fail school. Students who are growing up in poverty have many disadvantages. Their preparation school is lower than in the middle and higher classes. This can lead to falling behind in school and losing motivation towards wanting to learn more. This is caused by not having enough food.

A solution to help provide food to those that don’t have much is a school food pantry. Food is donated to the school by parents or the food bank, when the weekend comes around, every Friday before school gets released the students are given food from the school directly. An example of this Century High School food pantry. Century has been doing this for a couple of years and it has been working great. Students are getting fed not just at school but at home as well.

Child poverty has been around for many years, but since 2004 the numbers have been rising. At the end of every year, 13 million pounds of clothing are thrown away every year. This could be easily given to children in need. Students show up to school with clothes that are torn up are dirty unable to afford better clothing. This is a problem for everyone, not just kids because sooner or later they will become the future and determine how to run things.

The children have the greatest risks of having behavioral problems such as aggression, impulsiveness, and the ability to get along with their peers. These problems could affect how they interact with their coworkers in the future. They could also have emotional problems such as anxiety and depression. If any mental health problem is left untreated, it can lead to abuse of alcohol and drugs.

Poverty comes with negative outcomes. Some kids show up to school in pajamas or in shoes where their toes stick out, not because they want, but because they have no choice. In today’s date where clothing says something about you, it is embarrassing to wear clothing that is torn up and dirty than newer and clean clothing. Not having proper clothing can lead students to skip school, and later to bigger things. A Handful of companies have been trying to solve the problem by recycling clothing and trying to get customers to recycle too. With the many clothes thrown away, this could help with the kids that lack proper clothing.

Families that live in poverty need at least twice the income they are receiving. Sixty percent of the United States are earning below the median income. Of how unlikely income will raise there are other ways to help with child poverty around the community. At some grocery stores, there will be a box will be placed inside where anyone will be able to donate clothing that they don’t use anymore. There will be requirements for the clothing before a donation is made, such as lightly used, washed, and wearable (you can’t donate clothing that had a gigantic hole in the front of a shirt). To those who require better clothing will be able to get clothing in a convenient location. This would help with lower the number of the amount of clothing thrown away.

To help those who can’t afford to go grocery shopping there could also be a food pantry at schools, where food is donated to the school and then given to students in need before weekends and holiday breaks. This way it makes it easier for the school and students. Neither the school or the students won’t need to go anywhere to pick up the food, everything would be handled at the school.

A handful of companies have tried to solve the crisis with the clothing industry and lower the amount of clothing thrown away. Offering discounts to those who bring back there old clothing. Celebrities have tried to bring awareness, such as Emma Watson. She wore a dress made out of recycled bottles to the Met Gala. The Levi Company discovered a way to turn old t-shirts into new recycled jeans.

Conclusion

In conclusion, child poverty is a problem and it needs awareness. Numbers are rising, children are affected every day and if we don’t help around our community, how do we expect the future to be great when only forty percent of America’s nation are living above the median wage.

If food is donated to most schools and given to kids in need this could help lower the numbers quite a bit. If grocery stores participated in the idea of placing a box where clothing can be donated, this would help economically and kids in need. The future is in today’s hands, how can we expect great come for later in life if children aren’t growing up in a substantial home. if we can expect to help a situation that is been around for a while how do we expect

Although Britain remains one of the world’s richest countries, there are still a significant number of people living in poverty in the UK. Their household resources are too small to allow them the standard of living that most people in the UK consider acceptable. In the UK, the country is presented with the highest rates in child poverty. By 2022, the Fiscal Studies Institute projects that more than five million children will be living in relative poverty. So, what is poverty in our society? Peter Townsend defined poverty as lacking the resources to meet those basic needs, including social participation, which others take for granted. As well as income, savings and property, a person’s needs can also be met by public services, like education, housing and healthcare.

Research in child poverty in the UK has demonstrated that over 4.1 million of children are living in relative poverty, this means poverty affect more than one in four children in the UK and new figures from resolution foundation indicates that levels of child poverty will increase to 37 percent, topping the previous record of 34 percent recorded in the 90s.

On the other hand, levels of child poverty differ depending on the area you are living within the country, London has proven to have the highest rate of child poverty in the country. There are many people at risk of poverty but people with children face higher risks of poverty due to children’s additional expenses and the effects on working hours of the parent, the benefit of children do not fully compensate. Pensioners are also at risk of poverty and there still remains the huge gap in payment of women, overall the number of low-paid women (3 million) is still much higher than the total number of low-paid men (1.9 million). All of these factors contribute to having people at risk of poverty. Therefore, this can have a negative impact in a child’s life, the effect of children living in poverty, can lead children to isolation, exclusion. It is also known that children in the most deprived areas can be expected to live fewer years of good health with boys of 19 years of “Good health” and girls with 20 years.

The Millennium Cohort Study shows that poor children brought up in poverty are 20 per cent behind other children in their cognitive development when they start primary school and are four times more likely to develop a mental health problem by the age of 11. Children who have lived in persistent poverty during their first seven years have cognitive development.

The chosen organization is CPAG, child poverty action group. The aim of the organization is to help the children that are growing in poverty in the UK. Their main purpose is to understand what causes poverty and the impact that this have on the lives of the one in four children that experiences poverty. The CPAG states “Our vision is of a society free of child poverty, where all children can enjoy a childhood free of financial hardship and have a fair chance in life to reach their full potential. The organization provides information, training and creates awareness of the impact of poverty in children’s lives, it also advises families whom have financial issues to have access to the financial support needed. They also work with people providing them with help to resolve problems with benefits which has meant they have had to turn to emergency food aid, an example of this is that the organizations have set up foodbanks in London which provides support to those in need.

The organizations state that poverty affect a range of people and there is no single form of factor that causes it. But the main causes of poverty specially in children is the rise of the cost of living, lack of available jobs, low wages and insecure employment in many jobs, changing benefit levels, barriers to employment such as childcare. When measuring poverty based on income the poverty line is 60 percent of median income, therefore there are over 14.3 million people living in a household below the poverty line after considering their housing cost. This means one in 5 households within the UK have earnings under the poverty line, after their housing expenses are taken into account. Because poverty is defined ‘relative’ to the median income, poverty levels are affected by the overall distribution of income in society. So, if the income of the rich grows faster than the income of the poor, poverty will increase. (NECPC)

The organization (CPAG) suggests that the Government needs to follow the fundamental principal of the UK welfare state, which states that benefits must reflect need, for example rather than freezing their value until 2021. Annual benefits and tax credit rates, on the other hand, should rise each year in the same way as the UK pensioners. Child benefit should rise by at least 5 pounds per week for each child. Abolitions of the two-child limit on tax credit and universal credit otherwise 200,00 more children will fall into poverty. The administrations of the benefits system must be improved, for example, the waiting period for a first payment of universal credit should be reduced to two weeks. There should be rapid access to hardship payment, benefit advances, and other local welfare assistance should be provided. Housing and childcare remain the most expensive items in the budgets of working families with small children. Childcare costs have risen 42 per cent since 2008, twice the rate of inflation. A new national childcare strategy should include, a high quality, fully funded model of the 30-hour free entitlement to childcare available to all families. We must end the growing impermanence of paid work. The UK has relatively high employment rates, but an unstable labour market, putting UK households at high risk of moving in and out of in-work poverty. Part-time and ‘zero hour’ contracts, temporary jobs and spurious forms of self-employment currently evade employment protection laws and contribute to these risks.

Historically in 1999 Tony Blair prime minister of formal Government Labour developed and announced a target to eradicate child poverty by 2020-2021. By 2010 after the Labour party lost power the target was made law, this was known as the Child Poverty act 2010. The Child poverty Act was a legislation created by the parliament of the United Kingdom that sets out the targets on eradicating child poverty. In the first decade of labour government from 1997 to 2010 their main target was to increase incomes of families with children, introducing the national minimum wage and tax credit which benefited families. They also increased full employment by 80% and increased funding for early year support. They also increased universal pre-k hours, tax incentive to off-set childcare cost, paid leave. Over the period of labour government being in power child poverty in the UK reduced nearly to half against an absolute measure of poverty. When the target become law the UK child poverty act set out 4 targets. The first target was to reduce relative poverty for children how lived in families with an income below the median that is 60%. The second target is to combine material deprivation and low income and reduce it to 5%. The third target, persistent poverty to be reduced to improve the lives of children living in persistent poverty. The final target was to reduce absolute poverty of children to 5%. (HOCL. 2014)

Over the time the political agenda of labour government was passed on to the opposition party when the labour government lost power. In 2007 formal prime minister David Cameron was admen to follow through with the child poverty Act and as a result this act was bind to both current and upcoming government to tackle child poverty.

In 2016 the Welfare Reform and Work Act abolished the Child Poverty Act including all the targets set by the previous government such as reducing poverty and the measures of poverty based on family income and also remove the requirement to publish four income-based measures of child poverty (relative poverty, material deprivation, absolute poverty and persistent poverty). However, after a long time of protests from organizations working towards poverty, the government agreed in the publications on data on the number of children in poverty.

In the Welfare Reform and Work Act the Act seeks to move away from the strategy to tackle poverty set by the previous government and remove all obligations on the local authorities to reduce child poverty. However, it seeks to support in improving education achievement and support “troubled” families. In the same year the government established and introduced the Life Change strategy, this is set out to promote a plan in ‘tackle poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability, addiction and debt”.

The key targets set by the new Acts are the abolishment of the child poverty act and its obligations towards the government, reported obligations towards the government includes progress towards full employment and educational attainment of children, The creation of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. The national child poverty and social mobility commission was renamed the Social Mobility Commission. This meant, that it abolished the role that the commission previously had in monitoring the governments progress in reducing child poverty, the commission focus is on promoting social mobility. The child poverty Act is now known as the Life Change Act 2010.

In terms of Welfare reform and social housing rent the Act provides numerous provisions in relation to the welfare reform and social housing rent reduction but this is likely to have a positive impact on low income families, by decreasing individual house income and reducing the funds available to social housing providers.

The Act introduces a reduction in benefits, which means those who will be entitled to benefits have to have an income that does not exceed £20,000 per couple and for a lone parent, this has to be in a range of £13,400 to claim benefits. In terms of following social security benefits and tax credits this will be frozen for four tax years starting from 2016/17. This means jobseekers allowance, house benefit and universal credit etc will be frozen. This also included changes to the Act, where changes to child tax credit and its replacement, the child element of universal credit were introduced. For children that were born after 8th April 2017, the child element of universal credit will provide for a maximum of two children or qualifying young people for whom a claimant is responsible. The Act amended work-related regulations for claimants under universal credit, increasing the work-focused interview and preparation for work requirements. The Act also introduced a reduction in social housing rents in England of 1% per year over four years from April 2016. (NECPC.2000-2019)

After reviewing all of the material regarding child poverty and the 2 different acts that have been put in place in the UK since 2010, it is evident that the plan to reduce child poverty is still a big challenge and can still be improved. The main legislations putting into action to eradicate poverty was eliminated in 2016, (The child poverty Act 2010) and the new government approach in eradicating poverty has proven to fail massively, the legislation lacks a direct solution to improve child poverty in the UK. The new legislation sets to focus more in child education rather then helping them out of poverty. The legislations remove all obligations from the government and local authorities and entitlement of benefits are no more based on a family’s income. In terms of welfare the legislations suspend and cut benefits. Families must have at least two children to be entitled to decent benefits. Housing benefits, jobseekers’ allowance, universal credit benefit has remained frozen since 2016/17

In conclusion the government’s policies to help eradicate poverty has seen to fail not only more and more children are in poverty but they are relatively poor, and from previous research it doesn’t give the impression that the government wants to take responsibilities in helping correct the situations.

Abstract

This paper will look at the issue of child poverty and food insecurity in the Twin County Region of Virginia. Using statistics from the Virginia Department of Education and the United States Department of Agriculture and information from the documentary film, What Poor Child is This (2011) my analysis will show how child poverty is a problem perpetuated culturally and institutionally while offering potential effective solutions to counter these detrimental forces.

Child Poverty in the Twin Counties

The documentary film, What Poor Child is This (2011) discusses child poverty in the United States. It emphasizes cultural and systemic aspects of life in the US that complicate the real problem of child poverty. An estimated 12 million children suffer from food insecurity within the richest country on Earth. This statistic is ahead of any childhood disease, accidental, or terrorism statistic related to children in America. In the city of Galax, Grayson County, and Carroll County (also known as the Twin Counties area) child poverty and food insecurity are at or above the national average and many factors discussed on the national level are in play within this local region.

Efforts to curb child poverty have had mixed results as many avenues to help children are hindered in bureaucracy and top heavy administration salaries and inefficient processes for getting aid to the people who are suffering. In the 1960’s under the Lyndon Baine Johnson administration, the United States declared a “war on poverty” and started many government social programs to help combat child poverty and food insecurity. These efforts were met with success as private business and enterprise had utterly failed in helping combat child poverty and food insecurity before the governmental social programs of the 60’s. Yet, as the decades have passed the spike in solving the issues of child poverty has fallen as many businesses found a lucrative market to exploit in terms of “rendering aid” to those in need and taking advantage of the Medicaid Program. Medicaid, an insurance program tailored specifically to help children in need, has seen cost overruns through private contracts with various businesses throughout the system over the years. Many of these businesses claim to help battle child poverty, and they do, yet at a great cost and have larger profit margins on many services and items in the turbulent market of health care. The opportunity for exploitation presented itself, as regulations have been loosened over the years, this exploitation by private business continues to grow. The documentary highlights factors that compounds the problem of child poverty in America. My analysis through this paper, with this film and various local statistics readily available to the public as a catalyst, will point out issues that illustrate the insidious problem of child poverty in the Twin County Area.

Impoverished Children

I will focus on the cultural and institutional aspect of why children are impoverished that is in play in the Twin Counties. Much of American culture revolves around the notion of “pull yourself up by the boot straps,” independence, and hard work always leads to prosperity. These notions are not fact-based but are entangled in America’s identity, and these notions actually reinforce child poverty by blaming the victim of child poverty rather than addressing the real factors that perpetuate poverty. These notions are a norm in the culture and utilized on various issues beyond child poverty as we see this creep into various issues including mental health problems and sexual assault. Victim blaming is a part of American Exceptionalism and this myth runs deep with many believing that bad things only happen to bad people and thus the victim deserves his or her lot in life. With this mindset in play, poverty is not just ignored but is often seen as a form of punishment of the victim of poverty. This way of thinking lacks empathy and destroys motivation to logically solve a problem. Dehumanization actually occurs in this mode of thought as victim blaming marginalizes the issue as a whole to where victims can either be easily ignored or, worse yet, the victim actually be treated with utter contempt. Hypothetically, a pattern of behavior occurs within the American culture that treats victims of poverty as less than human. This cultural mindset continues food insecurity and child poverty.

Child poverty also falls under institutionalized (systemic) factors that further complicate the issue. These factors include the way governmental policy and agencies (both private and public) deal with the issue of child poverty in allocating money and resources. This process is mired in red tape and a key component to ending poverty is actually monetary. Private and public agencies seldom, if ever, actually give money directly to those in need. Money comes in through tax revenue and donations yet often that money is converted into other forms such as EBT benefits (formerly known as food stamps) which can only be used on food items. This money is locked into a specific expenditure for the client as it can only be used on food items all while the processing fees and administration costs of the program is paid out in cash to employees and vendors of the system(payroll, purchase orders, etc). It can be argued that perhaps the monies involved should be distributed as cash rather than as benefits as people in poverty could then decide how best to use that money. This would streamline administration and vendor costs and make the program more efficient in terms of dollars actually going out to the individuals in need instead of so much of it going to employees and vendors of the system. Many will intuitively site that people in poverty would simply abuse the money yet they have zero data to back that potentially bigoted statement. As the system stands, a cottage industry has been created through the use of private contractors tasked to fight poverty actually profit from a system originally designed to help those in need. The privileged elite actually gain from a system that is supposed to help those in poverty and children who deal with food insecurity, daily. Many school lunch programs have been privatized. Sometimes, this is the only hot meal a child in poverty receives for a day all while a company profits. Some schools systems still utilize their own lunch personnel which is proven to be more efficient in providing meals to children in the region.

Policies handling child poverty and the programs implemented have been constantly tweaked by legislation over the past five decades. These tweaks are often at the request of various business lobbies that have one thing in mind and that is profit. As a result, these tweaks add to the problem of child poverty while pacifying the cultural aspect discussed earlier, of blaming the victim. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 adversely affected single parent households with a disproportionate burden placed on black and Hispanic households. The Act took away key components that once helped combat child poverty. This act further limited food stamp availability. It implemented the “welfare to work” program which meant that people who once took care of minor children were suddenly thrust into poverty wages with part-time work. This act helped businesses more than people as suddenly a resource of cheap labor was put into the market while benefits for the victims of poverty were cut. This act hurt children in poverty by reducing time with a parent or guardian and further marginalized the family as the guardian, even with a job, had less cumulative resources than before the 1996 act.

Virginia is a state that requires many recipients of EBT to work at least 16 hours a week to receive EBT benefits. In the Twin Counties, the jobs available are low paying with Wal-Mart, Guardian (Consolidated Glass) factory, and Magnolia factory being the top paying jobs in the area. And even these jobs pay entry level employees a poverty wage. Other jobs that are typically available to folks on EBT and other programs pay far less and these include retail and restaurant work. The excuse that is often given for the low pay is that these jobs are for kids old enough to work. But this argument falls apart when one simply looks at how many of these businesses are open during school hours. Rhetorically speaking if these jobs are truly for kids then shouldn’t the businesses only operate after school hours? Here is a universal established problem that continues and expands child poverty in America. It also potentially adds to developmental issues as parents are forced from home to work low-paying, hard, stressful jobs (fast food, retail, and factory work are not easy jobs) with no benefits or regular schedule and uncertain hours. As a result, the “Welfare to Work” program destroys stability in the home life. Stability is proven to help in terms of child development and without this component statistics are showing that child poverty is increasing rather than decreasing since this act was implemented. If work offered a living wage rather than a poverty wage then many of the problems with child poverty would be solved at the family level with employers who actually helped society rather than exploiting society and the families within. A living wage would go a long way to eliminating the vast majority of child poverty and many children who suffer in poverty actually have a parent that is employed but employed at the standard poverty level wage paid by far too many employers.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture there are approximately 64 million public school students and approximately 27.9 million of those students participate in free or reduced lunch. The Twin County Region is higher than the national average for students enrolled in the reduced or free lunch program. This statistic showcases child poverty with data available from the Virginia Department of Education. Grayson and Carroll County has one of the highest percentage of students on the free lunch program in the state. According to the Virginia Department of Education in 2017, Grayson County had 1,579 students of which 73% of the student body is enrolled in free or reduced lunch. Carroll County had a student body of 3,539 students, of which 2,174 students are enrolled in the free or reduced lunch program. This data only shows the statistics for those enrolled in the program and does not show the numbers of how many children suffer from food insecurity. Many families do not opt into the program due to shame that falls back on the cultural aspect that is in play of blaming the victim.

Conclusion

To reach their potential, children need a stable home, adequate nutrition, and a community. Children in poverty are at a serious disadvantage in achieving that potential. When families struggle to meet even the basic needs a child is at a further disadvantage as parents work menial jobs with hectic schedules that deter from the stability of a family unit. The film showed children going to school hungry. Children are dependent on adequate nutrition for brain development, emotional development, and physical development. Far too many children in the richest country on Earth are going to school hungry and are at a terrible disadvantage. In the Twin Counties the number of children in poverty far exceeds the national average. This is a fight for basic survival and in that fight everything else is secondary. When welfare programs are made to be nearly inaccessible, and pay rates with entry level jobs pay below the poverty line, and work schedules that are a detriment to family units; then we as a society are culturally and institutionally destroying families and hurting children. Mandating a living wage would go a long way to eliminating much of child poverty in America as well as loosening restrictions on safety net programs such as EBT and Medicaid. When we feed our children and care for them we are helping not only an individual but also our society. When we ignore or continue the issue of child poverty then we are actively hurting our society.

References

1. Mohan., T. (Director), Mohan, A., Dr. (Producer), & Sartorio, J., Mohan, A., Dr., & Mohan, T. (Writers). (2011). What Poor Child Is This? Poverty and Americas Children [Motion picture on DVD]. USA: Lathika International Film & Entertainment.
2. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (2016, September 02). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/personal-responsibility-and-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996
3. United States Department of Agriculture. (2019, June/July). National School Lunch Program. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-programs/national-school-lunch-program.aspx
4. Virginia Department of Education. (2017, June/July). Program Statistics & Reports. Retrieved July 13, 2019, from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/nutrition/statistics/index.shtml

The idea of child poverty and its effect on New Zealand emerged after seeing the documentary on YouTube. This thought arose from my curiosity regarding the effectiveness of attempts to eradicate and reduce child poverty in New Zealand. My hypothesis was that the child poverty rate in New Zealand was not so bad as compared to other countries. Nevertheless, I also feel that to conduct my research; I decided to ask three questions; ‘What are the causes of child poverty in New Zealand?’, ‘How does New Zealand child poverty rate compared to other countries?’ and ‘What are the possible solutions to child poverty in New Zealand?’

What are the causes of child poverty in New Zealand?

The OCC source states that ‘the causes are multiple and varied’. Not surprisingly, according to this source, the most important causes of child poverty in New Zealand are ‘low family income, poor academic performance, social and health problems and public spending priorities’. The source goes further by citing that children living with one parent, large families, people with disabilities and living in social housing can significantly increase the chances of children living in poverty. They had a valid point because the people who came from large families who experienced their form of material deprivation. While most of these causes are apparent, I am not convinced that social housing is a cause. I am sure that those in the social houses are there because they have a low income and, for me, it is right to remember that the poverty associated with social housing was born as a result of events before families were placed in social houses. I believe these are direct causes that have accumulated and constituted a complex problem. The advisory group has written the source of experts from the Commissioners of Children acting independently of the government, which means that they do not have a political program and this avoids the possibility that their information is partial.

Similarly, according to ‘Heritage.nzei.org.nz’, it also states the same causes of child poverty in New Zealand. She mentioned Emily Keddell, a sociologist who attributed the causes of child poverty only to lack of money and said: ‘It does not matter if the money is delivered through wages, benefits, taxes or universal subsidies for children: it is money what it does the difference. Without it, people are poor. ‘While I agree that money is essential, I feel the need to challenge it when it states that it doesn’t matter how money reaches families. In a sense, I think it’s important and plays an important role in how poverty is caused and worsened because families have become so dependent on the government to fulfil their responsibilities, while these families don’t make a significant attempt to get good remuneration and support each other. I think it’s not the lack of money that causes poverty, but the way the money is paid. The emphasis should be on the use of transfer payments to help people with significant deprivation, but proper wage use should be emphasized. For me, I found this particular information invalid. This is because I see ‘hands-out’ only as a way to facilitate life in poverty, rather than take away their families for their long-term benefit. Jonathan Boston is a well-known child and academic researcher in poverty with government analytical credentials to justify the information presented in this source. What makes it respectable is the fact that his work has been recognized by the Commissioner for Childhood and the tertiary education academics.

How does New Zealand child poverty rate compared to other countries?

While, in my opinion, child poverty in New Zealand is not as severe as in other countries of the world, child poverty remains very significant. An article on “oecd.org” provides data that amazes me. Although OECD presents data for profitable profits, which can sometimes make presentation information difficult, I trust this source in this case, since they got their information directly from official data. The source states New Zealand’s rate was 15%, while Australia’s (11 United Kingdom’s (10%). France (9%) and Finland (3%) were all lower despite their larger population.

On the contrary, the information from ‘cpag.org.nz’ shows that the rate in New Zealand was more severe than that mentioned in the previous source. This source states that the New Zealand rate is 28% as opposed to 13% of the last reference. What seems unusual to me is that both data from these sources were published according to data from 2018, yet they seem to differ from one another. Now, this second source appears to be reliable because the organizations behind this source seem to be non-profit organizations with a genuine attitude towards children in poverty. As a result of these results, it is right to mention the challenges that different child poverty measures must present direct information because it is not a straightforward problem. I am not necessarily convinced of the information provided due to some factors that should have influenced New Zealand’s child poverty rate, such as; population, the gap between rich and poor, income distribution. I think I would need to undergo another survey with more recent results in my opinion that the New Zealand rate is not as significant as that of other countries, to change it.

What are the possible solutions to child poverty?

I hope to find a good income, educational achievements and a stable economy where economic growth is achieved and maintained as solutions to child poverty. I also know that government policies have an impact on child poverty, and I am sure that more draft amendments would be presented to the House of Representatives in an attempt to reduce child poverty. However, the ‘nzccss.org.nz’ site states that ‘economic growth alone will not necessarily face poverty’. Although this surprises me, the article refers to how this occurred. ‘Growing the cake (economic)’ does not necessarily mean that everyone receives a more significant portion. Recent evidence from the World Bank and the IMF recognize the need for growth to be ‘favourable to the poor’. Although the article begins to seem very stubborn, I found that there was an equal balance of facts and opinions, which adds validity to this source. This is also a very current source, as the information found by the World Bank was published at the beginning of last year. I find it hard to believe because economic growth indicates that the economy is improving and that people have more money to spend. It seems logical that when the economy grows, people are much better, and that is why this discovery surprises me.

Community support was the most extensive quoted; This source supports proposed initiatives, such as the use of schools as community centres to help people in the neighbourhood. Other proposed solutions include improving educational participation (to increase literacy skills between Maori and the Pacific), food in schools and more comfortable access to quality medical care. I believe that community support is a good idea because child poverty does not only affect people financially, but debt is a somewhat traumatic experience that is very demoralizing and can lead to complications of social well-being. Despite being a newspaper to attract readers for profit, I believe this source is commendable for its proposed solutions to child poverty. This is because the case examined people about what they think they can do to alleviate child poverty in response to the government’s recent approach to tackling child poverty.

As a result of my findings, I concluded that the child poverty rate in New Zealand is not as vital as comparsion to countries. However, I am not surprised to find that the government had waited seven years before they decided to try to alleviate child poverty in New Zealand. They seem to have remained until the problem worsened instead of preventing it from getting worse, almost as if the government wanted New Zealand to tolerate significant child deprivation. I believe that investing in children should be a top priority of the government, as they will be the ones who will lead the country of tomorrow. If I had to do more research, I would be interested to see exactly how realistic it is to eradicate poverty, the accuracy of child poverty stereotypes in New Zealand and the latest global child poverty rates. It is an unfortunate situation for children living in poverty, and that is why it must be urgently addressed.