Poverty_or_Rights,_Closing_the_Gap_Between_Rights_and_Realities_in_Children’s_Live

Poverty or rights, closing the gap between rights and realities in children’s lives MA Sociology of Childhood and Children’s Rights Jonathan Hanna This dissertation may be available to the general public for borrowing, photocopying or consultation without the prior consent of the author 2 Poverty or rights, closing the gap between rights and realities in children’s lives. Abstract This dissertation examines the interrelationship between children’s rights and child poverty in the UK. Children’s rights have become a significant field of study in the past two decades, following the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989. Similarly child poverty has taken a central role in policy debates as it becomes a central signifier of effective welfare and social mobility. However the literature of rights and poverty are not aligned . This dissertation proposes such an alignment through focussing on child poverty whilst expanding the definition of child poverty to be about power, rather than strict income based measures. Although addressing adult outcomes is an essential part of tackling poverty in childhood, it is the contention of this dissertation that we also develop a deeper, more meaningful awareness and understanding of the everyday realities of childhood poverty. This should be grounded in children’s own experiences and meanings. This is why an absolute focus on poverty is a fundamental precept to any narrative about rights. The dissertation is in 5 parts, the introduction sets out the core hypothesises and the structure that will be used; the literature review examines how and why poverty and rights have been conceptualised in the dominant narratives. The dissertation then moves to examine primary research, setting out the methods used to engage groups of young people in their understandings of poverty and rights before analysing and discussing these. Finally conclusions are drawn which suggest a reduction of child poverty would be the key to empower children and enhance their rights. 2 3 Contents Contents Page Page number Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Literature Review 14 Research Methods 31 Conclusions 53 Bibliography 58 Annex A: A summary on the rights of the child. Annex B: Primary research survey results. Word count: 18943 3 4 Poverty or rights, closing the gap between rights and realities in children’s lives. “The greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty.” (George Bernard Shaw: Major Barbara 1905) Introduction The goals of social investment, child focused policy making and international development efforts in respect to children are clear. They are to improve livelihoods; to reduce poverty; and to support children to live in accordance with their rights as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1990. Poverty is a devastating affliction. It is estimated that globally over 8 million children under the age of 5 die with poverty as a cause (Black et al 2010). UNICEF estimates that in half of these cases malnutrition is a contributory cause (UNICEF 2002). Almost a third of children live in squalid housing conditions (Pemberton et al 2012) and over 400 million children drink from unsafe open water sources (Gordon et al 2003). The premise of children living happy and healthy lives, as envisioned in the CRC seems far from this reality. UK child poverty is the focus of this dissertation. Despite its status as one of the most developed nations, the UK faces surprisingly high levels of poverty and disadvantage. It is estimated that 2.8 million children (22 per cent of all children) are in relative income poverty (OECD 2008), as defined by the UK government, who also estimated in 2008/091 that 1.6 million children (12 per cent) live in absolute poverty (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2010). 1 The government’s measure of material deprivation and low income refers to the proportion of children in households with incomes below 70 per cent of median household income and who experience material deprivation (a lack of basic goods and services). The measurement of poverty is something we will discuss below in detail. 4 5 In 2009, the UK was rated above the OECD inequality average for material well-being, although it was ranked close to the OECD inequality average in both education and health well-being (OECD 2008). This put the UK in the group of countries in the bottom two-fifths for overall inequality, which as poverty is often defined in relative terms, is problematic for measures of poverty in the UK. The reason such figures are extremely problematic for the UK is that poverty in the UK is associated with a range of poor outcomes. Children growing up experiencing poverty are more likely to experience educational failure, ill health, mental illness and fall into the criminal justice system (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2010). There are also a number of stress factors associated with poverty, for example children who live in social housing are 3 times more likely to suffer from mental illness then those in privately owned housing (Fabien Commission report 2006) and there are explicit links between low attainment at school and poverty. So, it is clear that poverty is a real problem in the UK, especially for children, and there is consensus for working to reduce it. The fundamental question is ‘how'’ We aim to use this dissertation to ask, and provide some answer to four questions, the first three leading unto the fourth: 1. What is poverty, and particularly what is childhood poverty' 2. How does child poverty create a barrier to the realisation of a child’s rights' 3. What are the other barriers' 4. Would poverty reduction or eradication make children more likely to be successful rights holders; or would children who were enabled to be more successful rights holders make poverty reduction more achievable and successful' The ambition for each section of the dissertation is to discuss and provide answers to each of these questions, so that we can work towards a detailed and final discussion and in our conclusion achieve a resolution. In each chapter, we will consider each question; firstly to explain why these questions have been chosen, secondly to clarify the understanding of 5 6 them that will be taken throughout, and finally to establish how discussion of these questions can lead us to our ultimate aim of concluding with an answer to the overall question. What is poverty, and particularly what is childhood poverty' ‘All cultures seem to have a concept and definition of poverty.’ (Gordon and Spicker 1999: 150) The discourse on defining and understanding poverty is detailed, controversial and complicated (Harding et al, forthcoming). There are conflicting and confusing aspects to poverty (O’Boyle 1999). The key first clarification is that for the purpose of this dissertation we will be using the UK context in discussion of poverty and childhood poverty – although at appropriate and relevant points we will use international examples to illustrate or compare. It is often easier to comprehend and argue for children’s rights for those children in most urgent need in developing country contexts; but children’s rights can increase child, and adult, wellbeing everywhere. (Alderson 2001) Within the UK context, the debate has centred on relative measures of poverty (Tomlinson et al 2007), which are assessed using primarily econometric tools. During the literature review below we will discuss the different methodologies used in poverty analysis, as this will help us later when we come to discuss how poverty reduction could be the key to unlocking children’s rights. The symbiotic nature of the relationship between poverty and children’s rights seems obvious, however when we come to the literature review we may suggest that economic and social rights have tended to fade into the background of the rights discourse, as against the prominence of the “3p’s” of participation, protection, and provision. The particular dimensions of poverty in a context where work and remuneration are very restricted for children 6 7 (Bourdillon 2006) will also be discussed. There is a discrepancy between childhood experiences of poverty and the policy measures and debates on the issue. The narrative centres on a family or neighbourhood’s socio-economic level which positions a child as an adjunct of their parent or family. In the UK (with relevance elsewhere) defining poverty is a critical and contested issue. The main proxy used for identifying if a child lives in poverty is a binary indicator, with significant implications. Free school meals are either assigned to a child or not, there is no spectrum or scale. Therefore it is a measure of limited efficacy (Kounali et al 2010) when attempting to support an understanding of the implications of living in poverty, but will be used, in addition to other measures through this dissertation, as it has “currency.” It is a very well understood term, especially amongst the participants of this research, and in terms of ensuring the validity of research, it is a stable measure: ‘We have no data on the social class of the parents of children in school at age 11, so we proxy social class by whether or not the pupil is in receipt of FSM… This is an approximation, but ... FSM status is relatively stable …’ (DFES 2005:22) In addition to the economic measures, poverty is also about power. As much as it is a percentage of median income, or an amount of dollars per day, or predicated on the eligibility for a state benefit, poverty is a relative, relational term. Poverty is an excellent example of this in relation to children. To examine this let us start with an understanding of power as: “Power is the right to have your definition of reality prevail over other people.” (Rower 1989: 16, quoted in Chambers 2009: 15). 2 The Department that has responsibility for young people, and in particular their education has changed guises twice in the last 15 years. The current Department for Education (DFE) was formerly the Departmnet for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) which superseded the Department for Education and Skills (DFES). The change in name does reflect changes in approach and focus, with some relevance for the researcher in this area. For the purposes of clarity, when referencing the name at the time of publication has been used. 7 8 Or, using Foucault’s analogy, power is exercised as the way in which certain actions structure the field of other possible actions or understandings (Foucault 1982: 208). In asking children (both those who are defined as living in poverty, and those not – using standard welfare measures) about their own experiences of poverty there is the danger of superimposing a narrative – disempowering the children by impressing upon them the dominant narrative of poverty, or by later deconstructing their opinions and ideas and subsuming them into the same dominant narrative, and it is important to guard against this deconstruction. However, this is not to argue that standard measures are not valuable, and they will be used through the course of this dissertation, with appropriate caution. It is important to note that the current social dynamic is not static. This dissertation is being written at a time of economic recession. Many charities, such as Save the Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued that a negative impact on families and children is already in evidence (Save the Children 2009; Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2012). This is affecting government targets for eradicating child poverty (Hirsch 2009), and effects conceptualisations of, and about, poverty. In examining the distinctiveness of childhood poverty and children’s experiences of poverty we will of course need to listen to the voices of young people themselves. Children are already socially constructed beings (Prout 2001), and risk being depicted as powerless and without agency. One of the challenges for this dissertation has been the question of how to avoid superimposing narratives when concepts such as poverty are not necessarily cocreated in the same way in children’s social worlds. There is a sense of haves and havenots, but they are not necessarily correlated to material wealth in quite the same way. This will be a discussion for the data analysis section, and will take us into children’s perceptions of both poverty and rights. A note on important situations or categories that some young people find themselves in. It is accepted (DFE 2010) that some “categories” or particular situations that some children find 8 9 themselves in are particularly vulnerable – both in terms of rights violations and the lived experience of poverty. Some examples of vulnerable situations or categories are: children in care; children with disabilities; those in the youth justice system; refugees; and homeless children. We will not focus on these (or other) specific groups because they often face specific and complex barriers to achieving their rights and would each require specific research in order to be able to tell their story appropriately. Also, more conceptually, many of these groups legally fall into the direct care of the state, and therefore are not directly relevant in terms of the argument of this essay that their rights would be more enabled if they – and by association those with direct responsibly for their welfare (usually parents/carers) were taken out of poverty. How does child poverty create a barrier to the realisation of a child’s rights' ‘Poverty needs to be seen not as a social problem, but as a violation of rights’ (Hinkin 2001: 37). Critical for our understanding of the interrelationship between rights and poverty is a clear discussion of why poverty is so important for anyone who sees children as rights holders. Sometimes in policy this gets missed; because poverty is seen as a steady state parameter, which cannot be influenced or controlled. This is patently not true, but before we progress on to discussing how poverty might be tackled we need to be clear on how and why poverty interacts and limits children’s rights. ‘Child poverty can affect the extent to which the government fulfils the obligations contained in the convention on the rights of the child (CRC)’ (NSPCC 2008: 1) In discussion of the first question above, it was stated that poverty can be about power. People experiencing the lived reality of poverty are disempowered, both materially through 9 10 what they can and cannot do, have and access; but also more abstractly. In social discourse, the media, and in well meaning social interventions those living in poverty are often “othered” (Buchowski 2006). Children living in poverty are doubly disempowered (Hendricks 2000). They experience both aspects of the disempowerment of poverty mentioned, and they acquire additional disempowerment through their status as children – who are legally, culturally and economically disempowered in UK society. This is a point we will discuss in detail below, for now it is important to determine how important powerlessness is for any discussion of children’s rights. Although the prevailing sentiment discussed in relation to the CRC is “the best interests of the child;” any current discussion of rights in a UK context, where balancing the different rights of the child need not be an issue, will need to consider empowerment as a key theme. What are the other barriers' Poverty is a barrier to rights (Fisher 2008: 186), both as a signifier of relative absence, and as a more metaphysical example of disempowerment. It is, though, not the only barrier to children being able to assume their full entitlement to rights. There are other barriers which we will need to explore if we are to be able to assess if it is worth focusing on poverty as a barrier. This will be a theme that comes out of the focus group and individual follow up interviews aspect of the research chapter. The literature on rights has identified key barriers, including choice or discrimination of adults, and societies (www.crin.org). Other barriers which will be discussed include the invisibility of children from policy debates; tokenism; and a genuine lack of understanding and knowledge of children’s rights and their implementation, including from children themselves (Kilkelly 2007: 62). These will be developed and detailed below, in the literature 10 11 review. In the argument chapter we will need to reflect upon the causal nature of the different barriers and their relationship with each other. This will help us attempt to determine whether a focus on overcoming any of them would make a fundamental difference. Would poverty reduction or eradication make children more likely to be successful rights holders; or would children who were enabled to be more successful rights holders make poverty reduction more achievable and successful' ‘We will not end cruelty to children without ending child poverty’ (NSPCC 2008: 2) This is the essential question underpinning this dissertation. It is the hypothesis of this dissertation that the previous questions, and the research methods will help to demonstrate that yes, a focus on poverty reduction for children in the UK would make a fundamental difference to the lives and rights of children (DWP 2010). This would need to take account of how we define poverty in a child-centred way, not purely in terms of family or neighbourhood income – although this would have an effect on the measure. It will be hard to prove absolutely without creating a counterfactual social reality – however, reason, combined with insight will lead us forward. To move in this direction, we will need to examine examples of “right-aware” poverty reduction, and examples of this from the literature – and where possible (although they are limited) examples of “child-right aware” poverty reduction strategies. We will then, through the Literature and the primary research need to surface ideas and feedback that will help us understand what a more appropriate measure or set of measures would comprise and how realistic it would be to develop them for this outcome. There are 3 main arguments for using children’s rights as a way into ending child poverty: 11 12 1. There is a legal argument (Gordon et al 2006), based on the CRC’s requirement that states use all available resources to ensure the articles of the convention are upheld for every child. This would only be possible by ending child poverty. 2. There is an economic argument, that children who are enabled and empowered to be participative rights holders are more likely to be successful economically active citizens who will contribute to the national economy (Ife and Morley 2002). 3. There is a moral argument, based on treating children as the members of society most deserving and in need of the state’s protection of them as citizens. (Plan 2010) However, there are equally strong arguments for looking at the prism of child rights through the prism of poverty reduction. There are 3 strong arguments for taking this course of action 1. A legal argument, as many of the CRC provisions are really based on living a life free from poverty (rights to health, education, welfare). 2. The economic argument, it will be less costly (but equally or more beneficial) to start by taking children out of poverty then by atomising each right they should have access to and investing in enabling them to fully access it. 3. A moral or political argument, that poverty, especially in a developed nation such as the UK is effectively a form of massive de-prioritisation of an individual’s welfare. These arguments, as with the wider discussions and analysis will take shape through the literature review below. Following that, the primary research section will be presented. The primary research is based on focus groups, with follow up interviews and a baseline of questionnaires to provide a combination of qualitative and (albeit on a relatively small scale) quantitative input. The aim for the primary research is to look at how children understand the relationship between poverty and rights. The idea is that they will consider the relationship between socio-economic background and rights – both for themselves, others in their ‘social world’ and more widely. 12 13 ‘… Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomenon in terms of the meanings people bring to them.’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000: 3). The children included as participants in the study are all students at Evelyn Grace Academy, a school the researcher has taught in for 2 years, located in the Coldharbour ward of Brixton. The researcher’s role within the school has granted privileged access to the children, but it also carries risks, which are explored in the research design chapter below. The discussions and considerations which are suggested here, and detailed below, will lead into the conclusions which will return to our four initial questions, finishing on the core hypothesis of this dissertation. Most critically considering the measurement of poverty; and whether it would lead to improved outcomes for children if the primary focus of agencies and interventions for children were on poverty reduction as a way to enhance their rights, rather than starting with rights. Prior to that discussion we will first examine the literature pertaining to these four questions, before discussing the research methods and outcomes. 13 14 Literature Review The nuances, measurements and conceptualisations of poverty have been the subject of fierce, detailed and at times polemic debate and discussion (Harper 2003). This is especially in the context of two key events, firstly in the international context, the advent of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which set a series of ambitions which included a goal of halving extreme poverty3. The accepted definition for extreme poverty is living on less than $1 dollar a day (with adjustments made for purchasing power). The second key moment was the prioritisation given to child poverty by the 1997 Labour government and its primacy in the political agenda since then. In 1999, the-then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made a landmark speech in which he promised to eradicate child poverty ‘within a generation’, by 2020, partly in response to the rise in child poverty between 1979 and the 1990s. The government set a series of targets aimed at reducing and eventually eradicating child poverty, accompanied by a series of welfare reforms aimed at improving life chances and outcomes for children, including the Children Act 2004 and the implementation of the Every Child Matters agenda. Within the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF 4), the Child Poverty Unit was set up. These moments led to a greater need to understand and conceptualise poverty, against an equally pressing need to be able to measure and quantify poverty and child poverty in particular. What is poverty, and particularly what is childhood poverty' The literature on poverty, especially UK poverty tends to split into measurement and alleviation. In this section of the literature review we will focus on measurement. 3 This automatically draws the reader into a question as to what makes extreme poverty, compared to ordinary poverty and whether it is ok for ever more people to live in “ordinary” poverty as long as they are not within the more “extreme” category. 14 15 Poverty at its most simple is an empirical, one dimensional indicator based on wealth or income. Historically poverty has been defined by macroeconomic concepts such as labour market conditions, demographic changes and income related measurement (Van der Hoek 2005). This places a very strong emphasis on income that is still prevalent and places it at the heart of both measurement and policy solutions to child poverty. Since the mid-1980s there has been growing consensus that poverty needs to be measured, and tackled using a more multidimensional approach. (For example SEN 1992). This is even more of an issue when discussing childhood poverty where other approaches have challenged the hegemony of economics in determining and discussing poverty. ‘… Measuring child poverty can no longer be lumped together with general poverty assumptions… focussing solely on income levels’ (Gordon and Nandy 2003). A lot of the debate stems from the emergence of the human capability approach by Amaryta Sen (1992). He argues that there are fundamental “freedoms” that should be available to everyone – based on political freedom, social opportunities, economic opportunities, personal security and openness. Sen’s “Freedoms,” though are not the same as legal rights. In Sen’s economic terms, a “freedom” is an ability to participate and be active in a certain field, rather than a legal freedom guaranteeing something. The difference can be seen as active and passive action; Sen’s freedoms require authorities to be inactive in the main, whereas a legal right, in the terms Freeman (Freeman 2007) and others use requires more active state involvement. Building on this, the Human Development Index (HDI) was developed, which aimed to measure a variety of indicators including life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living and well-being. The absence or low scoring of these composite factors can be argued as analogous with a state of poverty. However HDI is primarily a measure of adult 15 16 well-being. The index is not disaggregated by age group, and the indicators are the expected levels reached by adulthood. This has led to considerations of supplementary child focused measure (Burd-Sharps et al 2012). Burd-Sharps et al proposed a “Tots-Index” with a range of child focussed indicators, particularly focussed on under 5 well being. In the UK, Save the Children developed a corresponding Child Development Index (Save the Children 2008). This index aimed to combine a multitude of indicators relating specifically to children (child health, nutrition, primary education). The authors argued each indicator was easily accessible, universally understood and clearly indicative of childhood wellbeing. This is linked to a ‘taxonomy of deprivation’ approach advocated by some development economists. But these approaches are difficult to interpret on a scale less then at a regional or country level. So what does that mean in the field of our study' How we can do microanalysis of individuals or groups' Detailed and fascinating anthropological surveys can lead to socio-cultural analysis of poverty – for example Howard and Millard's work amongst the Chagga in Tanzania (1997). Or Amartya Sen’s redefining of development economics both still, despite their innovations, leave us in a conceptual space where poverty, whilst being defined in a more nuanced way is both still with us and, as prophesised in the New Testament “will always be with you (us).” The implication being that poverty is a conceptual characteristic, or label that is entirely relational, and therefore inescapable. Is this due to some unconscious human need to compete, or by conscious desires to maintain social power relations' As these relations are socially or culturally defined, does that lead us to consider poverty as socially or culturally defined also' Researchers in India (Montgomerry et al 2003) found that when they questioned rural women what they felt constituted poverty they answered an alcoholic husband. Due to the shame he would bring. Similar research was carried out in the Amazon, where poverty was synonymous with being an orphan, as one was deprived of having many relatives. An aboriginal version of poverty 16 17 comprised facing dislocation from their spiritual and economic base, the land (Choo 1990: 32). So, there are clearly cultural connotations for poverty. Yet, each of the given examples does connect to material deprivation in some way; interestingly they are all a step removed from income, but the end result is in some ways similar to an insufficient income in a capitalist system. So, the real key is the relativity of poverty – whether or not the whole picture is poorer or richer, it’s the effect on those who are poorer – however defined. ‘Even in a society with sufficient food, some people are forced into food crisis when they lost their ‘food entitlement’ as customs of reciprocity and redistribution erode.’ (Howard and Millward: 173) Sen’s (1999) take is closer to the cultural examples above, suggesting that the social breakdown resulting from social development, the development of free market capitalism and concurrent forces of urbanisation and globalisation can lead to poverty even when the overall picture is one of economic growth and development. ‘A pattern of loss of entitlements in many regions of Africa… rates of child malnutrition tend to peak in Africa’s mountainous areas, where cash crop production has been most successful.’ (Raikes 1988: quoted in Howard and Millward: xiv) So there seems to be a perverse irony of increasing “wealth” leading to increased poverty, which in particular seems to hit those we are most concerned about, children. Do global changes lead to an increase in poverty, unless we systematically design our interventions to have the opposite effect' The recent rapid pace of change in the economic, technological and social spheres has demonstrably fragmented the social order. Poverty, as much as material deprivation relates 17 18 to social exclusion from the increasingly fragmented social order. Poverty is multidimensional, and measures of poverty, whether the $1 dollar a day or the more comprehensive measures can only be indicators of this. Child poverty is even more difficult to measure or even indicate, due to divergent rates of progress and development, and different needs and capacities. ‘…it evolves over the course of childhood, depends on the care of others, and is subject to a particular depth of voicelessness’ (Harper and Jones, 2009). UNICEF has stated, ‘children living in poverty experience deprivation of the material, spiritual, and emotional resources needed to survive, develop and thrive, leaving them unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential and participate as full and equal members of society’ (UNICEF 2005). This brings us back to more straightforward measures which have currency in UK policy debates, which although complex and contested, remain empirical and based on levels of income, rather than capacities or capabilities. (Bradshaw 2006; Strelitz 2008). Townsend’s (1979) definition, which remains in use, emphasises that poverty is relative (to time and place) and is more complex than being purely about ‘survival’ (CPAG 2008). Strelitz (2008) suggests that a focus on severe poverty (defined as ‘persistent’ or ‘deep’ poverty) can add a critical dimension to our understanding of poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG 2008) lists three indicators against which child poverty is measured based on those identified in the Department for Work and Pensions’ report measuring child poverty (DWP 2003): • Children experiencing relative low income – children in households with ‘needs-adjusted incomes below the 60 per cent national median income’ (which may be measured before and after housing costs) • Children experiencing material deprivation and relative low income combined • Children experiencing absolute low income. 18 19 The clear criticism of all of these measures is that they only focus on material wealth and income (Perry 2002, Van den Bosch 2001), which will be measuring the income of the immediate family as well. The current coalition government have stated they take a different view of child poverty: ‘Poverty is about more than income; it is about a lack of opportunity, aspiration and stability.’ (Child Poverty Action Paper 2010) They have built a child poverty strategy around the following areas: • tackling debt • strengthening families • tackling worklessness • tackling educational failure • tackling poor health These are all laudable aims for the government of a developed nation. There are two fundamental issues that warrant further investigation in the context of this dissertation. Firstly the conceptualisation of poverty is predominantly as a function of limiting future adulthoods, rather than something that is a lived reality. It continues the trend of silencing the child’s own experience (Morrow and Richards 2007), and of de-individualising the child, seeing them either as a problem to be corrected (an educational failure) or as an adjunct of a family issue (child poverty is symptom of family worklessness). It must be noted that all of the elements of this strategy have positive aspects, but in failing to focus on the “end users” of the poverty the strategy is trying to alleviate, but rather on the things they effect, it seems to be missing a trick. The second key question for this strategy is that it focuses on alleviating the effects of poverty at a family level, whilst the CRC can be seen to place it beyond the family level, 19 20 requiring states to take responsibility for it. That though, leaves this strategy unfulfilled. For example if we were to create a world where there was no educational failure, no ill health, strong families, and no debt would we have eliminated poverty' Not necessarily. So, whilst these concerns are of high importance they seem to not be specific enough to the problem they are trying to address. If it was absolutely as simple as poverty is being an individual or family living on an income below a certain percentage of the mean income, then the solution should be entirely focussed on ensuring no one is asked to exist below that level. That this doesn’t happen, and policy solutions are not entirely focussed on making this happen, suggests one of two things: either there is a lack of political will to solve; or there is an understanding that poverty is about more than the straightforward income measurement. So then, how – for the purposes of this dissertation - are we to define poverty' Using the evidence from the literature review it is hard to escape the notion that poverty is defined by absence. Absence of resources, materials and capacities. It is also clear that poverty is a relational concept. Poverty is defined by what others have and the person or people in poverty do not. As this dissertation is primarily concerned with qualitative research, the typical quantitative measures of free school meals, percentage of the median income and other indices will be referred to, but not deferred to. In the primary research section we will also consider the participants definitions of poverty. To further understand how we need to understand / interpret poverty – we need to consider how poverty creates a barrier to rights. How does child poverty create a barrier to the realisation of a child’s rights' In many mainstream debates about poverty, the rights agenda is noticeable by its absence. A good example is a recent Nottinghamshire local authority commissioned literature review (Kakouliss 2011). This review aimed to profile the range of recommended interventions to support children afflicted by poverty. It profiled 27 publications and counted which interventions were recommended. Of the 25 possible interventions only ‘raising aspirations,’ 20 21 ‘improve health and well being’ and ‘improve home working environment’ were related to children directly and these are only implicitly related to children’s rights. The rest, such as those relating to family/parental income were primarily targeting parents, families or communities (Kakouliss 2011). However, it is clear that poverty creates a barrier to the realisation of children’s rights. It does this directly through the lack of finances, indirectly through lack of access and finally in a conceptual way by ensuring those in poverty as “other.” The literature which gives voice to children’s lived experience of poverty in the UK, picks out 5 direct areas of concern which were identified by children (Willets 2006): 1. Economic deprivation: children signalled anxiety about their parental or family income and were afraid there would not be enough money for them and for their family’s needs. 2. Material deprivation: children feeling they lack things other children have, like toys, and games, and sometimes more everyday items, like food and clothing; 3. Social deprivation: children’s chances to make friendships, and their opportunities for shared social activities was felt to be reduced; 4. School deprivation: children experienced less opportunities at school, through an inability to pay for resources, and opportunities through an inability to pay for school trips and other social activities; 5. Visible signs of poverty and difference: a lack of the possessions and clothes of their peers, and an inability to take part in the same social and leisure activities meant that children sometimes experienced bullying and were fearful of stigma (Ridge 2009). All of which are in violation of the children’s rights as set out by the CRC, in particular article 2 – that there should not be discrimination against some children (for example owing to their parents socio-economic background); and articles 27 and 31 pertaining to the responsibility to provide an ‘adequate standard of living; and the right of children to play and participate in cultural and artistic life.’ 21 22 Not necessarily noted by the children themselves, the literature (e.g. Ridge 2009, and Townsend 1979), also points to some facets of childhood poverty that are less prevalent in higher social classes, which we can describe as secondary effects of poverty for children: - Additional responsibilities - including housework and caring responsibilities, older children were also more likely to be in work themselves to gain access to money and to support family income. - Poor quality housing: poorer children are more likely to be living in cramp accommodation with knock on effects on health and wellbeing and also negative effects on sleep patterns and ability to complete homework. - Living in a poorer neighbourhood may create particular problems for children, as these neighbourhoods are less likely to have safe recreation areas and involve a greater degree of stress. Finally, there are a set of hidden effects, which may be less direct and visible then the above primary and secondary effects outlined above. These hidden effects relate to the powerlessness described in the introduction, and comprise psychological effects – including loss of self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, anger, depression, anxiety and boredom (identified in Beresford et al., 1999). There is also, as discussed, the creation of “otherness.” A recent Barnados (Barnados 2011) report “Poverty First Hand,” asked participants to share their experiences of living in poverty. Participants were very clear that although they were clearly living in poverty by any quantitative measure, they did not wish to be labelled as ‘poor.’ Poverty is a stigmatised social position associated with numerous negative outcomes, the associations with which are clearly in the public domain and form a dominant social discourse. It is important to note though that research and engagement with children and families experiencing poverty presents ethical and methodological challenges (Ridge 2009). Those 22 23 who experience poverty themselves are often the most marginalised elements in a given society. They are rarely consulted about the issues that concern them and they are also likely, at times, to be scrutinised and talked about rather than consulted themselves – this risk in particular is one that this dissertation was carefully planned to avoid. These aspects of poverty include a: ‘lack of voice … an assault on dignity and self esteem …stigma; powerlessness, denials of rights and diminished citizenship’ (Lister, 2004:7). Research with children experiencing poverty presents further challenges (Grieg et al 2007). Children are already socially constructed beings (Prout 2001), and risk being depicted as powerless and without agency (or alternatively as holding all the evils of society). Whilst this dissertation contests that conception, there are restrictions and labels ascribed to children. This risk is that children in poverty can be doubly disempowered, meaning their rights are ever further from being realised. One of the most serious effects that poverty can have on children is paradoxically the loss of the “otherness” that makes them children. There is a risk that children in poverty simply lose their childhood. Goldstein’s research (1988) in Brazil points to representations of Brazilian children offering a dichotomisation: ‘Childhood in Brazil is a privilege of the rich and practically non-existent for the poor.’ (Prout 2005: 13 referring to Goldstein 1998). This though, suggests that there is a particular model of childhood and that it requires a certain amount of material wealth in order to access it. Such thinking effectively condemns the majority of children in the world as having no or limited childhood and unconsciously references an understanding of childhood as a “secret garden.” Yet over a quarter of the world’s children are recognised as living in economically defined poverty and in the global south in particular constructions of poverty and constructions of children are intimately tied together. Franklin (2002) has argued that globalisation is creating a divergence between the childhoods of those that have and those that do not have. So 23 24 there are some fundamental questions for those concerned with children’s rights: does globalisation mean that childhoods are more divergent then before, and critically whether the factors associated with globalisation, poverty, and poverty reduction support or undermine children’s rights' Poverty then, is not the only inhibitor to children’s rights, or limitation on their empowerment. There are other barriers and restrictions. What are the other barriers' In an important publication Dr Ursula Kilkelly under commission from the children’s ombudsman of Ireland, detailed what (in Ireland) were the key restrictions and barriers to children’s rights (Kilkelly 2006). She recognised particular groups of children, including children in poverty (and those homeless, in care, at risk of sexual exploitation) faced multiple and complex barriers, but also in her research detailed what she termed “general barriers” applicable to children generally and not those in a particular category of disadvantage. In doing so she split up the key barriers to children’s rights into the following areas: 1. The invisibility of children in decision-making structures; 2. The absence of children’s rights from law and policy; 3. The inadequacy of mechanisms for complaints, monitoring and advocacy; 4. The inadequacy of supports and services; 5. The absence of investment; and 6. The need for greater information and training. This list is equally applicable to the UK context, but the first two supersede the others. If children were a visible part of decision making, with systems and structures to enable this enshrined in law, policy and practice then the latter four barriers would be overcome. Therefore we will take each of the first two barriers identified, and discuss them in relation to the UK context. 24 25 Where are they' Are children invisible from decision making and the law' In 2005 the Children’s Commissioner for England5 was established as part of the Children’s Act (2004), in response to the CRC. The office of the commissioner undertakes such activities as it deems necessary and appropriate to champion the voices of children and support the implementation of children’s rights. In April 2012 the Office for the Children’s commissioner published its participation strategy, specifically focussed on article 12 of the CRC. Article 12 is often cited as the most challenging, and yet most fundamental of the rights in the CRC (Stahl 2007) Article 12 of the CRC requires every child capable of forming a view the right to express those views freely in all matters concerning him/her and to have those views given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity. More than any other, Article 12 is a defining principle of children’s rights; it is both important in its own right and as a provision that enables children’s exercise of their rights in other areas. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Article 12 represents a ‘new social contract’, one by which children are ‘fully recognised as rights-holders who are not only entitled to receive protection but also have the right to participate in all matters affecting them, a right which can be considered as the symbol for their recognition as rights holders. The strategy aims to promote children’s participation in all aspects of the commissioner’s work. It is a commendable and comprehensive strategy, and includes aspects of promoting the enactment of article 12 in wider society. However, if the organisation whose role it is to champion and challenge on the implementation of children’s rights is only just publishing a strategy on how it will do so, and how it will promote participation within its own auspices, then there will clearly be a long way to go in wider society. There has been, up to this point a non-prioritisation of listening to the voices of children (and recognition of this, for example the Guardian 24 May 20116), to give due weight to their views and to appreciate the value of their contributions. For example in developing new 5 This is the corresponding position to the children’s ombudsman of Ireland referred to above. There are also corresponding commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. 6 http://bit.ly/lOD8I5 25 26 education policies and strategies, the Department for Education has no strategic method for consulting young people. It also has no senior role dedicated to the implementation of children’s rights or a need for new policies to consider the impact on children’s rights. These are two of the key barriers Kilkenny identified in her report; the lack of a child focus, a rights basis and child proofing mechanisms, and the failure to take a child-focused and rightsbased approach to children’s issues with a lack of appropriate structures to ensure this happens. Alderson (2011) relates some key reasons children may not be appropriately listened to or consulted: The people listening lack confidence or skills Fear of losing control Prejudice that it is not worth it It should be noted, there are pockets of good practice. Some schools and local authorities have received recognition for their work in this area. It is also noteworthy that the organisation that holds schools and local authorities to account – Ofsted - has a senior role within their organisation championing children’s rights.7 They reward and recognise schools and local authorities which do so. However, it is clear that more broadly children’s rights are not fully implemented, with the key reasons, as suggested by the literature – fear of losing power and control, a lack of skills in engaging with young people (related to participation rights in particular) and prejudice which is strongly prevalent in public discourse and the media (one recent example8: “children do not always know what is best for them” Daily Telegraph March 23 2011). So, there is evidence of both institutional and cultural barriers to the full implementation of children’s rights and rights based approaches. There is a dominant public discourse that children may not know what is good for them and are not “responsible” enough to be “rights” 7 8 http://bit.ly/OqPrzR http://bit.ly/hP7gtx 26 27 holders. Although there are some institutional mechanisms to support children’s participation and children’s rights but there is no duty to consult children, and the CRC does not have full legal status in the UK. There is also little in the way of incentives for example by making it a requirement of funding or budget allocation. So, a key question for us is whether a focus on child poverty would affect other barriers, reducing prejudice, and enhancing structural mechanisms to enable children to be seen as rights holders. Would poverty reduction or eradication make children more likely to be successful rights holders; or would children who were enabled to be more successful rights holders make poverty reduction more achievable and successful' The development of children’s rights proceeded during the 20th Century culminating in 1989, when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Although there has been well documented criticism and debate surrounding the CRC (Gadda 2008, Alderson 2000), its potentially Western behavioural norms on such issues as child work, proponents point to how ground-breaking it is, legally and conceptually (Lansdown, 2005). The CRC rights-based framework, which consists of three ‘Ps’ (protection, provision and participation), is seen as moving away from the ‘essentialising’ of childhood (Morrow, 2006). It does this by highlighting the concept of the evolving capacities of the child (Article 5) and the right to participation (Article 12). Recognising a child’s right to participate in all decisions affecting their wellbeing may also reflect an altered construction of childhood (Harper et al., 2010b). These divergent views reflect an active debate within the rights camp (Alderson 2000). They also, however, reveal the need for more meaningful collaboration between those advocating for children’s rights and other key policy stakeholders, such as those working on poverty. Communicating and explaining now reasoned positions, for example on cultural relativity, 27 28 issues of universality and the indivisibility of rights, would enable a more nuanced understanding among those focused on poverty but questioning rights-based approaches. The integration of rights paradigms within poverty reduction planning modalities has been limited – at both adult and child levels. The primary approach to poverty reduction remains through the promotion of economic growth, even where growth is seen as a means, rather than an end – it is rarely postulated as a means to rights fulfilment, rather a means to prosperity (ODI, 2009). This also, as discussed earlier takes a rather narrow view of poverty. Although there are strong arguments that economic growth leads to poverty reduction, which in turn leads to greater rights fulfilment. There is evidence to suggest that ‘poverty eradication has been most pronounced in the regions where growth has been the largest’ (Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 2003: 10), and this fits the dominant ideology. However, when growth is measured in terms of average increase in income per capita, this can mask inequalities. Despite India’s rapid growth, for example, the poorest 40% of rural households have not benefited significantly (Svedberg, 2006). Moreover, higher aggregate incomes do not equate directly to better quality of life (e.g., World Bank, 2006). This is shown by analysis of child mortality: a relatively low infant mortality rate can be achieved with low income, and GDP increases do not necessarily result in improvements (Minjuin et al., 2002). There is no clear pattern between GDP growth and reduction of under-five mortality rates. (ibid). Literature has begun to articulate how rights fulfilments can support growth and development. Barro (1996) and Sachs (2005) show the importance of education levels, life expectancy, the rule of law as key determinants, as well as indicators of economic growth, and each of these findings has been confirmed by other empirical studies (e.g., World Bank, 2005). There is also accepted evidence - to the extent it has become dogma - that gender inequality, as well as other inequalities holds back growth (World Bank, 2001). 28 29 An important question becomes how do global changes lead to an increase in poverty, and can we design interventions to have an opposite effect' Poverty, as much as material deprivation relates to social exclusion (Hills et al 2002) from the increasingly fragmented social order (Narayan 2000), and as discussed child poverty doubly so. Due to the prominence of poverty reduction within development and policy discourses, proponents of children’s rights have begun to consider a ‘pro-poverty’ approach. Working to show that poverty reduction would be supported by a focus on children’s rights (Pemberten, Gordon, and Nandy 2007).This work has gained prominence in more typically ‘development’ or poverty focussed narratives. An example of this was the recent Overseas Development Institute (ODI) paper: ‘Increasing the prominence of child rights in poverty reduction strategies.’ (Espey, Pereznieto, Harper, Jones and Waler 2010). Espey et al’s paper opens articulating the rationale for drawing the two discourses together: ‘Why is there such a fragmented approach to addressing their (children’s) needs and rights' How does the poor alignment of child poverty and child rights discourses contribute to this lack of coordination in poverty planning…'’ An additional unasked question would be: how far does this lack of co-ordination impinge either poverty reduction (for children) or children’s rights' Child poverty is characterised by the interdependence of its different elements; food and shelter do not guarantee well-being. There must also be systems for care and development, health, survival and protection, as well as capacity for the child to participate. The CRC uses a comprehensive and indivisible approach to attaining child wellbeing and is clearly not a strategy to alleviate poverty, and the language of child rights is distinct from that of poverty reduction discourses, but increasingly arguments are being made that using a rights-based approach has the potential to effectively reduce poverty (e.g. UNDP, 2006 and O’Neil, 2006). However, it is a contention that a specific focus on child poverty, in the context of a rights based approach would be the most effective way for children’s rights to be enabled. 29 30 As we move into the primary research aspect of this dissertation, it is important to briefly summarise the key themes from the literature. Overall there is a developed and nuanced debate as to what constitutes poverty, although many in policy development at UK and international levels choose to ignore this and focus entirely on income dependant measures. In the UK context there is limited correlation of a narrative pertaining to children’s empowerment (i.e. through a child-rights approach) and poverty reduction. There are other barriers to children’s rights aside from poverty, including prejudice and lack of structural measures in place to support participation (Article 12 of the CRC) in particular. However it is by ensuring the state makes full provisions to tackle child poverty in its widest sense, that would enable children to access the full complement of their rights. 30 31 Research Methods Theoretical position that will inform methods ‘Poverty is neither natural or inevitable but becomes something done to people for which certain actors bear responsibility’ (Gready, 2008: 742) Poverty is a structural effect of a particular socio-economic settlement – especially as it applies to children. This is a core proposition for this study. It chimes with the previous Labour government’s acknowledgement that ending child poverty requires the: ‘Changing of society to make it fundamentally fairer.’ (CPU 2008) However, this does not abdicate the variance of individual and group responses to poverty. Indeed the spectrum of response is a key area of investigation. In seeking to understand how poverty inhibits children’s rights the dissertation will be collating primary data from children who live amongst poverty. The children all attend Evelyn Grace Academy, an inner city school in Brixton, Lambeth. Many of the children who will inform the study attract the free school meals subsidy (56% - in line with the school average) which is the current, and very imperfect, way in which schools and the government measure the level of poverty in school communities. Indeed the effect of attracting this label is a point of enquiry during our investigation. In collecting and collating data and information the research will be utilising an approach that recognises the criticality of context and that children are a social group – or more specifically a whole assemblage of groups that will have developed their own norms and culture. As such, there are questions about parallels and comparisons that can be drawn – and where appropriate these questions will be asked in analysing the data. 31 32 Sociological approach Traditional research methods, such as large scale observation of children, and data collection of relevant information (including standard child poverty related information) have been criticised for carrying out research on rather than with children. Although more recent research has identified children as a distinct social group (Qvorturp 1994). In light of this, and drawing on the work and guidance of Morrow and Alderson in particular, the dissertation aimed to ensure it was inclusive and participatory. It would have been helpful to take an ethnographic approach to some aspects of the research, but within the constraints of time and resources this was on this occasion not possible. However all discussions, interviews and focus groups involved in were child centred and participatory. The aim was to respect the voices of children, recognising them as social actors in a theatre where they were enabled to express their views. Their views and identity shapes their understanding of the social worlds in which they lived with each word having potential meaning (Vygotsky 1987:236-7). There are risks involved in this approach, some of which are discussed below, the others are related to the ethical considerations which will be articulated in that section. The primary research aspect of this dissertation has involved interviews and focus groups looking at how children – both who are defined as living in poverty and those who are not understand the relationship between socio-economic background and rights; both for themselves, others in their ‘social world’ and more widely. ‘… Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomenon in terms of the meanings people bring to them.’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p.3). We will be utilising the outcomes of this qualitative research to discuss the hypotheses developed during the literature review above. Finally we will be determining conclusions and issues that are produced from the research and analysis. 32 33 The design of the primary research comprised 3 discrete, but related elements. The first component was a pair of focus group discussions. The focus groups included visual and case study stimulus as well as discussion. The second stage was a series of one-on-one interviews (and in one case one-on-two) and the final stage was a participant questionnaire, to provide a quantitative input. All the research was carried out with children and young people who attend Evelyn Grace Academy, a secondary school in Brixton, south London. Focus Groups The aim of this study was for primary research to be at its heart, to get an insight into the world of the young people involved. Group work or focus group work can be very valuable for drawing out collective experiences and focusing on particular issues, groups can be empowering and also allow space for the recognition of shared experiences (Walker and Gibbs 2006) and can be a safer way into to discussions on sensitive areas – including financial issues which an individual may find difficult to discuss (Collard et al. 2001). Two parallel focus groups were set up, with similar topics for discussion but differently framed, because the groups were at either end of the (secondary school) age range. One group constituted sixth formers (16-18 years old) and the other year 7 students (11-12 years old). In addition to these focus groups, individual one-on-one interviews were carried out. Interviewing gave time and space to explore an individual’s experience and ideas in a safe environment, especially when carried out after a group session. This was especially important in relation to the more complex and sensitive areas for discussion, which some of the participants found more difficult to share in the group. It also gave the researcher more opportunity to probe into underlying feelings and experiences. The danger of stigmatising especially in relation to poverty meant that it was helpful to have a 33 34 second stage of interviews, which could act as a safety valve, with the participants or researchers able to suggest that discussion points could be returned to in the individual interviews. The final stage, the instituting of a quantitative questionnaire element to the research was set up to verify (or challenge) findings from the qualitative sections, and to give anyone involved in the study the opportunity to share any thoughts or comments in a confidential manner. It also gave a final “safety net” so at any time during the individual interviews or focus groups anyone could suggest that any answers or thoughts that were not certain, or forthcoming, or particularly sensitive at that time, could be included via the questionnaire stage. This stage also enabled the study to have some core data (which is available at annex B) which could be quantified and analysed against the qualitative feedback received. This is not to undermine the value of pure qualitative research, but in this instance it provided an extra viewpoint which was very helpful in considering the final picture and results. One data collection tool that wasn’t utilised, that would have added invaluable insight into the discussion, is longitudinal research – which was outside scope of this dissertation. This would have been significant as it would have provided an insight into experiences and views changing over time, and whether and how measures of poverty could be seen to adjust through the teenage years, especially as one finding that came out of the focus groups was the effect of labour market participation at 16 and over. The absence of longitudinal surveys were mitigated by constructing the focus group approach to include groups at either end of the age range, with the possibility that the individual interviews could follow up age specific findings. 34 35 Study limitations There are clear limitations to a study of this kind, and it is important to recognise them. There will be limitations on the data and the study more widely. As discussed above the definition of poverty is a critical but difficult issue for the researcher – especially one working with school aged children. The main proxy for identifying if a child lives in poverty is a binary indicator. Free school meals are either assigned to a child or not, there is no spectrum or scale. Therefore it is a quite limited measure to support understanding the implications of living in poverty, however it is well used and understood by all aspects of society, most importantly the children themselves, as we shall come to discuss. A second limitation is that all the participants in this study come from one area, comprising 2 specific age groups (1112 and 16-18), they also go to the same school, so there are limitations as to how comprehensive or universal the findings can be. Finally, there is a clear limitation as to the timing of the research. This research is providing a snapshot of experience, ideas and understandings at a given point in time, it would be beneficial to check change over time, and over place but they are beyond the scope for this study. Risks The two fundamental ethical principles in sociological research are to “do no harm,” and the protection of respondents. There are some specific issues related to the involvement of children in research and there are specific ethical concerns relevant to this topic of enquiry, the approach to the enquiry and the specific role related to the participants of the research. The research plan outlined above did present several risks. There were 4 key risks planned for, and some ethical considerations; which are outlined below. The first risk considered was the risk that the research would not enable the ‘actual views of the children’ to be heard. 35 36 Some of these risks are correspondent with any research. The difference for research with children is that it is difficult for an adult researcher ever to totally understand the world from a child's point of view (Punch 2002). There was also the possibility that some of the children involved may simply appropriate information or views of others rather than sharing their “true” thoughts and understandings (Finnegan 2011). This was a risk which presented itself equally at each stage of the research. This risk suggests either that the children involved in the study lacked agency, or that the questions would not be able to penetrate surface responses, or that there are questions about the nature of truth and reality. Leaving the relativistic final possibility aside, and the initial one as that would deem any research with children nugatory, the key mitigation to ensure this risk was not realised or at least was minimised was ensuring that the questioning was effective and probing enough, and worked on the level of the children involved, and was not ‘adultist’ Alderson (1995) ‘... While children as research subjects may be envisioned as sharing the status of adults, they are none the less thought to possess somewhat different competencies and abilities. It is up to researchers to engage with these more effectively’ (James et al. 1998: 188). To this end the research aimed to utilise the participants in the research itself, aiming to cocreate key elements of the questions. Developments in participatory research methods, such as PAR (Participatory Action Research) techniques were drawn on in the design of this research. These approaches have been used to support children to participate in research (O’Kane 2000). These research methods support children’s involvement and engagement in research and are a potential lever to support and empower them toward greater participation in society and for decision-making in matters which affect them – the aim of article 12 of the CRC (Boyden and Ennew 1997; Hart 1997) 36 37 A second risk prepared for is a problem faced by any researcher with children, the risk of not being fluent enough in the distinctiveness of children and child social groups, especially as child-adult relations can be construed as class based relations (Oldman 1994: in Qvorturp et al 1994). Furthermore, within the children’s society the study aimed to engage with, it is clear that there are divisions and distinctiveness (Novak 2002), of which adults have only limited understanding. As a way to support engagement with this, the experience of two of the participants in the elder age range focus group was utilised to check the proposed questions, both for their peers and for the younger groups. Thus co-creating part of the research with the participants. A third and final risk was linguistic barriers – would the research fully understand and correctly interpret the children’s expressions and dialogue correctly' The “inner sanctum” of expression and meaning. ‘To understand the language used is to understand the observed’ (Heron 1981). This is a concern regularly expressed by adult researchers – who can be criticised for being too aware of their use of language in research with children. It may actually be a consequence of “adultist” perceptions of children as non-competent (Mahon et al. 1996, Punch 2002), or as demonstrating 'limitations of language and lack of articulateness' (Ireland and Holloway 1996: 156). Children may have a more limited vocabulary, but equally they may use different and expression which is not understood by adults. Thus the language dilemma is reasonable, but also mutual. There is a danger that children would not be understood, or be mis-understood. The participants’ dialogue, expression and meaning could all confuse the researcher. To mitigate this, the focus groups, and one-on-one interviews were recorded (with permission from the participants). This enabled the checking of any meanings, but also (although this was not 37 38 necessary) it provided the opportunity to check with the actual participants as to their intended meaning and purpose. Ethics Beyond the risks articulated above, there are also ethical issues and concerns associated with this research. Ethics can be defined as a set of moral principles and rules of conduct (Morrow and Richards 1997). In research terms ethics must be the application of these moral principles and rules of conduct to the question at hand and being mindful of the possible effects (harmful and otherwise) the researcher might create, both through the practice of the research and its outcomes. ‘The rich get richer and the poor get researchers’ (Rutherford 2001). The topic of this enquiry presented ethical concerns as it is clearly a sensitive area filled with preconceptions and potential labels. The Research Consortium on educational outcomes and poverty (Recoup) details 2 core issues that the researcher must acknowledge in researching poverty and related issues: 1. The danger of reinforcing social dynamics (treating poor people as somehow different) contributing to potential disempowerment (also referenced by Dean 1996 and Sime 2008). However, as Lister (2004) and Sime (2008) postulate, the conscious involvement of people from disempowered backgrounds in participatory research, can overcome these risks and be an overall benefit. 2. The danger of research being overly intrusive. Social research can also be intrusive and cause great distress to participants (Alderson & Morrow, 2011). Although unlikely to cause physical harm, social research can lead to ‘distress and anxiety, embarrassment and loss of self esteem” (Alderson & Morrow, 2011: 27). The expected duration of both the individual components and the whole research process 38 39 was clearly outlined at the start to both participants and gatekeepers. Throughout the research the upmost sensitivity toward the participants was maintained.9 The second ethical issue is the approach to the enquiry, the research design. There is now a well established respect for children’s agency and their ability to provide and share meaningful insights (Christensen and James 2002). The shifts in the last 15 years to recognising children as potential co-participants in the research process rather than merely objects of research (Christensen and James 2002). Christensen and James suggest there is now an accepted ‘ethical symmetry’ between research with children and research with adults. As Sime (2008) argues, building on Morrow and Richards (1996) that the ‘ethical acceptability’ of such participatory research is enhanced by enabling children to take a more active role in the research itself. There is a question emanating from the literature advocating more active involvement of children and young people about whether participatory approaches were actually being used or whether the research was merely consulting children (Hill et al 2004). As research is a key part of being ‘inside’ the structures of policy and power, and as support to co-produce elements of the research was provided (by for example giving insight to the full process) this research is at least part way towards participation of the children and young people involved. The final and specific (if multifaceted) ethical issue is that at the time of the research the researcher fulfilled a dual role as a teacher at the school of the students involved as well as being a researcher. The children included as participants in the study are all students at Evelyn Grace Academy, a school located in the Coldharbour ward of Brixton. The dual role within the school granted me privileged access to the children, but it also carries risks. It 9 The consortium go on to list a number of guidelines relevant to the researcher in this issue which were followed. (Source: www.chronicpoverty.org ) 39 40 granted me access as one of the “range of adult gatekeepers” (Alderson and Morrow 2004) and it also granted more privileged access to the other gatekeepers, making it more likely that they were conducive to allowing the children to participate. A teacher/ researcher is also a co-owner of the space in which such studies can take place (Masson 2004). This leaves two clear risks that if unmanaged could threaten the findings of the research. Firstly, consent – that non-participation is effectively disallowed, secondly that the participants’ responses would be particularly coloured by the dual role of teacher and researcher. There are clear protocols over consent both in terms of school practice and of attaining consent as a researcher (Morrow and Richards 1996). Interestingly, in the context of children’s rights consent of the child is largely assumed in the realm of parental consent (Tymchuk 1992: 128). If a parent has provided consent, and the professional has given consent from the schools point of view the child will be participating in the given activity, at no point specifically is the child’s consent required. In practical terms parents and teachers would check the child sought to participate, but it is relevant to note the lack of mechanism to register that consent. In research terms there are thorny aspects to consent. As noted by Heath et al (2007) consent is often sought and given at the start of a research project, but the consent giver often may not have a full appreciation of what they are giving consent to, and so there needs to be built in a form of ‘ongoing process consent.’ ‘Seeking assent requires the researcher to remain constantly vigilant to the responses of the child at all times: it is not something gained at the beginning of the research then put aside...’ (Cocks, 2006: 257). To mitigate these risks relating to consent, the full research project was outlined at the initial point of consent. It was important to check with the children, but also with the parents, and other relevant adult gatekeepers (such as the Headteacher). Although children are rightly seen in this dissertation as active agents, this should not mean conventional parental consent is not required. 40 41 ‘Respect for children’s status as social actors does not diminish adult responsibilities’ (Woodhead and Faulkner, 2000: 31). At each stage consent was briefly re-checked with the participants, and Edwards’ and Alldred’s (1999) informed dissent model was utilised, for example by the setting and accepting of the usage of alternative activities set up in room used for the focus groups and interviews. Feedback was also requested on the process from the participants at the end of each section of the project. The second consideration pertains even more directly to the dual role of teacher and researcher. There is a danger that the way the children see the researcher as a teacher will directly influence their responses, both what they say and how they feel about saying it. For example, children are often rewarded for providing adults with particular answers that they are looking for. This risk was somewhat mitigated by including a range of children some that are currently taught by the teacher/researcher, some that were taught previously and some which the teacher/researcher had little relationship with. Students across the ability range were deliberately included – as it is a tendency that higher ability students are more confident to give nuanced answers and challenge teachers’ statements and thinking. Also at the start if each session norms were explained which included a ‘no wrong answer or wrong question’ policy. As a final note, it is often questioned about rewards, and this again cuts across research norms and school based norms, and a need to co-exist in both roles. In this instance the school practice was followed, which fits in with some research based practice and book tokens were provided as rewards for participation at the end of the project. . Research findings and Analysis 41 42 Questionnaire analysis There are several, notable and important points arising from the research. The first is a strong agreement that all children have rights, 54% of respondents strongly agreed that all children have rights, with a further 24% agreeing. It is surprising to see close to 20% of respondents disagreeing with this proposition, which warrants further exploration. Interestingly this came out of the focus group discussion: ‘…I feel that all children should have rights, but I am not sure they all do. I know for example some girl who had to move to Somalia and get married and she hadn’t done her exams [GCSEs] that can’t be right'’(Focus group 1) This is backed up by a high proportion expressing that they didn’t have access to all the rights they should have 41%. During discussions this was implicitly discussed, when participants were asked to create a situation where a child might not get their rights – they created 3 different scenarios: (i) A child suffering from child abuse (ii) a child not able to go out at all because their parents were scared of the environment outside (iii) Where the child has nothing to eat at lunchtime because of extreme poverty (although in this case they would get free school meals as members of the group commentated). Slightly higher numbers agreed or strongly agreed that adults had the right to a certain amount of money (13%) compared to children (7%). Focus group analysis Why do you have to go to school - Why do you think it is free' What do you think is the purpose of school' Some of the most interesting discussion was held in relation to why school was free – including ideas relating to rights, jobs, helping students become successful but also ideas of 42 43 poverty and getting out of it. Initially the respondents found it difficult to delineate their ideas around the purpose and rationale for school, responses included references to making the country “strong,” and for the future (of the country/community). There was also some discussion of around the best interests of the child: Participant 1…because maybe when they are like 11 or 12 they wouldn’t choose to go to school… they wouldn’t make the right choice. Researcher: Do you think children don’t always do the things which are in their best interests' Participant 1: No, ‘specially not when they are younger, I think maybe you get better at thinking about that when you are older. Researcher: Why do you think that is' Participant 1: er…I’m not sure. Participant 2: It’s about growing up, part of being more mature is thinking about what might happen after you do something and then deciding if you want to do it. Participant 3: And school. School puts you into a way of thinking… This is in comparison to a discussion which the younger participants held: Participant X: If we were allowed not to go to school it might make it better. Researcher: What do you mean' Participant X: Well if we stopped going they’d have to make it better for us to want to come again, it would be like youth club. Participant Y: Yeah, like they would have to make it good or we wouldn’t come. Researcher: And would that be a good thing' Participant X and Y: Yeah. Do you understand what a right is' If I say you have a right to an education do you know what I mean' 43 44 One response noted the discrepancy between the “right to an education” being one that is mandatorily upheld compared to the right to vote or right to give your opinion.10 Do you think children have other rights' Should they have other rights' Both focus groups noted a fair amount of knowledge about the types of rights they felt children had, although there was general uncertainty about who has responsibility for enabling or supporting children to make sure they had access to their rights, or what should happen in the event that children’s rights are deprived. Researcher: So what should happen if a child is being prevented from having his or her rights' Participant 5: I think it depends … if say someone is stopping them they should be punished. Participant 4: Yes, like put in prison. Participant 2: Well, it depends like XX was saying, because if it was their mum, then putting their mum in prison would be worse, wouldn’t it' More of their rights would be lost that way. Participant 4: Well yeah, but if they’re like a serious criminal then they should be punished. Researcher: …can someone who is depriving children of their rights be called a serious criminal' Participant 5: It’s possible, it depends, like obviously paedophiles are, but if your family are poor and can’t send you to school then it’s not their fault. The most revealing, if initially challenging part of the discussions was centred on the core issue of this dissertation: asking the participants to reflect on children’s rights and poverty. 10 It was not raised during the discussion but it would be possible to argue that the rights bearer does not have the choice to turn down their rights to a name and nationality – although they could of course choose to change the ones they had been afforded. 44 45 Explicitly asking whether children (all children) have a right to free school meals, and whether they thought children have the right to money. As a supplementary question the researcher posed whether they felt adults had the right to money as well. The first dialogue below considers issues around work and money, with the second dialogue confronting the core issues relating to poverty and subsidies including free school meals. Participant 1: I don’t think anyone has a right to money, because it’s up to you to get good grades and university so you can get a job which gives you more money. Researcher: So do you think there are any situations where there should be a right to a certain amount of money' Participant 1: No, I don’t think so. Participant 4: But maybe if someone is sick or can’t work' Participant 1: Maybe… Researcher: Ok, so what about children' Participant 2: Well children aren’t really supposed to work are they' Although they do in some countries, but really their money should come from their parents. Researcher: Why is that' Participant 2: Well, they should be at school I guess, and they might be too little. Participant 4: But, they can work sometimes, like over the summer I worked in a shop, and I’m going to work in the Olympics this summer. Researcher: So are there any situations where children should get money from the government, or from school for example' Participant 1: Well lots of children get free school meals, and in sixth form some of us get an EMA bursary. So that is sort of getting money. Researcher: And do you think that is right' Should students get free school meals and bursaries' 45 46 Participant 4: I do think it’s a bit unfair how some people get it and other people don’t even if their family isn’t really wealthy. Participant 2: I think it’s kind of ok, I never got it and my family aren’t rich, but it’s ok. Participant 3: I get them, but I don’t always use them (free school meals) because I don’t really like the canteen food. Researcher: And can you use them to get food elsewhere' Participant 3: No, it’s not like that, only in the school canteen. Towards the end of each focus group discussion and interview, if it was felt that some of the key headline questions for the dissertation had not been sufficiently addressed, they were asked. Some gobbets from these discussions are provided below. What is poverty, and particularly what is childhood poverty' How does child poverty create a barrier to the realisation of a child’s rights' Researcher: So why do you think some people get free school meals and others don’t' Interviewee 6: Because their family has less money, maybe their parent doesn’t work or something. Researcher: And is having less money a problem' Interviewee 6: Yeah, if you don’t have money then you can be poor. Researcher: And why is that an issue' Interviewee 6: It means you can’t buy stuff and maybe you will be hungry, but also if your mum is poor then maybe you can’t have good clothes and won’t be able to go on trips and stuff. What are the other barriers' 46 47 Researcher: So, we’ve talked about why some children don’t get to have their rights, or maybe someone or something stops them. Interviewee 3: Yeah Researcher: What do you think might stop a child having his or her rights' Interviewee 3: Well I guess someone might stop them, or things like if they are in a poor country and they can’t go to school, or maybe they have to work in a factory11. Would poverty reduction or eradication make children more likely to be successful rights holders; or would children who were enabled to be more successful rights holders make poverty reduction more achievable and successful' (After being presented with a case study) Interviewee 3: Yes definitely, (if they were richer) they would basically have better lives, and they would have their rights, but now maybe not. Researcher: So what would you do, if you had a magic wand and could do anything to help these children' Interviewee 3: Help their parent to have a good job, and make sure they could go to school. The magic wand question was one that was always asked, along with “anything else that you would like to add or ask'” These open ended final questions provide interesting results, for example: making the child or adult in the situation richer or ensuring some of their rights are upheld – especially access to education and healthcare, and most usually the two put together. Evaluation of Research Methods 11 The concept of child work was an oft repeated idea, which I discovered had been something covered in GCSE geography and also touched upon during the first year of secondary school. 47 48 We will discuss in the analysis of research findings, and, in the conclusion sections, the themes, ideas and points of note coming out of the primary research. Prior to that there are a few points of note worth evaluating about the methods, and what recommendations for future research methods can be made. If the research project were to be conducted again, or something similar, there are a few recalibrations that could be suggested, to ensure the research was even more effectively conducted. For example: 1. The questionnaires, could have asked for more information, providing a qualitative aspect to them, but also giving the participants an additional nudge to share their ideas and provide insights. The initial aim and purpose of the questionnaires was two-fold: firstly, to add a quantitative aspect to the research, validating findings from the interviews and focus groups. Secondly, to provide an opportunity to catch ideas that might slip uncaught through the original nets of focus groups and interviews. There was always the possibility that face to face discussions can be less effective for capturing the views of more introverted participants (Rowe 2012). However this purpose (capturing views) could have been more effectively met by asking for comments related to each question, or at least for each section of questions (children’s rights, poverty) rather than a general catch-all any other comments at the end. 2. If the research were to be repeated, it would be beneficial to change the order of the primary research activities. The questionnaires could be moved to the start of the process. This would be for 3 reasons. Firstly it would mean the focus groups and interviews could delve into greater depth in the discussions as more realistic assessment could be made of levels of knowledge and ideas within the participant groups. It would also let hypothesis derived from the survey results be tested, for 48 49 example 41% of respondents proposed that children did not have access to all the rights they should. It would have been helpful to be able to play this back to the focus group and clarify exactly which rights, and whose rights they are considering (the improvement above relating to additional qualitative comments in the questionnaires may equally have picked this up). Finally it would provide a greater coherence to the research as a whole providing a clear pathway through all the findings rather than needing to develop a pathway by linking responses to focus group discussions post hoc. 3. It would have been an additional help to have more questionnaires completed. The initial proposition of 50 was based on reasonable number of responses, whilst taking into account time and resource constraints. 30 questionnaires were provided to each of the age groups who were participating in the research, assuming slightly higher than a 15% non-return rate. In hindsight, it would not have been difficult to have achieved 100 completed questionnaires - 50 in each age group, particularly if the form (class) system had been utilised and two forms in each of the respective age groups had been asked to complete it. Although 50 provides a reasonable baseline, more validation would have been helpful particularly on some of the questions where there lower numbers makes small shifts in opinion more significant percentage-wise then they would otherwise be. Analysis of research findings Following the presentation of the primary research, it is right we now move to analyse this against the themes of the overall dissertation. So we will return to each of the 4 sub questions in turn. What is poverty, and particularly what is childhood poverty' 49 50 Most references to poverty in the research were synonymous with poor, and this was most usually linked to lacking in material items, but there were links made at all stages of the research between poverty and (a failure of) rights. Most responses did make the explicit link between parental poverty and childhood poverty, validating policy responses that focus on household or family income levels. There are two points that are fundamental here. It is clear that the overwhelming social construction of poverty make the link between both childhood and adult poverty and between income and poverty. Therefore narrative and social dynamics work to reproduce themselves into the children’s construction of the world. However when they were questioned more specifically about why is it bad to be poor, more nuanced concepts such as inability to do certain things came to the fore. Secondly there is a “necessary” versus “sufficient” dynamic here. In the UK’s capitalist society it is “necessary” to be economically poor to live in poverty, but poverty in terms of the power issues articulated above is about more than that. By recognising the “necessary” component it does not mean the respondents were not recognising the wider “sufficient” elements as well. Firstly (Although there is a necessary versus sufficient dynamic here). In terms of the lived experiences of poverty of the children involved (of which slightly over half 56% of all participants were deemed to live in poverty using the free school meals criterion) none problematised receiving free school meals, or noted any issues pertaining to labelling. Participants did note the lessening of opportunity linked to living in poverty, several respondents cited issues to do with not being able to go places or participate in activities – which does validate the literature discussed above that aims to move conceptualisations of poverty beyond the purely economic into considering the lived experience of those involved. How does child poverty create a barrier to the realisation of a child’s rights' 50 51 In the responses from the participants there was a frequency of linking poverty with educational issues. In part this was a response to a curriculum that had exposed several of them to explicit links between poverty and educational failure in the developing world, however there was clearly traction in their thinking between each of poverty and educational failure; and secondly between rights and educational access. Other responses included references to poorer children experiencing a more stressful upbringing, with parents always working, and no one to look after the children and a lack of recreational activities or resources. ‘They (children in poverty) might not get to feel relaxed. They can’t go outside and play because they might have to look after their brothers and sisters, and they might not have space to play inside…they probably don’t have an xbox or anything…’ What are the other barriers' Of all the research and directions of questioning, this was the area in which the research was most sparse in eliciting responses. Responses in this area related to health concerns, and some references to cultural issues and individual parents or teachers (but this was not a general view). The health concerns may not warrant extensive further thought or investigation as the links between poverty and poor health outcomes are well established12. Likewise, the individual cases of teachers or parents – although any child denied their rights is a tragedy (Woodhouse 2008:2) it is in the area of cultural, widespread child rights that in particular warrants reference and discussion in the context of this dissertation. No participants or responses went into great detail about cultural barriers, and it may be beyond the scope of this dissertation to delve too deeply, but suffice to say 2 separate interviewees suggested that some children (girls) may have restrictions on them as a consequence of cultural expectations. 12 Although it would be interesting to consider whether the responses were considering health the a priori concern, and whether the literature does this as well 51 52 Would poverty reduction, or eradication make children more likely to be successful rights holders; or would children who were enabled to be more successful rights holders make poverty reduction more achievable and successful' In some ways this phraseology creates a paradoxical chicken and egg scenario; however it is an important endeavour for proponents of children’s rights to consider. The participants in this research did though find it difficult to resolve. Where there was clarity, the participants did place poverty as the primary concern with rights seen to come as a consequence. It is also difficult to conceptualise counter factuals, which would make the second strand of the statement a challenge to imagine –if rights enabled participants would be more effective as a means to poverty reduction - as there are not examples which the participants would have come across of children in poverty having their rights protected; which thereby enables them to improve their living conditions. These examples are present, so the question is not irrelevant. The challenges of re-imaging this question and the sentiments of the question notwithstanding, the response of the participants of this study is they believed that poverty came first, and when the shackles of that poverty can be lessened then rights can be realised. However, as with their understanding of what poverty is, this conceptualisation may be the consequence of their lived experience which we need to be aware of. 52 53 Conclusions “Seek ye first the political kingdom, all else will follow” (Nkrumah 1957) So, in respect to children and their rights, was Nkrumah misplaced, instead of starting with rights and civic concerns should we be most agitated about ensuring children are not living the experience of poverty, as all other concerns come second to that' If we accept that line of thought, do we need to also accept the applied definitions of poverty' Moving away from poverty’s relativity, rejecting that this side of poverty is the poor that will “always be with us'” The aim set for this dissertation was to ask, and provide answers to four questions, leading us to be able to consider and answer the fourth question. 1. What is poverty, and particularly what is childhood poverty' 2. How does child poverty create a barrier to the realisation of a child’s rights' 3. What are the other barriers' 4. Would poverty reduction, or eradication make children more likely to be successful rights holders; or would children who were enabled to be more successful rights holders make poverty reduction more achievable and successful' ‘Measuring child poverty can no longer be lumped together with general policy assumptions which focus solely on income levels’ (UNICEF 2007). This was done through analysing the available literature; designing, undertaking, and evaluating primary research with groups of children and young people; and finally reflecting on this primary research against the secondary research completed. We did this by developing a primary research process involving focus groups, individual follow up interviews and questionnaires providing us with a predominantly qualitative research base, with a quantitative edge as well. 53 54 As we have discussed, parts of the approach used could be improved, especially the ordering of the stages of primary research and a wider net to catch all thoughts, comments and feedback from the participants at each stage. Overall though, the primary research was invaluable in probing the issues outlined; helping us to meet our aims - validating some hypotheses and problematising others. In summary, our main findings include a validation of the hypothesis set out in the introduction that poverty reduction, in the eyes of the participants of this study, would be the most clear sighted way to enable children to be more enabled rights holders. The line of argument in this respect from the participants in the study clarified the more mixed sentiments from the literature. The more surprising finding was at the starting point of the investigation, in terms of defining poverty. It may be entirely justified by the dominance of the narrative but the participants of the focus groups and the interviews opened any discussion or understanding of poverty by concentrating on economic aspects of poverty. Although other concerns were referred to, it was universally as a second tier aspect of poverty, second to issues pertaining to income and wealth. This then is contrary to the intuitive arguments made in the literature that we should move away from singular conceptions of poverty based on family income. What in reality may simply prove is the power of the dominant narrative in this, and we will return to this in regard to our second enquiry. Our second, related, enquiry asked us to consider the link between child poverty and rights. In this aspect the literature and the primary research were aligned. It is clear that poverty creates a fundamental impediment to a child’s rights. Although the literature noted examples of children taking up their rights whilst living with poverty it is clear that part of children’s rights directly contradict the reality of poverty – especially rights linked to “provision.” The link between poverty with powerlessness (and therefore poverty reduction with empowerment) was a consistent theme running through this work. This was less superficially forthcoming from the primary research, but it is arguable that is a consequence of the dominance of the narrative rather than a disproving of the lived reality of disempowerment. Indeed, upon 54 55 deeper inspection, several responses alluded to the disempowerment of poverty – in terms of rights and the economic freedoms articulated by Sen and others in the introduction, and in the literature review. The least satisfactory findings, in terms of taking thinking further or providing insight were related to questions aiming to uncover the wider barriers to children’s rights beyond poverty. In the literature these were clear – issues relating to lack of prioritisation, prejudice, fear, lack of skills. Through the narratives, the key issue cited pertains to article 12 of the convention on the rights of the child – participation of children, so their voice should be heard in matters affecting them. However, the primary research was noticeably lacking on this as a barrier the participants identified. The conclusions that can be drawn from this, is that one of three reasons could have led to this: the research could simply have not framed the questions well enough to enable the participants to lead into this area; or the particular participants in the study were well used to being listened to at school and elsewhere; or finally it could be that this is not a particular barrier related to the uptake of children’s rights. Previous experience, a body of literature and intuitive understanding would all lead one to reject the third premise. The second is worth exploring further. It is important to note an additional contextual point. The site of the research was a secondary school, the risks and issues around using this as a site of research have been articulated above, with some mitigations put in place to alleviate these. The responses to the two core contentions of this dissertation are that poverty is about more than income, and that poverty reduction is the key goal to enable children’s rights were both affected by the social construction of the children involved in the primary research. The respondents were clear that poverty was (at least initially or superficially) about money – which came from income, and that poverty was the key restrictor on children’s rights at a societal level. Both these responses can be challenged as being reflective of dominant social discourse, however whether or not this is true, or if this is the children’s “real” understanding, 55 56 it has come through that this is their understanding. They therefore have a value as responses and should be treated as such. One further issue that was not explained but that is relevant in the discussion here, is a more positive underlying connection that may have been made by the participants. In the school, students generally have a well established “voice.” The student voice in the school includes a student council, student participation in appointment of new staff (including Headteacher and senior staff), student led activities related to assembly and teaching and learning; and regular feedback on changes and improvements suggested. The centering of the research on the site of the school, led by a member of school staff will undoubtedly have placed questions relating to participation within a focus on participation at school. It is possible that participants’ responses were coloured by this, and had the research taken place at a more neutral location the responses might have differed. This though is an assertion, albeit well considered. Had this risk been considered in the research design the questions could have specifically asked the participants to think beyond the school gates in relation to some of their responses. This would also be a helpful further study, how participation in one environment may both colour perspectives on participation and also may enable children to be more able to be rights bearers. Other areas touched on by this research that have presented themselves as fruitful avenues beyond the scope of this piece of work include: the development of a longitudinal survey looking at attitudes to poverty and rights against increased (or decreased) experiences of participation; and regional or area based differences in attitudes to poverty (and rights) as measured against area based poverty indices. This would enable a discussion as to children as rights bearers being more or less inhibited in certain areas – with repercussions for future local development. The ability of children to be rights bearers, and its relation to poverty is the central theme we must return to, and has been developed through this dissertation. Both the secondary and 56 57 primary research present us with clear findings that poverty is a major barrier to children taking up their rights – or more specifically can be a direct block on a child’s lived experience being right-fulfilled. However, there is a counter, which is poverty and rights-inhibition are both bad things – but can one supersede the other when trying to find a solution to the twofold problem presented' The thesis of this dissertation is, yes. Investment in tackling poverty – if addressed appropriately - is about tackling poverty holistically, not just elements, symptoms, or effects of poverty. This is important, because although poverty is referenced in a particular right, or article in the CRC (27), it infuses and limits a wide number of rights related to health, education, standard of living, ability to access information and others. Therefore it is a clear target, in terms of moving children’s rights forward, and more importantly in moving the lived experience of children to a place where they can be freer to grow and develop without hindrance. In conclusion, policies directed towards children can often focus on the potential outcomes of poverty – the constriction of future adult lives and livelihoods; rather than the lived experiences of poverty in childhood. Through the course of this dissertation, the link between poverty and power has been drawn, and ultimately this is the most accurate definition of poverty when it comes to children. Are children restricted in their lives as an unfair consequence' If so, then their status of living in poverty is clear. Furthermore, it is in childhood that many struggle to negotiate the effects of poverty on their day-to-day lives. Therefore, although addressing adult outcomes is an essential part of tackling poverty in childhood, it is vital that we also develop a deeper, more meaningful awareness and understanding of the everyday realities of childhood poverty, one that is grounded in children’s own experiences and meanings. This is why an absolute focus on poverty is a fundamental precept to any narrative about rights. Rights, in essence is about the recognition of the child as an individual person; with wants, needs and opinions. Poverty for children restricts these, and a poverty reduced world would be a rights enabled one. END 57 58 Bibliography Alderson, P. (2000) Young Children’s Rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practices. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers Alderson, P. (2000) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: some common criticisms and suggested responses. Child Abuse Review, 9 (6). pp. 439-443. Alderson, P. & Morrow V. (2004). Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people. Barkingside: Barnardos. Alderson, P. & Morrow V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people. London: Sage Publications. Barro, R. (1998). Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-country Empirical Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bourdillon M - Children and Work: A Review of Current Literature and Debates. Development and Change Volume 37, Issue 6, pages 1201–1226, November 2006 Bradshaw, J. (2002) Child poverty and child outcomes. In Children and society vol.16 pp131140. Bradshaw, J. and Mayhew, E. (2006) Child benefit packages, in J. Bradshaw and A. Hatland (eds.) Social policy, family change and employment in comparative perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Buchowski M. (2006) The Spectre of Orientalism in Europe: From Exotic Other to Stigmatized Brother in Anthropological Quarterly - Volume 79, Number 3. Chambers, R. (1994), All Power Deceives. IDS Bulletin, 25: 14–26. Child Poverty Unit (2008) Ending child poverty making it happen. London: HM Treasury Choo, C. (1990), Aboriginal Child Poverty, Child Poverty Policy Review. Brotherhood of St Laurence: Melbourne Cocks, A. (2006) 'The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining children's agreement to research participation', Childhood, 13 (2), 247-266. Collard, S., Kempson, E. and Whyley, C. (2001) Tackling financial exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Department for Education. (2010) Intervening to improve outcomes for young people, a review of the evidence. London. DWP (2006) Opportunity For All: Seventh Annual Report. Leeds: CDS E O’Boyle (1999) Toward an improved definition of poverty. Review of Social Economy. Espey, Pereznieto, Harper, Jones and Waler (2010) Overseas Development Institute (ODI) paper: Increasing the prominence of child rights in poverty reduction strategies. Fabian Society (2006) Narrowing the gap: The Fabian Commission on Life Chances and Child Poverty, London: The Fabian Society. 58 59 Farrell, A. (2005) 'New possibilities for ethical research with children'. In A. Farrell (ed.), Ethical research with children. New York: Maidenhead, 176-178. Fisher, B. (2008) A Poverty of Rights: Citizenship and Inequality in Twentieth Century Rio de Janeiro. Stanford University Press: Palo Alto. Foucault, M. (1982). ‘Afterword: The Subject and Power’ in H.L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.) Michael Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, pp. 208 - 226. Brighton: Harvester Franklin, D. (2002). Globalization's new boom. The Economist (World in 2003 edition) (Dec.): 112. Freeman, M. (2007) Article 2 In the best interests of the child Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 Gabba, A (2008) Rights, Foucault and power: A critical analysis of the UN Convention on the rights of the child, Edinburgh Working Papers in Sociology. University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh Gordon, D. and Spicker, P. (Eds) (1999) The International Glossary on Poverty, Zed Books: London Gordon D, Pantazis C and Townsend P (2006) Child Rights and Child Poverty in Developing Countries - Summary Report to UNICEF. UNICEF: Bristol Gowlland-Gualtieri, A. (2007) South Africa’s Water Law and Policy Framework: Implications for the Right to Water, International Environmental Law Research Centre Working Paper, Geneva Gready, P. (2008) ‘Rights-based approaches to development: what is the value-added'’, Development in Practice, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 735–47 Gready, P. and Ensor, J. (eds) (2005) Reinventing Development' Translating Rights Based Approaches, from Theory to Practice. London: Zed Books Gready, P. and Phillips, B. (2009) ‘An unfinished enterprise: visions, reflections, and an invitation’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–13 Green, D. (2008) From Poverty to Power: How Active Citizens and Effective States Can Change the World. Oxford: Oxfam International Green, M. (2001) ‘What we talk about when we talk about indicators: current approaches to human rights measurement’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 1062–97 Greig, A., Taylor, J. & MacKay, T. (2007). Doing research with children. London: Sage Harding, Small, (2012) Reconsidering Culture and Poverty Harvard. Unpublished Harper, C., Marcus, R. and Moore, K. (2003). Enduring Poverty and the Conditions of Childhood: Lifecourse and Intergenerational Poverty Transmissions. World Development 31(3): 535-554. Heath, S., Charles, V., Crow, G. and Wiles, R. (2007) Informed consent, gatekeepers and gobetweens: negotiating consent in child- and youth-oriented institutions, British Educational Research Journal, 33 (3): 403-417. Hendrick, H. (2000) The child as a social actor in historical sources: problems of identification and interpretation, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Falmer Press. Hill, M., Davis, J., Prout, A. and Tisdall, K. (2004) Moving the participation agenda forward, Children & Society, 18 (2), pp. 77-96. 59 60 Hills (ed) (2002) Le Grand and Piachaud in Understanding Social Exclusion Edited by John Hills, Julian Le Grand and David Piachaud OUP, Oxford Howard, M. and Millard, A.V. (1997) Hunger and shame: child malnutrition and poverty on Mount Kilimanjaro. Routledge: New York. Ife, J., Morley, L. (2002). Human Rights and Child Poverty. Fifth International Conference on the Child, Montreal, May 23-25, 2002. Ireland, L. and I. Holloway (1996) Qualitative Health Research with Children, Children & Society 10: 155-164. James, A., C. Jenks and A. Prout (1998) Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press Kakouliss (2011) Child poverty literature review. Nottingham: Nottinghamshire Country Council. Kilkelly, U (2007) Barriers to the Realisation of Children’s Rights in Ireland. Cork: Ombudsman of Ireland Kelly, R (2005) ‘Education and Social Progress’ briefing Note, 26 July, 2005: DFES Lister, R. (2004 ). Poverty, Cambridge: Polity Press. Mahon, A., C. Glendinning, K. Clarke and G. Craig (1996) Researching Children: Methods and Ethics, Children & Society 10 (2): 145-154. Masson, J. (2004). The legal context. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett & C. Robinson, (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people, (pp 43-58). London: Sage Publications. Mayall, B. 2000. Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. Christensen, P, James, A (eds). Routledge Falmer: London, p.120-135. Minjuin, A., Vandermoortele, J. and Delamonica, E. (2002) ‘Economic Growth, Poverty and Children’, Environment and Urbanisation 14: 23-43. Montgomery, H., Burr, R., and Woodhead, M. (eds) (2003) Changing Childhoods: Local and Global. Milton Keynes: Open University Morrow and Richards 1997 The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An Overview. Children & Society; Volume 10, Issue 2, pages 90–105. Narayan, D.; Patel, R.; Schafft, K.; Rademacher (2000), A.; Koch-Schulte, S. Voices of the poor. Can anyone hear us' New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank Novak, T. (2001) What’s in a name' Poverty, the underclass and social exclusion, In M.Lavalette and A. Pratt (eds.) Social Policy: A conceptual and theoretical introduction, London: Sage. NSPCC (2008) Meeting the obligations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in England, London: NSPCC O’Neil (2006) Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: Realities, Controversies and Strategies, An ODI Meeting Series 2, London. OECD (2008) Growing Unequal' Income Distribution & Poverty in OECD Countries, London: OECD Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2012), Participation Strategy, London. 60 61 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2010) social mobility strategy: Opening doors, breaking barriers. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Overseas Development Institute (2009) Children in times of economic crisis: Past lessons, future policies, London: ODI Publications. P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices, pp. 120-35. London: Falmer Press. Pemberton, Gordon, D and Nandy S. (2012)Child rights, child survival and child poverty: the debate in Minujin and Nandy (eds) Global Child Poverty and Well being. Bristol: Policy Press Pemberton, SA, Gordon, D, Nandy, S, Pantazis, C & Townsend, PB. (2007) Child Rights and Child Poverty: Can the International Framework of Children's Rights Be Used to Improve Child Survival Rights' PLoS Medicine, 4 (pp. 1567-1570) Perry, B. (2002), ‘The mismatch between income measures and direct outcome measures of poverty’, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 19, 101–127. Plan International (2010) Promoting child rights to end child poverty. London: Plan Limited Prout, Alan and Allison James (1990 [1st edition] and 1997 [2nd edition]) “A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood' Provenance, Promise and Problems”. Constructing and Reconstruction Childhood. Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood, ed. by Allison James and Alan Prout. London: Falmer Press, pp. 7-34 Punch, S. (2002) Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with Adults' Childhood, 9 (3): 321-341. Qvortrup, J (1994), Childhood matters: Social Theory, Practices and Politics . Ashgate: Avebury Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. & Wintersberger, H. (eds) (1994), Childhood Matters, Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot. Qvortrup, Jens (1995) From Useful to Useful: The Historical Continuity of Children’s Constructive Participation. In: Sociological Studies of Children, Vol. 7, ed. by Anne-Marie Ambert. JAI Press: Connecticut Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (2003) Economic Growth 2nd Edition; The MIT Press: Massachusetts Rowe (2012) QUIET: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. Penguin: London. Rutherford, S. (2001) The Poor and Their Money .Oxford India Paperbacks: USA Sachs, J. D. (2005). Can extreme poverty be eliminated' Scientific American 2005 Save the Children (2008). The Child Development Index: Holding governments to account for children’s wellbeing. Save the Children. London, UK Sen, A (1992) Inequality re-examined. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Sen, A. (1999) Development As Freedom. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Sime, D. (2008) Ethical and methodological issues in engaging young people living in poverty 61 62 with participatory research methods. Children’s Geographies, 6 (1). pp. 63-78. Solberg, A. (1996) ‘The Challenge in Child Research from 'being' to 'doing',’ in J. Brannen and M. O'Brien (eds) Children in Families: Research and Policy, Falmer Press: London Stahl (2007) Don’t forget about me: implementing article 12 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child, Arizona: Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. Strelitz, J. (2008) Ending Severe Child Poverty. Joseph Rowntree Fonudation: York Svedberg, P. (2006). Child Malnutrition in Shining India: A X-state Empirical Analysis. Institute for Economic Studies, Stockholm. Tomlinson, M. Walker, R and Williams G. (2007) Measuring Poverty in Britain as a MultiDimensional Concept, 1991 to 2003. Oxford University Press: Oxford Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin. Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46(3), 215-239 UNDP (2006 )United Nations Human Development Report approach to development cooperation and programming. UNDP: Paris. UNICEF (2005) Child poverty in rich countries 2005, Innocenti Report Card 6, Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. UNICEF (2007) The State of the World's Children 2007: Women and Children - The double dividend of gender equality, UNICEF UNICEF (2008) Children and the Millennium Development Goals: Progress towards A World Fit for Children, UNICEF. Van den Bosch, K. (2001) Identifying the Poor: Using Subjective and Consensual Measures, Ashgate: Aldershot Walker, S., Eketone, A., & Gibbs, A. (2006). An exploration of kaupapa Mãori research, its principles, processes and applications. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(4), 331-344. Whelan, C.T. and Maître, B. (2005). Economic vulnerability, multidimensional deprivation and social cohesion in an enlarged European Community. International Willets 2006 Measuring child poverty using material deprivation: possible approaches, DWP London Woodhead, M. and Faulkner, D. (2000) 'Subjects, objects or participants' Dilemmas of psychological research with children’, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds), Research with children: Perspectives and practices. London and New York: Falmer Press, 9-35. Woodhouse (2008) Hidden in Plain Sight: The Tragedy of Children's Rights from Ben Franklin to Lionel Tate. Princeton: USA. World Bank (2004) World Development Report: Making Services Work for Poor People. World Bank: Washington DC World Bank (2001) World Development report 2001, attacking poverty. World Bank: Washington DC 62 63 Annex A Summary of the articles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child – from UNICEF Publications Article 1 (definition of the child) Everyone under the age of 18 has all the rights in the Convention. Article 2 (without discrimination) The Convention applies to every child whatever their ethnicity, gender, religion, abilities, whatever they think or say, no matterwhat type of family they come from. Article 3 (best interests of the child) The best interests of the child must be a top priority in all actions concerning children. Article 4 (protection of rights) Governments must do all they can to fulfil the rights of every child. Article 5 (parental guidance) Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide and advise their child so that, as they grow, they learn to apply their rights properly. Article 6 (survival and development) Every child has the right to life. Governments must do all they can to ensure that children survive and grow up healthy. Article 7 (registration, name, nationality, care) Every child has the right to a legally registered name and nationality, as well as the right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their parents. Article 8 (preservation of identity) Governments must respect and protect a child’s identity and prevent their name, nationality or family relationships from being changed unlawfully. If a child has been illegally denied part of their identity, governments must act quickly to protect and assist the child to re-establish their identity. Article 9 (separation from parents) Children must not be separated from their parents unless it is in the best interests of the child (for example, in cases of abuse or neglect). A child must be given the chance to express their views when decisions about parental responsibilities are being made. Every child has the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm them. Article 10 (family reunification) Governments must respond quickly and sympathetically if a child or their parents apply to live together in the same country. If a child’s parents live apart in different countries, the child has the right to visit both of them. Article 11 (kidnapping and trafficking) Governments must take steps to prevent children being taken out of their own country illegally or being prevented from returning. Article 12 (respect for the views of the child) Every child has the right to say what they think in all matters affecting them, and to have their views taken seriously. Article 13 (freedom of expression) Every child must be free to say what they think and to seek and receive information of any kind as long as it is within the law. Article 14 (freedom of thought, belief and religion) Every child has the right to think and believe what they want and also to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Governments must respect the rights of parents to give their children guidance about this right. Article 15 (freedom of association) Every child has the right to meet with other children and young people and to join groups and organisations, as long as this does not stop other people from enjoying their rights. Article 16 (right to privacy) Every child has the right to privacy. The law should protect the child’s private, family and home life. Article 17 (access to information from mass media) Every child has the right to reliable information from the mass media. Television, radio, newspapers and other media should provide information that children can understand. Governments must help protect children from materials that could harm them. Article 18 (parental responsibilities; state assistance) Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their child and should always consider what is best for the child. Governments must help parents by providing services to support them, especially if the child’s parents work. 63 64 Article 19 (protection from all forms of violence) Governments must do all they can to ensure that children are protected from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and mistreatment by their parents or anyone else who looks after them. Article 20 (children deprived of a family) If a child cannot be looked after by their family, governments must make sure that they are looked after properly by people who respect the child’s religion, culture and language. Article 21 (adoption) If a child is adopted, the first concern must be what is best for the child. The same protection and standards should apply whether the child is adopted in the country where they were born or in another country. Article 22 (refugee children) If a child is a refugee or seeking refuge, governments must ensure that they have the same rights as any other child. Governments must help in trying to reunite child refugees with their parents. Where this is not possible, the child should be given protection. Article 23 (children with disability) A child with a disability has the right to live a full and decent life in conditions that promote dignity, independence and an active role in the community. Governments must do all they can to provide free care and assistance to children with disability. Article 24 (health and health services) Every child has the right to the best possible health. Governments must provide good quality health care, clean water, nutritious food and a clean environment so that children can stay healthy. Richer countries must help poorer countries achieve this. Article 25 (review of treatment in care) If a child has been placed away from home (in care, hospital or custody, for example), they have the right to a regular check of their treatment and conditions of care. Article 26 (social security) Governments must provide extra money for the children of families in need. Article 27 (adequate standard of living) Every child has the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical, social and mental needs. Governments must help families who cannot afford to provide this. Article 28 (right to education) Every child has the right to an education. Primary education must be free. Secondary education must be available to every child. Discipline in schools must respect children’s human dignity. Wealthy countries must help poorer countries achieve this. Article 29 (goals of education) Education must develop every child’s personality, talents and abilities to the full. It must encourage the child’s respect for human rights, as well as respect for their parents, their own and other cultures, and the environment. Article 30 (children of minorities) Every child has the right to learn and use the language, customs and religion of their family whether or not these are shared by the majority of the people in the country where they live. Article 31 (leisure, play and culture) Every child has the right to relax, play and join in a wide range of cultural and artistic activities. Article 32 (child labour) Governments must protect children from work that is dangerous or might harm their health or education. Article 33 (drug abuse) Governments must protect children from the use of illegal drugs. Article 34 (sexual exploitation) Governments must protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. Article 35 (abduction) Governments must ensure that children are not abducted or sold. Article 36 (other forms of exploitation) Governments must protect children from all other forms of exploitation that might harm them. Article 37 (detention) No child shall be tortured or suffer other cruel treatment or punishment. A child shall only ever be arrested or put in prison as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. Children must not be put in a prison with adults and they must be able to keep in contact with their family. Article 38 (war and armed conflicts) Governments must do everything they can to protect and care for children affected by war. Governments must not allow children under the age of 15 to take part in war or join the armed forces. Article 39 (rehabilitation of child victims) Children neglected, abused, exploited, tortured or who are victims of war must receive special help to help them recover their health, dignity and self-respect. 64 65 Article 40 (juvenile justice) A child accused or guilty of breaking the law must be treated with dignity and respect. They have the right to help from a lawyer and a fair trial that takes account of their age or situation. The child’s privacy must be respected at all times. Article 41 (respect for better national standards) If the laws of a particular country protect children better than the articles of the Convention, then those laws must stay. Article 42 (knowledge of rights) Governments must make the Convention known to children and adults. The Convention has 54 articles in total. Articles 43–54 are about how adults and governments must work together to make sure all children get all their rights, including: Article 45 UNICEF can provide expert advice and assistance on children’s rights. 65 66 Annex B: Survey Results Strongly Agree Agree Neutral / Not sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Do you think all children 25 12 0 9 0 have rights' Do you think you have access to all the rights you should 3 14 7 19 3 have' Do you think any of the following people has a responsibility for making sure children have access to their rights' 40 6 0 0 0 Parents Children 15 18 9 4 0 themselves 9 20 13 3 Teachers Politicians Do children have the right to a certain amount of money' Do adults have the right to a certain amount of money' 22 18 5 1 46 46 46 46 45 46 1 2 30 7 4 44 2 4 33 3 3 45 66