The Labour government of Britain, in
office from 1997 to 2010, waged an unprecedented campaign to reduce child
poverty. There is much for the U.S. to learn from their efforts.
In March 1999, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair made a daring pledge to end child poverty. Gordon Brown – then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and later Prime Minister – carried the pledge
forward—setting ambitious targets to cut child poverty in half within ten years
and to eliminate it in twenty, and putting real resources into the campaign.
At the start of the campaign, one in
four British children lived in poverty, the third highest child poverty rate
among industrialized countries. If child poverty is measured in absolute terms
– as it is in the U.S – then the first goal has already been achieved. Child
poverty in Britain has been more than halved, from 26 percent down to 12
percent.
This is a remarkable success, and one that is all the more striking if we
compare it to the U.S. The welfare reforms of the 1990s transformed our welfare
system, imposing a tough set of work requirements along with a set of enhanced
incentives to work. But the U.S. reforms were much less effective in reducing
child poverty, which only fell from 22 percent in 1992 to 18 percent today.
Ironically, much of what Britain
implemented so successfully was modeled on U.S. programs. Britain’s tax credit
is similar to our Earned Income Tax Credit, but was funded more generously.
Britain also drew on U.S. evidence in designing its first national minimum wage,
but set it at a higher level and updated it annually to keep up with inflation.
In contrast to the U.S., Britain
also strengthened its non-work-based safety net. Recognizing that not all
parents will be able to work, Britain stepped up its support for low-income
families even if parents were not working. The value of the universal child
benefit program was increased, as was the value of welfare benefits for
low-income families with children.
Where Britain really surpassed the U.S., however, is in taking a more
comprehensive approach to child poverty and in thinking about long-term as well
as short-term effects. Getting more parents into the workforce and raising
their wages reduces poverty for today's children.
But breaking the cycle of poverty
and promoting mobility for future generations requires a broader set of
investments. In Britain, as in the U.S., people at the bottom of the income
distribution tend to have low skill levels, leading to higher unemployment,
lower earnings, and, ultimately, families with impoverished children.
To end the cycle of child poverty, the British government,
to its credit, has confronted this challenge. In striking contrast to the U.S.
welfare reforms, Britain’s anti-poverty programs included measures to raise all
children's skill levels, and to close gaps between the most disadvantaged and
their more advantaged peers.
Big investments have been made in early childhood programs,
reflecting scientific consensus that early experiences are crucial to children’s
outcomes. There is now free universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds,
with Sure Start and other programs for younger disadvantaged children, and
guaranteed child care subsidies for low-income working families.
Paid maternity leave was doubled – mothers now can take 9
months of paid leave – and two weeks of paid paternity leave for fathers was
introduced. All parents of young children were given the right to request
part-time or flexible hours, a program that proved so popular that it was later
extended to all parents and, most recently, all employees.
Improving schools was also emphasized. Government spending on education doubled
in real terms over the decade. So, contrary to the Bush administration’s “No
Child Left Behind” approach, which simply spotlighted low-achieving schools,
Britain invested real resources to close achievement gaps.
The U.S., by contrast, continues to lag in preschool enrollment, just as
Britain did a decade ago. Nearly one-third of America’s three- and four-year-olds
are not in any form of preschool, with low-income and immigrant children most
likely to miss out. The U.S. also lags in not providing paid parental leave for
new mothers and fathers, and in not providing access to flexible working.
Tackling child poverty is especially
urgent in the face of the global economic crisis. President Obama's economic
stimulus package expanded funding for preschool programs such as Head Start and
school-based initiatives to raise achievement for disadvantaged children. It
also increased Pell Grants to offset college costs for low-income youth. Such
investments can close achievement gaps and prevent poverty in the next
generation.
Health care reform could also make a
difference by addressing a major source of economic insecurity for many
American families.
To have a lasting, significant impact, more needs to be done. We should be
investing more in pre-kindergarten programs, which have proven to increase
school readiness, but which currently serve less than one-fifth of all four-year-olds.
We should also increase funding to enable schools to hire and retain the best
possible teachers and to place them in classrooms with the neediest students.
And we must construct a safety net strong enough to buffer children from the
impact of today's economic turbulence.
The legacy of the U.S. welfare
reforms of the 1990s is a work-oriented safety net. We have seen in the past
few years the shortcomings of that system when jobs are scarce. And even in the
best of economic times, the system is not adequate to help those who face
serious barriers to employment.
We must also ensure that low-income
working families with children have sufficient supports, such as paid parental
leave and sick leave, guaranteed child care assistance, and a right to request
part-time or flexible hours.
The U.S. welfare state, originally modeled on the British one, still reflects
that legacy today. But Britain’s welfare state has moved on. In the last
decade, they’ve made a real assault on child poverty, and there is much for the
U.S. to learn from the British example.
Britain has also proven if you
invest real resources in tackling child poverty, it is not intractable. Real
progress is possible.
Jane Waldfogel is Professor of Social
Work and Public Affairs at Columbia University, Visiting Professor at the
London School of Economics, and author of Britain’s War on Poverty (Russell
Sage Foundation, 2010).
Viewpoints in this section solely represent the authors’ opinions and not the opinions of "Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity."