Child Poverty - have they forgotten their pledge?

How realistic is the government's pledge to end child poverty by 2020? The strategy is hugely ambitious and progress has stalled.

JRF suggests the following  

This note  draws on the findings of seven reports about how to take forward different aspects of a child poverty strategy; examines the impact of current policy; and suggests what is needed to ensure the target is met.

The seven related reports are:

• Can work eradicate child poverty? by Dave Simmonds and Paul Bivand
• Childcare and child poverty by Jane Waldfogel and Alison Garnham
• Ending severe child poverty by Jason Strelitz
• Addressing in-work poverty by Peter Kenway
• Tackling child poverty when parents cannot work by Martin Evans and Lewis Williams
• The effects of discrimination on families in the fight to end child poverty by Matt Davies
• Parental qualifications and child poverty in 2020 by Andy Dickerson and Jo Lindley

 Key Points

• Over the last few years a significant reduction in child poverty has been achieved, backed by significant resources. However, further progress depends on a big shift that raises the level of resources invested and widens the scope of anti-poverty measures.
• The strategy requires over two million more children to be taken out of poverty, four times the progress since 1997. No single policy can achieve this. Only if worklessness is reduced and benefits raised and working parents' earnings improved does the strategy stand a chance of success.
• Improvement of in-work incomes is particularly needed – there has been little progress on reducing in-work poverty and existing policy tools seem inadequate.
• The child poverty strategy will need to help parents into jobs but also consider factors affecting their earnings opportunities, including:
  • the adequacy of childcare
  • job flexibility for parents
  • the level of parental skills; and
  • how these are used by employers to create quality employment.
• Ending child poverty will depend not just on provision but on the behaviour of individuals, employers and public bodies, including:
  • decisions taken by families about working patterns, including whether both members of a couple work, as well as the number of working hours;
  • whether employers offer parents good quality jobs, with hours that meet their wants and constraints; and
  • whether government agencies provide support that genuinely responds to individuals' needs.
• Families, employers and government need to work together to combat child poverty:
  • This partnership needs to deliver improved routes into work, so that parents can work in a way that complements their family lives.
  • It needs to repair the damaging mistrust between families and the state, and create a benefits and tax credits system that reliably helps families to escape poverty.
  • Finally, basic benefits need to provide an adequate foundation for improvement in families' lives, enabling them to avoid hardship and debt.

To Bonus or Not to Bonus

Taxpayer-owned bank RBS is paying its chief executive Stephen Hester a bonus worth nearly £1 million for his work in 2011.RBS shares fell by 48% last year, this man  is to receive the 3.6 million shares  at the expense of the taxpayer he is already being paid £1.2 million.

Westminster is not happy - well Westminster guess what neither are we !

  A Lib Dem minister asked  the banker to waive the payout. Labour put pressure on Cameron to intervene.

  Mr Hester received a bonus of £2million last year but this was paid in shares, the value of which has halved since the bonus issue, which in effect means his bonus was around £1 million last year if cashed in now.But that's not a bad little earner any way, and shares can go up as well as down.
Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna gives his take on the bonus"Ministers have spoken of the need for greater shareholder activism but despite the government being the largest shareholder in RBS, have failed to rein in excess."The deputy prime minister, prime minister and others have tried to suggest that the bonus framework was set by the last Labour government which is simply untrue. RBS has been very clear that the remuneration committee of the board of the bank had discretion in this case."Because his bonus is being paid in shares, Mr Hester could end up receiving well over £1 million."RBS missed its lending target in the third quarter of last year and net lending to businesses by the country’s banks fell in nine out of the last 12 months."

  Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat,says "There's a question of honour. Even if there's a contractual opportunity for him to have a bonus it doesn't mean he has to accept it.""He should reflect on that. He is effectively a public servant in a bank which is almost completely owned by us the taxpayers."He needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to his country, not just his own wealth."

How out of touch is the government - its not contractual so they can intervene, he hasn't hit his targets and he is already having a huge salary. 

This issue is about a whole host of  things - perception, PR , taxpayers ownership, government governance , payouts for non achievement . This is not in the private sector - this is public ownership so different rules do apply. 

So he is threatening to go - well my view on that ,don't threaten - there's the door feel free to walk through it .At that salary I am sure he is easily replaced.

People are worrying how to pay bills , how to feed their family and how to keep warm, we have a huge problem with youth unemployment and jobs. This man and his bonus fade into insignificance when measured against these things.

National Audit Office -Not Impressed by the Works Progamme

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 24 January 2012

The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced the Work Programme quickly, in just over a year, and this has had benefits, but the speed with which it was launched has also increased risks, according to the National Audit Office. The Department and providers have made assumptions about how many people the Programme will get back into work
but there is a significant risk that they are over-optimistic.

The Programme, which replaces virtually all of the existing ‘welfare to work’ schemes, has a number of innovative design features that address
weaknesses in previous schemes. Providers are paid primarily for the results they achieve in supporting people into employment so what the provider earns is tied to performance. Providers will receive higher rewards for supporting harder to help claimant groups into work and are
paid partly out of the benefit savings they help to generate. There is more potential for competition between providers.

However, assumptions about the feasibility of the Programme might be over-optimistic. The NAO’s analysis suggests that 26 per cent of the largest group of job seekers in the Programme will get jobs, compared to the Department’s estimate of 40 per cent. Some contractors in areas
of high unemployment may struggle to meet nationally set targets. It is possible that one or more contractors will get into serious financial difficulty during the term of the contracts. Today’s report also points out that no alternatives to the Programme were considered as part of the business case, nor was it piloted to test assumptions.

It has so far cost £63 million to terminate existing welfare to work
contracts, including contracts with ten providers that went on to win contracts for the Programme. Two former contractors have not yet agreed settlements.

The IT project to support the Programme was not fully functional when the Programme was launched. A consequence is that the Department will not be able, until March 2012 at the earliest, to carry out automatic checks to confirm that people who find work have stopped claiming benefits. The Department needs to ensure that improvements to the IT system are delivered on schedule. In the meantime, there is an increased risk of fraud and error going undetected.

Fewer clients than expected are being referred onto the Programme as part of the ‘harder-to-help’ category. Some have been found to be ‘fit for work’ and switched into other categories and it is taking the Department longer to process assessments and appeals. As a result, some sub-contractors are frustrated at the speed with which clients have been referred to them.

Here's the link to the Executive Summary and report
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/dwp_work_programme.aspx

A Conference too far

There seems to be a lot of speculation around why the Tory Conference has been cancelled. I think we should all be grateful, its one less staged  boring piece of television to watch.

If political parties want to gather the faithful,massage egos and worship at the feet of leaders,fine, but to impose it on a less than appreciative public is just not on.
Hopefully the other parties will want to save money too 
So what do you think  the real reason is- lack of interest, security costs, not wanting o give Cheryl G an outing, Andrew RT not cutting it .
Or may be just not wanting to chance the reactions that could come from local elections.

But why leave it so late to cancel and why the lack of clarity around the cancellation,one booked speaker found out from a journalist.

Bad or bad in bed with the Dr

New research from Aston University has shown the cost of presenteeism to be £15 billion annually - twice the estimated cost of absenteeism, according to the Economic and Social Research Council.A study of 1,600 people found 30% of workers are now going to work ill as they fear if they report sick they may loose their jobs .
The age group most likely to go into work sick are 16 and 24 – 85% said they went into work sick last year and 48% said they were more likely to go into work sick because of the economic downturn.
The income group most likely to go into work sick because of the recession are those on below £20,000 then £21,000 and £30,000
.Presenteeism as its been named go into work sick, and possibly infect others but don't perform as they should because they are ill.
Women were slightly more likely than men to go into work because of the economic recession, with 33% doing so compared to 27% of men.
Sectors in which employees feel most pressure to go into work are retail then manufacturing then education.
A fifth of respondents also said  they were exercising less since the start of the economic downturn. Many now not affording gym membershipMarcus Powell, MD of Nuffield Health, commenting on he research said : “Employees going into work sick costs business dearly - up to £15 billion a year.“Our research shows the economic downturn has made people more likely to go into work sick often because they fear losing their job.
“This is bad for business. At Nuffield Health we work with more than 1,000 corporate clients to help them maintain a healthy workforce.“The corporate world knows that staff well being directly affects their profits.
A report last year by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, also showed that presenteeism worsened stress levels, negatively effect productivity by transfer of illness and the sick being unable to work effectively.
So why don't bosses just send people home - if you are on SSP its very difficult to manage with a cut in wages. If you have full pay , then you don't want to be seen to be a bad employee by being off ill. What a situation to be in.But firms must also ask what impression are they giving to staff to make them feel this way.
Its bad enough being in a recession with out the worry about loosing your job if you really are not well.