thesis about childhood poverty

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Taylor & Francis Open Select

Ethics, Poverty and Children’s Vulnerability

Gottfried schweiger.

Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

This paper is concerned with child poverty from an ethical perspective and applies the normative concept of vulnerability for this purpose. The first part of the paper will briefly outline children’s particular vulnerability and distinguish important aspects of this. Then the concept will be applied to child poverty and it will be shown that child poverty is a corrosive situational vulnerability, with many severe consequences. In this part of the paper normative reasoning and empirical literature will be brought together. Then, the next section will establish why this increased vulnerability of poor children and the harm to their well-being and well-becoming, which they suffer for this reason, are of ethical concern. It will be discussed that child poverty is a structural problem based on social, political and economic factors. The concluding section will then briefly outline why it is imperative to protect children from the vulnerabilities associated with poverty.

Introduction

Child poverty is a truly global injustice. It affects the lives of billions of children, in developing and developed countries (Batana, Bussolo, and Cockburn 2013 ; Chzhen et al. 2016 ). I will not investigate how child poverty should be conceptualised or measured on a global or domestic level, nor will I provide a thorough analysis of all the normative issues involved in child poverty (Schweiger and Graf 2015 ). Instead I will restrict myself in this paper to exploring one concept, vulnerability, and how it can be used to understand the conceptual and ethical issues involved in child poverty and also to guide obligations towards poor children. Although I will sometimes also mention global child poverty – child poverty in developing countries – my main focus is on child poverty in developed countries and I will mainly rely on knowledge about child poverty in Europe.

Children’s vulnerability

Vulnerability as a normative concept and in particular children’s vulnerability receives increasing attention in philosophy (Hurst 2015 ; Straehle 2017 ; Mackenzie, Rogers, and Dodds 2014b ). Here is not the place to discuss the complexity of the issues involved in defining vulnerability and the proposals that have been made to resolve them. I am concerned with the vulnerability of poor children and will only say what is necessary to understand the concept of vulnerability relating to this issue.

Let me begin by introducing the distinction between the inherent and situational vulnerability of children (Mackenzie, Rogers, and Dodds 2014a ; Andresen 2014 ). Using a narrow understanding, inherent vulnerability refers to natural – or ontological – features of children, which define them as children. Examples for this kind of vulnerability are particular developmental needs and the lack of certain abilities (cognitive, physical, emotional). Such inherent vulnerabilities of children make them prone to certain risks and show their inability to protect themselves. Situational vulnerabilities are the vulnerabilities that are based on social practices and norms. For example, the increased vulnerability children face form road traffic. A particular from of situational vulnerability is sometimes called ‘pathogenic’ (Mackenzie, Rogers, and Dodds 2014a ), like the vulnerability of girls in a patriarchal society. Inherent and situational vulnerabilities are often intertwined, and situational vulnerabilities are based on, increase and exploit inherent vulnerabilities. A baby’s body is highly vulnerable to physical force (inherent vulnerability) but the fact that some babies are at greater risk of being injured by abuse and corporal punishment is driven by social factors (situational vulnerability). Situational vulnerability can describe a more permanent status (such as in the case of patriarchy), which shapes the lives of particular children. It can also describe changing situations, which all children face more or less frequently (as in the case of road traffic). What is important to add here is that both inherent and situational vulnerability are somehow dynamic features, which change throughout childhood (Schweiger and Graf 2017 ). As children grow up and acquire abilities, skills and knowledge their inherent and situational vulnerability changes, either because they themselves develop or because the social environment around them treats and views them differently when they are older. Some patriarchal norms and practices might not be so relevant in the lives of female babies, but they become relevant as they become girls and during the transition period on their way to womanhood (Blaise 2009 ; Kehily 2012 ). To view children’s vulnerability as a dynamic rather than static feature implies that the vulnerability towards certain dangers decreases, while it increases towards other dangers.

Now I can say something about the relation between vulnerability, harm and ethics in general and specifically in regard to (poor) children’s lives. Vulnerability itself is not necessarily a normative, ethical concept. It can be used descriptively only, though it also has a certain relation to ethics. What I have said so far, and what I will continue to lay out in this and the next section, is both conceptual and descriptive, and I will turn to the ethics aspect after that. In general vulnerability means that a person, a child in this case, is at risk of harm and is unable to sufficiently protect themself or to be sufficiently protected by others (Mackenzie, Rogers, and Dodds 2014a ). Vulnerability is in itself not necessarily harmful – although the experience of being vulnerable might be experienced as harmful – but harm enters a child’s life only if the child is vulnerable to that harm. If a child is more vulnerable than another child or adult it can mean different things: it can mean having an increased vulnerability towards a particular harm – describing the likeliness of being harmed in this particular way. Or it can mean being vulnerable to being harmed more severely if the harm occurs – describing the depth of vulnerability. Or it can be understood in the sense of being vulnerable towards more different types of harm – describing the width of vulnerability. So, if a child is more vulnerable this can mean that they are more likely to be harmed (by one or more types of harm), or that the harm will be more severe. Both things can be important from an ethical point of view, but more needs to be known about the particular kinds of harm in question and how they are to be evaluated from an ethical perspective. In general, from a conceptual and ethical perspective, vulnerability is problematic insofar as ethically problematic harm is concerned and, because vulnerability is the channel for harm, they are connected. Now not all kinds of harm are problematic from an ethical point of view, and surely not all kinds of harm are equally problematic. Different ethical theories give different answers about which harm is deemed problematic and why. For example, for an egalitarian the unequal distribution of resources might be harmful, while for sufficientarians this is not always an ethical problem. Also some theories are more concerned with resources and others with capabilities, while a third ethical theory is all about subjective satisfaction. Some types of harm can be justified for a greater benefit like the harm of getting stung by a needle to receive beneficial medical treatment. I will come back to that later in this paper, where I will also say a bit more about harm. Here it is enough to point out that harm and vulnerability are connected and that by exploiting the vulnerability of the child something or someone is causing the harm. Vulnerability is one condition of possibility to be harmed (and to be harmed more severely or more often). This is important for the ethical evaluation of the vulnerability-harm relation and for considering the kind of response that should be sought after. Furthermore, I believe that it is necessary to look both at harms to children’s actual well-being and to harms to their well-becoming (their future well-being). This dual perspective on well-being and well-becoming is of particular interest in the case of children since what happens during childhood has such a crucial influence on the future well-being as an adult, and I will also provide some evidence that growing-up in poverty often has long lasting negative effects.

Children in poverty

I now want to apply the concept of vulnerability to the situation of children in poverty and explore how it can help us to understand the ethical issues involved here. My approach here is a negative one, which means that I will not start with laying out a theory of justice for children or their moral claims and then apply it to child poverty. In contrast my approach is driven by an examination of child poverty using the lens of vulnerability. What is of ethical concern will emerge during this examination. In particular I want to make four points about the relationship between vulnerability and child poverty.

Firstly, children in poverty are children and as such are in need of protection. That seems obvious, but this is the first dimension of inherent and situational vulnerability, and we should not forget about it. That has three implications: firstly, they are a quite diverse group of beings, ranging from newborns to teenagers, and their inherent and situational vulnerabilities vary accordingly. So, if I paint the picture here of children’s vulnerability in poverty, I am forced to do so with a broad brush, which cannot do justice to the differences based on development levels, abilities and characteristics of different age groups. Secondly, children’s vulnerability is in general greater than that of adults (exceptions exist), and childhood is a particularly sensitive phase of life, which shapes future outcomes and prospects (Duncan et al. 2012 ). Thirdly, children are in need of care and protection and thus they are highly dependent on other people and institutional settings (for example schools, health care) to meet their needs (C. Macleod 2015 ; Mullin 2014a ). The particular situational vulnerability of child poverty is on top of their general vulnerability and influences it, as well as their chances of experiencing harm.

Secondly, poverty is a situational vulnerability in children’s lives. It is not an inherent feature of some children but is rather a social phenomenon. That comes in my opinion with several important implications, some of them not uncontroversial. Child poverty is multi-dimensional in that it is not only about money (or the income of the parents) but about multiple deprivations in many areas of a child’s life (Biggeri, Trani, and Mauro 2010 ; Boyden and Bourdillon 2012 ). For the purpose of this paper, it is not important whether that deprivation is conceptualised and measured using capabilities, goods, needs or rights (Minujin et al. 2006 ; Bastos and Machado 2009 ; Alkire and Roche 2012 ). The research evidence is convincing that poverty during childhood affects a wide range of goods (e.g. food, clothes, housing, sanitation) (Ridge 2011 ; UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2012 ; Boyden and Bourdillon 2012 ) and that these deprivations can be and often are translated into physical, psychological, behavioural and social harm (e.g. lower health, depression, isolation, delinquency) (Ridge 2011 ; Evans and Cassells 2014 ; Ferguson, Bovaird, and Mueller 2007 ; Yoshikawa, Lawrence Aber, and Beardslee 2012 ). These are impressive examples of how situational and inherent vulnerabilities intertwine and how social factors exploit inherent vulnerabilities (children’s bodies and minds). Furthermore, the situational vulnerability of child poverty does not affect all children (only those who are poor, obviously) and it is not the same for all poor children. This means that the situational vulnerability of poor children is further mediated (enhanced or diminished) by several other factors, which in turn can be understood as situational or inherent vulnerabilities if they are vulnerability-enhancers. On the one hand, examples for vulnerability-enhancers are disability or innate health issues (as a form of inherent vulnerability) or racial discrimination (as a form of situational vulnerability) (Shahtahmasebi et al. 2011 ; Phung 2008 ). Vulnerability diminishers, on the other hand, are for example strong social networks, well established social services, or innate psychological resilience factors (Felner and DeVries 2013 ). Growing-up in poverty is not necessarily harmful for all children, and many of them develop well and are able to escape poverty in later life. These exceptions – and they are exceptions both on the domestic and the global level – do not speak against my claim that poverty makes children more vulnerable and that this vulnerability in most cases translates into some harms and disadvantages.

Thirdly, poverty is that kind of situational vulnerability, which affects other situational vulnerabilities. Borrowing a concept from Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit (Wolff and de-Shalit 2007 ), poverty can be understood as a corrosive disadvantage, or, to stay in the conceptual language of this paper, a corrosive vulnerability. What is meant by that is that being poor affects the spaces and times of vulnerability where and within which children grow up, and that determines to which (additional) threats they become vulnerable. I mentioned earlier such situational vulnerabilities as the exposure to road traffic. In poor children’s lives such risks and dangers can be more often present, or they are less protected and guarded from them. The corrosiveness can then lead to an accumulation of situational vulnerabilities. Examples, which I take from the empirical literature on child poverty are: the exposure to toxic environments (Wakefield and Baxter 2010 ); to live in neighbourhoods with high crime rates (Livingston, Kearns, and Bannister 2014 ); to grow up in families which experience all kinds of different problems (domestic violence, corporal punishment, alcoholism, drug use), (Goodman et al. 2009 ; Hooper et al. 2007 ; Wadsworth 2012 ); early contact with drugs (Karriker-Jaffe 2011 ), and anti-social behaviour by their peers (Zimmerman and Messner 2011 ); having to go to less well-equipped schools and having overburdened teachers (Lupton 2005 ; Auwarter and Aruguete 2008 ), or being alone outside more often. These are some examples of situational vulnerabilities and poor children are exposed to these dangers and risks more often than their non-poor peers, and for unjust reasons.

Fourthly, poverty has a temporal dimension. On the one hand, poverty can be short-term or long-term, or even chronic. It can be a defining feature of a whole childhood (and life) or it can be a (temporary) situation that comes and goes while a child grows up. On the other hand, poverty can have short-term and long-term effects. This is connected to the duration of poverty but can be quite detached because shorter periods of (severe) poverty can have long-lasting effects. Research points in the direction of child poverty being only properly understood if it is seen in this light as (potentially) affecting the whole course of the child’s life, something which makes the child vulnerable to a wide range of negative effects in later life as well. Growing up in poverty makes children vulnerable to embarking on a path of delinquency (Rekker et al. 2015 ), lower educational achievements (McKinney 2014 ), early pregnancy (Conrad 2012 ), health problems in later life (Conroy, Sandel, and Zuckerman 2010 ; Raphael 2011 ) as well as adult unemployment and poverty (van Ham et al. 2014 ; Mentis 2015 ), which I have already mentioned. Periods of poverty have a negative impact on life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (Huisman et al. 2013 ; Duncan et al. 2012 ). The pathways of how the situational vulnerability of poverty spills over to so many other areas of life and creates vulnerabilities, sometimes even years or decades after childhood, are not currently fully understood. It is likely that a combination of physical, psychological, and social factors comes together here (McEwen and McEwen 2017 ), and that early poverty can have a significant influence on brain development (Kim et al. 2013 ; Balter 2015 ).

The ethical significance of poor children’s vulnerability

So far the work I have done in this paper was descriptive and analytical but it touched on many normative issues. But children’s vulnerability is not always of particular ethical concern and some inherent and situational vulnerabilities are morally neutral, or even beneficial. Two aspects are of ethical concern though: that some children are more vulnerable than others for unjustified reasons, and that some children are less protected from harm than others. Harm and vulnerabilities are connected, as I mentioned in the first section of this paper, in that harm exploits vulnerabilities. Both are highly relevant for child poverty.

Now, on the one hand, child poverty, as I showed in the section before, creates several new situational vulnerabilities in children’s lives, vulnerabilities which can finally translate into harm towards the physical, psychological and social well-being and well-becoming of children (Schweiger 2015 ). On the other hand, as research also points out, children in poverty suffer several poverty and non-poverty related kinds of harm (or have a greater risk to suffer from them), because they are not sufficiently protected. With poverty related harm I mean such harm that is inherent in the nature of poverty. This harm is the direct result of the situational vulnerability of poverty. Examples for such harm include the lack of poverty-defining goods such adequate clothes, housing, food or toys (Ridge 2011 ; UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2012 ). Non-poverty related harm is harm which is not inherent in the poverty situation of the child – it does not define poverty as poverty – but which can also have causes other than poverty. The situational vulnerability of poverty, and the situational vulnerabilities it causes through its corrosiveness, makes it more likely that children would suffer from this harm and poverty can play a causal role in its occurrence, but that is not defining poverty nor is it necessary for the poverty situation of a child. Examples for such non-poverty related harm are health issues, behavioural problems, the experience of abuse and violence, or educational shortcomings and later unemployment.

For these issues to be a matter of justice, it needs to be established that the creation of these situational vulnerabilities and the actual occurrence of associated harm violate the moral claims of children and are thus unjustified (Schweiger and Graf 2015 ). As I said in the beginning of this paper my approach here does not apply a fleshed-out concept of justice for children, or a fully developed ethical theory of their moral claims. Rather my approach is a negative and partial one, which started with an examination of the issues involved in child poverty through a conceptual analysis of vulnerability. The issues of children’s increased vulnerability and how children in poverty are endangered in their well-being and well-becoming (Graf and Schweiger 2015 ) compared to their non-poor peers emerged through this. Both the inequality between poor and non-poor children and the increased vulnerability and experience of several non-trivial types of harm through poverty signal an ethical problem and are in need of justification. Otherwise they are unjust. I suppose that many different ethical theories would converge on this conclusion, such as both a sufficientarian and an egalitarian account of justice for children (Macleod 2010 ). While sufficientarianism would have no quarrel with some inequality between children (that some children are more vulnerable than others) as long as no child is too vulnerable, egalitarianism would assume roughly equal vulnerability of all children as just (assuming a certain level of vulnerability as just). So from the standpoint of sufficientarianism it is necessary to establish a threshold of well-being and well-becoming, to which all children are entitled to as a matter of justice (Schweiger and Graf 2015 ). It would go beyond the scope of this paper to do that in detail but I believe that the evidence about the relation of vulnerability, harm and child poverty, which I discussed in the previous section, at least suggests, if not proves that child poverty harms children’s well-being and well-becoming to such a degree that these children fall short of what they are entitled to as a matter of justice. Likewise I assume that egalitarians would assume that all children are indeed entitled to such a level of well-being and well-becoming, which is higher than those of children in poverty. I used a positive phrasing in the last sentences but the point can also be made in the conceptual language of vulnerability and harm. Sufficientarianism needs to establish a threshold of how much vulnerability and harm is ethically unproblematic, and I believe that the exercise of exploring the degree to which poor children are actually vulnerable and harmed, gives sufficient reasons to believe that they are too vulnerable and experience too much harm.

It is now the task of the rest of this paper to establish that this increased vulnerability and the harm associated with child poverty are indeed of ethical concern because they are unjustified. Furthermore, in the case of child poverty, it is important to treat it as a social phenomenon and not an individual case, and thus I am not concerned with individual cases but with the population of poor children. This shifts the attention, where it should be, onto the structural causes and factors which create and sustain poverty, both in developed and developing countries.

Now, plausible reasons that could justify some children being more vulnerable than others seem to comprise natural and unpreventable causes (such as a genetic disease); children’s free and autonomous choices (which are only relevant for older and adult-like mature children); if tragic choices need to be made (for example in the case of organ transplantations if not enough organs are available), or if the children themselves or someone else will benefit significantly in the long-run (for example a risky surgical procedure or an organ donation). All of these cases can be tricky, and demand further scrutiny in some cases (for example, it needs to be established how to calculate the gains and losses of vulnerability). For the issue considered in this paper I am confident that the evidence is sufficient that such detailed analysis is not needed to reach a robust conclusion regarding the ethical status of child poverty as an unjust vulnerability and harm.

Child poverty is certainly not a natural condition but a social condition. Children are born into poverty or become poor not in the same way as they contract a disease or inherent their genome, but by social causes. It is worth noting that low health and disabilities can contribute to becoming poor or staying poor under such social conditions, where there is no sufficient (private or public) support, and social norms and practices can attach lower social status, class and other disadvantages to all different kinds of natural features and characteristics like sex, race or ethnicity. The social causes behind such inequalities are what need to be addressed and critically evaluated. Child poverty shows the following characteristics: poverty is a widespread phenomenon in all societies, but is particularly severe in developing countries. It is the result of the maldistribution of income and other resources between the members of a society, and between countries. In developed countries in particular enough income and other resources and assets are available that no one would need to be poor, and that is also not impossible on a global level. So, while poverty and inequality are closely tied, they are not the same. As Amartya Sen (Sen 1985 ) has rightly pointed out, there is what he calls an ‘absolute core’ of poverty, which is different from inequality. It is possible that inequalities in income and other poverty defining goods exist, without there being any poverty. The opposite seems implausible: a world in which all are poor.

The underlying causes for child poverty are hard to disentangle, but I want to name some of the most important ones: economic inequalities based on unemployment and low wages combined with a lack of social welfare, which could compensate for this lack. In the background there are, in developed countries, structures of profit-maximisation, the penalisation of poverty (Wacquant 2009 ); unequal access to and chances in the labour market competition and the extension of precarious work (Standing 2016 ; Kalleberg 2011 ; Chzhen 2017 ); restructuring of the welfare system (Lødemel and Trickey 2001 ; Schram et al. 2009 ); the individualisation of responsibility for one’s welfare and market success (Honneth 2004 ); international and global changes in value chains (Levy 2005 ); competition between countries (based on their labour force, tax systems, natural resources etc.), which pressures them to lower welfare standards and to deregulate labour standards (Hermann 2014 ; Shin 2000 ), and, finally, the lack of fair tax systems, which allow rich individuals and corporations to avoid taxation and to maximise their labour-free incomes based on financial and other assets (Sayer 2015 ). Obviously, nearly all of these factors are not directly related to children and their situation but rather target and pressure adults (as individuals and families), and their precarious situation then spills over to their children. But there are also important groups of children in poverty (in developed countries), who suffer directly: children in foster care, unaccompanied minor refugees, street children without a (functioning) family background and older children who have assumed responsibility for themselves. For all these structural factors and background conditions (one might call them structural injustices (Young 2011 )) children are not responsible and they are in a particularly weak position to change them or to improve their situation. On a global scale, the birth privilege is immense, and also within developed countries life chances are largely determined by the parents (but state institutions can do a lot to improve chances and to reach more equality of opportunity).

It is also highly implausible to attribute any responsibility to the children themselves for their poverty. On the one hand, childhood is a phase that deserves special protection and that influences if, when and how children should be held responsible for their actions. Younger children lack the abilities, knowledge and skills to make rational choices for themselves and they are in need of guidance in many aspects of their lives. But autonomy and rationality are preconditions to being held responsible. Both develop during childhood, and there are valid reasons to treat children differently also in respect to those choices which they make and in those areas of their lives where they are competent to make these choices. Competence is not the single important benchmark here, but is a reason to let children safely experiment and to provide them with more room to make mistakes, and to learn from those mistakes that there are also other important aspects of the process of growing-up and becoming autonomous (Anderson and Claassen 2012 ; Franklin-Hall 2013 ). On the other hand, the structural background conditions, mentioned above, which cause and sustain (child) poverty are well out of the reach of children, whether or not they are competent in some areas of their lives. Children are not in a position to alter them effectively, because they are born into them and growing up poor affects them, their abilities, knowledge and skills in so many ways. This does not mean that all poor children are completely helpless – they are when they are very young – and that they do not comprehend their situation. Children are often well aware of their own social status and that of their family and they often develop ways to cope and deal with their situation with the aim to improve it. The phenomenon of ‘young carers’ is one of many examples that shows how skilful, resourceful and resilient children can be when they face adversity (Rose and Cohen 2010 ). Others choose a path of aggression, violence and delinquency, which can severely damage their life chances (Rekker et al. 2015 ).

Regarding the question of whether child poverty might also have some benefits for the children themselves or others it seems necessary to mention three points. Firstly, children in poverty do not profit either short-term or long term from growing up poor; it is, as shown throughout this paper, the other way around. Growing up poor is often a lifetime disadvantage and increases vulnerability throughout the course of life. Secondly, it is hard to think of any other agent to profit from child poverty. Their parents certainly do not, and also for communities and the state child poverty is costly (Holzer et al. 2008 ; Attree 2006 ). Though, thirdly, it is not as if no one profits from child poverty (Hatcher 2016 ), directly and indirectly. Children in poverty are a cheap labour force, they are exploited globally, used as organ donors, criminalised and penalised and put in privatised for-profit institutions, and they can be used as scapegoats to justify social control over them and their families. It is not hard to see that these kinds of profit are not justifiable as reasons to produce or sustain child poverty, because they do not benefit anyone worse-off than the children in poverty, the benefits achieved for others are certainly not of such ethical importance (it is overwhelmingly a case of dirty money made by people who could earn their living in other ways), and the children, and their care givers, have either no real opportunity to choose against being exploited.

Lastly, it is important to point out that I approach this from a child-centred perspective, which is not about the parents or the family as the unit of concern. This has two implications. Firstly, parents might play a role in their children (and themselves) being poor, which deserves blame. They could have made bad decisions or leave their children deprived although they could do better. I suppose that this is not very often the case, and that in the vast majority of cases, the parents are not to be held responsible for themselves or their children being poor. Rather, research shows that parents make all kind of sacrifices to protect their children from poverty and to provide for them as well as possible (Main and Bradshaw 2016 ; Russell, Harris, and Gockel 2008 ). In this respect, I do not think that a family-centred analysis would come to significantly different results. Still, I believe it is important to focus on the child and her well-being (and vulnerability and harm), and to respect her in her own right. Secondly, that said, the family is certainly a very important mediator and facilitator. The family can protect children in poverty from many poverty-related and non-poverty-related types of harm and reduce the situational vulnerability significantly. Likewise, the family is an important place, where vulnerabilities and harm are created and sustained. The actions of the parents, and siblings and other family members, can be severely harmful and dangerous, and families can become spaces of extensive vulnerability, for example when domestic violence and abuse are frequent and family life is overshadowed by an atmosphere of fear, broken promises, humiliation or aggression.

What I tried to establish in this section, was that child poverty, by creating vulnerabilities and making children more likely to be harmed and to be less well protected against them (compared with other children), is of ethical concern and this establishes it as an injustice. Child poverty is unjust because it makes children more vulnerable, and more often harmed, for unjustified reasons since today’s societies are shaped by social, cultural, political, and most importantly economic factors and background conditions beyond the reach of children and their families.

Conclusion: responding to child poverty

In the concluding section of this paper I will now turn my attention to ethical responses to child poverty. Four points are important here. Firstly, although there is very good research on child poverty and what it does to children, there is much less research on the main causes for (child) poverty at a country and global level and the causation is less well understood. To research the lives of children and their families is, it seems, easier than to find out why they are in this position beyond stating individual characteristics and factors (low income, unemployment, health issues, single mothers), which do not uncover the underlying causes. Rather, I would want to say, research on such individual risk factors is concerned with symptoms and not the real underlying problems and their causes (O’Connor 2001 ).

Secondly, if child poverty is such a threat to children’s well-being and well-becoming, as I have shown in this paper so far, then it is imperative to safeguard children and to protect them. But if the underlying causes for their poverty are not well understood it appears that the responses to child poverty are also merely treating symptoms. Or, to put it differently, the causes of child poverty should be eradicated, but for that structural changes are needed.

Thirdly, if that is not possible, out of reach or simply not on the political agenda, then it still remains an ethical imperative to do as much as possible to protect poor children, to enable them to escape their poverty and to protect them from the many kinds of harm which could follow from their situational vulnerability of being poor. That is where the huge arsenal of social policy and social work enters the lives of poor children and their families. Policies and social work can have a huge positive impact but, unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, they are under attack and policies are restructured to serve neoliberal agendas (Jensen and Tyler 2015 ; Crossley 2016 ). Such restructuring reduces the effectiveness of services for poor children and instead, unjustifiably but powerfully, blames their parents (Simpson, Lumsden, and McDowall Clark 2015 ).

And, fourthly, social policies and social work are themselves pervaded by ethical issues. I want to mention a few of them to conclude this paper: The effects of policies and methods of working with children are sensitive, and there is always a distinct possibility they enhance the vulnerabilities or inflict harm on some children even if they achieve the opposite in other children. Differential outcomes based on several factors (age, gender, family structure, health, disability, race) must be dealt with if justice for all children is the desired goal. Then, the state and its institutions as well as social workers and other professionals are often in a position of power in contrast to children and their families. There is a distinct danger of abuse in such relations of inequality and dependency, and experiences of humiliation and infantilising are common. This is also connected to issues of paternalism and tutelage. While there is room for paternalism towards children qua them being children (Mullin 2014b ), and also because they are vulnerable and harmed if they are poor, paternalism is neither always justified nor should it be applied without sensitivity and respect. And, most often it is not the child who is targeted but their parents and care-givers. Finally, under circumstances of scarce (material and human) resources it is necessary to prioritise some children and families over others based on differential evaluation of their vulnerabilities and potential types of harm (Dixon and Nussbaum 2012 ). Such decisions face several difficulties, some of which are epistemic (what is and can be known about the child and its situation and about the likely effects to be expected), while others are ethical (how should vulnerabilities and harm be ranked and what conclusions are to be drawn from the empirical evidence available) or political (how do certain policies spill over into other policy areas, what ideological assumptions lie behind certain policies).

The framework of vulnerability laid out here might help to navigate and resolve some of these ethical issues, for example by putting the priority on corrosive vulnerabilities and those children who are the most vulnerable. But that needs to be left to another occasion.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P26480.

Notes on contributor

Gottfried Schweiger works as Senior Scientist at the Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research at the University of Salzburg. He specialises in questions of political philosophy, especially in the areas of global and social justice, poverty, migration and childhood.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Gottfried Schweiger http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5456-6358

• Alkire Sabina, and Roche José Manuel. 2012. “ Beyond Headcount: Measures That Reflect the Breadth and Components of Child Poverty .” In Global Child Poverty and Well-Being . 1st ed, edited by Minujin Alberto and Nandy Shailen, 103–133. Bristol: Policy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson Joel, and Claassen Rutger. 2012. “ Sailing Alone: Teenage Autonomy and Regimes of Childhood .” Law and Philosophy 31 ( 5 ): 495–522. doi: 10.1007/s10982-012-9130-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andresen Sabine. 2014. “ Childhood Vulnerability: Systematic, Structural, and Individual Dimensions .” Child Indicators Research 7 ( 4 ): 699–713. doi: 10.1007/s12187-014-9248-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Attree Pamela. 2006. “ The Social Costs of Child Poverty: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Evidence .” Children & Society 20 ( 1 ): 54–66. doi: 10.1002/chi.854. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Auwarter Amy E., and Aruguete Mara S.. 2008. “ Effects of Student Gender and Socioeconomic Status on Teacher Perceptions .” The Journal of Educational Research 101 ( 4 ): 242–246. doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.4.243-246. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balter Michael. 2015. “ Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children’s Brains .” Science , doi: 10.1126/science.aab0395. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastos Amélia, and Machado Carla. 2009. “ Child Poverty: A Multidimensional Measurement .” International Journal of Social Economics 36 ( 3 ): 237–251. doi: 10.1108/03068290910932738. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batana Yélé, Bussolo Maurizio, and Cockburn John. 2013. “ Global Extreme Poverty Rates for Children, Adults and the Elderly .” Economics Letters 120 ( 3 ): 405–407. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.05.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biggeri Mario, Trani Jean-Francois, and Mauro Vincenzo. 2010. The Multidimensionality of Child Poverty: An Empirical Investigation on Children of Afghanistan. OPHI Research in Progress Oxford: Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative; http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-RP19a.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Blaise Mindy. 2009. “ ‘What a Girl Wants, What a Girl Needs’: Responding to Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in the Early Childhood Classroom .” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 23 ( 4 ): 450–460. doi: 10.1080/02568540909594673. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyden Jo, and Bourdillon Michael. 2012. Childhood Poverty: Multidisciplinary Approaches . 1st ed Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chzhen Yekaterina. 2017. “ Unemployment, Social Protection Spending and Child Poverty in the European Union During the Great Recession .” Journal of European Social Policy 27 ( 2 ): 123–137. doi: 10.1177/0958928716676549. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chzhen Yekaterina, de Neubourg Chris, Plavgo Ilze, and de Milliano Marlous. 2016. “ Child Poverty in the European Union: The Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis Approach (EU-MODA) .” Child Indicators Research 9 ( 2 ): 335–356. doi: 10.1007/s12187-015-9321-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conrad David. 2012. “ Deprivation-Based Inequalities in Under-18 Conception Rates and the Proportion of Under-18 Conceptions Leading to Abortion in England, 1998–2010 .” Journal of Public Health 34 ( 4 ): 609–614. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fds031. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conroy Kathleen, Sandel Megan, and Zuckerman Barry. 2010. “ Poverty Grown Up: How Childhood Socioeconomic Status Impacts Adult Health .” Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 31 ( 2 ): 154–160. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181c21a1b. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crossley Stephen. 2016. “‘ Realising the (Troubled) Family’, ‘crafting the Neoliberal State’ .” Families, Relationships and Societies 5 ( 2 ): 263–279. doi: 10.1332/204674315X14326465757666. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon Rosalind, and Nussbaum Martha. 2012. “ Children’s Rights and a Capabilities Approach: The Question of Special Priority .” Cornell Law Review 97 : 549–593. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan Greg J., Magnuson Katherine, Kalil Ariel, and Ziol-Guest Kathleen. 2012. “ The Importance of Early Childhood Poverty .” Social Indicators Research 108 ( 1 ): 87–98. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9867-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans Gary W., and Cassells Rochelle C.. 2014. “ Childhood Poverty, Cumulative Risk Exposure, and Mental Health in Emerging Adults .” Clinical Psychological Science 2 ( 3 ): 287–296. doi: 10.1177/2167702613501496. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Felner Robert D., and DeVries Melissa L.. 2013. “ Poverty in Childhood and Adolescence: A Transactional–Ecological Approach to Understanding and Enhancing Resilience in Contexts of Disadvantage and Developmental Risk .” In Handbook of Resilience in Children . 1st ed, edited by Goldstein Sam, and Brooks Robert B., 105–126. Boston, MA: Springer; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_7 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson Hb, Bovaird S., and Mueller Mp. 2007. “ The Impact of Poverty on Educational Outcomes for Children .” Paediatrics & Child Health 12 ( 8 ): 701–706. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Franklin-Hall Andrew. 2013. “ On Becoming an Adult: Autonomy and the Moral Relevance of Life’s Stages .” The Philosophical Quarterly 63 ( 251 ): 223–247. doi: 10.1111/1467-9213.12014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman Lisa A, Smyth Katya Fels, Borges Angela M, and Singer Rachel. 2009. “ When Crises Collide ” Trauma, Violence & Abuse 10 ( 4 ): 306–329. doi: 10.1177/1524838009339754. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graf Gunter, and Schweiger Gottfried eds. 2015. The Well-Being of Children: Philosophical and Social Scientific Approaches . 1st ed Berlin: DeGruyter Open. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatcher Daniel L. 2016. The Poverty Industry: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable Citizens. 1st ed. Families, Law, and Society Series . New York: New York University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermann Christoph. 2014. “ Structural Adjustment and Neoliberal Convergence in Labour Markets and Welfare: The Impact of the Crisis and Austerity Measures on European Economic and Social Models .” Competition & Change 18 ( 2 ): 111–130. doi: 10.1179/1024529414Z.00000000051. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holzer Harry J., Schanzenbach Diane Whitmore, Duncan Greg J., and Ludwig Jens. 2008. “ The Economic Costs of Childhood Poverty in the United States .” Journal of Children and Poverty 14 ( 1 ): 41–61. doi: 10.1080/10796120701871280. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honneth Axel. 2004. “ Organized Self-Realization .” European Journal of Social Theory 7 ( 4 ): 463–478. doi: 10.1177/1368431004046703. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooper Carol-Ann, Gorin Sarah, Cabral Christie, and Dyson Claire. 2007. Living with Hardship 24/7: The Diverse Experiences of Families in Poverty in England . 1st ed London: Frank Buttle Trust; http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/features/hardship.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Huisman Martijn, Read Sanna, Towriss Catriona A., Deeg Dorly J. H., and Grundy Emily. 2013. “ Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mortality Rates in Old Age in the World Health Organization Europe Region .” Epidemiologic Reviews 35 ( 1 ): 84–97. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxs010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurst Samia. 2015. “ Clarifying Vulnerability: The Case of Children .” Asian Bioethics Review 7 ( 2 ): 126–138. doi: 10.1353/asb.2015.0018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen Tracey, and Tyler Imogen. 2015. “ ‘Benefits Broods’: The Cultural and Political Crafting of Anti-Welfare Commonsense .” Critical Social Policy 35 ( 4 ): 470–491. doi: 10.1177/0261018315600835. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalleberg Arne L. 2011. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs : The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s . 1st ed New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karriker-Jaffe Katherine J. 2011. “ Areas of Disadvantage: A Systematic Review of Effects of Area-Level Socioeconomic Status on Substance use Outcomes .” Drug and Alcohol Review 30 ( 1 ): 84–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00191.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kehily Mary Jane. 2012. “ Contextualising the Sexualisation of Girls Debate: Innocence, Experience and Young Female Sexuality .” Gender and Education 24 ( 3 ): 255–268. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2012.670391. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Pilyoung, Evans Gary W., Angstadt Michael, Shaun Ho S., Sripada Chandra S., Swain James E., Liberzon Israel, and Luan Phan K.. 2013. “Effects of Childhood Poverty and Chronic Stress on Emotion Regulatory Brain Function in Adulthood.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , October, 1–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308240110. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levy David L. 2005. “ Offshoring in the New Global Political Economy .” Journal of Management Studies 42 ( 3 ): 685–693. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00514.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingston Mark, Kearns Ade, and Bannister Jon. 2014. “ Neighbourhood Structures and Crime: The Influence of Tenure Mix and Other Structural Factors upon Local Crime Rates .” Housing Studies 29 ( 1 ): 1–25. doi: 10.1080/02673037.2014.848267. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lødemel Ivar, and Trickey Heather eds. 2001. ‘An Offer You Can’t Refuse’: Workfare in International Perspective . 1st ed Bristol: Policy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lupton Ruth. 2005. “ Social Justice and School Improvement: Improving the Quality of Schooling in the Poorest Neighbourhoods .” British Educational Research Journal 31 ( 5 ): 589–604. doi: 10.1080/01411920500240759. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mackenzie Catriona, Rogers Wendy, and Dodds Susan. 2014a. “ Introduction: What Is Vulnerability and Why Does It Matter for Moral Theory? ” In Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy , edited by Mackenzie Catriona, Rogers Wendy, and Dodds Susan, 1–29. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mackenzie Catriona, Rogers Wendy, and Dodds Susan. 2014b. Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy . 1st ed Studies in Feminist Philosophy New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macleod Colin M. 2010. “ Primary Goods, Capabilities and Children .” In Measuring Justice – Primary Goods and Capabilities , edited by Brighouse Harry, and Robeyns Ingrid, 174–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macleod Colin. 2015. “ Agency, Authority and the Vulnerability of Children .” In The Nature of Children’s Well-Being , Vol. 9 . 1st ed, edited by Bagattini Alexander, and Macleod Colin, 53–64. Dordrecht: Springer; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-9252-3_4 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Main Gill, and Bradshaw Jonathan. 2016. “ Child Poverty in the UK: Measures, Prevalence and Intra-Household Sharing .” Critical Social Policy 36 ( 1 ): 38–61. doi: 10.1177/0261018315602627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McEwen Craig A., and McEwen Bruce S.. 2017. “ Social Structure, Adversity, Toxic Stress, and Intergenerational Poverty: An Early Childhood Model .” Annual Review of Sociology 43 ( 1 ): 445–472. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053252. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinney Stephen. 2014. “ The Relationship of Child Poverty to School Education .” Improving Schools 17 ( 3 ): 203–216. doi: 10.1177/1365480214553742. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mentis Alexios-Fotios A. 2015. “ To What Extent Are Greek Children Exposed to the Risk of a Lifelong, Intergenerationally Transmitted Poverty? .” Poverty & Public Policy 7 ( 4 ): 357–381. doi: 10.1002/pop4.123. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minujin Alberto, Delamonica Enrique, Davidziuk Alejandra, and Gonzalez Edward D. 2006. “ The Definition of Child Poverty: A Discussion of Concepts and Measurements .” Environment and Urbanization 18 ( 2 ): 481–500. doi: 10.1177/0956247806069627. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullin Amy. 2014a. “ Children, Vulnerability, and Emotional Harm .” In Vulnerability . 1st ed, edited by Mackenzie Catriona, Rogers Wendy, and Dodds Susan, 266–287. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullin Amy. 2014b. “ Children, Paternalism and the Development of Autonomy .” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 ( 3 ): 413–426. doi: 10.1007/s10677-013-9453-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor Alice. 2001. Poverty Knowledge : Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History . 1st ed Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phung Viet-Hai. 2008. “ Ethnicity and Child Poverty Under New Labour: A Research Review .” Social Policy and Society 7 ( 04 ), doi: 10.1017/S1474746408004491. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael Dennis. 2011. “ Poverty in Childhood and Adverse Health Outcomes in Adulthood .” Maturitas 69 ( 1 ): 22–26. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.02.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rekker Roderik, Pardini Dustin, Keijsers Loes, Branje Susan, Loeber Rolf, and Meeus Wim. 2015. “ Moving in and out of Poverty: The Within-Individual Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Juvenile Delinquency .” Edited by Karin Bammann PLOS ONE 10 ( 11 ): e0136461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136461. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ridge Tess. 2011. “ The Everyday Costs of Poverty in Childhood: A Review of Qualitative Research Exploring the Lives and Experiences of Low-Income Children in the UK .” Children & Society 25 ( 1 ): 73–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00345.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rose Helena D., and Cohen Keren. 2010. “ The Experiences of Young Carers: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Findings .” Journal of Youth Studies 13 ( 4 ): 473–487. doi: 10.1080/13676261003801739. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell Mary, Harris Barbara, and Gockel Annemarie. 2008. “ Parenting in Poverty: Perspectives of High-Risk Parents .” Journal of Children and Poverty 14 ( 1 ): 83–98. doi: 10.1080/10796120701871322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sayer Andrew. 2015. Why We Can’t Afford the Rich . 1st ed Bristol: The Policy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schram Sanford F, Soss Joe, Fording Richard, and Houser Linda. 2009. “ Deciding to Discipline: Race, Choice, and Punishment at the Frontlines of Welfare Reform .” American Sociological Review 74 ( 3 ): 398–422. doi: 10.1177/000312240907400304. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweiger Gottfried. 2015. “ Justice and Children’s Well-Being and Well-Becoming .” In The Well-Being of Children: Philosophical and Social Scientific Approaches . 1st ed, edited by Graf Gunter, and Schweiger Gottfried, 84–96. Berlin: DeGruyter Open. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweiger Gottfried, and Graf Gunter. 2015. A Philosophical Examination of Social Justice and Child Poverty . 1st ed Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137426024 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Schweiger Gottfried, and Graf Gunter. 2017. “ Ethics and the Dynamic Vulnerability of Children .” Les Ateliers de l’éthique/The Ethics Forum 12 ( 2–3 ): 243–261. doi: 10.7202/1051284ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen Amartya. 1985. “ A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Reply to Professor Peter Townsend .” Oxford Economic Papers 37 ( 4 ): 669–676. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahtahmasebi Said, Emerson Eric, Berridge Damon, and Lancaster Gillian. 2011. “ Child Disability and the Dynamics of Family Poverty, Hardship and Financial Strain: Evidence From the UK .” Journal of Social Policy 40 ( 04 ): 653–673. doi: 10.1017/S0047279410000905. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin Dong-Myeon. 2000. “ Economic Policy and Social Policy: Policy-Linkages in an Era of Globalisation .” International Journal of Social Welfare 9 ( 1 ): 17–30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2397.00105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson Donald, Lumsden Eunice, and McDowall Clark Rory. 2015. “ Neoliberalism, Global Poverty Policy and Early Childhood Education and Care: A Critique of Local Uptake in England .” Early Years 35 ( 1 ): 96–109. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2014.969199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Standing Guy. 2016. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class . Revised edition London: Bloomsbury Academic. [ Google Scholar ]
• Straehle Christine. 2017. Vulnerability, Autonomy, and Applied Ethics . New York: Routledge; http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9781315647418 . [ Google Scholar ]
• UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2012. Measuring Child Poverty: New League Tables of Child Poverty in the World’s Rich Countries. Innocenti Report Card 10 . Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre; http://www.unicef.gr/pdfs/RC10_report.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• van Ham Maarten, Hedman Lina, Manley David, Coulter Rory, and Östh John. 2014. “ Intergenerational Transmission of Neighbourhood Poverty: An Analysis of Neighbourhood Histories of Individuals .” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39 ( 3 ): 402–417. doi: 10.1111/tran.12040. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wacquant Loïc. 2009. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. 1st ed. Politics, History, and Culture . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wadsworth Martha E. 2012. “ Working with Low-Income Families: Lessons Learned From Basic and Applied Research on Coping with Poverty-Related Stress .” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 42 ( 1 ): 17–25. doi: 10.1007/s10879-011-9192-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wakefield Sarah E.L., and Baxter Jamie. 2010. “ Linking Health Inequality and Environmental Justice: Articulating a Precautionary Framework for Research and Action .” Environmental Justice 3 ( 3 ): 95–102. doi: 10.1089/env.2009.0044. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolff Jonathan, and de-Shalit Avner. 2007. Disadvantage . 1st ed Oxford Political Theory Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshikawa Hirokazu, Lawrence Aber J., and Beardslee William R.. 2012. “ The Effects of Poverty on the Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health of Children and Youth: Implications for Prevention .” American Psychologist 67 ( 4 ): 272–284. doi: 10.1037/a0028015. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young Iris Marion. 2011. Responsibility for Justice . 1st ed Oxford Political Philosophy Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Gregory M., and Messner Steven F.. 2011. “ Neighborhood Context and Nonlinear Peer Effects on Adolescent Violent Crime: Peer Violence and Neighborhoods .” Criminology; An interdisciplinary Journal 49 ( 3 ): 873–903. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00237.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

•   Create Account
•   Login
•   Home

UR Research > Warner School of Education > Warner School Ph.D. Theses >

The impact of early childhood poverty on academic achievement and the influence of supportive parenting, url to cite or link to: http://hdl.handle.net/1802/6011.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Rochester. Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 2008. Socioeconomic disadvantage affects child development. Persistent poverty has more detrimental effects on socio-emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, and academic achievement than transitory poverty. Research on the effects of poverty suggests that the timing and duration of poverty has significant impact on children’s academic achievement. The impact of poverty is complex and transacts across multiple contexts including family, home, neighborhood, and school. It is important to understand the influence of one context on another in order to identify strategies to counteract the adverse effects of disadvantage. Research examining the link between child development and these factors is critical because this understanding is needed to inform policy development and social, educational, and health services. A major concern of existing studies are the inconsistent results regarding income effects, either due to design or measurement issues based on the construct of poverty, inclusion of social and environmental variables, or lack a longitudinal design to capture the effect of poverty over time on academic achievement. There are also inconsistent findings from well designed studies regarding the magnitude, if any, on the effect of poverty on academic achievement. Income and other highly intercorrelated aspects of socioeconomic status (maternal education, home learning resources, parental interaction, neighborhood influences, school environment, and biological determinants need to be controlled in order to understand the separate contribution of each. Second, it is important to understand whether supportive parenting moderates the influences of early childhood disadvantage on subsequent academic outcomes. This study is a secondary analysis of existing data from the control group from The New Mothers Study, which is a longitudinal, randomized, controlled trial for low-income families raising young children in Memphis, Tennessee. The overall aim of this secondary data analysis is to examine the role of supportive parenting in the context of the effect of early childhood poverty, children’s home environment, neighborhood, and school on academic achievement, using a bioecological model. Specifically, this study examines the following relationships controlling for maternal and child biological determinants of cognitive ability, (1) the impact of the duration and severity of early childhood poverty on academic achievement at the third year of school, (2) the role of neighborhood, family/home, and school in mediating the effects of early childhood poverty on academic achievement, and (3) the effect of supportive parenting on moderating the relationship between neighborhood, family/home, and schools on academic achievement. This analysis explained 26.3% of the variance associated with levels of academic achievement. Controlling for maternal and child IQ, none of the predictors for income, neighborhood, family/home, school, or supportive parenting had a direct effect on levels of academic achievement. Three explanations are possible for the findings: (1) the restricted range of values from this impoverished sample affected statistical analysis, (2) child IQ is not an exogenous variable and child intellectual ability is mediated by social influences, and (3) there is a reverse causal relationship between biological determinants and poverty on academic achievement. The predictive influence of child IQ negated the influence of other variables in the model on academic achievement. Additional research is indicated to investigate whether child IQ is an endogenous variable rather than an exogenous variable. Most of the studies in the literature do not control for child IQ when examining the influence of early childhood poverty on academic achievement. Few studies are longitudinal, even fewer examine the impact of poverty from birth to elementary school, and rare if any, control for child IQ. .Do environmental influences such as family/home environment predict child IQ scores? Contributor(s): - Author - Thesis Advisor Primary Item Type: Thesis Language: English Subject Keywords: Bioecological model; Academic achievement; Childhood poverty; Supportive parenting; Longitudinal cohort study First presented to the public: 9/5/2008 Original Publication Date: 2008 Previously Published By: University of Rochester. Citation: Extents: Number of Pages - 394 License Grantor / Date Granted: Susan Gibbons / 2008-09-05 13:48:19.0 ( ) Date Deposited 2008-09-05 13:48:20.0 Date Last Updated 2012-09-26 16:35:14.586719 Submitter: Susan Gibbons Copyright © This item is protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. All Versions Thumbnail Name Version Created Date The Impact of early childhood poverty on academic achievement and the influence of supportive parenting 2008-09-05 13:48:20.0 Help  |  Contact Us  |  About  |  Privacy Policy Reason for withdraw :* Display metadata: Withdraw all versions: Reason for reinstate :* Reinstate all versions: Do you want to delete this Institutional Publication? Mental health effects of poverty, hunger, and homelessness on children and teens Rising inflation and an uncertain economy are deeply affecting the lives of millions of Americans, particularly those living in low-income communities. It may seem impossible for a family of four to survive on just over $27,000 per year or a single person on just over $15,000, but that’s what millions of people do everyday in the United States. Approximately 37.9 million Americans, or just under 12%, now live in poverty, according to the U.S. Census Bureau . Additional data from the Bureau show that children are more likely to experience poverty than people over the age of 18. Approximately one in six kids, 16% of all children, live in families with incomes below the official poverty line. Those who are poor face challenges beyond a lack of resources. They also experience mental and physical issues at a much higher rate than those living above the poverty line. Read on for a summary of the myriad effects of poverty, homelessness, and hunger on children and youth. And for more information on APA’s work on issues surrounding socioeconomic status, please see the Office of Socioeconomic Status . Who is most affected? Poverty rates are disproportionately higher among most non-White populations. Compared to 8.2% of White Americans living in poverty, 26.8% of American Indian and Alaska Natives, 19.5% of Blacks, 17% of Hispanics and 8.1% of Asians are currently living in poverty. Similarly, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous children are overrepresented among children living below the poverty line. More specifically, 35.5% of Black people living in poverty in the U.S. are below the age of 18. In addition, 40.7% of Hispanic people living below the poverty line in the U.S. are younger than age 18, and 29.1% of American Indian and Native American children lived in poverty in 2018. In contrast, approximately 21% of White people living in poverty in the U.S. are less than 18 years old. Furthermore, families with a female head of household are more than twice as likely to live in poverty compared to families with a male head of household. Twenty-three percent of female-headed households live in poverty compared to 11.4% of male-headed households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau . What are the effects of poverty on children and teens? The impact of poverty on young children is significant and long lasting. Poverty is associated with substandard housing, hunger, homelessness, inadequate childcare, unsafe neighborhoods, and under-resourced schools. In addition, low-income children are at greater risk than higher-income children for a range of cognitive, emotional, and health-related problems, including detrimental effects on executive functioning, below average academic achievement, poor social emotional functioning, developmental delays, behavioral problems, asthma, inadequate nutrition, low birth weight, and higher rates of pneumonia. Psychological research also shows that living in poverty is associated with differences in structural and functional brain development in children and adolescents in areas related to cognitive processes that are critical for learning, communication, and academic achievement, including social emotional processing, memory, language, and executive functioning. Children and families living in poverty often attend under-resourced, overcrowded schools that lack educational opportunities, books, supplies, and appropriate technology due to local funding policies. In addition, families living below the poverty line often live in school districts without adequate equal learning experiences for both gifted and special needs students with learning differences and where high school dropout rates are high . What are the effects of hunger on children and teens? One in eight U.S. households with children, approximately 12.5%, could not buy enough food for their families in 2021 , considerably higher than the rate for households without children (9.4%). Black (19.8%) and Latinx (16.25%) households are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity, with food insecurity rates in 2021 triple and double the rate of White households (7%), respectively. Research has found that hunger and undernutrition can have a host of negative effects on child development. For example, maternal undernutrition during pregnancy increases the risk of negative birth outcomes, including premature birth, low birth weight, smaller head size, and lower brain weight. In addition, children experiencing hunger are at least twice as likely to report being in fair or poor health and at least 1.4 times more likely to have asthma, compared to food-secure children. The first three years of a child’s life are a period of rapid brain development. Too little energy, protein and nutrients during this sensitive period can lead to lasting deficits in cognitive, social and emotional development . School-age children who experience severe hunger are at increased risk for poor mental health and lower academic performance , and often lag behind their peers in social and emotional skills . What are the effects of homelessness on children and teens? Approximately 1.2 million public school students experienced homelessness during the 2019-2020 school year, according to the National Center for Homeless Education (PDF, 1.4MB) . The report also found that students of color experienced homelessness at higher proportions than expected based on the overall number of students. Hispanic and Latino students accounted for 28% of the overall student body but 38% of students experiencing homelessness, while Black students accounted for 15% of the overall student body but 27% of students experiencing homelessness. While White students accounted for 46% of all students enrolled in public schools, they represented 26% of students experiencing homelessness. Homelessness can have a tremendous impact on children, from their education, physical and mental health, sense of safety, and overall development. Children experiencing homelessness frequently need to worry about where they will live, their pets, their belongings, and other family members. In addition, homeless children are less likely to have adequate access to medical and dental care, and may be affected by a variety of health challenges due to inadequate nutrition and access to food, education interruptions, trauma, and disruption in family dynamics. In terms of academic achievement, students experiencing homelessness are more than twice as likely to be chronically absent than non-homeless students , with greater rates among Black and Native American or Alaska Native students. They are also more likely to change schools multiple times and to be suspended—especially students of color. Further, research shows that students reporting homelessness have higher rates of victimization, including increased odds of being sexually and physically victimized, and bullied. Student homelessness correlates with other problems, even when controlling for other risks. They experienced significantly greater odds of suicidality, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, risky sexual behavior, and poor grades in school. What can you do to help children and families experiencing poverty, hunger, and homelessness? There are many ways that you can help fight poverty in America. You can: Volunteer your time with charities and organizations that provide assistance to low-income and homeless children and families. Donate money, food, and clothing to homeless shelters and other charities in your community. Donate school supplies and books to underresourced schools in your area. Improve access to physical, mental, and behavioral health care for low-income Americans by eliminating barriers such as limitations in health care coverage. Create a “safety net” for children and families that provides real protection against the harmful effects of economic insecurity. Increase the minimum wage, affordable housing and job skills training for low-income and homeless Americans. Intervene in early childhood to support the health and educational development of low-income children. Provide support for low-income and food insecure children such as Head Start , the National School Lunch Program , and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) . Increase resources for public education and access to higher education. Support research on poverty and its relationship to health, education, and well-being. Resolution on Poverty and SES Pathways for addressing deep poverty APA Deep Poverty Initiative The impact of poverty on early childhood For most parents, bringing a baby into the world and nurturing a young child brings both great joy and intense love, but it also comes with many changes, and sometimes stress, pressure and anxiety. Those pressures and stresses are likely to be much greater for families who are struggling to make ends meet.  In the UK today, more than one in four families with a child under five are living in poverty .   Experiencing poverty can cause harm at any age, but particularly for the youngest children. This is when the foundations for their physical, emotional and social development are being laid. A substantial body of research shows that family poverty is associated with and can cause poorer academic attainment and social and emotional development. Perhaps not surprisingly, poverty can be highly detrimental if it is persistent, experienced in the first three years of life and combined with other disadvantages. Given this, addressing early childhood poverty is a vital part of the jigsaw of support needed to enable young children to flourish. The harm that poverty can inflict begins during pregnancy and is shaped by the health and well-being of parents and their socio-economic status. Gaps in development between disadvantaged and advantaged children emerge very early on. Poverty impacts are also not the same for everyone and are further compounded by inequalities in relation to parents’ ethnicity, health and economic status. By the time a child reaches 11 months there are gaps in communication and language skills, and by the age of three inequalities in children’s cognitive and social and emotional skills are evident. A large body of analysis shows how these early disadvantages can go on to affect children’s development in later life. Importantly, this is not to say that economic disadvantage inevitably leads to poor long-term outcomes; other factors – family circumstances, wider family support, social networks and connections, educational resources and public services - all play a vital role and can mitigate the effects of poverty. Younger children are more likely to be in poverty than other groups  Poverty here is defined as not having enough material resources such as money, housing, or food to meet the minimum needs - both material and social – in today’s society. While there have been some key changes over the last two decades, there is one constant – children are markedly more likely to experience poverty than adults or pensioners and it is younger children who are most at risk . This is the result of a combination of factors including the costs of children and that households with younger children are less likely to have two parents in full-time work parents. The latest figures show that there are some 4.2 million children living in poverty in the UK, a rise of 600,000 over the last decade. Most worryingly deep poverty has been rising, particularly affecting lone parents, large families, and people living in families with a disabled person. The Runnymede Trust found that Black and minority ethnic people are currently 2.2 times more likely to be in deep poverty than white people, with Bangladeshi people more than three times more likely.  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report on Destitution in the UK 202 3 found that over 1 million children had experienced destitution at some point over 2022. Poverty affects children’s material, social, educational and emotional well-being Poverty affects young children’s experiences directly. Parents have less money to meet children’s material and social needs. The sharply rising costs of providing the basic essentials – food, warmth, lighting, housing costs, nappies, baby food, clothing - has created acute pressure for many families. Drawing on a survey of their service users, in 2022 Barnardo’s reported that 30% of parents said their child’s mental health had worsened in the previous four months, 16% said their child/ren had to share a bed with them or a sibling, and 30% were concerned about losing their home/being made homeless. Recent research (Ruth Patrick et al. 2023 ) looked at the effects of benefit changes on larger families. It shows the many hardships that families are dealing with, the inability to meet their children’s needs and the stress and worry they feel as a result. But it also shows the resilience, strength and skills they employ to give their children the best possible life in the circumstances. Families spoke about the sheer amount of time it takes to manage on a very tight budget and its direct impact on children – from missing bath time to reading a bedtime story. This is affecting children’s educational outcomes. 95% of teachers surveyed by Kindred Squared believe that the cost-of-living crisis is going to impact school readiness next year. Poverty gets under your skin; it takes a toll on the mental health of mothers, fathers, and wider family. The Family Stress Model, underpinned by research, shows the way in which economic stress - poverty, hardship, debt - creates psychological distress, lack of control and feelings of stigma. Not surprisingly, these stresses affect family relationships, both between parents and with children. Hardship, debt, deprivation and ‘feeling poor’ is linked to poorer maternal mental health and lower life satisfaction and this can make it more difficult to find the mental space to be an attentive and responsive parent. This in turn can affect young children’s social and emotional development and outcomes. What can we do? Explaining how poverty affects young children’s well-being and outcomes is important when it comes to developing effective responses: addressing poverty and hardship directly, supporting parents’, especially mothers’, mental health, and providing support for parenting. The research also helps identify the protective factors that help to reduce the detrimental impact of poverty: wider family and neighbourhood support, good maternal and paternal mental health, access to high quality early education, warm parent-child interaction and financial and housing stability. Early years professionals, health visitors, family support workers and many others are in the front line of the difficulties that families with young children are facing. They are responding to the legacy of the Covid pandemic and the rise in cost of living, working across service boundaries and in new ways, despite budgetary pressures. Local services are working to meet the needs of families with young children in the round – including support for maternal mental health, parental conflict, parenting and the home learning environment. There are many voluntary initiatives, such as Save the Children’s Building Blocks, which combines giving grants to reduce the impact of material deprivation with supporting parents to play and learn with their children at home, initiatives to use local authority data to increase the take-up of benefit entitlements, and thebaby bank network, providing essential products and equipment as well as practical support for parents who are struggling. Tackling early childhood poverty rests both on public policy which takes a holistic and joined up approach, as well as action at local level, whether that’s through local authorities, early years services in health and education, local businesses and community and voluntary initiatives. In the Nuffield Foundation’s Changing Face of Early Childhood , we set out some core principles to address early childhood poverty including: A multi-dimensional approach that reflects the range of socioeconomic risks and intersecting needs faced by families with young children. Money matters - a financial bedrock for families with young children living on a low income, through improved social security benefits and access to employment, which takes account of the care needs of the under-fives. Greater attention and investment in policies to support parental mental health and parenting from the earliest stage of a child’s life. A more coherent, joined up and effective approach to early childhood would help to address the inequalities between children by supporting them early on in life and establishing deep roots from which they can grow and flourish. Vance Championed 2017 Report on Families From Architects of Project 2025 JD Vance, as he was dipping his toe into politics, praised the Heritage Foundation report — 29 essays opposing abortion and seeking to instruct Americans on how to raise children — as “admirable.” In his introduction to the 2017 Heritage Foundation report, JD Vance argued that economic struggles were inextricable from what he saw as cultural decay. Credit... Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times Supported by Share full article By Lisa Lerer Sept. 3, 2024 Years before he became the Republican vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance endorsed a little-noticed 2017 report by the Heritage Foundation that proposed a sweeping conservative agenda to restrict sexual and reproductive freedoms and remake American families. In a series of 29 separate essays, conservative commentators, policy experts, community leaders and Christian clergy members opposed the spread of in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments, describing those treatments as harmful to women. They praised the rapidly expanding number of state laws restricting abortion rights and access, saying that the procedure should become “unthinkable” in America. And they cited hunger as a “great motivation” for Americans to find work. Mr. Vance, then known as the author of a best-selling memoir, became a champion of the project. He wrote the introduction and praised the volume as “admirable,” and was the keynote speaker at the public release of the report at Heritage’s offices in Washington. The report was released just months after Donald J. Trump became president, as social conservatives were laying the foundation for an aggressive agenda restricting sexual freedom and reproductive rights. Those policies became a hallmark of the Trump administration and Mr. Vance’s political career. Taken together, the pieces in the report amount to an effort to instruct Americans on what their families should be, when to grow them and the best way to raise their children. Authors argued in the 2017 report that women should become pregnant at younger ages and that a two-parent, heterosexual household was the “ideal” environment for children. “The ideal situation for any child is growing up with the mother and father who brought that child into the world,” wrote Katrina Trinko, a conservative journalist, in an essay detailing the “tragedy” of babies born to single mothers. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber?  Log in . Want all of The Times?  Subscribe . Advertisement John Swinney urged to back £40 a week Scottish Child Payment as coalition of campaigners demand action on poverty The First Minister is under pressure to cut child poverty levels ahead of his Programme for Government statement today. 04:30, 4 SEP 2024 Over 100 campaign groups have urged John Swinney to throw poorer kids a lifeline by funding a £40 a week Scottish Child Payment . The groups also want the SNP Government to back free travel for under 25s as well people on low incomes and disability benefits. Swinney’s finance cabinet secretary Shona Robison yesterday confirmed a round of brutal spending cuts in a bid to balance the books. He will today attempt to turn the corner by announcing a raft of Bills he hopes will reboot his Government It will be his first Programme for Government since succeeding Humza Yousaf and child poverty and the cost of living crisis are his priorities. They wrote: “Too many people across Scotland, including 24% of our children, are having their life chances restricted by preventable poverty. “The continuing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing cost of living crisis have contributed to a rising tide of poverty as people struggle to access adequate incomes that would enable them to live a dignified life.” They described poverty as a “breach” of human rights and added: “Following your appointment as First Minister in May 2024, you confirmed eradicating child poverty as the single most important policy objective for your Government. “We agree that this is the correct priority and share your belief in the need to use all of the powers at your Government’s disposal to loosen the grip of poverty on people’s lives. “This belief and commitment must be embedded into the forthcoming Programme for Government with tangible actions and clear timescales for implementation. We know that people living in poverty cannot wait, and the time for action is now.” The letter made five asks, with the most notable being a call to increase the SCP for low income families from £26.75 a week for every child to £40. The coalition of groups also demanded funding for new social homes against the backdrop of rising homelessness. They also want to expand concessionary travel to the under 25s and to people on benefits. Universal free school breakfasts and lunches provision for all pupils was also included on the list. Scottish politics They also backed “fair and sustainable funding” for third sector groups, many of which provide services to vulnerable people. The letter added: “Working together to realise these policy objectives will provide a lifeline to families who are struggling to stay afloat, helping to build a country where poverty is a thing of the past.” Groups that backed the letter include Shelter Scotland, Oxfam Scotland, Barnardo's and Amnesty International. To sign up to the Daily Record Politics newsletter, click here . John Swinney Most Recent 236 IMAGES Causes and Effect of Childhood Poverty Free Essay Example (PDF) Child Poverty in the Developing World (PDF) THE REFLECTION OF URBAN POVERTY ON CHILD POVERTY Poverty in Child Development The Cause and Effect of Child Poverty Free Essay Example (PDF) The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development The VIDEO Young people share their views about child poverty and discrimination EXISTENTIAL Deanna Nicholas Children in Poverty Say THANK YOU to Sponsors Children’s perspectives on child poverty and exclusion The pain of child poverty: Amatanga village, Northern Uganda COMMENTS Full article: Rethinking Child Poverty 1. Introduction. Child poverty is an issue of global concern; not only because of the disturbingly high number of children affected (Alkire 2019, 35-36; World Bank 2016, 2020), but also because of the deleterious impact on their human flourishing and wellbeing, both now and in the future. White, Leavy, and Masters (2003, 80) argue that child ... Understanding the Needs of Children in Poverty to Improve Academic The poverty rate for children under the. age of 18 was higher at 14.4 percent; however, this was down from 22 percent in 2010. Using the. SPM, the overall poverty rate in 2019 was 11.7 percent and the rate for children under 18 years. PDF Poverty and Learning: The Effects of Poverty in the Classroom According to the current U. S. Government poverty rate, a family of four lives on between $22, 314 -$24,000 a year (Edin 2014; Staff 2017). Current figures equate to 46.2 million men women and children living at or below the poverty rate as of 2010 (Staff 2017; a CCHD Initiative 2015; Ehrenfreund 2016). The figures are even greater if one ... The Effects of Poverty on Children 55. The Effects of Poverty. on Children. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. Greg J. Duncan. Abstract. Although hundreds of studies have documented the association between family. poverty and children's health ... Neuroscience of Childhood Poverty: Evidence of Impacts and Mechanisms For example, after a decade of modest improvements in life-conditions, childhood poverty in Argentina has again risen dramatically (Tuñón, 2016), and the ideal of public, free schooling for all children still remains a distant dream in many countries, in spite of the positive outcomes of introducing education in poorer areas such as favelas ... The Effect of Poverty on Child Development and Educational Outcomes Evidence suggests that many of the effects of poverty on children are influenced by families' behavior. Low-income families often have limited education, reducing their ability to provide a responsive stimulating environment for their children. 30 They tend to limit their children's linguistic environment by using language that is dominated by commands and simple structure, rather than by ... The Effect of Family Poverty on Children's Academic Achievement The Effect of Family Poverty on Child Outcomes Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) studied the relationship between poverty and child outcomes. Prolonged exposure to poverty is detrimental: the most damaging effects seem to occur for children who live in these severe environments for many years (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Ethics, Poverty and Children's Vulnerability Introduction. Child poverty is a truly global injustice. It affects the lives of billions of children, in developing and developed countries (Batana, Bussolo, and Cockburn 2013; Chzhen et al. 2016).I will not investigate how child poverty should be conceptualised or measured on a global or domestic level, nor will I provide a thorough analysis of all the normative issues involved in child ... The Impact of early childhood poverty on academic achievement and the Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Rochester. Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 2008. ... the impact of the duration and severity of early childhood poverty on academic achievement at the third year of school, (2) the role of neighborhood, family/home, and school in mediating the effects of early childhood poverty ... PDF A Critical Analysis of Child Poverty Reduction Advocacy MSW Thesis - B. Camplin, McMaster-School of Social Work iii ABSTRACT In recent years child poverty has become a concern among poverty reduction advocates and social policy actors. This is evident in advocacy efforts of the National Campaign against Child Poverty (Campaign 2000), and the policies embedded within the PDF The Relationship between Childhood Poverty and Academic Success Living in poverty for a large portion of development results in an overall lower quality of life. This paper gives an introduction to the long-term effects of living in poverty as a child. After setting parameters that detail what poverty is, it will explore the relationship between poverty and several different factors that a child cannot control. Children Living in Poverty: Exploring and Understanding Its According to Children's Defense Fu nd (CDF), every d ay in the. United States, 2,500 b abies are born into poverty, 1,267 babies are born into extre me poverty, 65 babies die. before their first ... Child Poverty in the United States: A Tale of Devastation and the The child poverty rate in the United States is higher than in most similarly developed countries, making child poverty one of America's most pressing social problems. This article provides an introduction of child poverty in the USA, beginning with a short description of how poverty is measured and how child poverty is patterned across social ... PDF Childhood Poverty Persistence: Facts and Consequences Across all children, 17 percent of children are poor for 1 to 3 years, and 10 percent are poor for. 4 to 8 years. Another 10 percent are poor for 9 to. 18 years and thus are persistently poor.4 These overall numbers mask large racial dis-parities. Effects of poverty, hunger and homelessness on children and youth Poverty is associated with substandard housing, hunger, homelessness, inadequate childcare, unsafe neighborhoods, and under-resourced schools. In addition, low-income children are at greater risk than higher-income children for a range of cognitive, emotional, and health-related problems, including detrimental effects on executive functioning ... PDF Institute for Research on Poverty This paper focuses on the economic and social costs of poverty. We attempt to quantify the. overall costs to U.S. society of having children grow up in poverty—both in the form of lost economic productivity and earnings as adults, and also as additional costs associated with higher crime and poorer. PDF Measuring and Monitoring Child Poverty Child Poverty" Guide, would help to restrict manipulation of thresholds to inflate or minimize child poverty estimates (or to give more importance/weight to one right/dimension over the other ones). Countries can establish minima for satisfaction above international standards but not below. This avoids a Poverty and Child Health in the United States Poverty is an important social determinant of health and contributes to child health disparities. Children who experience poverty, particularly during early life or for an extended period, are at risk of a host of adverse health and developmental outcomes through their life course. 1 Poverty has a profound effect on specific circumstances, such as birth weight, infant mortality, language ... PDF Families in Poverty: Exploring Perceptions of Parenting Styles and families in poverty are able to adapt and have healthy relationships (Brown, & Lynn, 2010). With inconsistent findings, more research needs to be conducted to understand how poverty effects parent-child relationships. Additionally, there is a lack of research that compares parent-child relationships with one-parent families and two-parent families. (PDF) Multidimensional child poverty analyses and child-sensitive Social protection policies can help address the. multifaceted nature of child poverty and improve children' s. well-being, especially in the areas of education, health and. nutrition. However ... The impact of poverty on early childhood What can we do? Explaining how poverty affects young children's well-being and outcomes is important when it comes to developing effective responses: addressing poverty and hardship directly, supporting parents', especially mothers', mental health, and providing support for parenting.. The research also helps identify the protective factors that help to reduce the detrimental impact of ... PDF Child Poverty and Adult Success Children who are poor are less likely to achieve important adult milestones, such as graduating from high school and enrolling in and completing college, than children who are never poor. For example, although more than 9 in 10 never-poor children (92.7 percent) complete high school, only 3 in 4 ever-poor children (77.9 percent) do so (table 1). Thesis Statement On Poverty Thesis Statement On Poverty. 791 Words4 Pages. I. Introduction A. Thesis statement: A child's early development is greatly impacted by living in poverty which leads to poor cognitive outcomes, school achievement, and severe emotional, and behavioral problems. II. The challenges in the way of tackling child poverty in Scotland According to the latest official figures, more than one in ten people in Scotland - 580,000 people - were living in severe poverty in 2022/23, a figure which includes 130,000 children. Swinney to make eradicating child poverty greatest priority Mr Swinney also cited figures from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which state low income families in Scotland will be £28,000 better off by the time their child turns 18, compared to ... Fact-checking Kamala Harris's first campaign interview However, after the Covid-era boost to child tax credit ended, the record low child poverty rate of 5.2% in 2021 rose to 12.4% the following year, according to 2022 Census Bureau data. Vance Championed 2017 Report on Families From Architects of Project JD Vance, as he was dipping his toe into politics, praised the Heritage Foundation report — 29 essays opposing abortion and seeking to instruct Americans on how to raise children — as ... John Swinney urged to back £40 a week Scottish Child Payment as The First Minister is under pressure to cut child poverty levels ahead of his Programme for Government statement today. Drugs mule caught with over £400K cannabis inside music speaker jailed Drugs First Minister John Swinney unveils Programme for Government The latest figures show that 26% of children are living in relative poverty in Scotland, despite targets to reduce that number below 18% by the end of the current financial year. assignment essay homework phd report resume review speech thesis