A debate about child poverty measurement risks being an unnecessary sideshow

Every parent knows that the amount of money coming into the family home makes a difference to what mum and dad can do with the kids. For those who are better off, more money buys music lessons, dance classes or other after-school activities. For those struggling just above the breadline, it can be the difference between a new winter coat and a new pair of shoes or having enough to put in the electricity meter.

Research tells us that family income really does matter because it has a direct impact on children’s cognitive development and the ability of parents to take an active role in their son or daughter’s learning. A recent analysis by the Institute of Education found that children who had lived in poverty for the first seven years of their life ranked 10 levels lower on several cognitive assessments than other children, even when family circumstances and parenting skills are taken into account.

The researchers concluded that low income not only damages children regardless of what their parents do but it also has an impact on the capacity to parent.

Given the powerful evidence, it is perhaps not surprising that there was a cross-party consensus which led to the passing of the Child Poverty Act 2010. The act contains four measures of child poverty - a relative low-income target, an absolute low-income target, a persistent poverty target and a combined low-income and material-deprivation target. Together all political parties agreed that these measures provide the best possible means of determining levels of child poverty and progress towards halving it by 2020. So why has the coalition decided that it now needs to consider further measures and launched a consultation about it.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith says measuring income alone is “too simple” and “does little to represent the experiences of those in poverty”. He wants measures that look at family breakdown, drug addiction, debt and education results. The irony is that the Child Poverty Act already sets out many of these as “building blocks” that need to be addressed if government is to effectively tackle poverty. Trying to measure how progress is being made against these “building blocks” certainly makes sense and would provide good useful additional information about the life experiences of poor children and families.

There is, of course, a risk that the income target is sidelined and that poverty is reframed as being about social evils. I have been in meetings with both Lib Dem and Conservative ministers and their advisers who have given assurances that this is not the case. I wonder then why they are expending so much time and energy on measurement rather than putting in place a powerful cross-government strategy and structure to tackle the issue.

In the US the Connecticut administration has put in a place a Child Poverty and Prevention Council with a 10-year evidence-informed plan to drive through change. We need a similar nationally driven approach here.

Any downgrading of the Child Poverty Act measures would be a retrograde step. Complementary measures that capture progress on addressing the multiple causes of poverty are no bad thing. But what really matters is concerted government action at both local and national level. A debate about measurement risks being an unnecessary sideshow.

Enver Solomon is director of evidence and impact at the National Children’s Bureau. He is also chair of the End Child Poverty Coalition, which is made up of more than 150 organisations from civic society.