“The worst social policy ever” – Comment is Freed

Report on UK Child Poverty and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The State of Child Poverty in the United Kingdom

Child poverty in the United Kingdom has reached a critical level, with 4.5 million children currently living in hardship. This situation presents a significant challenge to the nation’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty). An effective national Child Poverty Strategy is required to address the root causes, with a primary focus on reforming social security policies that directly contribute to this crisis.

Analysis of Key Social Security Policies and SDG Implications

The Two-Child Limit and its Conflict with Core SDG Principles

The two-child limit, a policy restricting means-tested support to the first two children in most households, is a primary driver of rising child poverty. This policy directly contravenes several SDGs:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The policy severs the fundamental link between need and entitlement within the social security system. It institutionalises inequality by providing different levels of support based on birth order, disproportionately affecting larger families and pushing them deeper into poverty. Research indicates the policy is a “poverty-producing machine.”
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Families affected by the limit report severe struggles in affording basic necessities, leading to food insecurity and reliance on food banks.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The financial scarcity imposed by the policy creates distressing and dehumanising living conditions, negatively impacting the mental and physical health of both parents and children.

The policy’s impact is escalating, with an estimated 109 additional children affected for every day it remains in effect. Evidence from the ‘Benefit Changes and Larger Families’ study demonstrates that the policy fails to achieve its stated objectives of increasing employment or reducing fertility rates among low-income households.

The Benefit Cap: Deepening Poverty and Undermining SDG 8

The benefit cap, which limits the total amount of social security a household can receive, exacerbates the poverty experienced by families, particularly those in areas with high housing costs. Its impact is detrimental to achieving key development goals:

• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Rather than incentivising work, the severe financial and psychological stress caused by the cap has been shown to push individuals further from the labour market, undermining their capacity to secure decent employment.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The punitive nature of the cap contributes to anxiety and poor mental health among parents, creating an unstable environment for children.

Recommendations for a Child Poverty Strategy Aligned with the SDGs

Core Policy Actions Required

To create a Child Poverty Strategy that effectively reduces poverty and aligns with the SDGs, the following actions are essential:

1. Complete Abolition of the Two-Child Limit: This is the single most cost-effective measure to reduce child poverty, projected to lift an estimated 300,000 children out of poverty immediately. This action is fundamental to making progress on SDG 1 and SDG 10.
2. Complete Abolition of the Benefit Cap: Removing the cap is necessary to ensure that social security support can meet families’ basic needs, particularly housing costs, thereby supporting progress towards SDG 1 and SDG 3.
3. Rejection of Partial Reforms: Compromise options, such as a three-child limit or a tapered reduction in support, are insufficient. They fail to restore the principle that support should be based on need, are administratively complex, and would not prevent child poverty from rising.
4. Integration of Employment and Social Security Policy: While parental employment is a key pillar, it cannot succeed in isolation. A focus on employment must be supported by a robust social security system and affordable, high-quality childcare to truly advance SDG 8. A significant portion of families in poverty are already in work.

Long-Term Benefits of Investing in Children

Tackling child poverty is not only a moral imperative but also a sound long-term economic strategy that yields significant returns and supports a broad range of SDGs.

• Improved Life Outcomes (SDG 4, SDG 8): Protecting children from financial insecurity improves their health, educational attainment, and future employment prospects.
• Economic Savings: Reducing child poverty decreases long-term demand on public services, including health and social care, while increasing future tax revenues. Analysis by Action for Children estimates that a 28% reduction in child poverty would yield a minimum economic benefit of £164 billion.
• Strengthened Institutions (SDG 16): Adopting a human-first approach that includes participatory policymaking, involving those with lived experience of poverty, strengthens the effectiveness and justice of public institutions.

Conclusion

The current trajectory of child poverty in the UK is unsustainable and in direct opposition to the nation’s commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals. A forthcoming Child Poverty Strategy must be ambitious and principled. The foundational step must be the complete and immediate abolition of the two-child limit and the benefit cap. These political choices are critical to restoring the integrity of the social security system, reducing inequality, and ensuring every child has the opportunity for a healthy and prosperous future.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to poverty, inequality, health, and economic policies, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following relevant SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty: This is the central theme of the article. The entire discussion revolves around child poverty in the UK, its rising levels (“a record 4.5 million children”), and the direct impact of government policies like the “two-child limit” and “benefit cap” on increasing poverty among families.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights how the “two-child limit” creates and exacerbates inequality. It argues that the policy “decisively break[s] the link between need and entitlement,” meaning families are treated unequally based on their size, not their level of need. This disproportionately affects larger, low-income families, thus widening the inequality gap.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The text explicitly links poverty and financial hardship to negative health outcomes. It mentions the “social, emotional and mental health harms that come with child poverty” and the “negative impact of the benefit cap on parents’ mental health,” directly connecting the policy debate to the well-being of both children and adults.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article discusses the government’s focus on employment as a solution to poverty (“work is the best route out of poverty mantra”). However, it also critiques this approach by pointing out the prevalence of in-work poverty (“Too many parents in poverty are already working”) and the need for high-quality, affordable childcare to support parents’ employment, which relates to the goal of decent work for all.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: While not the main focus, the article touches upon issues that disproportionately affect women, who are often primary caregivers and single parents. It references “Labour’s single parent benefit cut” and the “New Deal for Lone Parents,” policies that have significant gendered impacts. The personal account from “Ronnie, a disabled single parent,” further illustrates the intersection of poverty, gender, and disability.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article is fundamentally about reducing child poverty. It states that scrapping the two-child limit “would lift an estimated 300,000 children out of poverty overnight,” directly aligning with this poverty reduction target.
2. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable. The article is a critique of the UK’s current social security system and an argument for its reform. The call to abolish the “two-child limit” and the “benefit cap” is a call to create a more appropriate and effective social protection system that covers all vulnerable children based on need.
3. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status. The “two-child limit” is presented as a policy of exclusion, denying social security support to third and subsequent children in a family. Abolishing it would promote the economic inclusion of these children and their families.
4. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The entire article advocates for a change in social protection policy (scrapping the two-child limit) as a direct means to reduce inequality and create a more equitable system where support is linked to need.
5. Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being. The article’s reference to the “negative impact of the benefit cap on parents’ mental health” and the general “social, emotional and mental health harms that come with child poverty” connects the economic policies directly to the promotion of mental health and well-being.
6. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men… The article discusses the government’s aim to raise employment rates but also highlights the problem of in-work poverty and low-skilled work, implying that the goal should be “decent work” that actually lifts families out of poverty, not just any employment.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Proportion of children in poverty: The article provides a baseline statistic: “a record 4.5 million children” living in poverty. A reduction in this number would be a key indicator of progress towards Target 1.2.
• Number of children affected by the two-child limit: The article states that “one in nine children now living in households affected by this policy” and that “109 children more children are affected by the two-child limit every day.” Tracking this number, with the goal of reducing it to zero, would be a direct indicator of policy change.
• Poverty reduction from policy changes: The estimate that “300,000 children” would be lifted out of poverty by scrapping the policy serves as a projected indicator for Target 1.2.
• Social protection system design: The existence of the “two-child limit” and the “benefit cap” are qualitative indicators of a social protection system that, according to the author, is not based on need. Their abolition would indicate progress towards Target 1.3. The “Scottish Child Payment” is mentioned as an example of a positive policy indicator.
• Mental health outcomes: The article implies that the mental health of parents and children in low-income families is an important indicator. The descriptions of parents feeling “anxious, fearful and scrabbling around to make ends meet” serve as qualitative indicators of the negative mental health impacts of current policies, which could be measured through surveys to track progress on Target 3.4.
• Rate of in-work poverty: The statement that “Too many parents in poverty are already working” points to the rate of in-work poverty as a crucial indicator. Progress towards Target 8.5 would require not just higher employment rates but a lower percentage of working families living in poverty.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: samf.substack.com