This was central to the governments anti poverty agenda. This aim was to give access to children’s centre’s services to the deprived so that they could receive early education, in addition to family health services. However this scheme has been criticised in 2003 having failing to reach two thirds of the children in poverty who live outside the twenty per sent targeted area in the UK. They tried to extend the children centre’s to reach thirty per cent of the deprived areas instead of the twenty per cent but the government rejected these recommendations in October 2003. Another initiative aimed at secondary school age children, was the education maintenance allowance in September 2004. The EMA provided weekly financial support of up to £30 a week, depending on the parental income for 16-19 year olds who went into further education. The EMA gave additionally bonuses of £100 for attendance and achievement. This had the effect of encouraging young people from poorer backgrounds to continue in further education and achieve …show more content…
Children have a higher risk of living in poverty if they live without a working parent, lone parents, with a young mother, minority ethnic families, and large families or have a disabled or long term sick parent or sibling. There are major circumstances on children who live in child poverty as they have to face the stigma of being poor and have greater risks of, ill health, poor development and low educational attainment. From the research that I have found I believe that poverty can follow a child into adulthood, inhibiting aspirations and leading to under achievement and educational and employment disadvantage. As a result of the government wanting to eradicate child poverty by 2020 they will need to tackle both the immediate and longer term effects of childhood deprivation immediately as more children are entering the poverty line with the recent economic climate in today’s