6. Reviewing the evidence: Are Ireland’s policies effective at tackling child poverty?
This chapter reviews different types of evidence that are produced to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies at reducing child poverty and improving outcomes of children growing up in socio-economic disadvantage in Ireland. It takes stock of the existing evidence base and identifies any blind spots or gaps. Ireland has the benefit of a broad range of available evaluations, analyses and statistical measures on child poverty trends and drivers, and on the impact of policy measures on child poverty reduction and child outcomes. Nevertheless, key evidence gaps exist that are pertinent to monitoring the European Child Guarantee and Ireland’s national efforts to reduce child poverty and its impact on child living standards and well-being.
Child poverty involves three aspects that may arise separately or together: low income, material deprivation and family stress (OECD, 2021[1]; Thévenon et al., 2018[2]). The lack of income may first limit households’ ability to purchase or access important “inputs” for child development, such as good quality housing, healthy food, or good quality care and education services, etc. It may also affect the quality of the home learning environment (for instance through no budget capacity to purchase books, educational toys or to provide children with a quiet space to do their homework), while also causing stress due to the difficulties in making ends meet. Low-income families are also more likely to live in neighbourhoods where there is, for instance, poor transportation infrastructure, few care and education facilities, low quality schools, as well as higher exposure to air pollution and criminality. Lack of income, and the stress it generates, may limit families’ ability to engage with and access services.
Against this background, governments are investing substantially in cash and in-kind support to lift families out of poverty and to ensure an adequate income (OECD, 2018[3]). A first set of measures aims to promote parents' employment and by doing so to secure a sustainable income. These measures can include cash subsidies or tax reliefs to help parents find work and to make work pay, as well as non-cash measures to help parents reconcile work and family life. Other income support measures (cash benefits or tax breaks) aim at ensuring that families have an adequate income to fulfil the needs of their members, including children. These benefits may supplement earned income when parents are working, or they may provide a minimum income to live on when parents are not working. A critical issue, then, is to design these measures in such a way that the support given in cash to lift families out of poverty does not result in disincentives for parents to work.
In Ireland, income support for families with children has historically been an important tool for reducing child poverty and ensuring that families have an adequate income. Several key programmes and measures combine to provide a substantial income supplement to all families, although the total support provided depends on whether parents are in work or not (Box 6.1). One significant form of support is Child Benefit, a monthly universal payment provided to all families with children under the age of 18 who are in full-time education, or who have a disability. The amount varies based on the number of children in the household. To support low-income working families, Ireland offers the Working Family Payment (WFP), which is a means-tested payment that provides a weekly top-up to individuals or couples with children who are in employment but have a low family income. It helps to bridge the gap between earnings and the minimum income threshold, ensuring that families can meet their basic needs. Providing access to quality care, education and social services is also key to reconcile work and family and to mitigating the consequences that poverty may have on child development, and therefore it forms an important component of the European Child Guarantee.
Ireland provides families with children with a range of income support payments and subsidies that are not subject to taxation. Only some of these payments are universal, while the rest are means tested and/or targeted at families in particular circumstances. Below are the main income support payments:
Child Benefit: universal monthly payment to parents/guardians of children up to the age of 16 years. The payment continues to be paid in respect of children until their eighteenth birthday who are in full-time education, or who have a disability. From September 2024 the payment will be extended to children until their nineteenth birthday who are in full-time education, or who have a disability. The standard rate per child increases in the case of multiple births;
Increase for a Qualified Child: supplement to primary social welfare payments. The rate for over 12s is higher;
One-Parent Family Payment: weekly means tested payment to lone parents with a child aged under seven. Extensions of the age limit exist for recipients of certain social welfare payments. Supplements provided for dependent children. Higher payment rate for children over 12;
Jobseekers Transitional Payment: means-tested weekly payment targeted at lone parents whose youngest child is aged between 7 and 13 (inclusive). No requirement to be actively looking for work, but must attend meetings with a case officer to identify and access supports;
Working Family Payment: weekly means tested payment to help families on low pay with dependent children up to 18 years of age, or 22 if in full-time education. To qualify a person must work as an employee for at least 19 hours per week or 38 hours per fortnight. A person can combine their weekly hours with their partner's hours to help meet the requirements;
Back to Work Family Dividend: weekly payment to help people with children move from the One-Parent Family Payment or Jobseekers Payment to employment. Paid out for two years, with rate reduced of 50% in the second year. In the first year, this is paid at the equivalent of any Increases for Qualified Children that were payable on their Jobseeker’s or One-Parent Family Payment (up to a maximum of 4 children). Higher payment rate for children over 12;
Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance: a means-tested annual payment to assist families with the cost of school uniforms and footwear. Higher payment rate for children over 12;
Domiciliary Care Allowance: monthly non-means tested payment for a child with a severe disability, requiring ongoing care and attention that is substantially over and above the care and attention usually required by a child of the same age.
Ireland provides financial subsidies towards the cost of centre-based childcare. The National Childcare Scheme (NCS) was introduced in 2019 to replace all existing targeted and universal childcare subsidies. It provides two types of childcare subsidy for children over 6 months of age: i) a universal subsidy for children up to 15 years of age which is not means tested and ii) an income assessed subsidy for children up to 15 years of age which is means-tested. The scheme also includes a sponsor referral programme to help ensure access to childcare support for vulnerable children. Additional grants are available to childcare providers to support the care of children with disabilities.
Ireland provides housing support payments to families and individuals in private rented accommodation:
Rent Supplement: short-term means-tested subsidy for people in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to cover accommodation costs and do not have accommodation available to them from another source. Claimants are being transitioned over to Housing Assistance Payment if they have a long-term housing need;
Housing Assistance Payment: means-tested subsidy for people who qualify for social housing support, paid directly to landlords. A rent contribution is required but depends on ability to pay.
Source: The OECD Tax-Benefit Database: Description of policy rule for Ireland 2022.
This chapter reviews different types of evidence that are produced to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies at reducing child poverty and improving outcomes of children growing up in socio-economic disadvantage in the Irish context. It takes stock of the existing evidence base to identify any blind spots or gaps.
This chapter begins by presenting the main reports and resources that are produced by the government, advisory bodies, and civil society to track child poverty in Ireland. It then examines the existing statistical measures to track child poverty and income adequacy and to account for children’s experiences of poverty, including measures that are not currently used in Ireland’s monitoring. It also examines the statistical measures that are used to track child poverty risks and drivers and identifies key information gaps on groups of children who are at a high risk of poverty.
This chapter moves on to look at evidence that is produced on the impact of policy measures to support parental employment as means to reduce child poverty, specifically income support and access to affordable childcare. It then examines the evidence that is produced on the impact of policy measures promoting access to a number of key services on children living in poverty, specifically parenting and family support, school meals, and general practitioner health care. Other key services, specifically education and housing are not covered because this would require an examination of the education system and the housing market, which falls outside of the scope of the present review. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the evidence that is produced in spending reviews in child and family services and more broadly the practice of value of money assessments.
The evidence base
There is a broad range of reports and analyses documenting child poverty trends and drivers, and the impact of income support on child poverty reduction and other outcomes in the Irish context. These documents differ according to their purpose. First, there are a series of reports available to monitor the implementation of governmental policies, track progress on strategic commitments, and advise on measures to remove obstacles for the full achievement of policy objectives. Second, research reports exist that dig deeper into the causes and consequences of child poverty, and of the impact of child income support and of the Irish welfare system on child poverty and social inclusion more broadly (Box 6.2). Finally, the available grey literature generally aims to inform budget policys and steer policies at a higher level.
The Department of Social Protection (DSP) has published several documents that track progress on child poverty reduction. The DSP’s mission is to promote people’s active participation and inclusion in society through the provision of income supports, employment services and other services. Its main functions include advising government and formulating appropriate social protection and social inclusion policies. As part of its mission, the DSP publishes the Social Inclusion Monitor reports, which track progress towards the National Social Target for Poverty Reduction (Department of Social Protection, 2019[4]). The Social Inclusion Monitor reports also examine Ireland’s contribution to the EU poverty target and progress on reducing poverty among children and jobless households. Each report contains a short discussion of poverty trends, in relation to the macroeconomic context and the impact of social transfers on poverty reduction. To fulfil its advisory mission, the DSP also conducts public consultations that precede budget decisions where non-governmental organisations, such as Barnardos (Barnardos, 2022[5]), the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (Vincentian MESL Research Center, 2022[6]; Boylan, 2023[7]), and other stakeholders can submit their views and make recommendations.
Other monitoring reports provide assessments of whether policies are achieving the desired objectives to reduce child poverty. These include reporting attached to Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures (BOBF) the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020, and the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025. These reports document poverty trends and the distance remaining to achieve objectives, while also suggesting new steps that could be taken to meet poverty reduction targets (DCEDIY, 2020[8]; Department of Social Protection, 2022[9]).
The BOBF framework set a target to lift over 70,000 children (aged 0-17 years) out of consistent poverty by 2020 and achieve a reduction of at least two-thirds on the 2011 level. In order to steer the implementation of the framework, the National Advisory Council for Children and Young People (NACCYP) played a role in shaping the implementation of the BOBF framework. In 2021, it published the paper, Addressing Child Poverty: Towards a National Child Poverty Action Plan, which sets out the perspective of the Council on what the government needs to do to further address child poverty. The paper provides an analysis of causes and trends of child poverty and makes proposals for a whole-of-government approach to tackle child poverty (NACCYP, 2021[10]) (Box 6.2).
Similarly, the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020 –2025 is built around seven high-level goals, one of which is supporting families and reducing child poverty. It also includes other goals that are instrumental to reducing child poverty, such as “ensuring work pays” and ‘reducing poverty among people.’ As part of the commitments to deliver on those objectives, the Roadmap suggests prioritizing increases to family-related payments, and to introduce and extend new family support measures (Department of Social Protection, 2020[11]). A mid-term review was carried out in 2023, which assessed the Roadmap’s coherence with other sectoral strategies and government commitments, as well as with EU-level developments, and other big development, including the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis. The mid-term review involved an assessment of the Roadmap’s indicators, a stakeholder consultation and a few background documents to inform the recommendations made by the steering group (Department of Social Protection, 2023[12]).
The National Economic and Social Council1 (NESC) produces reports that are important resources for evaluating how income support directed at families can be made more effective. For instance, a series of NESC reports discuss the option of moving towards a simplified and more integrated system of support for families, and whether integration should be considered solely in terms of income support (Johnston, 2021[13]), or as a way to foster the complementarity of supports in-cash and in-kind (NESC, 2020[14]; Johnston, 2021[15]).
Growing Up in Ireland (GUI), the national longitudinal study, generates important evidence on the lives of children, young people, and families to help inform the development of effective policies and responsive services. These data have been analysed to identify the drivers of child poverty and its consequences for developmental and other outcomes over time. The GUI study is a flagship research project of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) delivered in collaboration with the Central Statistical Office. Since 2006, the study has been tracking the lives of two large nationally representative cohorts of children/young people: Cohort ’98, recruited at the age of 9 years and born in 1998; and Cohort ’08, recruited at 9 months old and born in 2008. GUI recently launched a third cohort who will be nine months old in 2024. The study has generated a multitude of reports and analyses about how children and young people are faring in relation to physical health, mental health and well-being, educational development and transitions, and civic/economic engagement – as well as the extent to which outcomes are associated with background variables such as family income, social class, and parental educational attainment.
In addition to direct reports from the study, DCEDIY has a research partnership with the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) to produce in-depth policy relevant research reports drawing on GUI data. Outputs from this partnership include reports on disrupted transitions (among young adults post Covid); the dynamics of child poverty (and what triggers transitions in and out of poverty); how children with a migrant background are faring; mental health and well-being in childhood and adolescence; and most recently, the impact of housing adequacy on outcomes in early and middle childhood (DCDEIY, 2023[16]).
Last but not least, the annual Child Poverty Monitor reports prepared by the Children’s Rights Alliance are a key resource to inform policies and debate on possible actions to improve policy effectiveness (Children’s Right Alliance, 2023[17]). These reports track progress on reducing the number of children living in poverty, showcase best practice solutions across the country and put under the spotlight key areas of concern. Over the years, key areas of concern have included income inadequacy, food poverty, early childhood education and care, education, health, housing and homelessness, participation, play recreation and family support and youth services. These reports also point to the existing evidence on the relationships between income poverty, access to basic resources and services, and a range of children’s health, education and well-being outcomes (DCDEIY, 2023[18]).
A few important reviews have been undertaken on the effectiveness of child income support payments for child poverty reduction. The 2010 report, A Policy and Value for Money Review of Child Income Support and Associated Spending Programmes, examined the effectiveness of child income support in reducing child poverty indicators and the associated impact on employment incentive indicators (Department of Social Protection, 2010[19]). This report contained specific analyses on i) comparison of child income support payment rates with income indicators; and ii) household income simulation to determine the impact on poverty and on work incentives of programmes. The report pointed to a positive contribution of child income support on child poverty reduction, although the exact size of the contribution could not be estimated due to data limitations and also limitations in the way in which the unobserved determinants of on employment opportunities were captured. Positive effects were estimated to be due to two main factors: i) the increase in the value of the child income support payments package, which has been more rapid than the rise in the poverty line; and ii) the universal nature of Child Benefit, which to some extent avoids potential problems of uptake and work disincentives that selective instruments would have generated (see the discussion in section 3). The report also highlighted that the child income support package was moderately efficient at targeting resources at the lower half of the income distribution.
In 2020, the NESC reviewed the Irish Social Welfare System and made recommendations for its modernization (NESC, 2020[14]). In relation to child income support, the report proposed introducing a two-tier child income support system. The two-tier system would comprise of a universal Child Benefit payment for all children, with an automatic supplement payable in respect of children in low-income families, regardless of whether these families are in receipt of a social welfare payment or in low-paid employment. The report also included a critical discussion of poverty indicators and how they could be revised to better inform child poverty targets and measures of social inclusion more broadly.
The NACCYP 2021 paper on addressing child poverty, discussed data needs to better assess the causes and consequences of child poverty, as well as to evaluate the impact of policy measures on children and young people’s lives (NACCYP, 2021[10]). This report also explored the desirability of setting ambitious targets to end consistent child poverty, and of developing indicators to identify trends in persistent poverty and deep income poverty, and on specific outcomes connected to child poverty. It underlined the need of information on the outcomes generated by prevention and early intervention programmes. It recommended further targeted measures to eradicate child poverty, spanning over 11 policy areas.
The most recent and third edition of the annual ESRI report on poverty, income inequality and living standards looked at option for reducing child poverty and underlined the trade-offs based on the current policy tools. This report indicated that introducing a new Child Income Support Payment (CISP) based on household means and number of children would enable policymakers to reduce child poverty more effectively by targeting resources towards reductions in child poverty while preserving financial work incentives and ensuring children in the very lowest-income households’ benefit. However, undertaking such a reform would necessitate confronting some of the implicit choices made by the structure of the current welfare system that are rarely discussed, such as whether the welfare system should incentivise low-income individuals to engage in part-time work (ESRI, 2023[20]).
Existing measures to track child poverty
Statistical measures of poverty play a central role in measuring whether policies are effective at contributing to child poverty reduction. Though statistical measures are neither a very direct nor perfect measure of policy influence, they should allow to capture whether policies that are being implemented are as – a whole – adequate or sufficient to reduce child poverty and achieve poverty reduction targets. However, a policy can have a positive effect on poverty reduction and child material well-being and not be properly reflected by broad statistical income poverty measures. It is therefore important that statistical measures of child poverty at national level reflect well all facets of influence that policies can have on various aspects of poverty, including incidence, persistence, intensity, as well as capacity to improve the standard of living and material well-being of economically disadvantaged children.
Ireland’s Central Statistical Office (CSO) publishes annual poverty statistics on its website. These statistics are based on information collected in the Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) survey, which is Ireland’s official source of data on household and individual income and is based on population representative samples (Central Statistics Office, 2023[21]). The CSO has developed two main indicators based on SILC data to measure and monitor child poverty as part of its general statistics on poverty.
Child “relative” income poverty rate describes the proportion of children who live in a household with an “equivalised income”2 below 60 % of the national median income. All children in those households are counted as “at risk” of being income poor. This indicator is included in the Children and Young People’s (CYP) Indicator Set (DCEDIY, 2023[22]), and is used to set national targets for poverty reduction and social inclusion (NACCYP, 2021[10]; Department of Social Protection, 2023[12]).
Child “consistent poverty” rate where children are regarded as being in consistent poverty if they live in a family where household members are at-risk of income poverty and experiencing enforced deprivation Enforced deprivation is defined the lack of at least 2 out of the 11 items on the basic deprivation list because their family could not afford them while they would like to possess them3. It is important to note that this indicator is not based on the child-specific information on material deprivation that is collected at a less frequent pace (see more below).
The use of combined measures like the consistent poverty rate is intended to overcome the limitation of using income poverty measures only as these may not properly reflect the actual living standards of children and their experience of deprivation if, for instance, parents prioritize spending on children items over other household’s expenditures (Cooper and Stewart, 2013[23]; 2017[24]; Menton, 2007[25])). However, the potential downside of combined measures is that they may only capture a subset of economically vulnerable children (Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]) (see Tracking risk and the drivers of child poverty).
Examining relative income poverty rates by age cohort reveals that children have the second highest poverty risk at 15.2 %, higher than the rate of the general population at 13.1 %. Families headed by one adult have a higher risk of poverty, compared to those headed by two adults, at 23.8 % and 13.1 % respectively. Children are also the most vulnerable to consistent poverty, with a rate of 7.5 % versus an overall population rate of 5.3 %. Children with a lone parent are also significantly more vulnerable to consistent poverty at a rate of 14.1 % compared to 5.3 % for children in two parent families (Children’s Right Alliance, 2023[17]). Poverty for children of non-Irish nationality is also higher than for Irish nationals (Byrne and Treanor, 2020[27]).
A striking finding also is that, no matter what statistical measure of poverty is adopted, adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old are much more frequently exposed to poverty than younger children (Byrne and Treanor, 2020[27]). Rates of income poverty, enforced deprivation and consistent poverty for children in the 6-11 and 12-17 age ranges were found to be significantly higher in 2018 than for those in the 0-5 age group4. These findings suggest the need for targets and indicators distinguished by age groups (Byrne and Treanor, 2020[27]).
Measuring the overall influence of income support polices on child income poverty
Measuring the contribution of income support in reducing child poverty at national and international level is essential to steer policy. One way to measure its contribution is to compare poverty rates before and after redistribution through the tax and benefit system, which gives an indication of the overall performance of the whole package of income support measures in reducing child poverty. From a comparative standpoint, the redistribution system in Ireland is quite effective in reducing child income poverty rates (see Chapter 3).
The CYP Indicator Set contains an indicator on the impact of social transfers in reducing the at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) rate. This indicator measures the percentage reduction, in relative terms, of the AROP rate from social transfers (excluding occupational pensions) (DCEDIY, 2023[22]). Social transfers include unemployment and old-age benefit, child- or family-related allowances, housing allowances and other social transfers, such as sickness or disability benefits. This indicator shows that, between 2014 and 2019, the percentage of income poverty reduction linked to social transfers for 0–14-year-olds increased, rising from 57.9% to 60.8%. Another option is to also account for, at the same time, the redistributive effect of the tax system. The OECD has an indicator on the rate of child income poverty before and after tax and social transfers, which shows that redistribution causes Ireland’s child poverty rate to fall from among the highest to the lowest in the OECD (see Chapter 3).
Another dimension that matters is whether income transfers are effective in compensating for the costs of raising children (Verbist and Van Lancker, 2016[28]; Thévenon et al., 2009[29]). How this can be explored empirically depends on the question being answered. For example, how much income a family with children needs compared to a family without children, which would involve a normative judgement on a bundle of goods and services needed to maintain children and is often resolved empirically by developing a budget standard (with variation in terms of methodology and categories of goods included) (see Children’s Living Standards and Income Adequacy). Alternatively, how much income a family with children requires to be as well off as a family without children, which would deal with accounting for how much money is required so that families with different numbers of children achieve the same level of standard of living. In their assessment of income support for families across European countries, Verbist and Van Lancker (2016[28]) developed an indicator to capture how much the child income support system contributes to compensating for the cost of children, and what would be required for families with children to get an equivalized income that is equal to those of households without children. The researchers show that Ireland’s child income support system is not only comparatively effective in reducing child poverty, but also in compensating families for the cost of raising children.
Capturing children’s varied experiences of poverty
Just like other population groups, children’s experiences of poverty are shaped by the depth of poverty, the duration of the poverty exposure, and the types of material deprivation experienced. As anti-child- poverty policies impact on these different dimensions, it is therefore important to have measures for each to complement child relative income poverty and consistent poverty measures. This additional information is key for gauging whether the situation of poor children is improving, as well as informing the discussion on where to target further support.
Children’s Exposure to Persistent Poverty
Children who experience prolonged periods of poverty are among the most vulnerable of children living in poverty. A child is more likely to achieve poorer outcomes when their family is persistently poor or economically vulnerable (Nolan et al., 2006[30]; Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]). Certain family characteristics are associated with higher risks of persistent poverty, such as lone parenthood, parents being from ethnic minority backgrounds, low levels of maternal education, parents with a disability and larger family size. This suggests that child persistent poverty will only decrease if policies are effective at reaching these population groups (Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]).
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate is measured at European level as the percentage of the population living in households where the equivalised disposable income is below the AROP threshold for the current year and at least two out of the preceding three years (Eurostat, 2021[31]). The addition of a persistent poverty measure to the set of indicators used to monitor child poverty would make it possible to assess how successful policies are in protecting children against prolonged exposure to the risks associated with income poverty. This is along the lines of what the National Advisory Council for Children and Young People has suggested in its proposal for a national child poverty action plan (NACCYP, 2021[10])5.
Children’s Living Standards and Income Adequacy
Anti-child-poverty policies do not only concern reducing the risk of poverty, but also aim to improve the standard of living of poor families. Income support measures targeting the poorest families are likely to improve living standards without drastically reducing the proportion of children in relative poverty. Not taking this into consideration when assessing the influence of policies on child poverty can be misleading since a decline in poverty rates, or a small increase, can co-exist with a substantial deterioration in the standard of living of those affected by poverty. For instance, after the 2008 financial crisis, the child poverty rate only rose moderately in Ireland, yet the standard of living of low-income families fell sharply until the mid-2010s (OECD, 2018[3]).
There are several ways to document trends in the standard of living of poor children and explore their association with policies. One option is to measure child poverty rates with an “anchored” poverty line, which is based on a poverty line fixed at some given income level such as the median equivalized income in a past year and adjusted for inflation. The purpose of this indicator is to get some indication of the changes in ‘absolute poverty’ over time. Using the anchored rate, it is possible to see how many children are poor today based on the standards of some point in the past, which is useful for assessing to assess whether their proportion decreasing over time after the adoption of policy measures for low-income families. If the standard of living of low-income families has increased over time, the “anchored” poverty rate will be on the decline. Ireland’s Roadmap for Social Inclusion recommends using the anchored poverty rates as part of monitoring the Roadmap, with a poverty line anchored at its 2020 value (Sprong and Maître, 2023[32]; Department of Social Protection, 2023[12]). Estimating this measure for children is advisable for tracking the proportion of children whose standard of living is equal to the 2020 poverty line, and whether this proportion declines or increases over time.
It may also be desirable to assess how much the measures supporting poor families are successful in reducing the gap in living standards between income poor families and others. One option is to measure the child “poverty gap” that captures the difference between the average disposable income of poor families and the poverty line to see whether family income support has reduced the poverty gap (Thévenon et al., 2018[2]). However, it can be the case that the poverty gap will stay constant or increase despite support received by poor families if the poverty line rises at a faster pace than the disposable income of poor families. Strengthening income support for poor families may then be desirable if the aim of income support is to prevent the relative gap of income from growing.
Information on whether the income support provided to poor families is sufficient to meet the needs of children and other family members can also be useful for steering policy. A critical issue here is to have a reference for benchmarking how much income is needed for a family to buy the essential goods and services that children need. In order to provide such a benchmark, the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) uses a budget standard approach to calculate the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL), which reflects how much income a family needs to cover its basic needs, depending on family composition (Mac et al., 2012[33]; Boylan, 2023[7]). Using these estimates, the VPSJ’s research consistently identifies older children as having additional and distinct needs in comparison to younger children, and that child income support is insufficient to cover the needs of poor families with adolescents. For instance, in 2019, the minimum needs of children aged 12 and over cost over €120 per week, which is 63% more expensive than the minimum needs of younger children (NESC, 2020[14]). Additional costs relating to food, clothing, personal care, education, and leisure account for much of this difference. The same approach is used to assess how increases in income support introduced in the government budget may contribute to helping families meet children’s costs. For instance, the VPSJ’s assessment of post-Budget 2023 forecasted that social welfare supports would meet just 62 % of MESL costs for older children (Vincentian MESL Research Centre, 2023[34]).
Family household costs and housing affordability
Households’ ability to afford to meet children’s needs depends on the amount of disposable income they have available. A growing proportion of disposable family income in Ireland is used to pay housing costs, as a result of sharp increases in housing costs, especially for tenants in the rental market (Jose Doval Tedin and Faubert, 2020[35]). Housing costs are particularly high for low-income households and are an important driver of child poverty. Low-income household pay between two-fifths and half of household income on housing costs compared to only one-fifth for the general population (Children’s Right Alliance, 2023[17]; Byrne and Treanor, 2020[27]).
Because of high housing costs, an indicator on the child poverty rate after housing costs would provide a more accurate information on the proportion of children at risk of poverty. Such an indicator would also inform whether there is a need to strengthen the income supports towards poor families or to make the payment of rent supplement or housing assistance payment more responsive to the impact of housing cost on child poverty. For instance, in 2022, the AROP rate for under-18s was 15.2 %, jumping to 27.7% after rent and mortgage interest costs are deducted from disposable income. This indicator also highlights that housing affordability is growing factor in children’s risk of poverty. The percentage point difference in the AROP rate and AROP after rent and mortgage interest rate grew in 2021 and 2022 (CSO, 2023[36]).
It might also be worth measuring the gap in the AROP for children after housing costs by housing tenure, for example, by owner-occupied housing and rental housing, and specifically private renters and supported renters in receipt of housing assistance. Population poverty rates are much higher for home renters, especially for supported renter (CSO, 2023[36]). Differences between the AROP before and after housing costs are particularly pronounced for lone parents as they have lower disposable income and are more likely to rent and thus unaffordable housing contributes towards even higher rates of AROP after housing costs (Roantree, Barrett and Redmond, 2022[37]).
Measuring child-specific material deprivation
Income support for low-income families has the potential to reduce material deprivation among children in poor households, but it may not provide enough support to fully meet children’s material needs. As shown in Chapter 3, there is no strict overlap between households’ income poverty and child material deprivation: thirteen per cent of children experienced child specific material deprivation in Ireland in 2021, 2.5% of these were in income poor households, and slightly less than 11% were in non-income poor household. This evidence suggests that lack of income may not be the only cause of children’s exposure to material deprivation as it also depends on the provision of services to meet children’s basic needs (see discussion in Chapters 2 and 3).
The absence of strict overlap between these two dimensions suggests that collecting information on child material deprivation is critical to complement income poverty rates. To be fully relevant, this information must include information on deprivation types affecting children specifically. To this aim, the CSO produces statistics based on 13 child-specific deprivation items reported in ad hoc modules of the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (CSO, 2022[38]). Overall, in 2021 one in ten (9.2%) households with children were deprived of two or more of the 13 items6. An analysis of deprivation by household characteristics shows that single-parent households, households with no worker, and households that rent had higher rates of child-specific deprivation. To capture material deprivation, a recent wave of GUI used a measure of child-specific deprivation that asks of ten key material items and five key experiences that a child has or can do. Thirteen percent of 13-year-olds reported experiencing some form of deprivation, with 4% reporting more than one (Smyth, 2023[39]).7
It can be advisable to measure children's exposure to material deprivation using both child-specific item and household level information. The EU Social Protection Committee indicator on child material deprivation also includes important non-child specific information, such as whether the household can afford or not to have adequate warmth at home or replace worn furniture (Guio, Gordon and Marlier, 2017[40]). The indicator on child material deprivation proposed by the EU Social Protection Committee also has the advantage of allowing international comparison of the situation of children (Box 6.3).
Tackling child poverty and social exclusion is an objective of European Union policies, including the European Child Guarantee. The European Union Social Protection Committee does not have a single and formally approved indicator to measure the prevalence of child poverty and social exclusion. Eurostat has developed a few different indicators to measure child poverty and the risk of social exclusion for children, to which the Social Protection Committee refers to (Eurostat, 2023[41]).
The child-specific material deprivation rate (CSMDR) is another indicator included in the set of indicators proposed by the Social Protection Committee to monitor social inclusion at EU level. This indicator measures the share of children suffering from an enforced lack of at least three of 17 items8, including child-specific items relating to food and nutrition, clothing and footwear, social activities, leisure activities, and a few household-level items such as whether the household can afford or not to: avoid arrears; have adequate warmth in home; have (access to) a car for private use; replace worn-out furniture; and have an internet connection at home. The adoption of this indicator in March 2018 follows the work by Guio et al. (2018[42]) which establishes consistently high levels of reliability of this indicator. This indicator was used in Chapter 3 to document children’s exposure to material deprivation.
Tracking risk and the drivers of child poverty
Understanding child poverty risk factors is crucial for deciding whether to increase child and family income support and where to put efforts. Getting the right information on the family living arrangements and work situation of parents is essential. Certain situations, such as living in a jobless household or in a lone-parent family are well-known factors associated with higher risks of child income poverty and economic vulnerability (Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]). Attending to this fact, the CYP Indicator Set includes an indicator on the proportion of children living in a jobless household (DCEDIY, 2023[22]).
Identifying the drivers of child poverty over time is crucial too to understand what triggers movements in and out of poverty, and to assess what the impact of policies are over time. This requires longitudinal data to analyse the dynamics of child poverty, and pathways through which poverty has an influence on child outcomes, as permitted by the survey on Growing up in Ireland (Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]) (Box 6.4).
Using indicators that capture economic vulnerability more broadly than the indicators of child relative income poverty and consistent poverty do is also important to track risks and progress. To this end, the European Commission recommends the use of an indicator on children at risk of poverty and social exclusion - at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) - to monitor the European Pillar of Social Rights (Eurostat, 2021[43]). This indicator measures the share of children under 18 who are either income poor, severely materially and socially deprived, or living in a household with a very low work intensity. This indicator is not based on information on children’s specific material situation, and instead draws on information that applies to the whole population. It measures the share of children who are living in an income poor household, or experiencing severe material deprivation because they lack access to at least seven items out of the thirteen material and social deprivation items, or living in households where the adults are inactive or employed for a working time equal or less than 20% of their total combined work-time potential during the previous year.
This indicator has the advantage of allowing a comparison of risks across different age groups of the population on the same basis. However, it does not consider for the specific deprivations that children may experience in domains essential to their development. It is also possible for a child to be living in a household identified as materially deprived without being personally affected, if household’s spending for children’s material well-being is prioritised, while the opposite situation can also occur (Cooper and Stewart, 2013[23]).
Another way to improve our understanding of child poverty drivers is to focus on ‘economic vulnerability’ (EV), as defined by (Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]) on the basis of data from the national longitudinal study on children Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) (Box 6.4). This study measures EV using information on whether a child lives in a household where there is a low household income (bottom 20%), experiencing difficulty/great difficulty in making ends meet, or experiencing material deprivation over time. EV is assessed using Latent Class Analysis, which makes it possible to identify children with a high probability of experiencing EV without necessarily experiencing all dimensions of poverty at a particular point in time. The same information is available in SILC surveys, which offers the possibility to develop an indicator on the economic vulnerability of children that is close in spirit to the indicator used in this study.
The study on the dynamics of child poverty was prepared for DCEDIY and tracks economic vulnerability (EV) in families with children over a nine-year period on the basis of data of two cohorts from the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study. The younger of the cohorts were born in 2008, for which study data cover the period from 9 months to 9 years old, while the older of the cohorts were born in 1998, for which study data covers the period from 9 years to 17–18 years old. The study identifies the family types most at risk of persistent poverty, examines the factors that trigger moves into and out of poverty, and ultimately explores the consequences of poverty for children across a wide range of domains.
The target group of the study is children who are “economically vulnerable” (EV), which is defined on the basis of three indicators: i) living in a household with a low income (bottom 20 %); ii) experiencing difficulty/great difficulty in making ends meet; and iii) experiencing material deprivation (based on the Irish measure of basic deprivation, which identifies households that are lacking essential goods or services out of a list of 11 items. The study uses a latent class analysis (LCA) to identify EV in the cohort children. This technique identifies those who have a high probability of experiencing a distinctive risk profile in relation to multiple dimensions of poverty without necessarily experiencing all dimensions at a particular point in time. An advantage of using a measure of EV based on LCA is that it identifies a group of families that may not be currently experiencing economic stress, deprivation and low household income, but may have a high underlying risk of experiencing these situations and poverty defined more broadly, depending on their characteristics (low education, low social class profile); or they might face this risk if their circumstances were to negatively change (e.g. job loss, partnership dissolution and so on).
Exposure to EV on at least one occasion was found to be a common experience among families with children below age 9 (44 %) and with older children (38 %) during the studied time period. However, for many families, vulnerability is once-off or transient event (22 % for both cohorts). Exposure to EV was found to reach highest level at to 29 % for the younger cohort at age 3 (in years 2011– 2012, i.e., after the Great Recession). Persistent exposure to EV – defined as being EV in at least two consecutive survey waves – affected 22.8% of the ’08 cohort and 16.6% of the ’98 cohort. At the extreme, 5 % of families in both cohorts were constantly exposed to EV.
A few socio-economic characteristics were found to be the main drivers of EV and increase the risk of experiencing persistent poverty. Lone-parent families, larger families (four or more children), those in the lowest maternal education categories and ethnic minorities all have a much higher likelihood of experiencing persistent poverty. Barriers to labour force participation, such as disability or illness, but also caregiver’s unemployment and full-time caring in the first wave of the survey are also strongly predictive of persistent EV. Maternal education appeared also to be particularly strongly predictive of persistent poverty from infancy to nine years.
Both maternal and paternal job loss is an important trigger for entry into EV. By contrast, mother’s transition from non-employment into full-time work were found to play a significant role in moving families out of poverty, an effect which is almost identical to that of a father’s entry to full-time employment. Interestingly, transitions from non-employment into part-time employment are not associated with exits from EV, suggesting that in particular mothers’ part-time work is not enough to lift families out of poverty. The analysis also identified (for both cohorts) an increased risk of entering poverty when a new partner joins the household, which the researchers describe as a risk factor that is not currently on the policy radar.
Source: (Maître, Russel and Smyth, 2021[26]), The dynamics of child poverty in Ireland: Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland survey.
Information gap for other population groups with higher risks of poverty
Last but not least, an obvious limitation of the existing poverty indicators is that they are based on a population sample in SILC data or the GUI data, which are household surveys and do not include some child population groups who are known to be at higher risk of poverty, such as children in homeless families living in homeless accommodation or who are ‘roofless’; children living in residential care, and children in the international protection system. These are important gaps to be filled for monitoring the European Child Guarantee (Guio, Marlier and Frazer, 2020[44]).
When evaluating the benefits of income support for families, an important dimension to consider is the effect that it may have on parental employment. In theory, this effect is ambiguous. On the one hand, income support can increase the ability of non-working parents to search for and find a job. However, the economic theory also suggests that financial assistance can generate an ‘income effect’ that reduces the monetary return from working and can therefore act as a disincentive to work.
To reduce disincentives to work, Ireland has introduced a range of changes over the past decade. These include, for example, institutional changes such as the establishment of the Intreo service and the introduction of JobPath, as well as policy changes such as the Action Plans for Jobs and Pathways to Work plans, and the reinforcement of activation requirements for income support payments (NESC, 2020[14]). Changes were made to encourage labour force participation, particularly among lone parents, but also people with disabilities. These involved changes to housing and childcare benefits to ease their integration into employment. For example, the Housing Assistance Payment and the National Childcare Scheme provide supports whose intensity is tapered rather than completely withdrawn as incomes increase (Box 6.1).
A number of supports have been developed to provide greater provision for families combining care of children and employment, including the introduction of paid Paternity and Parental Benefits. A further change is the Homecaring Periods Scheme that awards credited social insurance contributions for up to 20 years to those who have provided full-time care to children or other dependents.
Income support and work (dis)incentives
The Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI) explored the possible work disincentives generated by the Irish social welfare system, finding strong income disincentives to take up employment were infrequent for those who were currently unemployed (Savage, Callan and Walsh, 2014[45]). Overall, lone parents were shown as a group to be the least likely to face very high-income replacement rates. However, the paper identified a few groups with a greater likelihood of a strong financial disincentive to work, such as unemployed individuals with children and more broadly the unemployed or jobless persons with low potential wages (Savage, Callan and Walsh, 2014[45]). To some extent, this result is inherent in the nature of the social welfare system: jobless households are likely to be in receipt of full social welfare add-on payments in respect of a spouse/partner and/or children. One limit of this study, however, is that childcare costs were not included in this assessment of work disincentives, despite being important parameters in the decision to return to work.
More recently, a NESC review of options for reforming the welfare system, underlined that disincentives to work seem to relate to particular circumstances, especially households with a number of unemployed adult members, often containing children and where people transitioning to work can only command low wages rates (2021[13]). Specific payments are available to ease this transition such as the Working Family Payment9 (WFP) and the Back to Work Family Dividend10 (BWFD). However, in making the transition from social welfare to employment there can be an element of uncertainty, with loss of social welfare benefits and delays in receipt of wages or in getting assessed for the Working Family Payment (WFP) (NESC, 2018[46]). Poor awareness of ability to retain and claim certain benefits when taking up employment also acts as a disincentive to work (CIB, 2017[47]). Crucial in this regard will be flexibility and clear, accessible, and fluid administrative pathways.
The DSP reviewed the Working Family Payment, which pointed out inconsistencies with maintenance payments and issues with qualification rules (DEASP, 2018[48]). Though for the vast majority of recipients, the WFP is extremely effective in reducing in-work poverty – especially among lone parents and large two-parent families, there are some cases (including small families headed by two adults) who are below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold while on WFP. In addition, to receive WFP, a parent must work a minimum number of 38 hours per fortnight, which obviously precludes employees with too low work intensity. Two parent families have the possibility to combine weekly working hours to meet this threshold. Lowering the hours worked threshold could be an option to allow more families to qualify for WFP and as a consequence lift more families out of poverty; however, a concern of the DSP is that a further reduction in the “hours worked” requirement may facilitate precarious employment and bad employer practice by acting as a prop up to unsustainably low working hours, and facilitating low-hours contracts which potentially allow employers to ‘control’ employees. As a result, there is a risk of perpetuating in-work poverty. In 2019, working people accounted for almost a third of people living below the poverty line. Tackling in-work poverty requires other policies, such as an expansion of affordable high quality full-time childcare to help facilitate an increase in full-time paid work for at least one adult in a household (Roantree, Barrett and Redmond, 2022[37]). The National Childcare Scheme, which was launched in 2019, is intended to ensure that access to affordable childcare will no longer be a barrier to labour market participation, including female labour market participation. At the time of its introduction, the NCS presented significant new administrative challenges for parents and providers (Paull, 2021[49]). A 12-month Review of the National Childcare Scheme was prepared for the DCEDIY to assess, among other things, the effectiveness of NCS delivery and contribution to reducing the cost of early learning and care and school-age childcare. The review was based on the analysis of administrative data, including application and claim data, as well as of data from a survey of parents registered to the NCS and of administrative and survey data of service providers. The analysis highlighted that uptake was higher for younger children, and higher in some regions than others, but there were no systematic differences between urban and rural areas and little difference by level of area deprivation. The uptake was also higher for lone parents, those who met the work-study test for enhanced hours claims, families with only one child, and families not in the highest income band. The NCS was also found to cover higher proportions of family childcare costs for lone parents over couples, and for couples with one parent not working or working part time over couples with both parents working full time, as well as for families with school children over those with only preschool children (Paull, 2021[49]).
Nevertheless, the NCS review reported of concerns expressed by some stakeholders that many vulnerable families have received substantially less support under the NCS than they had under the legacy schemes due to lower subsidy rates, higher threshold of need to be met for the NCS sponsorship, and because children in families not meeting the work-study test were only entitled to standard hours. There was some evidence that families on the lowest income received higher level of subsidy than on the older schemes. Lower access for preschool children from vulnerable families is also seen as potentially detrimental to the most disadvantaged children who are reputed to benefit developmentally from more childcare hours and for school (Paull, 2021[49]).
Evidence of inconsistencies in the income support system
Since the late 2000s, a number of reports have pointed to the limits of Ireland’s current social welfare system. Ireland’s social welfare system provides, on top of a universal child benefit, a large number of contingency-based benefits, which translate into a number of different payments serving a diverse set of needs from low income, lone parenthood, illness, unemployment, caring etc. Though this has allowed for the development of payments to meet changing needs, it remains questionable whether some payments achieve the best outcomes for individuals in the longer term (Johnston, 2021[13]). Developing payments in this way has led to complex eligibility rules, especially in relation to means testing, disregards of income and interactions with other payments. It also has generated stigma and a lack of understanding of the system, which in turn leads to low take up, long-term unemployment and/or poverty traps, and a lack of effectiveness in reducing poverty (Johnston, 2021[13]).
Specifically for child poverty reduction, the problem is generally less about a low level of child income support, but rather that often parents have a low level of market earnings, and when employed face high net costs for services such as childcare, health care and housing. Though the social welfare system provides several benefits to working parents on a low income, there are obstacles preventing the system from delivering fully effective support. In the current system, all parents receive Child Benefit, and if unemployed they will receive the Increase for a Qualified Child (IQC), which has a higher rate for over 12s. However, if they move from welfare to employment, it is likely that parents will lose the IQC. Moving from welfare to work may qualify working parents for the Back to Work Family Dividend, and the Working Family Payment (WFP) if they are on a low income (NESC, 2020[14]; Johnston, 2021[13]).
One proposed solution by NESC to overcome these limits is to move towards a more integrated payment structure on an incremental basis. The implications of such a move need to be considered carefully, particularly in relation to retaining flexibility to tailor payments to meet people’s needs, and to be complemented by adequate support structures and service provision (Johnston, 2021[13]; 2021[15]). More specifically, the NESC has proposed introducing a two-tier child income support (rather than the current system described above), which would comprise of a universal child benefit paid in respect of all children with an automatic supplement payable in respects of children whose families are in receipt of a social welfare payment or in low-paid employment. As child income support would be automatic and income-related, it would likely make it easier for people to move from welfare to work without worsening the level of support, in most cases. The focus here is on smoothing the transition from welfare to work or education and training to work, thus encouraging people to make this transition without the uncertainty of possibly losing child income support. In addition, the approach could address many of the difficulties associated with the current system, such as take-up of WFP, and the exclusion from WFP of self-employed workers and those in temporary or low hours work hour contracts.
Evidence on access to childcare and incentivising parental employment
High childcare costs can act as a disincentive to parental employment, especially for families on low incomes, with a large family size, and for lone parents. There are two studies using GUI data that look at the effect of access to childcare for younger children on maternal employment. There are no available studies looking at how access to school-age childcare affects parental employment.
The earlier of these studies by (McGinnity, 2013[50]) looks at the characteristics of mothers taking up employment before their infant is nine months old and what type of employment they are engaged in. At time of this study, the vast majority of parents of children up to about three and a half years of age received no financial support for childcare. The study uses multinomial logistic regression models to estimate the timing of the return to work and mothers’ characteristics, child factors and neighbourhood characteristics. Highly educated mothers are more likely to return to work than low-educated mothers, but only when paid maternity leave had ended. Early returnees (before six months) are more likely to be self-employed, young, or lone parents, while those returning in 8-9 months are more likely to be educated, older, Irish and a mother living in a couple. Mothers of three or more children are much more likely to have been out of the labour market prior to childbirth, and their employment rates at nine months are lower than those with one or two children. Use of non-parental childcare for infants at nine months is closely related to mothers’ employment. Even accounting for this, family income also played a salient role, with higher-income families more likely to use childcare. Infants from larger families are also less likely to be in non-parental care, also likely to be cost related (McGinnity, 2013[50]).
The later study by (Russel, 2018[51]) examines whether childcare costs at age three, before children are eligible for the free ECCE scheme, made a difference to maternal employment at the time and also two years later. The study uses logistic regression and liner regression model. It finds that there is considerable fluidity in maternal employment in the early years after the birth of a child. The cost of care is associated with a small reduction in hours of paid work; however, the negative effect for lower income households is larger, suggesting that childcare costs is a stronger barrier for low-income families’ workforce participation. In addition, the study underlines that a lack affordable childcare poses financial difficulty for many middle-income families with multiple children, and for low income and lone parent families is a significant barrier to employment. Limitations of this study is that it only captures childcare costs of the three-year old Study Child and not of any other children in the household, nor does it account for regional variations in childcare costs.
Ireland pursues various policy measures aimed at improving children and their families’ access to basic services. Ensuring that children from poor families have access to key services is an important lever to limit the negative repercussions that growing up in poverty has on child outcomes (Guio, Marlier and Frazer, 2020[44]). There is evidence from the Irish context that the impact of poverty differs depending on the county where children and families live, because of differences in the availability and cost of local services (NESC, 2020[14]; McGauran, 2021[52]). Yet, statistical measures of child poverty (or economic vulnerability) do not reflect well this fact. Depending on where a family lives, a low income may be partially compensated by the provision of low-priced services.
Access to parenting and family support programmes and impact of policy measures
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 7, Ireland has undertaken several initiatives over the past decade to enhance the provision of prevention and early intervention services for children and families. Most notable of these initiatives are the establishment of Tusla’s Prevention, Partnership and Family Support (PPFS) pillar in 2016 and DCEDIY’s Supporting Parents: A National Model of Parenting Support Services in 2022. Though both initiatives aim to support all types of families, families living in poverty are assumed to be a key beneficiary group given the negative effect that poverty can have on parenting, family functioning and child outcomes.
Tusla’s PPFS pillar contains several approaches to offering children and families early support. Among them is providing family supports through a wraparound approach and providing parenting programmes through local Family Resource Centres and the early intervention practice model Meitheal (Rodriguez, 2018[53]). Another is the Area Based Childhood (ABC) Programme, which takes an area-based approach to breaking the cycle of child poverty. The ABC Programme operates in 12 areas of high deprivation where children’s outcomes are significantly poorer. Each ABC area designs their own programme of evidence-based/evidence-informed interventions and services to meet local needs within the broad parameters of the ABC Programmes design. The chosen interventions must target child development, child well-being, parenting and educational disadvantage. Examples of interventions delivered include parenting programmes and supporting the implementation of interventions in early childhood settings. DCEDIY’s Supporting Parents sets out 23 actions to facilitate greater access, information, and inclusion of parenting support services (DCEDIY, 2022[54]).
Existing evaluations
Two key evaluations exist, both prepared by the Centre for Effective Services,11 that provide evaluative information on parenting and family support programmes in Ireland. The first is On the Right Track series, which covers individual evaluations of programmes ran under the PEIP initiative.12 The second is the National Evaluation of the ABC Programme, which evaluates under one framework 12 ABC areas. Beyond these, there are several other valuable documents providing evidence of the impact of key parenting and family support programmes, such as the National Teen Parent Support Programme (Quinn and Kazmeirczak-Murray, 2023[55]), and to inform a national approach to early childhood home visiting (Home Visiting Alliance, 2023[56]). In addition, What Works recently launched an evidence hub, which provides information on prevention and early intervention programmes that have been evaluated and indicates whether an Irish evaluation exists (Box 6.5).
What Works is a cross-cutting initiative under the DCEDIY and funded through the Dormant Accounts Fund, which aims to embed and enhance prevention and early intervention in child and young people policy, service provision and practice. What Works has four strands of focus: i) data to improve access and use of data and information by aligning and developing what current exists; ii) evidence to actively supports the use of learning from prevention and early intervention initiatives and research; iii) professional development and capacity building to enhance the capacity and skills development of policymakers, providers and practitioners in the appraisal and application of evidence informed approaches; and to iv) align, enhance and sustain quality in prevention and early intervention as it relates to the development and delivery of policy, provision and practice.
What Works recently launched an evidence hub, which provides information on prevention and early intervention programmes that have been evaluated. The evidence hub is the first tool of its kind in Ireland and was developed in conjunction with What Works for Early Intervention and Children’s Social Care (now renamed to Foundations, the national What Works Centre for Children & Families). Featured programmes are listed under the 5 National Outcomes for Children and Young People developed under Better Outcome, Brighter Futures. Of the 123 programmes included in the evidence hub, 56 are currently provided in Ireland and most have been evaluated in the Irish context.
Source: What Works: Sharing Knowledge, Improving Children’s Futures. https://whatworks.gov.ie/.
The Right on Track series is a best-evidence synthesis of the learning available from individual evaluations of programmes that were implemented in Ireland under the PEII initiative from 2004 to 2016. Information was derived from implementation reports and process evaluations. The series includes reports on impact on parent outcomes, child behaviour, child learning, child health, inclusion and diversity, and leadership. The reports draw from different evaluation. For example, the report on children’s outcomes drew on 14 evaluations, ten of which were based on randomised control trials (Statham, 2013[57]). Learning from this initiative was used to inform the design of the ABC Programme.
The ABC Programme evaluation covers the period of 2015 to 2017 (O’Riordan, 2018[58]). This evaluation explored what, if any, contribution the ABC Programme has made to improving outcomes for children and parents, for practitioners and managers, and to improving strategic planning and service delivery, locally and nationally, across the 12 studied areas. The evaluation used a common measurement framework and thus its findings concern the ABC Programme as a whole and did not examine individual interventions or areas. To note, the ABC evaluation captures many of the specific programmes funded under PEII, however its interest is in the impact of the overall national programme. Limitations of this evaluation were the absence of comparison groups to assess observed changes in pre- and post-test data, meaning that any changes observed cannot be attributed with certainty to programme participation. National data was used to locate evaluation findings in trends within the national population. For some measures, there was a considerable drop-off post testing. As data was collected by practitioners, this risks exposure to practitioner bias of perceived changes (O’Riordan, 2018[58]).
Evidence of impact of parenting and family support programmes on child outcomes
The On the Right Track series finds that the majority of programmes were able to deliver improvements in children’s behaviour compared to a control group. However, improvements were not always statistically significant, but change was in the right direction. One report is dedicated to summarizing evidence on child behavioural outcomes. It underlines complex findings in relation to children’s behavioural outcomes, often showing improvements in some respects but not in others. It notes evaluation quality issues, such as that outcomes assessments often varied depending on who is doing the reporting, for instance, children themselves, or parents and teachers (Statham, 2013[57]).
The ABC Programme evaluation provides evidence of impact on parenting, children’s learning and child health and development. On parenting, it found a statistically significant and desirable decrease in parental stress and improvements in parental self-efficacy. Local and regional stakeholders reported other changes, including increased knowledge and confidence to engage in local services and changes in levels of perceived empowerment. Only a small number of ABC areas evaluated child social emotional development, finding that children had fewer difficulties in terms of their overall social and emotional well-being. It also found evidence of improved parent-child relationships, as self-reported by parents (O’Riordan, 2018[58]).
Evidence that parenting and family support programmes are being implemented as intended
Both evaluations provide evidence on the acceptability and quality of parenting and family support programmes in the Irish context. The On the Right Track series’ main finding was that evidence-based programmes developed elsewhere can be used successfully in Ireland, once adaptations are made which take time and care to get right. Generally, parenting programmes developed outside of Ireland required modifications (Statham, 2013[57]). The researcher underlined the need for a range of services and programmes to support parents and children in different ways at different points in their lives. The On the Right Track series have evidence of acceptability to parents, which points to the need for good recruitment mechanisms and adaptability to meet parents’ needs (Statham, 2013[57]). Furthermore, the On the Right Track series identified common features of effective implementation (CES, 2019[59]).
The ABC Programme evaluation finds that implementing the ABC model had resulted in changes in most ABC areas, that included new interventions/services being implemented, existing intervention being adapted and practitioners adopting new or changed approaches or ways of working. Local and regional service providers across the areas were for the most part positive about the ABC Programme and the ways of working that were supported by it. There is evidence that the ABC Programme positively contributed to local strategic and service planning and delivery, but there is less evidence of change at the national level and none of cost effectiveness. The evaluation provides information on what the main barriers and enablers are in this context and outlines learning to be applied to similar initiatives in the future (O’Riordan, 2018[58]).
Evidence gaps
The wide range of evidence available on parenting and family support programmes in the Irish context highlights their benefits for socio-economically disadvantaged children. A key challenge to moving policy forward is to ensure that the evidence that is collected can inform the process of replicating and scaling up of effective programmes so that all children who stand to benefit have access. This raises a number of questions regarding the development of an evidence base that can support this process. These questions have been explored, for example, in the report on the Feasibility of Early Childhood Home Visiting in Ireland (Home Visiting Alliance, 2023[56]), but also apply to expanding other types of parenting and family support services (DCEDIY, 2022[54]).
A first requirement for developing the necessary evidence is to agree on a national definition of ‘evidence based’ interventions, which concerns practice rather than focusing on programmes themselves, in order to identify those that work and have the potential to be adapted to other contexts. The aim is not to define a fixed set of good practices, but to leave room for innovation and adaptation, as long as these aspects are included in the evaluation of practices. Such an approach aims to reflect the complex way services and programmes are implemented and to ensure that programmes are innovative and responsive to new emerging research and population-level needs.
Developing the evidence needed for policy monitoring requires supporting local data collection based on national standards and common data collection instruments, and with processes put in place to ensure accurate real-time data collection at a local level. Common data collection instruments would be particularly welcomed in the area of parenting supports where detailed metrics on outputs and outcomes are recorded for some individual services (e.g. the Teen Parents Support Programme), but are not collected for other types of parenting supports (DCEDIY, 2022[54]). There is a general lack of data on the demand for, availability of, outputs and outcomes of parenting support services. These data gaps mean it is difficult to compare the level of need with the level of funding, types of services, and quantity of parenting supports available across different areas. Finally, as suggested by the Home Visiting Alliance (2023[56]), the development of evidence could be supported with the creation of a centralised national office reporting to a cross-departmental policy structure, with one of its role being to collect and collate data on parenting and family support services at national level to inform national policies with evidence on local needs and adaption of services to best meet those needs and conditions.
Access to healthy nutrition and impact of school meals provision
Barnardos conducts an annual parent survey on food poverty and food affordability, which highlight issues around a high number of parents cutting back on other essentials to afford food. Studies using GUI data provide evidence on how the quality of children’s nutrition varies by socio-economic status as does the prevalence rate of childhood overweight and obesity (ESRI, 2018[60]; McNamara et al., n.d.[61]). For example, the rate of overweight among 17/18-year-olds is higher among the lowest income quintile than in the highest, 29% compared to 22%. Young women are also more likely to be overweight or obese compared to young men (30% versus 25%) (McNamara, 2020[62]). At age 20, the rate of young people who are not overweight jumped, from 73% at age 17/18 to 63% while the gap by top and bottom income quintiles had narrowed significantly (O’Mahoney, 2021[63]).
In order to promote access to healthy nutrition for children at risk of or living in poverty, Ireland has committed in the country’s European Child Guarantee National Action Plan to improving the availability of healthy meals each school day. Ireland has no universal school meals provision and instead has two targeted programmes to provide regular access to nutritious food to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The first, the Department of Social Protection-funded School Meals Programme (SMP) was established in its current form in 2003 and allows DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) schools to apply for funding to provide children, through a supplier of the school’s choice, with breakfast, lunch, both hot and cold, and afterschool snacks. A Hot Meals pilot was introduced in 2019 in primary schools without onsite cooking facilities to gauge the efficacy of providing hot school meals in primary schools. The pilot has since been expanded. School must ensure that all meals provided meet the basic nutritional standards set out in Healthy Ireland Framework documents. The second programme, the smaller scale ‘Meals Grants’ is funded by the DCEDIY and provides full or partial funding to 150 beneficiary service providers in early learning and care and school age childcare settings for some or all children attending their services.
Existing evaluations
The Department of Social Protection published two recent commissioned evaluations of the SMP. The first evaluation concerns only the Hot Meals pilot, while the second and the more extensive covers the entire SMP programme and looks again at the impact of the Hot Meals provision. The SMP’s objective is to provide regular, nutritious foods to children, who are unable, due to lack of good quality food, to take full advantage of the education provided. The SMP’s underlying assumption is that school meal provision will improve children’s daily diet, achieve better school attendance, and increase educational attainment.
The first evaluation was based on an online survey administered to parents, teachers and principals and qualitative one-to-one interviews with a small number of providers or various sizes and in different locations of Ireland. This evaluation did not collect the views of children on their experience of the Hot Meals provision (B&A, 2020[64]). The second evaluation was based on a multi-method approach that combines desk research and qualitative and quantitative methods. The evaluation sought to answer, among other things, whether the current SMP is effective, what are the implications of extending the scheme to non-DEIS schools, and the impact of the SMP on child school attendance and educational achievement and on food poverty/and improved deprivation measures among families of beneficiary children (RSM Ireland, 2022[65]).
DCEDIY published an evaluation of the Meals Grant in 2022. The purpose of this evaluation was to evaluate the implementation of the scheme and the impact of the scheme on service providers and to determine a focus for future funding. This evaluation was based on a survey administered by the DECEIY to service providers. The survey contained open-ended questions that were analysed qualitatively using the method of thematic analysis (DCEDIY, 2022[66]).
Evidence of impact on school meal provision on child outcomes
Both evaluations of the SMP provide qualitative evidence on programme impact on a select number of child outcomes only, while the evaluation of the Meals Grants does not focus strongly on impact on child outcomes. For example, the first SMP evaluation provides information on parents and teachers’ perceptions of the impact of provision on child’s school attendance, physical health and psychological well-being, diet, behaviour, and attentiveness. The second SMP evaluation provides similar qualitative evidence from teachers and parents on programme impact on child outcomes, such as school attendance, behaviour management, concentration in class, physical and mental health, and attitudes towards healthier eating. Importantly, the second evaluation provides no evidence on impact on academic grades. The researchers outlined that since a positive impact has been found from school meal programmes in countries similar to Ireland, similar could be expected to be true in the Irish context.
The second SMP evaluation does not directly measure food poverty, but instead provides qualitative evidence of ‘reduced’ food poverty. The researchers underline that any claims that the evaluation can make about alleviating food poverty are generally limited. To provide quantitative evidence of SMP’s impact, the researchers suggest that a longitudinal study is needed focusing on better diets, better attendance, and better educational attainment. The evaluation of the Meals Grant provides only minor information on the scheme’s impact on a small number of child outcomes, specifically healthy eating habits and some enhanced opportunities for children to develop social and personal skills.
Evidence that school meal provision is being implemented as intended
Overall, there is a variety of evidence to inform on whether school meals provision is being implemented as intended. All three evaluations look at quality and acceptability of provision to schools or service providers. The two SMP evaluations also consider to parents too but only the second evaluation includes to beneficiary children.
All three evaluations provide positive evidence on the quality and acceptability of provision. Both SMP evaluations provide evidence on the quality of food, including portion sizes and meal personalisation. The Meals Grant evaluation identified providing children with a range of high quality and nutritious hot meals and snacks as the most positive aspect of the Scheme. All of the evaluations provide evidence raising concerns for the sustainability of provision, particularly issues for suppliers. For example, the larger SMP evaluation provides evidence on how the relative flexibility of the programme allows issues to be resolved from the bottom up but found that across the board rates are too low and there are inconsistencies in rates. While the Meals Grant evaluation flagged issues over the inadequacy of funding, it lacked an objective analysis of the funding impact, as service providers were asked to assess this impact based on their own subjective experiences. Service providers may have been somewhat biased in their responses in anticipation of future funding.
Both SMP evaluations consider the feasibility of programme expansion. The second evaluation provides evidence showing significant support among stakeholders to expand, both school numbers and scope of programme. However, this evaluation does not include consultations with non-DEIS schools to test interest and willingness to participate. It offers recommendation on how coverage could be expanded, suggesting expansion on a ‘needs must’ basis. Of particularly relevance here is evidence from the first SMP evaluation on the acceptability of Hot Meals provision by parents whose children are attending DEIS and non-DEIS schools, and towards targeted versus school-wide availability of Hot Meals provision. This comparison reveals that parents whose children are in DEIS school and hence more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more positive about the value of this provision, while teachers in DEIS schools are more likely to think that provision should be targeted to the most in need.
Main evidence gaps
There is a need to provide better evidence on the impact of provision on achieving its ultimate objective, that is, ensuring that children, regardless of their background, can take full advantage of their education. Both SMP evaluations provide some indication that school meals provision has a positive influence on school attendance, concentration, and behaviour, which are mediators for increasing school performance, but this needs to be further explored.
Moreover, there is a need to develop evidence on the longer-term impact of school meals provision on children’s diets and dietary habits. Developing measures of children’s dietary intake and habits is tricky. Children younger than age eight lack the cognitive abilities required to self-report food intake, while adolescents’ willingness to report may be hindered by issues of motivation and body images (Livingstone and Robson, 2000[67]). This would also help inform the effect of the associated nutritional standards guidelines and of changes to provision.
Finally, there are a number of options for tracking progress at aggregate level when reporting progress on the implementation of the European Child Guarantee:
a separate indicator on food deprivation to help tracking the issue. The CYP Indicator Set has no indicator on children experiencing food deprivation. The Indicator Set contains one global indicator on “deprivation’’ (see Section 2), which nutrition-wise captures eating a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day and having a roast joint or its equivalent once a week. However, a child could be considered deprived under this indicator without necessarily experiencing food deprivation. It would be reasonable to expect that full scale implementation of the SMP would reduce the number of children experiencing food deprivation.
indicators on outcomes directly influenced by the provision of school meals, as identified by the impact evaluation, such as concentration and school attendance, and the relationship with children missing meals. HBSC collects data on children arriving at school hungry or going to be hungry because of there not being enough food at home. PISA has an indicator on whether students skip breakfast or dinner and the frequency, making it possible to explore these issues if these questions are maintained in future survey waves.
Cost of access to healthcare and impact of free GP visiting
Historically, free access to health care for children has been means tested in Ireland, with exceptions made for certain medical conditions (such as cancer) or being in receipt of domiciliary care allowance. Households are eligible for a Medical Card, which provides free GP care, in-patient hospital services, dental, optical, and aural services, and some personal and social care services if they earn under a certain income threshold. Around 27% of 0-24 year olds have a Medical Card (HSE, 2021[68]; HSE, 2023[69]). Families just above the income threshold for access to a medical card can face difficulties covering costs of medical care (Reilly, 2023[70]). GUI data shows that household income is an important determinant of GP visiting for children without a full medical or GP card (Nolan, 2017[71]).
Ireland has committed in in its European Child Guarantee National Action Plan to removing financial barriers to accessing healthcare for more children. Among the policy measures identified is the expansion of free General Practitioner (GP) Care and child-related services for children aged 12 years and under. In 2015, Ireland introduced free GP care for children under six years of age, which includes two periodic wellness checks for children at ages two and five years. This policy reform is part of Ireland’s transition from a mixed public and privately funded system to a system of universal health care (Burke et al., 2018[72]). Recently, coverage has been expanded to six- and seven-year-olds.
Existing evaluations
There is no one outright evaluation of the impact of government’s effort to remove financial barriers for children accessing health care, in particular, the 2015 policy of introducing free GP care for under sixes. There are a number of small studies looking at how different coverage levels, or in other words cost, affect children’s attendance rate at the GP. No evaluations that were reviewed considered child health and development.
Evidence of impact of policy on child outcomes
An ESRI study looked at the impact of the 2015 policy of introducing free GP visiting for under sixes on visits to Emergency Departments (ED) and whether it reduced the affected group’s (0-5 years) ED visits relative to the older age group (7-15 years), and led to an increase in GP referrals to ED for the affected group (Walsh, 2019[73]). The study found that free GP visiting doubled the total number of children eligible for free GP care, with high uptake by GPs to the scheme.
This study used data from the Patient Experience Time dataset, which is a large administrative dataset covering over 400,000 ED visits by children between January 2015 and June 2016 in Irish public hospitals with Tier 1 (operating 24/7) EDs. These data include information on age and sex of the attendee, and the time of day, day of week, and hospital of the visit, as well as the mode of referral and referral type of the ED visit. The researchers applied a difference-in-differences statistical method to compare how ED visits changed for the group targeted by the introduction free GP visiting (children aged 0-5 years) compared to a group (children aged 7-15 years) who were not directly affected by the policy change. The study found that the introduction of free GP care to all under 6s did not impact their visits to public hospital EDs, but referrals from a GP to EDs increased by a small extent. The researchers suggested that the latter finding may indicate increased pressure placed on GPs because of additional demand for care. There is evidence of a larger increase in GP referral rates for under 6s at the weekend, when Out of Hours GP care is more common. These results are consistent across geographic regions. A limitation of this study is the unavailability of data on attendances to private emergency or medical clinic to capture under sixes who were covered by private health insurance and for whom engagement with ED may be less influenced by cost of a GP visit (Walsh, 2019[73]).
A further study assessed the impact of the 2015 policy on attendances to daytime and out-of-hours (OOH) GP care showing a significant increase in uptake (McDonnell et al., 2022[74]). The study applied a difference-in-differences analysis to visit records of over a period of five years, two years of which were pre-policy, for two groups, 0-5 who were affected by the policy and 7-15 years who were not. The study found that attendances at daytime GP by children aged under-six increased substantially by 20%–21% in the three years following the introduction of the policy, largely explained by an increase in the number of patients attending (17.4%–18.6%). Of children aged under-six attending pre-policy, 14.9%–15.8% had greater than six visits annually, increasing to 18.5%–20.3% post-policy. OOH GP attendance also increased by 20.5%–29.4% over the same period (McDonnell et al., 2022[74]).
This study could only extract data from daytime GP visit record by year of birth, which excluded children from the model in the year they turned six. However, effects estimated the inclusion of children turning six in the treatment cohort were comparable with effects estimated when these children were included in the comparison cohort and statistical significance remained unchanged throughout. A limitation of this study is the absence of diagnosis codes from OOHs and the extent of missing data in daytime GP records, which prevented the impact of the policy on reason for attendance from being assessed. Similarly, severity of presenting illness is not recorded preventing differences in the urgency of presentations from being determined (McDonnell et al., 2022[74]).
Evidence that policy is being implemented as intended
One qualitative study explores the impact the 2015 policy on GP service provision from the perspective of GPs themselves (McCombe et al., 2019[75]). It uses semi-structured interviews based on purposive sampling, which recruited a small number of GPs who could provide important information relevant to the research questions. The topic guide was informed by two theoretical frameworks, the ‘Behavioural model for health seeking behaviour’ and ‘Implementation Outcomes Framework’13. The study highlights an increased workload and activity for most GPs and other healthcare providers in primary care, which required enhanced capacity (especially staff, facilities). In addition, the policy decreased antibiotic prescribing as the removal of fee reduced parents’ expectations here.
The reviewed evaluations suggest that free access to GPs has had the desired effect on uptake. The question remains as to whether, when fully implemented, this policy will meet the overall need for GP consultations because of capacity issues and address children’s healthcare needs in a timely fashion. However, Ireland’s current data systems, particularly in primary care, make assessing the impact of health initiatives challenging. For instance, the absence of a national platform for collating GP patient-level data presents a challenge to health researchers and requires the commitment of GP and research resources to supporting individual research studies (McDonnell, 2022[76]).
One way to document progress on this dimension at national level might be to use the information available at regular intervals in the SILC surveys on the number of GP consultations by children, or on the existence of unmet healthcare needs. To document this issue at national level, one possibility may be to use the information available at regular intervals in the SILC surveys on the number of GP consultations by children, and to see whether the gap in the number of visits according to household income has narrowed. The question on the existence of unmet healthcare needs could also be used to examine the extent to which greater access to GP consultations reduces the frequency of unmet needs.
An important dimension of policy evaluation is to establish whether the results of policies to combat child poverty are commensurate with the amounts of public money invested, and whether these policies should be strengthened or the expenditures re-prioritised across different policy layers. Spending reviews aim to provide an in-depth assessment of existing public expenditure in order to identify opportunities to reduce or redirect spending from low-priority, inefficient, or ineffective spending. They offer a systematic approach to ensuring that spending is aligned with the government’s policy priorities, is effective in achieving its intended objectives, and is deployed efficiently. These evaluations can be carried out at the level of each programme, or at the aggregate level of the total investment.
In order to be able to carry out such evaluations, it is necessary to have good quality information on spending and how it has been rolled out, if possible, to link this information to outcomes. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has a series of spending reviews, which document the first part of the equation, namely the expenditures on different programmes and measures and what has been delivered. Each year, spending reviews are carried out on specific areas, with an analysis of policy outputs, cost drivers and a focus on possible expenditure re-prioritisation.14
Existing evidence
Only a few spending reviews have looked at family living standards and government spending to support children and families. These reviews are variable in nature, but nonetheless are an important resource for identifying weaknesses in the income support system and gaps in the evidence base. For instance, a 2010 review looked at trends in spending on child income support and their determinants (demographic and by type of expenditure) (Department of Social Protection, 2010[19]) (Box 6.2). It also examined the evolution of the Child Benefit payment against a number of relevant indicators and found that the payment level increased significantly both in real and relative terms. However, the review pointed out a limit in the extent to which the adequacy of income support could be objectively assessed due to a lack of clear policy targets on how much assistance should be provided.
The processes that need to be put in place in order ensure 'Value for Money' from programmes can also be discussed in Spending Reviews. For example, the review of Family Support Services (2022[77]) clearly highlights the considerable progress made by Tusla in recent years in transitioning from a ‘grant writing’ model to a commissioning-based service model. This transition has helped improve needs-based assessments, transparency in resource allocation, and remove duplication and resource gaps. The drafting and implementation of local area Commissioning Plans to ensure that policy goals are achieved is seen as a key component of the commissioning model, since these plans should summarise local area needs and provision, identify priorities, and provide evidence to inform decision-making processes.
The information that needs to be collected to enable a better evaluation of policy outputs is also occasionally documented by Spending Reviews. For instance, the review on Family Support Services (FSS) highlights that a clearer understanding of FSS activities (i.e., outputs) is necessary to determine the value for money of Tusla expenditure on FSS (DCDEIY, 2022[77]). This review suggested that the reporting on service providers’ activities services in Quarterly Performance and Activity Reports would benefit from a clearer definition and categorisation of activity content of the different branch of activities. Equally important is the adoption of a clear definition of what constitutes one ‘unit’ of FSS provided, so that the true quantum of family support behind the number of children who receive FSS in a year could be measured. Currently, the metric of one ‘child in receipt of FSS’ could mean a once-off visit or a weeks-long treatment programme. Defining a unit of service could make commensurate these variables of time and resource commitments and how service need interacts with cost.
Most recently, DCEDIY conducted a pilot on the expenditures on children in 2019 made by DCEDIY (Collins et al., 2022[78]). The aim of the pilot was to introduce a methodology that could be improved and repeated in the future to estimate the amount of public expenditure benefiting children, whether they are the direct or indirect target of expenditures. The proposed methodology is a major step forward in providing more reliable estimates of spending that benefits children, but the next step is to better connect this information on aggregate spending with budget decisions and the discussion around policy priorities and targets.
Spending Reviews as a tool to monitor child poverty reduction and mitigation policies
A greater harmonisation and standardisation of the scope and key issues to be documented in spending reviews could contribute to strengthen their role in the assessment of the value for money of policies (Doherty and Sayegh, 2022[79]). This would require, for example, a more systematic discussion of how budget allocation mechanisms can be improved to make budget decisions more efficient, the indicators of policy outputs to be reported, and an analysis of cost drivers. Potentially, spending reviews could include a review of existing evidence on the impact of policies on population outcomes, including child outcomes, as a step towards making them a more powerful tool for assessing the value for money of policies. Where the objective of a spending review is to achieve better value for money, setting clear objectives of saving or efficiency targets can help set the level of ambition for the review (Doherty and Sayegh, 2022[79]). For example, review teams could be required to develop a certain number of options or to propose alternative approaches for raising spending effectiveness or improving policy outcomes.
Embedding Spending Reviews into Value for Money Assessment processes can be a way to align these reviews with what is needed to inform budget decisions and the monitoring of policy implementation more broadly (Box 6.6). This requires the definition of evaluation criteria and associated indicators to assess the implementation of policies, from resource use to measuring short- and long-term impact. Broadly speaking, these criteria fall into three key groups:
The resource use ('what did we put in, and how was it used?'), which involves evaluating programmes’ relevance (i.e., the extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries and partners’ needs and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change), as well as its coherence (the compatibility of the intervention with other interventions). It implies also assessing the efficiency of spending to generate policy outputs;
Value derived from the resource use ('what did we get out?'), which is about assessing policy effectiveness, the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve its objectives. It implies assessing the impact of policy outputs on child poverty and other outcomes, including any differential results across groups;
Whether the value derived justifies the resource use ('was it worth it?'), which is about assessing the cost-effectiveness of a programme (i.e., whether the impact on poverty reduction exceeds the cost) and assessing at a higher level what difference the intervention when long-term, potentially unintended effects, and alternative uses of public spending are considered.
It is worth noting that such assessment required a 'mixed methods' evaluation that combines different methods, data sources and combines quantitative and qualitative indicators in order to arrive at a richer and more nuanced understanding than might be achieved through the use of a single method alone (Allan and King, 2018[80]; Barr and Christie, 2014[81]). Indicator-based measurement makes a valuable contribution to evaluating programme performance, but they may be insufficient to support well-reasoned evaluative judgements about a complex programme. Broader contextual evidence is also important to provide further information about performance and support appropriate interpretation of the indicators.
In general terms, VfM framework is set to answer an evaluative question about how well resources are used, and whether they are being used well enough (Allan and King, 2018[80]; Barr and Christie, 2014[81]; DfT, 2015[82]). It requires a judgement to be made based on a chain of evidence and using a transparent process of reasoning. Although there is no universal definition of VfM, governmental organisations have used a range of working definitions that tend to emphasise minimising wastage, delivering outputs, achieving outcomes, improving equity, and/or maximising outcomes for a given cost.
The need to consider VfM arises because, when resources are invested in a particular policy, programme, or intervention, the opportunity to use those resources in another way is foregone. Good VfM assessment can also support organisations to work effectively by helping to clarify and communicate the value of their work, and by providing insights to support learning and improvement. Consequently, choices need to be made in resource allocation – with a 'good' allocation being one that compares favourably to its next-best alternative, considering a series of criteria to assess programmes’ performance.
A five “Es” approach to VfM assessment is common currency. Each “E” refers to criteria to be considered for assessing a programme performance throughout the implementation of a programme or policy, as highlighted in the Figure below:
DFID (2011[83]) defines these criteria as follows.
Economy: Are we buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price? (Inputs are things such as staff, consultants, raw materials, and capital that are used to produce outputs). It looks at opportunities to spend less by minimising the cost of resources used or required (inputs);
Efficiency: How well do we convert inputs into outputs? Therefore, it looks at the relationship between the output from goods or services and the resources to produce them – spending well;
Effectiveness: How well are the outputs from an intervention achieving the desired outcome on poverty reduction? Here the assessment is on the relationship between the intended and actual results of public spending (outcomes) – spending wisely;
Equity: It looks at the extent to which services are available to and reach all people that they are intended to – spending fairly. Some people may receive differing levels of service for reasons other than differences in their levels of need;
A final “Cost-Effectiveness” criteria: How much impact on poverty reduction does an intervention achieve relative to the inputs that we invest in it?
'Cost-effectiveness' traditionally measures the ratio between a single outcome indicator, measured in natural or physical units (e.g. lives saved), and monetary programme costs. In VfM assessment, however, a broader interpretation is needed: the 'cost-effectiveness' criterion addresses whether the programme creates more value than it consumes, or whether sufficient outcomes or impacts are achieved to justify the investment of resources. 'Value created' potentially includes both tangible (monetary or readily monetisable) and intangible value (outcomes or impacts that are difficult to value credibly in monetary terms).
Although they are expressed differently, these criteria are close the those highlighted by the OECD DAC Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet) which has defined six evaluation criteria – relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
Source: DFID (2011[83]), DFID’s Approach to Value for Money.
Ireland has the benefit of a broad range of available evaluations, analyses and statistical measures on child poverty trends and drivers, and on the impact of policy measures on child poverty reduction and child outcomes. Nevertheless, key evidence gaps exist that are pertinent to monitoring the European Child Guarantee and Ireland’s national efforts to reduce child poverty and its impact on child living standards and well-being. To note, Ireland uses data from the Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) survey to track child poverty. An obvious limitation of SILC is, as a household survey, its exclusion of child populations that are known to have a higher risk of poverty, such as children in homeless families and in the international protection system. Ireland publishes annual statistics on child relative income poverty and consistent poverty (which combines information on income poverty and material deprivation) to track child poverty. These statistical measures could be enriched further through age disaggregation to capture the effect a child’s age has on poverty risk. Including an indicator to measure the persistence of poverty over time in policy monitoring would help to better inform how successful policies are for children at high poverty risk. Tracking trends in child and family poverty both before and after housing costs helps distinguish between the need for support to cover children's housing expenses and other costs. It is crucial that this detailed information, which can be derived from official statistics, is integrated into the data used to guide the policies implemented as part of the new Young Ireland strategy.
Ireland has scope to improve the evidence on children’s living standards. Indicators on child poverty rate after housing costs would inform on the impact of housing affordability and housing assistance and highlight the high exposure to poverty of children in lone parent households. An indicator on the child poverty rate using an anchored poverty line would inform on changes to the absolute number of children living in poverty. The addition of an indicator on child-specific material deprivation would inform on supports needed to address the unique ways poverty limits children’s access to basic goods and services.
Ireland has good (but not up to date) evidence on the work (dis)incentives created by the social welfare system and income support issues that arise as parents make the transition back to work, with solutions proposed and the respective implications considered. There is good evidence available on the impact of the main parenting support initiatives, showing that evidence-based programmes developed elsewhere can be successfully implemented in Ireland and afford benefits to socio-economically disadvantaged children. The What Works initiative provides an infrastructure for further advancing the evidence of parenting supports in Ireland. For policy monitoring, local data collection based on national standards and common data collection instruments could be supported and processes put in place to ensure accurate real-time data collection at a local level.
Ireland has good evidence documenting the relationship between children’s socio-economic background and the quality of nutrition. For policy monitoring, it would be practical to have a standalone indicator on food deprivation and relevant indicators exploring the effect school meals provision (or lack thereof) on school performance. There are no evaluations on impact of free visiting on child health and development, but there is evidence to suggest a likely positive effect. Conducting impact evaluations could help getting a greater grasp of the extent to which free GP visits help tackle financial barriers to accessing health care and meet children’s health. Additionally, indicators on GP visits and main reasons unmet health need, as for instance reported in EU-SILC child health data, would help further understand the financial barriers to accessing health care.
Finally, significant efforts are underway to estimate the budgetary resources benefiting children. It is crucial to consider how this information can be effectively integrated into the decision-making process for budget allocation.
References
[80] Allan, S. and J. King (2018), OPM’s approach to assessing Value for Money, Oxford Policy Management - Julian King & Associates, Oxford.
[64] B&A (2020), Hot School Meals Pilot Project, B&A Research & Insight.
[5] Barnardos (2022), Children’s Budget 2023, Barnados, Dublin, https://www.barnardos.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/barnardos-childrens-budget-2023-1.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[81] Barr, J. and A. Christie (2014), Better Value for Money. An Organising Framework for Management and Measurement of VFM Indicators, ITAD.
[7] Boylan, H. (2023), “Estimating the MESL costs for families in Direct Provision”, Vincentian MESL Research Centre at SVP, Dublin, https://www.budgeting.ie/publications/estimating-the-mesl-costs-for-families-in-direct-p/ (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[72] Burke, S. et al. (2018), “Sláintecare – A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland”, Health Policy, Vol. 122/12, pp. 1278-1282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.05.006.
[27] Byrne, D. and M. Treanor (2020), Income, Poverty and Deprivation among Children - A Statistical Baseline Analysis, https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/income-poverty-and-deprivation-among-children-a-statistical-basel (accessed on 11 April 2023).
[21] Central Statistics Office (2023), Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/socialconditions/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc/.
[59] CES (2019), Learning from investment in Prevention and Early Intervention in Ireland: Implementation, The Centre for Effective Services, Dublin.
[17] Children’s Right Alliance (2023), Child Poverty Monitor 2023, Children’s Right Alliance, Dublin, https://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/Child%20Poverty%20Monitor%202023.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[47] CIB (2017), Working Family Payment Submission by the Citizens Information Board: March 2017, Citizens Information Bureau.
[78] Collins, G. et al. (2022), The Irish Government’s Expenditure on Children in 2019: A Pilot Study of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/22313-spending-review-the-irish-governments-expenditure-on-children-in-2019/# (accessed on 14 June 2023).
[24] Cooper, K. and K. Stewart (2017), Does Money Affect Children’s Outcomes? An update, http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/casepaper203.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2018).
[23] Cooper, K. and K. Stewart (2013), Does Money Affect Children’s Outcomes? A Systematic Review, Joseph Rownthree Foundation, https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/money-children-outcomes-full.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2018).
[36] CSO (2023), Poverty - Central Statistics Office - Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2022, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2022/poverty/ (accessed on 11 April 2023).
[38] CSO (2022), SILC Module on Child Deprivation 2021, Central Statistics Office.
[16] DCDEIY (2023), Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth/Economic and Social Research Institute Partnership on Children and Young People, https://www.gov.ie/en/organisation-information/b00f8-our-publications/#department-of-children-equality-disability-integration-and-youtheconomic-and-social-research-institute-partnership-on-children-and-young-people (accessed on 21 August 2023).
[18] DCDEIY (2023), The Statistical Spotlight Series, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c2a87f-the-statistical-spotlight-series/ (accessed on 21 August 2023).
[77] DCDEIY (2022), Spending Review: Tusla Funded Community and Voluntary Sector Family Support Services, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.
[22] DCEDIY (2023), An Indicator Set for Better Outcomes Brighter Future, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c9ad0-better-outcomes-brighter-future-indicator-set-report-2022/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
[66] DCEDIY (2022), Early Learning and Care (ELC) and School Age Childcare (SAC) Meals Survey: Evaluation Report, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a4aef-early-learning-and-care-elc-and-school-age-childcare-sac-meals-survey-evaluation-report/ (accessed on 26 June 2023).
[54] DCEDIY (2022), Supporting Parents: A national model for parenting support services, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth Affairs, Government of Ireland.
[8] DCEDIY (2020), Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: Annual Reports, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/847593-better-outcomes-brighter-futures-annual-reports/ (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[48] DEASP (2018), Review of the operation of the Working Family Payment, Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c15d9-review-of-the-operation-of-the-working-family-payment/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
[12] Department of Social Protection (2023), Mid-term Review of the Roadmap forSocial Inclusion2020 –2025, Department of Social Protection, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ca8bf-roadmap-for-social-inclusion-2020-2025/#:~:text=The%20Roadmap%20for%20Social%20Inclusion%20is%20an%20overarching%20statement%20of,childcare%2C%20community%20development%20and%20housing. (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[9] Department of Social Protection (2022), Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025: Progress Reports, Department of Social Protection, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ca8bf-roadmap-for-social-inclusion-2020-2025/#:~:text=The%20Roadmap%20for%20Social%20Inclusion%20is%20an%20overarching%20statement%20of,childcare%2C%20community%20development%20and%20housing. (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[11] Department of Social Protection (2020), Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025: Ambitions, Goals, Commitments, Government of Ireland, Dublin.
[4] Department of Social Protection (2019), “Social Inclusion Monitor”, Social Inclusion Monitor, Department of Social Protection, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/156b21-social-inclusion-monitor/#2018-2019 (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[19] Department of Social Protection (2010), A Policy and Value for Money Review of Child Income Support and Associated Spending Programmes, Department of Social Protection, Dublin.
[83] DFID (2011), “DFID’s Approach to Value for Money”, Department for International Development, London.
[82] DfT (2015), Value for Money Framework, Department for Transport, London.
[79] Doherty, L. and A. Sayegh (2022), “How to Design and Institutionalize Spending Reviews”, How to Note - Fiscal Affairs Department, International Monetary Fund, Washigton.
[20] ESRI (2023), Poverty, income inequality and living standards in Ireland: Third annual report, ESRI; Community Foundation Ireland, Dublin.
[60] ESRI (2018), Growing Up in Ireland Key Findings: Cohort ’08 at 9 years old, ESRI, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, https://www.growingup.gov.ie/pubs/Growing-Up-in-Ireland-Health-and-Physical-Development.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2023).
[41] Eurostat (2023), Investing in Children, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/employment-and-social-inclusion-indicators/social-protection-and-inclusion/investing-children.
[31] Eurostat (2021), Glossary: At-risk-of-poverty rate, Eurostat Statistics Explained.
[43] Eurostat (2021), Glossary:At risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:At_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion_(AROPE).
[85] Gelberg, L., R. Andersen and B. Leake (2000), “The Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations: application to medical care use and outcomes for homeless people.”, Health Services Research, Vol. 34/6, p. 1273, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089079/ (accessed on 29 June 2023).
[40] Guio, A., D. Gordon and E. Marlier (2017), Measuring child material deprivation in the EU, European Commission.
[42] Guio, A. et al. (2018), “Towards an EU measure of child deprivation”, Child Indicators Research, Vol. 11/3, pp. 835-860, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9491-6.
[44] Guio, A., E. Marlier and H. Frazer (2020), Feasibility study for a child guarantee : final report, European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
[56] Home Visiting Alliance (2023), Feasibility of Early Childhood Home Visiting in Ireland, Home Visiting Alliance, Dublin.
[69] HSE (2023), PCRS - GMS Medical Cards: Number of Eligible Persons by CHO, Gender and Age Group.
[68] HSE (2021), How much you can earn and still qualify?.
[15] Johnston, H. (2021), “Interface between Income Support and Services”, Background Paper, No. 151/8, National Economic and Social Council, Dublin, http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_background_papers/151_background_paper_8.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[13] Johnston, H. (2021), “Towards a More Integrated Income Support System”, No. 151/5, National Economic and Social Council, Dublin, https://www.nesc.ie/publications/towards-a-more-integrated-income-support-system-151-5/ (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[35] Jose Doval Tedin, M. and V. Faubert (2020), “Housing Affordability in Ireland”, European Economy Economic Briefs, https://doi.org/10.2765/528723.
[67] Livingstone, M. and P. Robson (2000), “Measurement of dietary intake in children”, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Vol. 59/2, pp. 279-293, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665100000318.
[33] Mac, B. et al. (2012), “The Cost Of A Child A consensual budget standards study examining the direct cost of a child across childhood”, http://www.budgeting.ie (accessed on 15 June 2023).
[26] Maître, B., H. Russel and E. Smyth (2021), “The dynamics of child poverty in Ireland: Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland survey”, Research Series, No. 121, Economic & Social Research Institute, Dublin, https://www.esri.ie/publications/the-dynamics-of-child-poverty-in-ireland-evidence-from-the-growing-up-in-ireland (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[75] McCombe, G. et al. (2019), “How does the introduction of free GP care for children impact on GP service provision? A qualitative study of GPs”, Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), Vol. 188/4, pp. 1245-1249, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-01997-7.
[76] McDonnell, T. (2022), “Assessing how the policy of free GP care for children aged under 6 has impacted unscheduled paediatric healthcare in Ireland”, Public Policy.
[74] McDonnell, T. et al. (2022), “Policy of free GP care for children under 6 years: The impact on daytime and out-of-hours general practice”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 296, p. 114792, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2022.114792.
[52] McGauran, A. (2021), “Welfare and Employment in Ireland: Income, wealth, redistribution and their implications for the welfare system”, No. 151/7, National Economic and Social Council, Dublin, https://www.nesc.ie/publications/welfare-and-employment-in-ireland-income-wealth-redistribution-and-their-implications-for-the-welfare-system-151-7/ (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[50] McGinnity, F. (2013), Mothers’ return to work and childcare choices for infants in Ireland, ESRI. Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin.
[62] McNamara, E. (2020), Growing Up in Ireland: The lives of 17/18 year-olds Cohort ’08, ESRI. Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin.
[61] McNamara, E. et al. (n.d.), “Growing Up in Ireland: The lives of 17/18 year-olds Cohort ’08”.
[25] Menton, C. (2007), An investigation of the measurement of poverty in Ireland, Institute of Public Administration.
[10] NACCYP (2021), Addressing Child Poverty: Towards a National Child Poverty Action Plan, National Advisory Council for Children and Young People, Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/213580/928533d9-413d-4848-951f-80d21c515f65.pdf#page=null (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[14] NESC (2020), “Future of the Irish Social Welfare System”, No. 151, National Economic and Social Council, Dublin, https://www.nesc.ie/publications/the-future-of-the-irish-social-welfare-system-participation-and-protection/ (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[46] NESC (2018), Moving from Welfare to Work: Low Work Intensity Households and the Quality of Supportive Services, National Economic and Social Council, Dublin, https://www.nesc.ie/publications/moving-from-welfare-to-work-low-work-intensity-households-and-the-quality-of-supportive-services/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
[71] Nolan, A. (2017), Growing Up in Ireland: Understanding use of general practitioner services among children in Ireland, ESRI, Dublin.
[30] Nolan, B. et al. (2006), Day In, Day Out Understanding the Dynamics of Child Poverty, Institute of Public Administration & Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin.
[1] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters to Child Well-Being and Policies, OECD, Paris.
[3] OECD (2018), Poor children in rich countries: why we need policy action, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/social/family/Poor-children-in-rich-countries-Policy-brief-2018.pdf.
[63] O’Mahoney, D. (2021), Growing up in Ireland: The lives of 20 year olds making the transition Cohort ’08adulthood, ESRI. Trinity College Dublin , Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration & Youth.
[58] O’Riordan, C. (2018), National Evaluation of the Area Based Childhood Programme: Summary Report, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, The Atlantic Philanthrophies.
[49] Paull, G. (2021), 12-Month Review of the National Childcare Scheme: A report prepared for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability and Youth (Ireland), Frontier Economics.
[84] Proctor, E. et al. (2010), “Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda”, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, Vol. 38/2, pp. 65-76, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
[55] Quinn, M. and S. Kazmeirczak-Murray (2023), Review of the National Teen Parent Support Programme, Tusla, Dublin.
[70] Reilly, L. (2023), Access for children in need to the key services covered by the European Child Guarantee: Ireland, European Social Policy Analysis; European Commission.
[37] Roantree, B., M. Barrett and P. Redmond (2022), Poverty, Income Inequality and Living Standards in Ireland: Second Annual Report, Economic and Social Research Institute & The Community Foundation for Ireland, Dublin, https://doi.org/10.26504/jr1.
[53] Rodriguez, L. (2018), Meitheal and Child and Family Support Networks Final Report, UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, NUI Galway.
[65] RSM Ireland (2022), Evaluation of the Schools Meals Programme, RSM Ireland/ Department of Social Protection , Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/251427/6b3e8499-4cca-4f32-aa7d-cbcad0b660e2.pdf#page=null (accessed on 6 April 2023).
[51] Russel, H. (2018), Maternal employment and the cost of childcare in Ireland, ESRI, Pobal.
[45] Savage, M., T. Callan and J. Walsh (2014), “A profile of financial incentives to work in Ireland”, Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Statistical Society of Ireland, Vol. 44, pp. 124-140.
[39] Smyth, E. (2023), Growing up in Ireland Key Findings: Cohort ’08 at 13 Years Old, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth Affairs; ESRI: Trinity College Dublin.
[32] Sprong, S. and B. Maître (2023), “Technical Paper on the Poverty Indicators for Social Inclusion in Ireland”, Economic & Social Research Insitute, Dublin.
[57] Statham, J. (2013), Prevention and Early Intervention in Children and Young People’s Services: Improving Child Behaviour, The Centre for Effective Services, Dublin.
[29] Thévenon, O. et al. (2009), The costs of raising children and the effectiveness of supporting parenthood policies in European countries: A Literature Review.“ Report for the European Commission., INED, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32221161_The_costs_of_raising_children_and_the_effectiveness_of_supporting_parenthood_policies_in_European_countries_A_Literature_Review (accessed on 7 September 2020).
[2] Thévenon, O. et al. (2018), “Child poverty in the OECD: Trends, determinants and policies to tackle it”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 218, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c69de229-en.
[28] Verbist, G. and W. Van Lancker (2016), “Horizontal and Vertical Equity Objectives of Child Benefit Systems: An Empirical Assessment for European Countries”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 128/3, pp. 1299-1318, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-015-1080-9.
[6] Vincentian MESL Research Center (2022), “Budget 2023”, MESL Impact Briefing, Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, Dublin, https://www.budgeting.ie/download/pdf/budget_2023_-_mesl_impact_briefing_-_revised.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2023).
[34] Vincentian MESL Research Centre (2023), Budget 2023, MESL Impact Briefing.
[73] Walsh, B. (2019), Did the expansion of free GP care impact demand for emergency department attandences? A difference-in-difference analysis, ESRI, Dublin.
Notes
← 1. The National Economic and Social Council (NESC) was established in 1973 and advises the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) on strategic policy issues relating to sustainable economic, social and environmental development in Ireland. The members of the Council are appointed by the Taoiseach for a three-to-five-year term. These members are representatives of business and employers’ organisations, trade unions, agricultural and farming organisations, community and voluntary organisations, and environmental organisations, as well as heads of Government departments and independent experts. The composition of the NESC Council means that it plays an important role in bringing different perspectives from civil society together with Government.
← 2. In order to account for differences in household composition, household income is adjusted by equivalence scales that assign a different ‘weight’ to household members. The weight is intended to take account of the greater needs of larger households while also taking account of the economies of scale associated with living together. Equivalence scales generally assign a lower weight to children under age 14.
← 3. The 11 items to measure material deprivation are: 1. Without heating at some stage in the last year, 2. Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in last fortnight, 3. Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes, 4. Unable to afford a roast once a week, 5. Unable to afford a meal with meat chicken or fish every second day, 6. Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes, 7. Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat, 8. Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm, 9. Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture, 10. Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month, 11. Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year.
← 4. It is worth noting that some of the variation in poverty measures by age of child may be because in adjusting for household size and composition, a greater weight is given to children aged 14 and over. That is, in adjusting for household size and composition (the equivalence scale), a higher weight is given to children aged 14 and over, which means that a household with children over age 14 would need to have a higher total income than a household where the children are under 14 in order to be at the same equivalised income level and to be considered as non-income poor. However, this assumption does not distort patterns for the pre-school and primary school groups, as they each use the same equivalence rate (Byrne and Treanor, 2020[27]).
← 5. Social Justice Ireland (2023) also recently advocated for consistent poverty to be replaced by ‘persistent poverty’ as the basis for national targets and that resources be provided to the CSO to support longitudinal data collection.
← 6. The 13 child-specific deprivation items are: unable to afford some new (not second-hand) clothes for children under 16, two pairs of properly fitting shoes in good condition that are suitable for daily activities, to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish (or vegetarian equivalent) at least once a day, to afford fruit and vegetables once a day, a one week holiday away from home, age-appropriate books for children, indoor games (educational baby toys, building blocks, board games, computer games, etc), outdoor leisure equipment (e.g. bicycle, roller skates, etc.), regular leisure activity (e.g. swimming, playing an instrument, youth organisations, etc.), celebrations on special occasions, to invite friends, suitable place to study or do homework, school trips and school events (that cost money).
← 7. 13-year-olds were asked about their experiences of missing out on five key material items (clothes, books, own bed, electronic devices, and a suitable place to study or do homework) and five key experiences (inviting friends over, celebrating their birthday or special events, going on school trips, having a meal out with family, and going on a family holiday at least once a year).
← 8. The complete list of items taken into account to measure children’s exposure to material deprivation include information on household’s inability to provide at least one child in the family with: some new clothes; two pairs of shoes; fresh fruits & vegetables daily; meat, chicken, fish daily; suitable books; outdoor leisure equipment; indoor games; leisure activities; to organise celebrations; invite friends; participate in school trips; and go on holiday; it also includes non-child-specific information on whether the household cannot afford to: avoid arrears; have adequate warmth in home; have (access to) a car; replace worn-out furniture; access to Internet.
← 9. Working Family Payment (WFP) (formerly known as Family Income Supplement (FIS) is a weekly tax-free payment available to employees with children. It gives extra financial support to people on low pay; The Back to Work Family Dividend (BTWFD) is a scheme for people with children who stop claiming a jobseeker’s payment, or a one-parent family payment, because they are in––or are taking up––work or self-employment.
← 10. The BTWFD is a weekly payment for up to two years after you start work. For the first year in employment, you are paid the equivalent of any Increase for a Qualified Child that you were getting on your jobseeker’s payment or one-parent family payment (up to a maximum of four children). You get half of that amount weekly for the second year.
← 11. The Centre for Effective Service was established in 2008 and was funded by the Atlantic Philanthropies. It is focused on developing an evidence-informed approach to policy and practice with those working children, families and communities.
← 12. The PEII initiative was a funding scheme that supported the evaluation of prevention and early intervention programmes to advance the mainstreaming of evidence-based programmes. Organisations receiving funding were required to rigorously evaluate the programmes they provided.
← 13. For more information on the Behavioural model for health seeking behaviours see (Gelberg, Andersen and Leake, 2000[85]), and on the Implementation Outcomes Framework see (Proctor et al., 2010[84]).
← 14. Further information on this series of spending review is available here: gov - The Spending Review (www.gov.ie).