UK Welfare the Following Review of Current

UK Welfare

The following review of current literature is categorized by a number of variables. Statistics and Data initiate the report and is quickly followed up with Policy Literature. From there, an Academic Literature Review focusing on five articles (with corresponding studies and citations) takes place. After the Academic Review comes a Relevant Campaigning Review and a Media Review. Finally, a quick conclusion ties the literature together in a neat little bow.

The charts below provide data that allows researchers to understand exactly how significant the problem is. Chart A (see below) shows the rates of pregnancies in the UK broken down by age. As is evident, since 1990 pregnancy rates for older women have been rising significantly, while the rates for those woman under 29 years of age (including teenagers) have been holding steady, or slightly declining for the most part. Since current public policy was first initiated in the late 1990's and early 2000's one would think that a more drastic dip in the younger age groups would have resulted. That is, if current policy was as effective as it was meant to be. What is evident from this chart is that teenage pregnancies were at their lowest levels in 2008 (the latest year for which numbers are available). That being said however, doesn't necessarily mean that policy is the reason why, or even that a significant drop has been evident. A significant drop is not evident at all. It is more of an ebb and flow type of chart, rather than a steady, dramatic decline due to policy type of chart.

The chart shows a rather slight drop in teenage pregnancy rates from 1990 -- 2008 and if that is true, then even if public policy was the only factor at all (and we know that's not necessarily true) then one could realistically say, okay but the results just haven't been there, especially since a 50% drop was being advocated by the policy makers when initiating the policies in the first place. Not only are the pregnancy rates dropping but women are waiting until later in life to have children. This isn't true in all cases, of course, but the trends are obvious. The 30+ age group (including 30 -- 34, 35 -- 39 and 40 and over) is increasingly the group that is most likely to bear children. This may not be a good thing however, since there are studies that show that younger females who give birth, oftentimes presents their offspring with the protection from diabetes that older mothers cannot provide (Bingley, Douek, Rogers, Gale, 2000). Another study determined that the early childbirths also seems to protect mothers from breast cancer (McPherson, Steel, Dixon, 2000). As Arai states "much of the research that is cited as evidence of the negative outcomes of early childbearing is highly selective" (p. 90).

Chart A

Chart B. shows also presents pregnancy rates but it concentrates only on the teenagers in various countries. As is displayed the chart shows that the trend has not been on the downward side, instead teenage pregnancies have been trending upwards since 1971, and as of 2008 stood at the highest in recent history. This is the exact opposite trend than what is desired. There has to be reasons why the pregnancy rate is rising, especially with all the resources that have been dedicated in recent years to combating just this situation.

Chart B

Chart C. And Chart D. are used in conjunction with one another. Chart B. shows underage conception rates (teenagers under the age of 16) categorized by region, and Chart C. shows the income demographics for England also categorized by region. Comparing the two charts shows that London and Southeast England are the two highest income areas, and Northeast England and Wales are the two lowest income areas.

At the same time, the teenage pregnancy rates in London and Southeast England are among the lowest on the chart, while Northeast England and Wales are among the two highest. On the surface this fact could equate to culture, it could be influenced by a number of factors that are present in one area and not present in the other, but realistically speaking the comparison is one that could be of interest in the ongoing research. Do teenagers in Wales and Northeast England feel more of a financial incentive to have babies sooner?

Because the median income in London and Southeast England is higher, does that mean that having more money, or access to financial well-being, translate into less likelihood of teenagers who conceive? Ultimately, the answer being sought in this paper is not only that the teenagers who give birth early have greater or lesser access to wealth, but specifically how much access does the teenager have to the housing market, and how does having a house or a place to live equate to a higher or lower rate of teenage pregnancy?

Chart C

Chart D

Income distribution across UK regions

Office for National Statistic 2007

UK region

Gross income

London

£27,868

South East England

£21,109

East Anglia

£19,469

Scotland

£19,282

North West England

£19,236

West Midlands

£18,801

South West England

£18,629

Yorkshire & the Humber

£18,614

East Midlands

£18,321

Wales

£17,651

North East England

£17,594

^ http://www.investinmanchester.com/market-intelligence/economic-overview/economic-data/

Chart E. below displays the average house price in the UK, London, Northern Ireland and Wales. Since 1998 (approximately the same time current policies were put in motion) Wales averaged the lowest housing prices overall and that has continued through 2009. Northern Ireland, except during the recent boom market in housing when a huge spike was evidenced has tracked pretty much the same pricing level as Wales while the UK overall has always averaged slightly better than both Wales and Northern Ireland. What is really interesting about the chart is the London housing market which shows prices that are approximately two times the pricing found in the UK overall, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland.

What the chart shows is that overall the housing market is strong (notwithstanding the recent downturn and recovery) and that the housing market in general should provide a relatively easy comparison for this study. As one recent study determined "in social housing, allocation of vacant placements is controlled by a set of policies and guidelines with which decision-makers are required to comply (Wiesel, 2011, p. 280) and if that is true, then the housing market data overall will be guided by the same guidelines, making it much simpler to compare influences.

The chart below shows that the worldwide recession of 2008 affected the housing market in a strongly negative manner. The problem with that scenario, is that when the housing market goes through its inevitable ups and downs it usually will affect those on the lower end of the financial scale much more negatively than it affects those with enough money to either pay cash for their homes, or have enough wherewithal to see themselves and their families through any short-term downticks.

Chart E

Policy Literature

A website for the UK government (www.gov.uk) states that "the government is helping local councils and developers work with local communities to plan and build better places to live for everyone. This includes affordable housing, improving the equality of rented housing, helping more people to buy a home, and providing housing support for vulnerable people" (https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/housing). According to the website, 'the government assists vulnerable people'. Further research shows that the website does not necessarily include pregnant teenage mothers (single or not) as one of the vulnerable people. Instead, what the website shows is that the focus of government is on older people and individuals with mental disabilities. Without specifically including young mothers, it does not exclude them either. However it could be said that without specific mention the young mothers are already excluded.

A recent IPPR report shows that current government policy is "the promotion of home ownership…rather than ensuring a sufficient supply of housing to enable everyone to live in an affordable home" (IPPR, 2011). The report went on to find that housing in the UK is not a situation that is conducive to young people searching for a home. A 2012 report determines the following:

"Many of the problems in English housing are deeply embedded. Demand has heavily outstripped supply for decades. Homeownership is too often out of reach. Social housing is being residualised. The private rented sector remains largely unprofessional and insecure and those who live in it have too little control. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill soars at over £20 billion a year, and rising. England remains one of the richest countries in the world, but it is failing properly to house its people" (Hull, Cooke, 2012)

It can be asserted therefore that England is having difficulty in 'housing its people' and if that is true, then it could certainly be said that young pregnant women are probably being affected in a negative manner due to lack of housing, similar to a number of other groups. They are all fighting for the limited housing that is available, which makes it even tougher to find a place conducive to raising children. The 2011 IPPR report shows that "too few homes have been built to meet rising demographic needs, with the result that demand has outstripped supply, and rents and asset prices have inflated beyond the means of ordinary families" (IPPR, 2011). If ordinary families are having difficulty finding affordable housing, how much more difficult would it be for a young mother (married or not) to find affordable housing as well? If government policy is to help these young individuals in finding affordable housing, then it could be supposed that is an incentive to have children as early as possible.

Academic Literature Review

A 2005 study by Simon Duncan lamented the fact that teenage pregnancy rates were the highest in Great Britain when compared to other European countries. The study determined that "higher teenage pregnancy rates are associated with the most disadvantaged areas and social groups" (Duncan, 2005, p. 1). If what the study found was true, then it likely indicates the need to determine why those female individuals in the disadvantaged category felt compelled to become pregnant. There could be a number of reasons or influences on these individuals that, if addressed in an appropriate manner, could lessen the incentive or influence and help lower the number and percentages of teenage pregnancies.

Duncan, however, puts forth an assertion that current public policy does little to nothing to address the so-called problem of teenage pregnancy, and in fact that teenage pregnancy may not be the overwhelming problem that many in society believe that it is. The Duncan report urges caution when approaching the problem of teenage pregnancy instead advocating "policy may be better directed at improving employment for young people as a whole in declining labour markets, and regenerating disadvantaged neighborhoods, rather than targeting teen parenting in itself" (p.6). The study also found that "as with lone mothers, employment for teen mothers is seen as a return to individualized rational economic planning" (p. 6).

What is interesting about the Duncan report is that it challenges the common perception that teenage pregnancies are a 'social threat'. Duncan states that teenage pregnancies are often thought of as a 'breakdown of the family'.

Duncan then refutes that statement by finding that "rates are now much lower than in the supposed 'golden age' of the family of the 1950's and early 60's, while absolute numbers are less than half those of the early 70s" (Duncan, 2005, Selman, 2003).

A second Duncan study completed and published in 2007 goes even further than the 2005 report does. In the second report Duncan states "a review of the research evidence finds that the age at which pregnancy occurs has little effect on social outcomes" (Duncan, 2007, p. 307). In fact the report states that "teenage parenting may be more of an opportunity than a catastrophe, and often makes sense in the life worlds inhabited by young mothers" (Duncan, 2007, p. 307).

Still these perceptions that teenage pregnancy is a problem continues to be addressed through policies that might actually be influencing the number and percentages on the upside, not lowering them as was intended. A 2010 study determined that public perception about the problem has not significantly changed much over the last decade. The study found that "it is still apparent that the stereotypical assumptions about a section of British society who choose not to work, live a life of crime and produce inadequately socialized illegitimate children still persists (Prideaux, 2010, p. 293).

Another recent study also found that public perception might not be reality, especially in the case of teenage pregnancies, why they take place, and who is most likely to have a child, while still a child. In a 2003 study, Lisa Arai finds that "rates of adolescent childbearing are declining practically everywhere in the developed world, including the UK" (Arai, 2003, p. 89).

The pregnancy rate that Arai quotes is that of 50 births for every 1000 girls in the early 1970's as compared to 30 births for every 1000 girls by 1995 (Singh, Darroch, 2000). The question then that could be asked, is if there was a 40% decline in the rates of births overall, and evidence shows that since the early 1990's the teenage pregnancy rate has fallen (not as dramatically) then is there really a problem? And if there is a problem, is the right approach to throw additional funding at it, or to continue to educate young people today, and let them make their own choices regarding whether to procreate or not. As Arai states "comparisons with other European nations in respect of adolescent reproductive outcomes are a feature of a type of explanation that might broadly be described as 'technical/educational' in nature; that is, explanations for (and solutions to) early pregnancy and childbearing tend to focus on the use of contraception (technical) and instruction in sex education (educational)" (Arai, 2003, p. 91).

One could ask then, are the social policies currently in place all that it takes to lower the rate of teenage pregnancies and thereby attach the erroneous perceptions as well? Or one could ask, is the answer then to lower the benefits received from the government by these teenagers and if that were to take place, would the result be lower birth rates? If the answer to these questions can be answered by current data, and if that current data shows that the policies that have been in place since the early 2000's have not been successful in lowering the numbers or percentages of teenage pregnancies then what Duncan suggests might be valid. This literature review will peruse the available data from a number of different credible sources to help determine the answers to those questions.

The study seeks to determine whether lower welfare benefits will in fact result in lower incidences of teenage pregnancies especially when comparing the single teenage mother vs. A married teenage mother. There are a number of varying factors that research has determined will affect teenage birth rates (under 18 years of age). Some of the current literature looks at just teenage pregnancies overall, while this study seeks to look at the differences in rates by married teens vs. unmarried teens and how those factors in a comparative fashion influence those rates. One early study, determined (at least in the U.S.) that "evidence finds that more generous welfare is associated with increased births" (Moffitt, 1998, p. 51). The study did determine that its results were categorized by specification but the results speak for themselves, in that more "free" money oftentimes resulted in higher numbers of pregnancies.

Another more recent study looked at how the opportunity cost effect (how much income could be generated vs. The expenses incurred) varied between single women and couples in determining whether to have a baby or not. The study argued that "the opportunity cost effect -- and hence the overall effect on fertility -- is likely to vary between women in couples and single women and that the pro-fertility effect of the reforms is likely to be stronger for women in couples" (Brewer, Ratcliffe, dSmith, 2011, p. 246).

Of course, government (in all its wisdom) is increasingly involved in all aspects of its citizen's lives, including childbearing. That involvement is not always a good thing, and in fact, some believe that the lesser the amount of government involvement, the better off the citizenry would be. Policies implemented by government don't always do as they are intended to do (see Obamacare).

According to Wright, Marston and McDonald; "the involvement of governments in welfare service delivery is a relatively recent phenomenon" (Wright, Marston, McDonald, 2011, p. 299). Previously it was not the government's bailiwick to jump in and help the citizen who needed help, instead it was community organizations, churches, individuals, non-profits and even corporations that were called upon to do so. As Wright et al. discovered "historically, non-state actors played a major role -- that is, market-based for profit organizations, non-profit and charitable organizations and informal entities such as families -- all contributed to the care and management of people in need" (p. 299).

What this study wishes to determine is, now that it seems that government is the agency being turned to for care, housing, food and education, what policies (specifically regarding the housing issue) are in place to assist those young people who choose to become pregnant, and are those policies actually a contributing factor for those decisions by those young people. In other words, is being provided with a 'free' house or housing an influence on the decision to have a child?

The Toussaint et al. study states that "asset-based welfare is likely to gain in importance if welfare reforms continue" (Toussaint, Elsinga, 2009, p. 689). If that is true, then teenagers will likely benefit even more so, based upon the fact that "housing asset-based welfare means that household's welfare levels are interwoven with trends in house prices" (Toussaint, et al., p. 689). Since it is less likely that teenagers who have limited access to the housing market will be turned away from welfare aid, they will likely benefit in a much more viable manner. The question remains though, on whether having access to a benefit such as housing will cause a rise in teenage pregnancy rates, or will it lower the rates?

Toussaint et al. also states that "housing is an important asset, which for many represents the most significant investment of their lives" (p. 669) and according to Doling and Ford over the last 25 years there have been increasing numbers of European households that have become homeowners (Doling, Ford, 2007).

Some experts find that it's not the money or the benefits derived from having a baby that is the greatest influence on birth rates, but that other factors should be considered as well. A report by Judi Kidger found that many experts make assumptions such as "teenage parenthood is problematic and puts individuals at risk of social exclusion, that the best solution to this is to prevent its occurrence, but where that is not achieved, that the way for teenage mothers to avoid this risk, is to participate in education, training and ultimately paid work" (Kidger, 2004, p. 292) and that these assumptions may just be wrong. Kidger surmises that "although all the above initiatives are likely to be of some help to some teenage mothers, New Labour's overriding equation of social exclusion with worklessness and economic dependence, and therefore its conceptualization of the route to social inclusion being through the individual participating in paid work is problematic when applied to this group (teenage mothers)" (p. 295).

There are other approaches of course that can, and have been, explored in a number of studies and presentations. One study conducted by the EPPI Centre in Great Britain focused on a number of areas including "housing, childcare, education and training, employment and careers, and financial circumstances" (Harden, Brunton, Fletcher, Oakley, Burchett, 2006, p. 2).

The article conducted in-depth reviews which included "statistical meta-analysis of the effects of different approaches on pregnancy rates, young people's participation in education, training or employment, and mother's emotional well-being" (p. 3). With all the analysis and data included in the report, one of the most interesting of the statements included in the study was "the most popular approach for teenage parenthood was parent training" (p. 2). This is an interesting statement that helps to confirm the results of the study's meta-analysis; the analysis (using a random effects model) concluded that "these approaches reduced by 39% the number of young women reporting teenage pregnancy (Relative Risk = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48, 0.77)" (p. 3). Additionally, the study found that the approach analysis "also had positive effects on employment and economic status" (p.3).

If the current approaches are as effective as this study seems to find, then perhaps expanding upon those approaches will provide even an enhanced environment that works with these young women, both single and married, to assist them in being a productive part of society. Interestingly enough, the EPPI study also reflects on some of the gaps in current research that should be addressed. Those gaps include "particularly the lack of evidence from the UK relating to the value of social-structural interventions, and the neglect of the messages arising from qualitative research with young people themselves" (p. 3). In other words, current literature is sparse when it comes to determining exactly what effects the welfare benefits received by these young adults influences their individual choices in whether or not to get pregnant. The EPPI study shows that there is a connection between education and early parenthood, as well as a connection between financial support received.

What the study did not conclude (probably because it did not seek to break down the data in such a way) was whether housing played a role in the financial numbers, or not. The Toussaint et al. report seems to further confirm the EPPI findings; it states "the housing market plays a decisive role in the resources available to people" (Toussaint, Elsinga, 2009, p. 689). The importance of the Toussaint and Elsinga findings as they pertain to young parents, is that oftentimes these young parents struggle not only financially, but they also have a difficult time finding affordable housing, especially in today's economic climate that means "increased welfare needs and declining social provision" (p. 689).