Missing Point the: Critiquing child poverty strategies and social work practice by Mary McColgan
Degree Programme: MSc in Children’s Rights.
Introduction
This essay seeks to critique child poverty strategies and social work practice in the global North by examining the extent to which they embed a children’s rights perspective. The essay addresses four core areas: (1) how does the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 1989 relate to poverty (2) how have the articles been interpreted and what is the current state of play regarding the implementation of approaches to child poverty (3) do child poverty strategies embed a children’s rights perspective to address this (4) what is the social work response to child poverty.
What articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNRCR) relate to Poverty?
Whilst the UNCRC does not explicitly refer to poverty (Pemberton 2019; Nolan 2020; Bessell 2022) several rights are important for contextual consideration. The pervasive nature of poverty encompasses economic factors as well as structural inequalities and social phenomenon such as the experience of stigma and social exclusion. As such, the UNCRC recognises the underpinning relationship between children’s rights and a range of duties placed on nation states to introduce measures to alleviate poverty because of its impact on children’s rights for survival and development. Specific rights include:
- Article 6 acknowledges the right to life, survival and development,
- Article 26 recognises the States role in providing social security,
- Article 27 (1) recognises child’s right to a range of standards of living affecting their development.
- Article 27 (2) places primary responsibility on parents and others to ensure they meet living conditions for children’s development needs, taking cognisance of the parents/others abilities and capacities.
- Article 27 (3) focuses on wider indicators of poverty. (UNCRC 1989)
- Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (CRPD) emphasises the onus on nation states to recognise the rights of children with disabilities.
Definitions of Poverty.
Defining poverty is a challenge and contested because of the conceptual reliance on measurements of poverty (Bessell 2022). This is due to the over emphasis on influential income-based measures to determine poverty status and the growing emergence of understanding multidimensional aspects. In attempting to explain poverty for social work practice guidance (Department of Health 2018) the definitions included: relative poverty where income below 60% of mean household income affects opportunities to have social activities, absolute poverty means there is little to live on after housing costs are excluded, material deprivation is measured by whether people can afford certain essential items and activities which includes
‘(h)aving a damp free home, being able to pay regular bills and seeing family or friends at least once a month. People are deemed to experience material deprivation if they lack at least 3 or 4 of these items. Material deprivation captures the consequences of long-term poverty on families rather than the immediate financial strain that many families can experience’ (Department of Health 2018:7).
Bessell (2022:540) contends that this measurement focus negates consideration of the experience of poverty from a child’s perspective though the lived experience of children should be of paramount concern.
Although this theme relating to the lived experience of children is explored in this essay, similar tensions are found in how poverty is interpreted in a children’s rights framework.
Interpretation of Children’s Rights and Poverty.
The picture regarding the interpretation of children’s poverty is complex because there are conflicting perspectives. Pemberton et al (2007) argued that a rights-based strategy would increase child survival but only if some rights were prioritised over others. Given their medical perspective, they recognised that some rights were contingent upon others, suggesting Article 24 (1) and (2) were core to survival. However, the authors pursued their discussion based on a human rights perspective, because
‘®ights-based language can help to direct policy…shifting debate from the personal failures of the poor to the failure of macro-economic structure and policies (2007:3).).
Nolan (2019:7) develops this interpretation further by scaffolding child poverty within a framework of children’s social, economic, political, cultural and civil rights, opining that all of these rights are ‘threatened by a life lived in poverty’. Her report analyses the role of the Council of Europe and the European Social Charter in protecting children from poverty. Her premise is that Article 30 of the ECSR which addresses the right to protection against poverty and social exclusion sets out the legislative framework to hold State Parties accountable for their policies and actions in relation to child poverty (2019:9).
The interface with UNCRC is addressed in section 1.2, where detailed examination reveals the failure of 34 out of 47 Council of Europe members to address child poverty effectively. In essence, the indivisibility of children’s rights is articulated with some clarity. ‘Child poverty is a potential cause of child rights violations (impact on enjoyment of rights) and is a potential outcome of such violations (failure to secure rights)’ (2019:20). Thus, poverty has implications for economic and social rights and impacts on civil and political rights.
Further Nolan and Pells’ (2020) critique of the current state of play between children’s social and economic rights emerges through their exploration of the interface with contested concepts and measurements of poverty. The authors conceptualise poverty as multidimensional interconnecting rights related to education, health, nutrition and wellbeing. Notwithstanding this conceptualisation, Nolan and Pells highlight the dilemmas arising from the juxtaposition of CRC articles eg Article 2 which proport to challenge discrimination yet ‘does less well with treatment that falls short of the legal standard’ (2020:7). Improvement Service (2024:11) also reflect on a 2015 case whereby the challenge to Government policy on the benefit cap and its impact on children being deprived of the basic necessities of life, was not upheld because UNCRC is not incorporated into UK law. (R on the application of SG and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. (2015 UKSCI)
International perspectives.
Several authors address the relationship between poverty and children’s rights explaining how progress in this area is constrained by the extent to which UNCRC is incorporated into National Law. (Kilkelly et al 2021). Todres (2021) outlines the United States role in early efforts to progress the UNCRC but cautions that a more endemic history of selective progression and initiatives was replaced by resistance to ratify and accept obligations under the Convention. Although the author openly acknowledges the implications for 73.7 million children (2021:127), he reflects that 13.4 million live in poverty with concomitant challenges faced by racial and ethnic disparities.
Despite ratification of the UNCRC, Ireland (Forde and Kilkelly 2021: 179) endorse gaps and inconsistencies in the implementation of the UNCRC which have led to ‘significant number of children still living in poverty 7.7 per cent or are at risk of poverty 15.9 per cent’.
A similar picture can be found in Sweden as Thorburn Stern (2021: 222) identifies children living in poverty as an issue ‘in which there is no legislation specifically addressing children in poverty’.
Critical Reports on Implementation of Children’s Rights.
Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (2016) critique of the UK’s progress on the implementation of Children’s Rights drew attention to the cumulative impact of the economic recession and UK Government responses on the ‘disproportionate impact on children’s rights to an adequate standard of living and social security’ (2016:4). They highlighted the failure to apply a ‘best interests’ principle when welfare reforms were implemented, pointing out that the reduction in child poverty was determined by government strategies and policies. In predicating future deficits, they also flagged the inequalities experienced by ethnic minorities and children with disabilities. They found that there was a disproportional impact on ethnic minority families due to the poverty measurements used, pointing out the inherent inequality experienced by larger families to sustain an adequate standard of living (2016:21). For children with disabilities, the fragmentation of services posed challenges for the availability of services and support post-secondary education.
Progress and developments in the intervening eight years appear to indicate limited achievements. A more recent report on the concluding observations of the sixth and seventh periodic review of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2023) substantiates the concern about high levels of poverty experienced by children, the lack of Government action to address basic rights and advocates a child’s rights action plan. In terms of the general principles, the Committee emphasised the interrelationship between social exclusion and poverty for a range of children (non-discrimination) as well as seeking assurance that the principle of best interests was applied in ‘all policies, programmes and legislation, administrative and judicial proceedings affecting children’ (2023:6 21a). They exhorted the implementation of a child rights impact assessment tool as a measure of monitoring progress and reiterated attention to addressing inequalities with underlying causes specifically related to basic health and welfare, ‘addressing the root causes of food insecurity including poverty’ (Committee on Rights of Child 2023: 15 c).
Globally, nationally and locally, children with disabilities experience increased risks from poverty. UNICEF (2021, 2026) identified a triple impact of disability linked to poverty, education and family life, highlighting a causal link with poverty in particular and drawing attention to data which confirmed the endemic realities ‘having a disability increased the chance that a child would be poor by 86%’.(2021:12)
A recent Joseph Rowntree state of the nation report (2026) endorses the challenges faced by children with disabilities because of higher costs and barriers to education and health. So, strategies to address poverty need to include systemic interventions and solutions to address the myriad of complex factors. More detailed consideration of national and local efforts are discussed in the following section.
Critique of Child Poverty Strategies.
Although recognition of the impact of poverty on the lives of families and child seems to be an emergent and ongoing focus for Government Policy (Gov.Uk 2024, Northern Ireland Assembly 2024, McNulty 2024), there has been a limited approach to adopting a children’s rights perspective.
The United Kingdom Perspective. (1)
The Gov.Uk (2024:3) foreword by the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Education frames the current policy agenda in terms of a’ moral’ imperative to prioritise child poverty ‘Poverty scars the lives and life chances of our children. It is shameful that child poverty has increased by 700,000 since 2010, with over four million children now living in poverty in the UK and 800,000 children using foodbanks to eat. This is unacceptable.’ (Foreword 2024 :3) The strategy underpins its development with an acknowledgement of the historical context, drawing on evidence-based research to outline the impact of poverty on wellbeing and childhood opportunities, before defining the approach and focus to its approach. Throughout the policy paper, there is no specific reference to adopting a children’s rights perspective or underpinning the strategy with a legislative mandate. However, their engagement plan ‘Our Child Poverty Engagement Plan’ identifies core aspects which will be supported by three principles: to talk to experts to understand the multiple drivers and impacts of poverty, to involve key stakeholders to lead evidence gathering and to hear directly from families and children, though the latter principle is framed as ‘It is right that those experiencing the impacts of poverty are heard as part of this process’. (2024:9). Details of how this principle will be fulfilled are expressed in broad terms but do include a reference to the inclusion of ‘children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities and additional support or learning needs. One of the core omissions of the strategy is the recognition of Government’s role in perpetuating and exacerbating poverty for children. (Improvement Services 2024).
The Scottish perspective (2)
Scotland’s child poverty strategy was initiated in 2011 and has experienced several iterations before the introduction of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017.It requires the Scottish Government to meet four income-based targets whilst placing a duty on health boards and local authorities to annual reporting on their efforts to address child poverty. At one level, this legislative mandate has provided the impetus for prioritising cash interventions such as the Scottish Child Payment scheme designed to boost family income and ‘take children out of poverty’ (McNulty 2024). But as the core mechanism for sustaining progress, in reality this has hampered preventive and holistic approaches to tackling poverty. (McNulty 2024:4).
Several critiques have been developed to explain this situation: (1) the limitation of child poverty targets based on income inequality which are underpinned by relative and absolute poverty income thresholds. In the outworkings of the strategy, the Scottish government appears to be focusing on relative poverty which defines income as less than 60% of the median income for the UK. Such a reliance ignores the long-term experiences and impact of children living in poverty rather than obtaining a more nuanced understanding of how strategy predicated on income insufficiency aligns with efficacy of policies. (McNulty 2024:7). Predicting a harsh reality of continued austerity for public services, the author argues for a person centred, strengths-based approach which recognises the need for a multiagency, cross departmental response where ‘equating income with need does not take sufficient account of children’s life chances of growing up in areas of multiple deprivation or lining in families affected by complex needs which require differentiated responses’ (2024:37). Significantly suggesting wider collaboration with education and investment in human and physical capacity endorses a social justice perspective.
The Northern Ireland Perspective (3)
A recent publication from Northern Ireland’s Public Accounts Committee (2024) articulates the pervasive and endemic nature of poverty experienced in a population of 1.9 million people, noting that one in four children live in relative poverty with 9% of children living in low-income households without access to basic goods and essential activities (executive summary 6:2). Even though the Executive in Northern Ireland had initiated a four-year Child Poverty Strategy in 2016 with the aim of addressing the number of children living in poverty, the Committee reflected on a litany of failures that reinforced the context of children’s lives. As key rights bearers in addressing social inequalities, the acknowledgement that preventative and early interventions were not prioritised, coupled with a ‘silo’ mentality where individual government departments failed to co-ordinated their approaches, serves as a salutary inditement of public accountability.
Perhaps the most important limitation arises because of the lack of incorporation of the UNCRC into domestic legislation in the United Kingdom. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (2016) identified several key constraints viz: enhancing the status of the UNCRC does not guarantee adherence to its principles plus ‘the best interests of the child’ imperative has been ignored or sidelined in the developments to address poverty.
New Zealand as an example of a Global South strategy.
By comparison to the Scottish Strategy, New Zealand developed their open-ended integrated strategy as a direct response to The Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018. Its genesis lies in the inclusive consultation with indigenous people, community groups, NGO’S, government, the public and children and young people. Their interwoven, interconnected strategy is based on six high level themes foregrounded by a children’s rights perspective. From a legislative perspective, the 36 Child and Youth Wellbeing Indicator are based on four measures for poverty and hardship (which identifies persistent hardship extending over several years.) New Zealand Government (2025).
However, as the next section explores, despite best intentions there are limitations to the approaches based on incorporating children’s rights perspective.
Promising developments to incorporation of a Children’s Rights Approach?
Keating Fitzgerald (2024) reviews the child poverty strategies of Scotland ‘Best Start, Bright Futures’ (2022-26) and New Zealand ‘Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy’ (open ended strategy.) The author identifies deficits in both strategies; for Scotland she notes that the interim targets are unlikely to be met because of the cost-of-living crisis and post COVID gaps in data collection; for New Zealand she reflects in a reversal of poverty trends with current rise in children suffering material hardship, despite legislative mandate and a longstanding approach to addressing child poverty since 2018. What distinguishes both strategies is the extent to which they incorporate and validate a children’s rights approach to child poverty. Both New Zealand as a country and Scotland as a devolved region underpinned their strategy with investments in early years plans, supporting early intervention and a holistic view of families, making child poverty a public issue with eradication of child poverty a core aspect of the Government Plan. New Zealand’s strategy has been predicated on a broad range of discussions with indigenous groups, community sector, NGO’s, public, and significantly children. ‘New Zealand’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy was informed by extensive engagement with over 6,000 children and young people during the design stages with at least 420 individuals sharing their personal experience of growing up in poverty’ Keating Fitzgerald (2024 2.2.1). One notable outcome is that the legislation is to be reviewed every three years (New Zealand 2025) incorporating inbuilt consultations with a ‘targeted group of key stakeholders, namely young people themselves’.
Scotland’s strategy has been followed up with a position paper 2024 which explores in detail the interface with United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its genesis is predated by the ‘Best Start, Bright Futures 2022-2026 ‘strategy copper fastened by Scotland’s incorporation of the UNCRU into domestic legislation ‘United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. This landmark achievement signals a core mechanism for permeating adherence to UNCRC principles by adopting a child rights approach to child poverty. Section 4:16 specifically maps UNCRC articles with drivers of poverty, so for the first time in a national UK context, the lens on child poverty merges the socio-political dimensions with governance, accountability and influence of children on the broader structural approaches to tackling poverty.
Social Work responses to addressing child poverty.
The evidence base for understanding the impact of the poverty on the lives of children reinforces awareness of its pervasive nature on all stages of children’s development (ADT 2019). Rowntree Trust (2024:8) articulates a backdrop of ‘deepening poverty’ and higher risks for children and their families. The authors distinguish ‘food insecurity’ as a key factor in determining children’s life chances because an inadequate diet can impede cognitive, emotional and physical development, exacerbating poor educational achievement and life chances.
McCartan et al (2018), reinforce the stance that poverty is a social justice issue, linking its call for action to fundamental social work ethics and practice. The authors dismantle the narratives about poverty being the ‘wallpaper’ of practice, citing Morris et al (2018 :370) ‘too big to tackle and too familiar to notice’, dissecting the reasons for its invisibility and challenging the status quo of government policy which perpetuates the inequality experienced by families.
In its efforts to redress social work practice approaches, the Office of Social Services in Northern Ireland (McCartan et al 2018) launched an Anti-Poverty Practice Framework for Social Work in Northern Ireland (Department of Health 2018) with the explicit intention of foregrounding knowledge about poverty as the backdrop to increases in child protection referrals which evidenced children in the most deprived neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland were disproportionally represented in child protection registers. The framework promoted diverse approaches including income maximisation, advocacy for adequate income, subsiding high-quality childcare, parenting support alongside enhanced understanding of the origins and impact of poverty. Unfortunately, as identified in earlier discussion about the recent evidence examined by the Northern Ireland Accounts Committee, this aspirational framework has yet to be realised.
‘We were struck by the lack of tangible action taken by the Department to date, particularly that there have been no meetings of the cross departmental group and no meetings with key stakeholders such as the Co-Design Group. The Department told us that it was waiting to ensure that it had the ‘right people’ in the room to ensure that decisions can be made….’ (2024: para 70).
The involvement of children and young people’s participation has not been factored into this understanding of ‘right people’ so this a significant omission for this initiative.
NICCY (2024:1) drew attention to the persistent failure of action on the Government’s part contending that the absence of action and urgency to incorporate a children’s rights approach exacerbated accountability
‘If the Executive and Assembly are to deliver effectively for children, they must ensure that they make children visible in budgets; seek children’s views and take them into account….’ Child’s Rights Impact Assessments must be conducted in the development of all policies, legislation and services related to children’.
Whilst this highlights the dissonance between State policy and failure to place children centre stage; it reinforces the role of social workers and their professional practice in addressing marginalisation of children and the reality check of poverty.
Perhaps the core challenge for social workers stems from recognising the systemic discrimination and stigma associated with living in poverty. Several authors highlight the importance of challenging the normative discourse of poverty as individual choice rather than the structural failure of government policies, economic uncertainty, fiscal challenges (Bessell 2022, Scottish Government 2022 Child Poverty Summary, Treanor and Troncoso 2024). In some respects, this points to social workers competence to challenge anti-oppressive practice, adopting a critical activist approach to highlighting the systemic injustices faced by families living in poverty.
Extrapolating findings from their research, Treanor and Troncoso (2024) argue that as poverty impacts on the mental health of the whole families, direct intervention to ameliorate children’s experience of living in poverty offers longer term benefits for their mental health. This raises issues for a social work role in both community engagement and advocacy. Addressing these dual roles places demands on social workers to be able to harness community activism and address social inequalities. Not surprisingly, the picture is dichotomous because although the social work response should involve a recognition of both ‘social justice and social structural aspects of poverty but also dimensions incorporating emotional and relational lived experiences of poverty’ Hingley-Jones and Kirwan (2023:135) and Treanor (2019).
Working in a post COVID 19 environment, with access to diminishing resources, increasing concerns about safe staffing levels (McFadden et al 2024), and often struggling with personal experiences of austerity policies, the opportunities for a combined relational/ social justice response can be challenging. This results in burn out amongst social workers, a diminished capacity to provide support to families and desensitised practice.
BASW’s Anti-Poverty Practice Guide (2023) suggests a number of skills-based approaches beginning with developing an understanding of the community profile as the backdrop to intervention. The guide articulates the role for community social work practice, building alliances with the voluntary sector, working in partnership with other disciplines and agencies and importantly engaging in advocacy practice ‘income maximisation should be one of the core aims of the advocacy strand of anti-poverty approaches’ (2003:19). The authors acknowledge social workers reluctance to discuss poverty and finances with families, regarding this as ‘intrusive and potentially damaging’ but also emphasise its importance to accessing their lived experience in an honest and transparent way, reflecting core social work values in action.
Conceptual paradigms for understanding Poverty from a Children’s Rights Perspective – concluding outlook
Perhaps the most innovative approach currently stems from Bessell’s work (2015 and 2022) in the global South. Her conceptual framework contends that poverty needs to be conceptualised in a more nuanced way, positing that poverty is experienced in a multidimensional sense. The author’s paradigm includes (1) material poverty where there is scant income and material resources to meet basic needs, (2) opportunity poverty where children experience barriers to inclusion in learning and (3) relational poverty which is predicated on structural inequalities. (Bessell 2022:552). Application of this framework to understanding the impact and experience of poverty not only offers a children’s rights perspective because children’s participation is core to influencing the development of child centred policies, but it recognises how nuanced the problem is. Although Bessell’s work does not focus on social work practice, her theoretical paradigm has clear implications for a number of areas of professional practice, e.g. assessments of children in need in line with the Children Order (Northern Ireland) 1995 mandate to determine if a child is in need of support to maintain their health and wellbeing. (Winter and McCafferty, 2022) Limited emphasis have been applied in social work assessments to the pervasive impact of poverty on children’s lives, so Bessell’s emphasis on an intersectional understanding of how inequality impacts on children’s sense of stigma and shame would enhance a child centred approach.
References:
ADT Fourth World and Oxford University (2019) The Hidden Dimensions of Poverty.
BASW and CWIP. (2023). Anti-Poverty Practice Guide for Social Work. Second Edition. Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers
Bessell, S. 2015. “Rights-based Research with Children: Principles and Practice.” In Methodological Approaches and Methods in Practice, Volume 2, in Skelton, T. (Editor-in-Chief) Geographies of Children and Young People, edited by Ruth Evans and Louise Holt. Singapore: Springer: 1-15
Bessell, S. (2022) Rethinking Child Poverty. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities vol 23: 4 DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2021.1911969
Bray, R., De Laat M., Godinot X., Ugarte, A., Walker, R. (2019) The Hidden Dimensions of Poverty, Montreuil, Fourth World Publications. www.oecd.org/statistics/addressing-the-hidden dimensions-of-poverty-htm accessed 8/12/24
Byrne, K. (2024) Europe’s Forgotten Children. Roma Children and their families in Europe. A Child’s Right Perspective. 2000-2020 UNICEF Innocenti -Global Office of Research and Foresight May 2024
Children’s Commissioner for England (2020) Annex to Report of the UK Children’s Commissioners to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child: Examination of the Combined Sixth and Seventh Periodic Reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, December 2020.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (2023) Concluding Observations on the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Committee on the Rights of the Child. CRC/C/GBR/CO/6-7.
Department of Health (2018) Anti-Poverty Practice Framework for Social Work in Northern Ireland. Reflections Anti-Poverty Framework.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2016) Children’s Rights in the UK. Updated submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in advance of the public examination of the UK’s implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child April 2016.
GOV.UK (2024) Tackling Child Poverty: Developing Our Strategy. Policy Paper. Published 23 0ctober 2024
Hingley- Jones, H and Kirwan, G. (2023) Poverty: Social Work Perspectives. Journal of Social Work Practice. Volume 37 131-135.editorial. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2023.2233845
Improvement Service (2024) Understanding Poverty as a Children’s Rights Issue. Introductory paper. Local Child Poverty Action Reports.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2025) Poverty in Northern Ireland.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2026)
Keating Fitzpatrick, A (2024) Child Poverty: Scotland & New Zealand. Research and Information Service Briefing Paper. 13th September 2024. NIAR-196-2024. Northern Ireland Assembly.
Kilkelly, U. Lundy, L. and Byrne, B. eds (2021) Incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into National Law. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Chicago.
Morris, K. Mason, W. Bywaters, P. Featherstone, B. Daniel, B. Brady, B. Hooper, J. Bunting, L. Nughmana, M. Scourfield, J. and Webb, C. (2018) Social Work, poverty, and child welfare interventions. Child and Family Social Work 23: 364-72
McCartan, C. Morrison, A. Bunting, L. Davidson, G. McIlroy, J. (2018) Stripping the Wallpaper of Practice: Empowering Social Workers to Tackle Poverty. Social Sciences vol 7 193 1-16 doi:10.3390/socsci7100193
Mc Fadden, P, MacLochlainn, J. Manthorpe, J. Naylor, R. Schroder, H. McCrory, S. Ravalier, J. Nicholl, P. Currie, D. Kirby, K. Davies, H. Mullineux, J. McColgan, M. Mallett, J. (2024) Perceptions of Safe Staffing, Self-Reported Mental Well-being and Intentions to Leave the Profession among UK Social Workers: a mixed methods study. BJSW 54, 5 P1965-1987 bcae 104
McNulty, D. (2024) Tackling Child Poverty in Scotland: Striking the Right Balance. Reformscotland.com accessed 5/1/2025
New Zealand Government (2018) The Child Poverty Reduction Act.
New Zealand Government (2025) Annual Report on the Child and Youth Strategy/ the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy and the Child Poverty related Indicators. July 2023 to June 2024.
Nolan, A. (2019) Protecting the Child from Poverty; The Role of Rights in the Council of Europe. Council of Europe. November 2019.
Nolan, A and Pells, K. (2020) Children’s Economic and Social Rights and Child Poverty: The State of Play. International Journal of Children’s Rights. 28 (1) 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02801006
Northern Ireland Assembly (2024) Report on Child Poverty in Northern Ireland. Report NIA 54/22-27 Public Accounts Committee.
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (2024) Health and Social Care Briefing. July 2024
Northern Ireland Executive (2016) Child Poverty Strategy 2016-2022.
Pemberton, S. Gordon, D. Nandy, C. Pantaziz, Townsend, P. (2007) Child Rights and Child Poverty: Can the International Framework of Children’s Rights Be Used to Improve Child Survival Rates?
PLoS Med 4(10): 30307.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040307
(R (on the application of SG and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. (2015 UKSCI)
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2026) UK Poverty 2026. The essential guide to understanding poverty in the UK.
Simpson, M. McKeever. Gray, A. and Fitzpatrick, C. (2018, Sept) United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights visit to the UK: submission of evidence. Ulster University accessed 02/01/2025
Thorburn Stern, R. (2021) Incorporating CRC in Sweden, 205-227 cited in Kilkelly, U. Lundy, L. and Byrne, B. eds (2021) Incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into National Law. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Chicago.
Todres, J. (2021) Incorporating the CRC and its Optional Protocols in the United States, 123-143 cited in Kilkelly, U. Lundy, L. and Byrne, B. eds (2021) Incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into National Law. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Chicago.
Treanor, M. (2019) Child Rights and Child Poverty. Poverty and Inequality Commission. Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights.20th November 2019 accessed 2/1/25.
Treanor, M. and Troncoso, P. (2024) The Impacts of Poverty on Children’s Social, Emotional and Behavioural Outcomes. University of Glasgow and University of Edinburgh. Scottish Centre for Administrative Data Research.
UNICEF (2021) Every Child has an equitable chance in life. Global Annual Results Report 2021. Goal Area 5.
UNICEF (2025) The State of the World’s Children. Ending Child Poverty: Our Shared Imperative.
Winter, K. McCafferty, P. (2022) Northern Ireland legal framework and policies on child welfare and protection. Regulations and practices. Panda. Erasmus Project.