This paper provides an overview of two reports: Campaign 2000 Child and Family Poverty Card in Canada, 2016, and OECD Child Poverty Report, 2013. A comparison of the assessment of child poverty and the advantages of the various indicators used is provided in both studies. In addition, the paper aims to evaluate how Canada rates the scope of child poverty between the OECD countries and the specifics of the different poverty rates between the individual groups and the families in Canada and elsewhere. Finally, the four main topics in the 2000 study on the nature and strategies of reducing child poverty in Canada are addressed. The two reports have different ways of measuring child poverty with OECD Report on Child Poverty, 2013 measuring child poverty in terms the number of active members of a particular family with the kids. On the other hand, campaign 2000 2016 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada measures child poverty regarding access to basic needs such as proper education, housing, and quality medical care. The federal government of Canada has put the necessary steps to ensure that it eradicates the issue of child poverty and comparing it to the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development nations, the child poverty levels in the country are relatively small. Lack of securing employment to many family members and discrimination against women at work and the minimum wage bill are some of the specifics that relate to poverty levels in Canada. According to the report, the existence of child poverty is mainly contributed by poor economic policies and neglect to children’s plights in addition to discrimination against children.
Organization for Economic Cooperation Development report measures child poverty regarding the levels of child income poverty rates. Equalized post-tax- and-transfer index of less than 50% of the annual median income is the one that is mainly used in the report to define child poverty (Adema, del Carmen Huerta, Panzera, Thevenon, & Pearson, 2016). Besides, the report views child poverty in terms the number of formally active members of a particular household with a specific number of children. If a family has few children and there are more than one family members with a formal employment, the child poverty rates in that family are considered small. Notably, if a household has none of the family members in the regular jobs and there are a certain number of children in that family, then the report considers that the child poverty levels in that particular family are relatively high. Many countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development are affected by the issue of child poverty, and various measures are being in place by the respective federal government to mitigate the disaster. On the other hand, campaign 2000 2016 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada and OECD Report on Child Poverty, 2013 measures child poverty regarding the levels of income of employees, the low income cut off before and after tax and LIM before and after tax.
However, there are significant concerns on the issues of defining poverty in Canada since the country has no precise definition of the term, and the rule of the minimum wage bill does not exist. Notably, in the report, poverty uses aspects such as poverty rates among families who are racialized, indigenous, refugee, immigrant, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals and families impacted by disabilities to define child poverty (Schiettecat, Roets, & Vandenbroeck, 2016). Apparently, the definition outlines the groups of people and societies that the country legislations does not cover them in full. Remarkably, the benefit of using both the approaches utilized by the two reports to define poverty is the fact that, the interest of the child is considered. It is assumed that one the levels of employment and income levels increase as per an individual, the many children that are attached to such a person will live a better life. Consequently, it is assumed that employed citizens of a country share the resources with their respective children. Therefore, using the measures used to define the levels of child poverty provides accurate statistics and the real situation on the ground about child poverty.
Amongst the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development nations, child poverty levels in Canada are relatively small. However, there is a lot that the country needs to do so as to reduce the current undesirable levels of child poverty. It is notable that in some provinces and territories in Canada, the child poverty rates are a bit high for example Nunavut and Manitoba with child poverty rates of 38% and 29% respectively (Schiettecat, Roets, & Vandenbroeck, 2016). Canada campaign against child poverty levels is concentrated towards having livable incomes in each and every family with a child. The main problem contributing to child poverty in Canada is inadequate pays to the workforce already in official employments. In the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development nations, there legislations that are put in place to ensure minimum wage bill and therefore the primary problem lies with the lack of employment which contributes to child income poverty rates.
Notably, in Canada, poverty rates are added by insufficient federal action plans to eradicate poverty especially among the jobless and lack of proper legislations to guard the interest if children. As a result, only a few children of the wealthy in the country have the ability to live a life above the poverty line. Children of immigrants and refugees are the most affected by the issue of child poverty in Canada (Schiettecat, Roets, & Vandenbroeck, 2016). The indexation policy has not been implemented, and thus many refugee and immigrant families live in abject poverty. There is a considerable lack of low-income measure legislation, and thus most of the family members who have secured employment end up being underpaid and the issue contribute to child poverty in the country. Also, in the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development nations, child income poverty rate is high among the unemployed since they cannot secure any form of employment. As a result, their children end up growing in an environment that is not conducive. Notably, the poverty levels have far reaching consequences to the lives of the children as they are unable to access to other essential needs such as quality education and affordable health care.
There are four key themes in the campaign 2000 report in regards to the existence of child poverty in Canada and the available options for reducing it. Firstly, the report admits the fact that child poverty is a problem in Canada and that the country must act to address the chronic problem. Secondly, the report outlines the various levels of child poverty in the provinces and the territories of Canada. The statistics indicate that all provinces and territories of the country are affected by high levels of child poverty, an issue that warrants attention. Thirdly, the report puts across that; it is the great time for the country federal government and its citizens come together and eradicate the issue of child poverty. Finally, the report puts it clear that the only way to ensure national reconciliation in the country is to eliminate child poverty (Schiettecat, Roets, & Vandenbroeck, 2016). The native Canadians, the immigrants, and the refugees can be brought together by tackling the issue of child poverty in the nation. Improving incomes for families with children is the first significant step in reducing child poverty in Canada. The move will ensure maximization of Canada child benefit to alleviate poverty. Notably, upholding children’s right to child support is another brave move that would ensure that the poverty amongst children becomes a thing of the past. Remarkably, the creation of employment opportunities to the citizens of a country is the best wat to ensure that the poverty levels amongst the children are minimal. However, precarious work should be avoided since parents rarely take time with their children. Also, poor working environment and low income among the parents should be prevented so as to ensure that the parents have the ability to pass the benefits at work with their children.
To sum it up, the government has the constitutional responsibility to create employment opportunities and formulate adequate and accessible income security services and programs to eradicate child poverty. A comprehensive and high-quality early childhood care and education are crucial in ensuring that the child poverty is eliminated, together with the adoption of housing for all policy which would ensure that all infants have a roof over their heads. Additionally, reducing income inequalities among men and women is a critical issue that would ensure that both male and female have equal capabilities to take care of their children and in the end, the so much felt hunger for the infant poverty eradication would be satisfied.
Adema, W., del Carmen Huerta, M., Panzera, A., Thevenon, O., & Pearson, M. (2016). The OECD Family Database: Social Policy Division – Directorate of Employment, Labor and Social Affairs. Child Poverty, 2(4), 437-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-009-9044-8
Schiettecat, T., Roets, G., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2016). A ROAD MAP TO ERADICATE CHILD AND FAMILY POVERTY. Campaign 2000 Report Card On Child & Family Poverty In Canada, 2016, 22(2), 689-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12285