Buy essays on Employment issues of African Carribean lone parents in the UK – An Overview

First of all, it is important to understand that immigration is essential for the UK today. In fact, the UK population is aging and the fertility rate and birth rate remain relatively high mainly due to the immigrant population because the fertility and birth rates are highest among the immigrant population. In addition, immigrants moving to the UK are economically active population, i.e. they are able to work and often they move to the UK in search of better job opportunities. As a result, the growth of the immigrant population prevents the UK population from aging.
In this regard, immigration has a positive impact on the socioeconomic development of the UK because it extends the labor force market and creates conditions for the ongoing economic growth in the UK. Hence, many specialists (Chitty, 1992) stress that the immigration policy should focus on the stimulation of immigration to the UK, but immigration should be regulated. The regulation of immigration is justified by several factors.
First, the lack of regulation and control over immigration raises the problem of illegal immigration. The illegal immigration evokes a number of socioeconomic problems, including unemployment, growing crime rates, increasing state expenses on health care services and education. Illegal immigrants increase the competition in the labor force market that deprives local employees from the possibility of employment (Rowlingson, 2001). As a rule, illegal immigrants receive wages lower than local employees. Consequently, employers are motivated to employ illegal immigrants instead of local employees. Naturally, in the time of the economic recession the negative impact of illegal immigration on the labor force market in the UK raises a strong opposition and demands of the immigration reform being implemented. Many specialists (Garner, 2001) offer to restrict immigration consistently to prevent illegal immigration and, thus, tackle aforementioned problems related to illegal immigration.
On the other hand, it is not only illegal immigration that raises a number of socioeconomic problems. In fact, legal immigration also provokes a number of problems which are similar to those traditionally associated with illegal immigration (Rowlingson, 2001). At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that immigrant move to the UK in search of better job opportunities and higher living standards. This means that they cannot afford health insurance as well as higher education for their children. As a result, the pressure on state budget increases because immigrant population still needs education and health care services. Local budgets as well as federal budget have to increase funding of the public education and develop health care services for the population which cannot afford insurance.
In actuality, many African and African Carribean feel being excluded from the local community and they do not receive any help from the part of the government and state agencies or the local community. In addition, the low of income of the overwhelming majority of respondents is low (See App.). At the same time, poor language competence prevent them from the possibility to obtain good jobs.
Thus, immigration has a dubious effect on the UK. Immigration is essential to maintain balance in the labor force market. However, immigration provokes such problems as increasing state budget expenses on education, health care services, growing crime rates and other socioeconomic problems.
In this respect, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that the black and minority ethnic (BME) community has many issues relating to disadvantage and discrimination. One such issue is the seeming likelihood of black Caribbean women being left with the responsibility of bringing up a child or children alone. Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) do indeed show that some 49% of black families are headed by a lone parent, compared to only 8% of Indian families. 15% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families are one-parent, compared to the 21% of white families and 29% described as mixed race or ‘other’ ethnic groups. Overall figures, however, show that 11% of lone parents are from black or ethnic minority communities. It is not widely known though, that despite the fact that BME groups experience significantly higher levels of economic disadvantage and unemployment than white groups, figures show that black Caribbean lone parents are significantly more likely to be working and working full-time than any other group and less likely to be getting benefits. s
Black Caribbean women with children to support feel a cultural pressure to work in a way white women do not. Over the past two decades, there has been a significant improvement in the standard of living for many families. Real incomes have risen by approximately one third and the possession of certain consumer goods such as washing machines is considered a necessity by the majority of the population. However, at the same time the proportion of children living in poverty has risen from approximately 10% to 30%. It is apparent that the benefits of a national increase in prosperity have accrued to those who already had an income that enabled them to live in relative comfort. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) analysed by NCOPF show that lone parents have overtaken pensioners as the poorest group in society. More than 60% of children in one parent families are poor compared to a quarter of children living with both parents. As the number of lone parent families increases, so the poverty becomes more obvious.
The report, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) 2000), looked at the ‘socially perceived necessities’ that should be part of every child‘s life. These included food, clothes, environmental factors such as bedding and a garden, and developmental necessities. The only items not considered necessary by 50% or more of the respondents were 50p a week to spend on sweets, a computer for schoolwork and computer games. The report found that children in lone parent families are the most likely to be ‘necessities deprived‘, being almost twice as likely as children of couples to be without one item considered necessary, and three times as likely to go without two or more items such as school trips, bicycles or reasonable quality clothing.
Income distribution – the facts
79% of individuals in one-parent families appear in the bottom two-fifths of the
income distribution after housing costs;
52% are in the bottom fifth;
81% of children in one-parent families have family incomes in the bottom two-fifths
of the income distribution, compared to 41% in two parent families;
Research for the JRF reports that the poorest 20% of the population has seen ‘no
real increase in spending on toys, children’s clothes, shoes and fresh fruit for the
past 30 years.’ (Child Development and Family Income, Gregg, Harkness and
Machin, JRF, 1999).
The position is worse for those lone parent households with a greater number of children. 91% of lone parents of working age with three or more children appear in the bottom two fifths of the income distribution.
The 2002 Public Service Agreement sets out the Government targets for the reduction of child poverty:
‘To reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least a quarter
by 2004, as a contribution towards the broader target of halving child poverty by
2010 and eradicating it by 2020.’
In 2000/01, 3.9 million children were living in low-income households. (Low income equates to 60% of median income after deduction housing costs). This represents a fall of some 500,000 since 1996/97. However, the policies adopted so far have only seen the figures return to levels experienced in 1995/96, and there are still twice the number in poverty now than there were 20 years ago.
Work undertaken by the New Policy Institute for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2002, suggests that although the Government’s targets could still be met, it is by no means clear how much further the figures will fall given that the figures available include the initial impact of the Working Families Tax Credit and National Minimum Wage.
The report published by the JRF uses data from the Family Resource Survey (FRS) to show that half of all children from lone parent families are in the poorest fifth of the population. It also shows that approximately two million children were living in workless households in 2002. This is a reduction of half a million on the peak in 1994, but the drop is not commensurate with the fall in unemployment over the same period. The lack of it is much more likely to be the cause of the increase, with a low level of benefits as a significant contributory factor.
72% of children in one-parent families with no full-time worker were living in poverty in 1999/00;
63% (just under 1.9 million) of all poor children living with no paid worker were living in a one-parent family;
58% of children living with a working lone parent still fall in the bottom two-fifths of the income distribution. Where the parent works part-time the figure is 78%.
So, it is not the fact that the family structure is different per se. It is the combination of factors that attend that change, including all those barriers to paid work identified by lone parents themselves (eg lack of transport; access to childcare; lack of skills and experience; low pay and scarcity of jobs; concerns about difficulties with benefits.)
The poverty levels are made more acute because nine out of ten lone parents are women. The New Earnings Survey (NES) indicates that the full time hourly rate of pay for women is just 82% of that for men. If they work part-time this falls to 61%.
Furthermore:
In 2000, 77% of those earning too little to pay national insurance were women;
Over 50% of low paid workers are women working part-time;
For lone parents as a whole, wages represent approximately 36% of gross household income, while benefits make up 52%;
These issues lie at the heart of the social inclusion debate. It is clear that strategies to reduce child poverty cannot therefore simply focus on getting lone parents into work. The figures above show that for many working lone parents, having a job does not promise an end to poverty, nor is it the necessary route to social inclusion. Many lone parents would have no difficulty in obtaining employment. What they would find difficult is finding a job that would pay at a sufficiently high hourly rate to ensure that they can work the hours that fit in with the pressures of bringing up a family. People on low wages, and in this instance it is usually men, can work longer hours in low paid jobs to receive an adequate wage. It is not possible for lone parents to do this.
It is therefore not surprising that many lone parents, particularly those who have recently experienced a difficult relationship breakdown, feel they want to stay at home as the primary child-carer to minimize disruption for their children. Others, such as mothers from the black community, frequently see going into paid work – often at low wages for long hours – as the best way to provide for the family. Social and cultural pressures and influences must therefore be taken into account in the development of any employment policy, rather than offering just one option.
It appears that it is lone parents who have experienced the greatest difficulty in maintaining an acceptable standard of living. When discussing issues of social exclusion, the lone parent features disproportionately against many of the indicators of multiple disadvantage. Figures from the Policy Studies Institute (PSI), for example, suggest that 60% of lone parents live in social housing compared to just 20% of couples, and 80% are on income-tested benefits compared to 20% of couples.