About the Centre for Young Lives

The Centre for Young Lives, founded by Baroness Anne Longfield CBE in February 2024, is an independent think tank and delivery unit working to improve the lives of children, young people, and families across the UK — with a particular focus on those facing the greatest challenges. Our team combines decades of experience in Westminster, Whitehall and beyond with a relentless commitment and drive to breaking down the barriers that hold back some children, and to ensuring that every child and young person can thrive. We use high quality research and evidence to advocate and campaign for innovate solutions and new models that improve the lives of children, young people and their families.

Summary

We warmly welcome the Government’s Child Poverty Strategy as an important acknowledgment of the moral and practical urgency of reducing child poverty. However, the strategy currently lacks sufficient ambition to deliver the scale of change required. While the removal of the two‑child limit and expansion of free school meals are essential first steps, a more comprehensive strategy is needed, built on the four building blocks of: statutory targets; strong accountability; central government leadership; and sustained engagement with families on low incomes.

Child poverty is driven primarily by low income, and many families experiencing poverty are already working. The Government should therefore go further than lifting the two-child benefit cap, by lifting the household benefit cap, increasing investment in social security, and ensuring national policies are supported through local child poverty plans backed by proper resourcing.

The Young Futures programme will be vital in supporting vulnerable young people, and should be a central part of the strategy in alleviating the impact of poverty on young people’s poor mental health, lack of opportunities, and risks of criminal exploitation and involvement in violence. To maximise the programme’s impact, we are calling for a cross‑departmental Young Futures Plan, a mandated core service offer, and guidance to ensure hubs are accessible, inclusive, and aligned with wider government reforms.

The strategy should also adopt statutory, binding child poverty targets - modelled on successful approaches in Scotland, New Zealand, and previous UK governments - to drive sustained progress. We also call for robust, consistent monitoring and evaluation frameworks, improved local‑level data, and a permanently reinstated Child Poverty Unit at the heart of government to ensure long-term delivery and accountability.

Is the Child Poverty Strategy sufficiently ambitious?

The Centre for Young Lives welcomes the publication of the Child Poverty Strategy. We are particularly pleased to see the strategy recognise the clear case for change, including the damaging and pervasive impacts of poverty on all aspects of a child’s life chances, including their health, happiness, education, and employment prospects. Above all, it is a welcome step that the government has recognised the moral urgency of tackling child poverty - it is inexcusable that a third of children are growing up in poverty.

The commitment to abolish the two-child limit from April 2026 and the rollout of free school meals to families on Universal Credit (UC) in England from September 2026 are both welcome steps, but this was an essential first step if the strategy was going to have a significant impact on child poverty rates. The strategy could go much further in setting out an ambitious yet achievable plan to reduce child poverty in the UK.

The strategy should ensure that it contains the four building blocks of an effective child poverty strategy, as set out by Child Poverty Action Group,[1] :

1. Clear measures and targets - Setting a target publicly demonstrates the scale of the government’s ambition and provides a clear, shared goal to galvanise departments. It also provides the opportunity to measure and demonstrate progress towards the goal. By making the targets statutory and binding, they also present an opportunity to ensure the longevity of the strategy beyond this government.
2. Strong accountability mechanisms - routine reporting to Parliament on the actions taken as part of the child poverty strategy provides a means of ensuring that parliamentarians are up to date on implementation of the strategy, allows the opportunity to identify gaps or where a change of direction or speed of travel may be needed, and can be used to show the country what progress is being made and the impact this is having.
3. Leadership, investment and coordination from central government - clear commitment from the Prime Minister and Chancellor ensured that the previous UK child poverty strategy remained a priority, resulting in more than a million children being lifted out of poverty. Co-ordination should also be led by a reinstated, permanent Child Poverty Unit within the Cabinet Office. Before being abolished in 2016, this unit worked across government to hold all departments to account, providing accountability and scrutiny, to measure and support progress, and to ensure alignment across government.
4. Ongoing engagement with families living on a low income - meaningful engagement with communities would support the development of effective, targeted local interventions grounded in the specific needs of local families.

Are the drivers and outcomes that the Government has set out in the Strategy the right ones?

The Child Poverty Strategy identifies several drivers of child poverty: social security and child maintenance; housing; employment; essential costs; childcare; savings and financial shocks; and barriers to services. The four identified outcomes are increased family income, saving families money, securing family finances, and strengthening local support.

Child poverty is fundamentally linked to low income, so it is positive to see policies intended to increase family income at the heart of the strategy. Investment in direct financial support for children and families is the most effective way to reduce child poverty, so any future policies and investment should prioritise this pillar of the strategy.

This is particularly pertinent because many parents are already working as much as they can yet remain trapped in poverty. Efforts to increase parental employment must therefore be accompanied by sustained investment in social security, which plays a crucial role in helping low-income families meet the additional costs of bringing up children.

Are there any policies and initiatives that could strengthen the outcomes in:

(i) boosting families' incomes;

(ii) saving families' money;

(iii) securing families' finances; and

(iv) strengthening local support,

that were not included in the Child Poverty Strategy?

We warmly welcome the removal of the two-child limit from April 2026, as all the evidence suggests putting money directly into families’ pockets is the most effective way to reduce child poverty. It is a vital step because families with three or more children are at greater risk of poverty, since wages do not adjust for family size, and parents’ working capacity is often limited by caring responsibilities.

However, the strategy should go further and also lift the household benefit cap, to maximise the number of households with children that benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit. In the current scenario, with only the two-child limit being lifted, some households will not benefit as they are already affected by the household benefit cap, which limits the total amount of income out-of-work households or those working a low number of hours can receive in benefits. In addition, some households will become newly affected by the benefit cap, and will therefore only partially benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit.

What will the distributional impacts of the Strategy be, including across the regions and nations of the UK and among different groups of children and families with protected characteristics?

Some English regions and local government areas are already undertaking strategic action to reduce child poverty. However, only 13% of English local authorities currently have an anti-poverty strategy in place, which will impact child poverty rates in different areas.[2]

A more co-ordinated approach is needed, which sets out how national priorities can be supported and delivered at a local level within England. In the previous UK strategy, this took the form of local child poverty plans, a model that is used in Scotland and Wales. Local authorities should be required to produce child poverty plans for their areas to drive local action to tackle child poverty but must also be resourced to implement and monitor these local plans.

The strategy also has the potential to deliver real benefits for regions if it is properly aligned with wider reforms and investment. Measures such as increased local government funding, further devolution, and the Pride in Place programme - up to £5 billion in funding over 10 years - could give local and regional leaders stronger tools to support children families in their communities.

What impact might the Strategy have on children who experience other specific barriers, for example, children with experience of the care system; children at risk of criminal exploitation; and children at risk of entering the criminal justice system?

We warmly welcome the strategy including the Government’s new Young Futures programme, which will be vital in reaching and supporting vulnerable young people. It is well evidenced that children growing up in poverty face significant, overlapping challenges in adolescence. Growing up in poverty is associated with an increased risk of youth crime and violence,[3] as well as greater risk of experiencing mental health problems.[4] Young people growing up in low-income households are also less likely to participate in beneficial opportunities like groups and clubs or sports and fitness activities, and are more likely to cite cost, nobody to go with, and challenges with their confidence and mental health, as reasons not to participate.[5]

In 2022, the Commission on Young Lives found a lack of joined up support for vulnerable young people, including those living in poverty, can leave too many to fall through gaps in education, health, and social services and at-risk of involvement in violence and crime.[6] In the same year, the National Audit Office also found that there is “no overall strategic approach, so government does not know whether there are gaps or overlaps in the support for vulnerable adolescents”.[7]

It was this lack of strategic approach that led the Commission on Young Lives to recommend a “Sure Start for Teenagers” model to co-ordinate and deliver support for vulnerable young people.[8] This recommendation was the basis for Young Futures, a landmark government programme which will create open-access Hubs, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, alongside Prevention Partnerships led by the Home Office, which will systematically identify and refer individuals into appropriate support.[9]

Young Futures Hubs have three core aims: to prevent young people being drawn into violence and crime; improving young people’s mental health; and providing opportunities.[10] Eight early adopter Hubs will be operational by March 2026, with a further 42 Hubs rolled out by the end of this Parliament.[11] Hubs will be open-access, with engaging and appealing activities offered alongside targeted support.[12] To overcome the barriers young people in poverty face to accessing Hubs, they will be located within areas of high deprivation and actively reach out to marginalised young people living in poverty.[13] Hubs will be aligned with Young Futures Prevention  Panels, which are multi-agency teams designed to identify and support young people who are vulnerable to involvement in crime and who are not currently receiving support.

Young Futures Hubs are an exciting opportunity to turn the tables on those who exploit children and young people, to tackle the ingrained vulnerabilities facing those teenagers most at risk of involvement with gangs or serious violence, and to help vulnerable children to thrive and succeed. To take advantage of this opportunity, particularly in engaging and supporting vulnerable young people like those with care-experience or in contact with the youth justice system, we published a framework for Young Futures Hubs in October 2025.[14]

This called for a cross-departmental Young Futures Plan, bringing together the Department for Work & Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport, and the Department for Education. This Plan should establish a shared ambition for the Young Futures programme and also join up existing and future policies to maximise the role of Young Futures Hubs as a key means of delivering a range of ambitions, including new neighbourhood health models, the Education White Paper, Best Start, Child Poverty Strategy, Growth Plan, and the Youth Strategy.  

These departments should also publish a comprehensive, joint guidance document for Young Futures Hubs. All departments should design and deliver a centrally mandated ‘core offer’ of services to be delivered through the Hubs, including separate, safe spaces for girls and young women, and an offer of open-access activities and opportunities which is constantly available.

How well does the Child Poverty Strategy link to the Government's work on social mobility? Are there any further strategic ambitions or outcomes that the Government should focus on to support social mobility? For example, relating to closing the educational attainment gap and supporting high aspirations among children and young people.

While targets should primarily focus on reducing the child poverty rate, as measured by the rate of children living in households with incomes below 60% of the median (after housing costs), the strategy should also align with other government initiatives to reduce the impact of child poverty.

Growing up in child poverty can hold children back and limit their life chances. Other indicators should be measured as part of the strategy to monitor the progress of the strategy in limiting the impacts of child poverty, as well as reducing the rate of children growing up in poverty.

For example, we welcomed the commitment with the Department for Education’s recent Schools White Paper, which committed to halving the attainment gap, and will be a decisive step in reducing the impact of child poverty.

Monitoring and evaluating progress

Should the Child Poverty Strategy include measurable targets and interim targets? If so, what should they be?

The Child Poverty Strategy rightly recognises that the proportion of children living in households with incomes below 60% of the median (after housing costs) should be the primary metric against which progress is measured. However, the government should commit to binding, statutory targets as part of the strategy in order to raise its ambition and impact.

It is essential that the government sets statutory, binding targets for the reduction of child poverty, which set clear milestones and present a path towards the eradication of child poverty over the next 20 years. In this context, eradication refers to the point where less than 10% of children live in a household with an income below 60 per cent of the median level. In the interim, a target should also be set to halve child poverty over the next decade.

Research by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has found that governments which have set clearly defined, shared targets have benefited from greater collaboration and alignment across government.[15]

Contrasting the experience of Scotland and Northern Ireland shows the impact that targets can have. In Scotland, targets have galvanized impactful action across government, while in Northern Ireland the absence of targets meant the well-intended work was less focused and ultimately had less of an effect. Similarly, the child poverty targets introduced in 1999 in the UK led to a 17% reduction – 500,000 children – over the first nine years of the targets.[16]

How should the Government work with the devolved nations on setting targets, and monitoring and evaluating progress on delivering the Strategy?

To deliver an effective UK-wide child poverty strategy, the government must work in genuine partnership with devolved administrations and local authorities, recognising the significant shift in policymaking powers since the last comprehensive UK strategy.

The strategy should provide clear national leadership and a shared vision for ending child poverty across the UK. It must also distinguish between policy areas reserved to Westminster and those devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, ensuring it does not assume uniform application across all nations. Education, childcare, housing, health and other key services are devolved in varying degrees, and the strategy must reflect these differences. In England, where devolution arrangements differ, the government should set out clearly how it intends to deliver on responsibilities that remain centrally controlled.

While many frontline services are devolved, Westminster retains control over the most powerful levers for reducing child poverty, particularly social security. Decisions about universal credit, housing, childcare support, and wider welfare policy have direct consequences for families and for devolved service delivery. As a result, the UK government should clearly define the actions it will take which fall with its areas of responsibility.

The Government should also work closely with metro mayors and combined authorities, who are increasingly shaping regional economic development, skills, transport and employment support. It is welcome that the strategy recognises the work of the North East Combined Authority in establishing a Child Poverty Reduction Unit to coordinate local action and improve data, targeting, and accountability across the region. This kind of regional leadership provides valuable insight into how national policies land on the ground and should inform both target-setting and evaluation.

Where progress is compared across nations and regions, the strategy should use consistent definitions, measures, and reporting frameworks to ensure meaningful comparison. Variations in eligibility criteria and policy frameworks across nations must be accounted for in any shared metrics.

What is your view of the Government's proposed 'Monitoring and Evaluation Framework' for the Child Poverty Strategy? How could it be improved?

The government’s Monitoring and Evaluation Framework has the potential to play a decisive role in aligning departments across government in pursuit of driving down child poverty. The government is still to publish the details of this framework, which presents an opportunity to strengthen the ambition of the overall child poverty strategy.

The monitoring and evaluation framework could introduce several of the building blocks for a child poverty strategy set out by Child Poverty Action Group.

The lack of targets is a significant drawback to the strategy which could be usefully addressed in the framework, to demonstrate ambition and progress and to align government in its ambition to bring down child poverty.

The monitoring and delivery framework could also include a commitment to report to Parliament annually on the success of the action that the government is taking to reduce child poverty. This would be supported by the introduction of child poverty reduction targets.

What should be included in the Government's baseline report this summer?

We welcome the strategy’s commitment to publishing an annual report, measuring progress against the baseline position. This report should be published alongside ambitious statutory, binding targets to reduce levels of child poverty from this baseline position. The report should not only include the headline rate of poverty but also the depth of poverty, to assess progress even if families haven’t crossed out of the poverty threshold. Rising costs for essentials like food, energy and housing can push families further into hardship, even if their incomes stay the same on paper. If the baseline does not properly account for these shifting costs, it risks underestimating the real pressures families face.

To accurately capture progress, the report must recognise both income levels and the cost of living, so that reducing child poverty means improving families’ actual living standards, not just meeting technical thresholds. This would ensure that the strategy remains responsive to changing economic conditions and maintains a sustained, long-term focus on reducing child poverty, including during periods when headline indicators may temporarily improve.

How should the Government support the monitoring and evaluation of actions to reduce child poverty at the local level, and across different protected characteristics? And what data is either available or necessary to achieve this?

At the local level, monitoring requirements should be proportionate and properly resourced. Local authorities are critical to delivery but face significant financial and capacity pressures. Any expectation that they collect, analyse or report additional data must therefore be matched with funding and technical support. Without this, reporting risks becoming a burden rather than a meaningful tool for improvement. Clear national guidance on definitions, indicators and reporting standards would help ensure consistency while allowing local flexibility in delivery.

What data is available and necessary to monitor child poverty and the impact of interventions, across protected characteristics, at the local level?

While existing household surveys and administrative datasets provide important information on income and deprivation, there are significant gaps. Sample sizes are often too small to allow robust analysis at local level or for smaller population groups. This makes it difficult to monitor poverty among specific groups, such as Black and minority ethnic families, disabled children, and migrant or refugee families, or to assess how experiences differ by region.

Improving survey response rates and increasing sample sizes would allow more reliable local estimates and more detailed breakdowns across protected characteristics. Expanding the range of variables collected and published - such as more detailed information on childcare use, costs and subsidy access - would help policymakers understand how families interact with services and where gaps remain.

Data are readily available that allow a local authority to identify the educational settings serving the quintile of children in greatest poverty. These educational establishments must be supported by the government and the wider community (including businesses and universities) to ensure their children have equal opportunities to reach the same levels of attainment as their peers and to overcome the barriers to further education and employment. The educational settings serving areas of highest disadvantage should also be supported to address the impacts of poverty for all children within the school.

Are there any international comparators the Government should learn from, in relation to how it sets targets, and how it monitors and evaluates progress on action to reduce child poverty?

For the Child Poverty Strategy to create meaningful, lasting change, it is vital that there are binding, statutory targets alongside a statutory reporting framework which requires regular updates to Parliament. This should be complemented by an independent body which reports on the government’s progress and has the authority to advice and challenge it also. In Scotland, the Poverty and Inequality Commission was placed on a statutory footing by the Child Poverty Act 2017, enabling it to advise Scottish Ministers on any matter relating to poverty or inequality in Scotland, including the impact of their policies. It also publishes this advice, creating public accountability and transparency.

Budgetary reporting should also be used as a key mechanism to ensure that central government makes meaningful progress in addressing child poverty. This would require the Treasury to assess how each budget or fiscal event will affect child poverty levels and contribute to meeting commitments to reduce it. A similar approach was introduced in New Zealand, which has helped to maintain a sustained focus on child poverty and child wellbeing, even following a change in government.[17]

What will be necessary to secure the longevity of the Child Poverty Strategy?

We would strongly support the Child Poverty Unit, which was temporarily operating in the Cabinet Office, being established on a permanent basis. Before being abolished in 2016, the unit worked across government to hold all departments to account, providing accountability and scrutiny, to measure and support progress, and to ensure alignment across government. Reinstating the unit to the heart of government, alongside cross-departmental ministerial oversight, would ensure the Child Poverty Strategy leads to reductions in child poverty in the long-term.

March 2026