Poverty and childhood

Ridge (Reference Ridge2002) has identified the impact of poverty and social exclusion on the lived experiences of children and young people, suggesting that children in low-income families experience social exclusion both at school and in the wider community. A lack of money and transport makes it difficult for some children to participate in leisure activities, and this, in turn, affects their ability to maintain and sustain friendships. In this sense, poverty inhibits their ability to be children and to experience ‘normal’ childhood activities.

The government's child poverty agenda concentrates on improving future outcomes for poorer children. Anti-poverty policy regards children as ‘adults-in waiting’ rather than as beings in their own right (Lister, Reference Lister2006), and ignores how children themselves want to spend their leisure time. It is, therefore, important to consider how government policy is addressing childhood poverty and disadvantage in neighbourhoods – particularly with regard to opportunities for children to be children and to play.

Children's play policy

The child's right to play is recognised in Article 31 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991. It signals that play is a vitally important part of children's lives, contributing to their learning, and development. Play is defined by the Department of Culture Media and Sport's (DCMS) Play Review as ‘what children and young people do when they follow their own ideas and interests in their own way, and for their own reasons’ (DCMS, 2004: 8, emphasis added). Within the current climate of concerns about obesity levels, outdoor play has recently received more policy attention across government departments (see DCMS, 2006; DCSF,2008).

The Children's Play Council pointed out five years ago, that children's play needs should be recognised, and acknowledged that ‘children are legitimate users of the whole outdoor environment’ (2002: 1). The Play Review similarly noted that:

The government has since recognised that designated play areas may not always be suitable for older children who may simply want somewhere to ‘hang out’ with friends (DCMS, 2006: 40). The Play Review suggests that a range of play spaces should be provided by local authorities, through developing play strategies with the input of children and young people themselves.

Whilst the recently announced Children's Plan recognises the importance of play in childhood by pledging to spend £225 million over the next three years on developing and improving play space, its main focus is to create new adventure playgrounds for 8–13-year olds in disadvantaged areas (DCSF, 2007: 6). This, despite the acknowledgement that most play takes place elsewhere. Furthermore, the government has been criticised by opposition MPs for continuing to sell school playing fields and other school land despite a pledge to halt such sales in the 1997 manifesto. In 2007 alone, 19 school playing fields were sold (Observer, 31 March 2007: 1).

The Sustainable Communities five-year plan (ODPM, 2005), concentrated on improving the quality of open spaces within deprived communities. Rather than preserving open public spaces, it focused on reducing levels of graffiti and litter and targeted anti-social behaviour within these communities. It overlooked the impact that increased housing development can have on the lives of those children in affected communities. As a Play England policy briefing notes:

The recognition that children do play outside in public open spaces, unaccompanied by adults, is particularly important at a time when this is increasingly regarded as problematic by policy-makers, especially with regard to reducing crime and anti-social behaviour (France, Reference France2007). The introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, which can be placed ‘on anyone over the age of ten who is thought to be causing alarm, distress or harassment’ (France, Reference France2007), acts as a reminder that children and young people are not always welcome in the open public space of their communities. Research also shows the inter-generational tensions that can exist in rural communities over young people's use of open public space (Meek, Reference Meek2008).

The Respect Action Plan (Home Office, 2006) addresses the issue of parenting in disadvantaged communities; particularly targeting parents who are deemed to be unwilling or unable to tackle their children's behaviour within their communities. The concern to address children's anti-social behaviour by changing parental behaviour has been reinforced by the media, with their frequent problematising of ‘youth’ on the streets. As O'Brien et al., point out, ‘increasingly in the UK context at least, letting children roam or play out unaccompanied is becoming a marker of neglectful or irresponsible parenthood’ (2000: 273).

Policy discourse has, thus, constructed children's play as: a right that children are entitled to; as something that is good for children; but also as a problem. As a result of these conflicting perspectives, there are contradictions and tensions between the various policy responses towards children and young people. On the one hand, government recognises that they should be able to play outside within their communities in safety. On the other hand, with the increased attention on improving anti-social behaviour, they are subjected to ever-increasing measures of social control in their communities (James and James, Reference James and James2001).

What children want to do: evidence from research

As Opie noted as long ago as Reference Opie and Opie1969:

While Gill (Reference Gill2007) argues that loosely supervised, self-directed play amongst children is in decline across socio-economic, cultural and gender divides, other research evidence suggests that playing independently outdoors continues to be important (Churchman, Reference Churchman2003; Kytta, Reference Kytta2004). Burke (Reference Burke2005), for example, has shown how children use the public open spaces of their neighbourhoods actively to construct their own opportunities and rules for play. Children, themselves, want to be at the ‘heart’ of their communities, rather than corralled into formal designated play spaces. Millward and Wheway (Reference Millward and Wheway1997) demonstrated how much children enjoyed being ‘where it's at’ for example, on footpaths, near shops and in view of others. Equally, in a study of one regeneration area, Elsley (Reference Elsley2004) noted how much children used and enjoyed open public space within their neighbourhood.

Research has identified a link between disadvantage and use of outdoor space (Matthews and Limb, Reference Matthews and Limb2000; Farmer, Reference Farmer2005). Farmer points out that those children who live in the most deprived neighbourhoods are more likely to go out to shops or the local park alone, even whilst feeling very unsafe doing so, than children from the least deprived areas. As such, children in deprived communities are more visible and simultaneously more fearful for their own safety. One way that children deal with such threats to their safety is to join others, there being safety in numbers. Thus, children from disadvantaged communities often rely on peers to provide protection (Seaman et al., Reference Seaman, Turner, Hill, Stafford and Walker2005).

A participatory study with children

Although Lareau (Reference Lareau2000) has explored some of the differences between American working-class and middle-class children's use of free time, there is little UK research that compares different children's lifestyles and the impact that their backgrounds and local contexts have on their free time – particularly on their restrictions and opportunities for play. This was one of the aims of the research (Sutton et al., Reference Sutton, Smith, Dearden and Middleton2007).

Forty-two children from two different locations in England took part in the research. Nineteen of them lived on a disadvantaged Housing Association estate in the North of England, while the other 23 attended an independent fee-paying school in the Midlands. The overall aim of the research was to explore children's perceptions of poverty and affluence, and to understand children's experiences of their own lives.

The children were all aged between eight and 13. The research was participatory in its approach, in that its focus was driven by the children themselves, rather than from the perspective of the researchers. The children helped to choose which methods to use and were involved in data collection and in interpreting the findings. Methods used included role play, mapping, photography, walkabouts with the children, and draw and write techniques (for more detail about the methodology see Sutton et al., Reference Sutton, Smith, Dearden and Middleton2007). Key themes identified by the children were: education; their favourite things; free time; and their family and friends.

The ‘estate’ children

Nineteen estate childrenFootnote ² were recruited from a youth centreFootnote ³ run by project workers from Groundwork.Footnote ⁴ The youth centre was located in a Housing Association estate that was in receipt of Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funding. The estate was predominantly white British, had high numbers of lone parents with dependent children, high incidence of family stress (family and marital conflict), and large numbers of children in receipt of free school meals. Housing tenure was predominantly rented. The estate was a ‘pocket’ of deprivation in an otherwise relatively affluent rural area. At the time of the research a major regeneration project was underway with a significant amount of new housing being built.

The majority of the children lived in households with more than one sibling and many shared bedrooms. Where parents were working, they tended to be employed in manual, factory or traditionally low income occupations such as catering. The children came from a mixture of partnered and lone parent households, and workless households, and households with one or more parent in work. Most of the parents claimed benefits such as Income Support, Incapacity Benefit and Housing Benefit, or tax credits such as Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.

The private school children

Twenty-three children were from a fee-paying independent school. Most of them were white British, although three came from black and minority ethnic groups.

Given the lack of recognised measures of relative income affluence or material well-being (see Bradshaw and Richardson, this volume), attendance at a fee-paying independent school was, itself, taken as an indicator of these children's household circumstances. The school fees ranged from £2,300 to more than £5,000 per term. The children were a mixture of day students and boarders. Day students mainly lived in the surrounding villages and some had previously attended state schools. Several children's families owned more than one home in the United Kingdom. Many had moved house several times during their lives, often having lived in different locations. Their parents tended to have professional or management occupations, such as doctors, solicitors, veterinary surgeons, and dentists and often both parents were in work.

Nearly all the children were driven to and collected from school by their parents. They tended to have long school days, staying at school until up to 6.20pm doing ‘prep’ or homework. They took part in a wide range of after-school clubs and activities. Most went on holiday abroad at least annually, and some took regular trips to family holiday homes abroad.

Street play and the visibility of ‘estate’ children

The research identified some stark differences between the two groups of children's lifestyles, particularly in their use of free time. Street or communal play resulted in the estate children being highly visible around their estate and especially so in comparison to the private school children, who only gathered together in a group when at school. From their own perspective street play, or outdoor socialising, was considered vitally important to the estate children and they spent the majority of their free time ‘hanging out’ with friends, unlike their more affluent peers who spent more time in organised leisure activities. The estate children preferred to go out to meet friends and hang out with them at various places in their neighbourhood.

The estate children also valued and enjoyed being involved in outdoor, physical and communal ‘hide and chase’ games, while den building was a favourite of the younger estate boys. Groups of boys would build their own dens out of tree branches in a nearby wooded valley with the purpose of using it as a place to camp and hang out with friends. They also took great delight in competing to see whose den was the best. Those judged to have the ‘worst’ dens had theirs destroyed by the victors. Participation in such unstructured and unsupervised activities clearly demonstrates the freedom that the estate children were afforded in comparison to their more affluent counterparts from the private school.

A major irritant to the estate children was the loss of some of their ‘green land’ to local developers who were building new houses on the grass lots and car parks between houses and on the outskirts of the estate. This made it harder for them to congregate and play with their friends in the relative safety of being near home and off roads, which sometimes resulted in their withdrawal into their homes. This, in turn, caused increased family tension, particularly for those struggling with a lack of space and freedom within their homes. The loss of green land highlights the tension between developing and maintaining public space, with direct consequences for how children live their lives.

Going out, on the other hand, meant that these children were more likely to get into trouble; their resulting visibility contributing to being branded and targeted by those in authority as ‘nuisances’ or ‘troublemakers’. It could also result in the children being moved along by police if they gathered in groups:

This visibility sometimes led to problems between the estate children and their neighbours. Some estate children felt under constant surveillance by neighbours and mutual mistrust resulted. One older girl recounted how she was told off for doing nothing more than sitting on a large bin in a street in the estate. These findings reflect the increasing ‘demonisation’ of youth and the emphasis on tackling what is perceived as antisocial behaviour (France, Reference France2007). In reality, although the children were boisterous, they were only interested in playing, not causing trouble.

The estate children's visibility was also enhanced by the way that they grouped together. The congregation of children was generally protective and concerned with helping each other in times of trouble or need, with both boys and girls talking about ‘banding together’ to provide help and support to each other, and to ward off threats from others.

Mutual support was required, as parts of the estate were considered unsafe and renowned for drug use and having discarded syringes and needles in public places. Although this could compromise the children's safety, they were all aware of the areas to be avoided. Rather than keep them within the home environment, their parents tended to issue warnings and, for the most part, trust the children to use their own judgement. As such, these children were expected to manage risk much more than the private school children.

Lack of resources and alternatives

The estate children's options for engaging in alternative activities were constrained by two factors. These were the perceived cost of activities and a lack of available transport. Although the term ‘poverty’ was not used by the children, they were acutely aware of financial constraints and concerned about protecting their parents from the cost of equipment:

Despite these financial constraints, the estate children did participate in family outings to see local rugby matches, or to swim or to shop. Some of them also took part in more structured, organised activities in addition to street play, such as the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme or the scouts. Three of the older boys belonged to the local army cadet movement. This was a popular activity which was seen by the boys as ‘keeping them out of trouble’ and enabling them to ‘get off the estate’. They were, however, acutely aware of the associated costs to their parents:

During the school holidays in particular, the estate children frequently complained that, apart from activities at the youth centre, there was nothing for them to do.

The research clearly demonstrates that poverty and material disadvantage reduces children's opportunities to participate in organised and structured leisure activities. However, as an alternative, the children make their own entertainment in a variety of ways and are both physically active and imaginative. In the absence of organised, structured leisure activities, the loss of space to development and the antagonism of the police and some of the adults on the estate were keenly felt by the children.

The organised and chaperoned lives of private school children

By contrast, the private school children's lifestyles were characterised by a regime of ‘chaperoned’ organised activities. They did play outside but much less so than the estate children, mainly because they tended to have more activities organised and arranged for them through their school and by their parents. Their sporting activities included rugby, netball, tennis, football, hockey, cricket, Tai Kwando and swimming. Their non-sporting activities included choir, science, chess, orchestra, and maths clubs. Some activities took place at lunchtimes and breaks during the school day, though sports tended to take place after lessons had finished for the day, which contributed to the length of the school day for the private school children, with some staying until 6.20pm if they were completing ‘prep’ or participating in clubs and activities. This left them very little time when they got home from school to play or do anything else. They were well aware of the need to complete any outstanding homework before they could play; however, the demands their homework placed on them meant that some other activities were forgone:

The above examples show how, for many of the private school children, their free time retains an emphasis on learning. This is evident in the number of children that received lessons in their free time. The private school children led more ‘chaperoned’ lives than the estate children, often driven to and from school, friends' houses, clubs and other organised activities. They tended to be accompanied more often by adults were than the estate children. The private school children also emphasised the importance of having their own personal space in their homes more than did the estate children. Outside of school, the private school children participated in a wider and more expensive range of activities than did the estate children. Activities with their families included going out for dinner, go-carting, holidays, boat trips, ten-pin bowling and visits to the cinema.

The private school children had friends that they had made through school and through clubs they attended. However, they appeared to see their friends less frequently than the estate children did, as many lived in different locations. They often had to make prior arrangements to meet up, and most frequently played inside either their own or their friends' homes. This made their social lives more organised and less impromptu than those of the estate children. It also made them reliant on their parents to take them and collect them.

Risk, safety and independence

Managing risk, safety and independence differed between the two groups of children. The private school children discussed their parents' concern for their safety, which in turn placed restrictions on the children's independent activity.

The private school children explained that their parents worried about them getting attacked or ‘mugged’ when out and about. Their perceptions appeared to be heightened by incidents in the media of anti-social behaviour, gun crime and ‘rough’ hooded youths picking on other children to ‘mug’ them for their mobile phones. This fear for their safety was transmitted to the children, making them wary of other young people when out and about.

In contrast to the discussions of less tangible risks to the private school children's safety, the estate children discussed more immediate and acute risks to their own well-being. The estate children were sensitive to the potential risks in their neighbourhood and frequently referred to how parents informed and warned them about these risks and set rules so that the children could avoid them. Parents still allowed children to take part in street play, but this was on the condition of the children remaining in certain areas of the estate and avoiding others, and returning home at agreed times. The children were aware of where supposedly dangerous characters lived (usually alleged paedophiles) or where drug dealers tended to congregate;

In general, the younger estate children were allowed out less frequently and were supervised more closely than the older estate children. Furthermore, there appeared to be a strong sense of parental concern, particularly amongst the younger boys' parents about their sons being bullied by older children on the estate. The older estate children, on the other hand, were allowed more freedom to roam.

Some children described experiences when they had actually been confronted with potentially dangerous situations. For example, one estate girl recounted one such acute risk:

The above quote demonstrates the extent to which estate children took responsibility for managing their own safety and how their parents trusted them to do so.