- Ian Forde, MRC clinical research training fellow1,
- Dagmar Zeuner, consultant in public health2
- 1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT
- 2Hammersmith and Fulham NHS and Council, London W6 9DL
- Correspondence to: I Forde i.forde{at}ucl.ac.uk
- Accepted 5 July 2009
As part of its strategy to promote social mobility, the government is piloting a scheme of child development grants.1 Disadvantaged families will be offered up to £200 (€233; $335) as long as they attend and take up services offered by Children’s Centres, including parenting advice, liaison with job centres, and identification of children with special educational needs. The idea is modelled on the conditional cash transfer schemes from Latin America that offer disadvantaged families money if mothers attend parenting seminars, infants attend health check-ups, and other stipulations are met such as compliance with immunisation and school enrolment. Although increasingly imitated, such schemes are controversial because they explicitly intertwine social mobility with behaviour change. Some unfavourable health, education, and nutrition choices cluster with, and partly determine, socioeconomic disadvantage, and engagement with public services is thought to stimulate positive behaviour change. Conditional cash transfer schemes further assume that targeted cash incentives will secure such engagement. The same reasoning underpins the UK government’s child development grants.
Here we consider UK experience in promoting social mobility and behaviour change and review the international evidence on conditional cash transfer schemes to throw light on how such schemes should be designed.
UK programmes
Social mobility, or the degree to which people’s social status changes between generations, can be viewed as a measure of the equality of life opportunities and a reflection of parental influence, individual talents, motivation, and luck.w1 All sources agree on the crucial role of the home environment in early life, such as provision of consistent discipline. Developmental measures are worse in poorer children as early as 22 months and continue to fall …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012