Only eight per cent of the general public know of the existence of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy, according to a public attitude survey carried out as part of its evaluation.
Nonetheless, there has been significant progress on many of the objectives outlined in the strategy, agreed by the Government in 1997, a conference to discuss an assessment of progress so far was told yesterday.
There was a greater focus on tackling poverty and social exclusion in a number of areas, and the economic growth which had taken place since the launch of NAPS had led to a reduction in unemployment and consistent poverty. Nonetheless, relative income poverty had increased and the nature of poverty was changing.
The NAPS is intended to pursue policies which reduce poverty and social exclusion, by developing a policy of poverty-proofing of all relevant Government initiatives and to carry out research as a basis for directing these policies. "Poverty-proofing" means examining the impact of specific policies on the reduction of poverty.
The assessment, written by Ms Helen Johnston and Ms Tracey O'Brien of the Combat Poverty Agency, recommends that the strategy be more deeply embedded in Government departments, and be extended to local government. It also recommends that poverty-proofing is applied to all key budgetry decisions, including taxation.
The pros and cons of putting poverty-proofing on a statutory basis should be examined, they say.
All Government departments and local government organisations should state in their strategic statements and business plans the contribution they can make to poverty reduction.
However, the authors also stressed the importance of involving those who experience poverty in the further development of the strategy. In carrying out the assessment the researchers conducted a postal questionnaire survey.
Responding to the assessment on behalf of the ICTU Mr Peter Cassells said that poverty-proofing was little understood, and everyone was afraid to ask: What is it? There was a need for much more work on how this was to be done.
He said there was a danger we were developing a three-tier society: a tier of people who were very rich, as could be seen in the housing market, a tier of people who were getting by, and were generally better off than their parents were, and a third tier of people who were not getting onto the first rung of the ladder.
The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was targeting people who were distant from the job market, he said.
Mr Brian Geoghegan of IBEC warned against overburdening the strategy with bureaucracy, focusing on the process rather than the results. "People working in this area have to understand you have to bring people with you, rather than presenting it in an over-aggressive way," he said. The focus should be on providing opportunities for people.
There was little evidence to be found of the poverty-reduction aspects of NAPS, according to Mr Con Lucey of the IFA. The solution to the problem of lack of awareness of the strategy was to be found in this area.
Mr Chris McInerney of the Community Workers' Co-op said that in the new economic context it was more difficult to talk about poverty. "People are blamed for being poor," he said.
He said he did not know what impact NAPS had had on the reductions that had occurred in unemployment and consistent poverty. Would this have happened anyway? "Is it a national strategy or a notional strategy?"