A century ago today, York confectioner Joseph Rowntree launched a pioneering charity which was to play a key role in the battle against poverty throughout the 20th century. Mike Laycock examines the foundation that was named after the philanthropist - and assesses whether the fight has been won.

IT IS a miserable scene. Scruffy and unsmiling, the children are pictured gathering in a York backstreet slum in 1900, with plaster peeling from the surrounding brick walls and not a tree or blade of grass in sight.

It was this sort of poverty-stricken scene, typical of working-class Britain at the start of the 20th century, that prompted Joseph Rowntree to use the wealth he had acquired from making chocolate to create three trusts bearing his name.

The Quaker had been profoundly influenced by a detailed study of poverty in York, carried out by his son, Seebohm, in 1899. Seebohm carried out house-to-house visits to produce sheets of notes about everything from the standard of accommodation and the numbers in the family to their cleanliness and respectability. He attempted to devise a measure of the causes of poverty based on the minimal costs of food and housing needed to maintain "physical efficiency". He concluded that 28 per cent of York's population was in poverty, in other words in "want and squalor".

Joseph, who was already an enlightened employer at his factory, offering paid holidays, pioneering a staff pension scheme, providing a works doctor and dentist and promoting sporting and social activities, did not want to treat the symptoms of this poverty.

He pointed out that York's soup kitchen never had any difficulty obtaining financial aid. What he wanted to do was search out and tackle poverty's root causes.

Over the 20th century, the trust, which was to become the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, established itself as a leading funder of social research in the UK, influencing government policies in a way that would have delighted Rowntree when he signed the trust deeds 100 years ago today.

There were investigations into relative deprivation, housing, the links between poor estate design and crime and vandalism, the costs of providing care for people in old age and the dramatic widening of the gap between rich and poor in the 1980s.

Joseph also bought land to the north of York to develop the model village of New Earswick, where decent homes were to be provided at a reasonable rent in healthy, attractive living conditions. Instead of the filthy backyards of York's terraced back streets, there were gardens planted with fruit trees.

Various governments tried in different ways over the 20th century to improve the lot of the poor.

But two reports, launched today at a two-day centenary conference being held at the University of York, have revealed that there was still a long way to go.

One report, One Hundred Years Of Poverty And Policy, by London School of Economics researchers Howard Glennerster, John Hills, David Piachaud and Jo Webb, concludes that social deprivation lays down a continuing political challenge that is likely to intensify as the 21st century progresses.

Comparisons between Seebohm's 1899 report and figures for 2001/2, taken from the Family Resources Survey, show that:

Illness or old age of the main earner has become a more important factor in poverty, accounting for 26 per cent of today's poor households, compared with five per cent a century ago.

Very large families (five or more children) have declined as a contributor to poverty from 22 per cent to two per cent of poor families.

In 1899, poorer households spent more than half their income on food, but in 2001/2, food bills represented only a sixth of total household expenditure.

The poor families interviewed by Seebohm Rowntree were tenants. Today, renting is confined to one quarter of all households and many poor households are owner-occupiers.

Looking over the 20th century, the report says unemployment in the 1920s and 1930s became the leading cause of poverty in the 1920s and 1930s, while the largest group living in poverty in the 1950s and 1960s were older people.

Pensioner poverty declined in the 1970s, but in the 1980s, levels of unemployment and lone parenthood increased at a time of rapidly widening income inequality.

In 2000, a study of 15 European and industrialised countries showed that only the United States and Ireland had worse relative poverty rates than Britain.

It says a key lesson for the future is that periods of progress in reducing poverty have occurred when policies have simultaneously tackled the causes and consequences of deprivation.

"The present Government's emphasis on policies that seek to deal with many different aspects of childhood poverty and disadvantage can be viewed as a sign of strength."

The researchers conclude that viewed optimistically, current anti-poverty policies could create a "virtuous circle," where falling demands for welfare benefits free up resources to extend the scope for treating those who cannot work more generously.

Viewed pessimistically, any success in tackling underlying inequalilties could still be overwhelmed by widening wealth inequality and low rates of pay for unskilled workers in an increasingly cut-throat, global market.

An ageing population could also place heavy demands on social spending, leading to tax increases and reduced political enthusiasm for spending on anti-poverty policies.

Professor Hills said there was no easy way of predicting which view would prevail. "But we are more likely to establish a virtuous circle if the need for progress on reducing poverty is given a high public and political profile." He added: "As Joseph Rowntree recognised when he signed his deed of trust 100 years ago, sound evidence is one answer to the prejudice that has always surrounded poor people and poverty. Shining an honest light on reality in the poorest parts of our society is an important contribution that today's researchers, following in Seebohm Rowntree's footsteps, can continue to make."

The other report, Strategies Against Poverty by Donald Hirsch, special adviser to the foundation, welcomes the Labour Government's commitment to reducing poverty, but highlights intense concentrations of disadvantage within some neighbourhoods in Britain's major cities. It says that in the 100 worst local authority wards, almost six out of ten children live in families relying on Income Support and other means-tested benefits.

Foundation director Lord Richard Best said today the organisation had concluded there were real opportunities to make "significant and sustained progress" in tackling disadvantage over the next 20 years - provided the political will existed.

"A 20-year strategy to raise those who are worst-off above the poverty threshold is a commitment our nation can demonstrably afford," he said.

Lord Best said the challenge for the foundation was to continue raising awareness of poor people and places in Britain.

"We remain committed to the task our founder set for us 100 years ago of searching out the underlying causes of social ills and identifying workable solutions.

"On this special day in our history, we call on everyone who shares our concerns and priorities to work together towards common goals."

Updated: 11:15 Monday, December 13, 2004