…to discuss child poverty in Stockton

8,990good reasons

1. Impact of poverty (on health)

2. Two practical examples of response

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Stockton Town Centre

Newtown

Parkfield and Oxbridge

Norton South

Stainsby Hill

Mandale and Victoria

Billingham East

Hardwick

Roseworth

Village

Norton North

Billingham

Billingham Central

Grangefield

Billingham West

Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree

Hartburn

Norton West

Fairfield

Eaglescliffe

Billingham North

Western Parishes

Northern Parishes

Ingleby Barwick

Yarm

Ingleby Barwick West

Child poverty% aged 0-15 living in income deprived households, 2010

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Stockton Town Centre

Newtown

Parkfield and Oxbridge

Norton South

Stainsby Hill

Mandale and Victoria

Billingham East

Hardwick

Roseworth

Village

Norton North

Billingham

Billingham Central

Grangefield

Billingham West

Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree

Hartburn

Norton West

Fairfield

Eaglescliffe

Billingham North

Western Parishes

Northern Parishes

Ingleby Barwick

Yarm

Ingleby Barwick West

Child poverty% aged 0-15 living in income deprived households, 2010

England = 21.8

Stockton = 21.8

Inequality gap between Stockton & England

= 0

Child poverty in Teesside

Wards aboveEngland mean

Stockton Town

Centre

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Stockton Town Centre

Newtown

Parkfield and Oxbridge

Norton South

Stainsby Hill

Mandale and Victoria

Billingham East

Hardwick

Roseworth

Village

Norton North

Billingham

Billingham Central

Grangefield

Billingham West

Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree

Hartburn

Norton West

Fairfield

Eaglescliffe

Billingham North

Western Parishes

Northern Parishes

Ingleby Barwick

Yarm

Ingleby Barwick West

Child poverty% aged 0-15 living in income deprived households, 2010

England = 21.8

Stockton = 21.8

Inequality gap between Stockton & England

= 0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Stockton Town Centre

Newtown

Parkfield and Oxbridge

Norton South

Stainsby Hill

Mandale and Victoria

Billingham East

Hardwick

Roseworth

Village

Norton North

Billingham

Billingham Central

Grangefield

Billingham West

Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree

Hartburn

Norton West

Fairfield

Eaglescliffe

Billingham North

Western Parishes

Northern Parishes

Ingleby Barwick

Yarm

Ingleby Barwick West

40.5%

35.0%

16.1%

8.2%

5.1%

England = 21.8

Child poverty% aged 0-15 living in income deprived households, 2010

Stockton = 21.8

Inequality gap between Stockton & England

= 0

Most affluent

Affluent

Intermediate

Deprived

Most deprived

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Stockton Town Centre

Newtown

Parkfield and Oxbridge

Norton South

Stainsby Hill

Mandale and Victoria

Billingham East

Hardwick

Roseworth

Village

Norton North

Billingham

Billingham Central

Grangefield

Billingham West

Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree

Hartburn

Norton West

Fairfield

Eaglescliffe

Billingham North

Western Parishes

Northern Parishes

Ingleby Barwick

Yarm

Ingleby Barwick West

40.5%

35.0%

16.1%

8.2%

5.1%

Inequality gap within Stockton

= 7.9

England = 21.8

Child poverty% aged 0-15 living in income deprived households, 2010

Stockton = 21.8

Inequality gap between Stockton & England

= 0

5.1

8.2

16.1

35.0

40.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Most affluent Affluent Intermediate Deprived Most deprived

Most deprived

Deprived

Intermediate

Affluent

Most affluent

5.18.2

16.1

35.0

40.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

Child poverty

790

5.18.2

16.1

35.0

40.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

6.16.7

5.6

7.7

9.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

Child poverty

790

160

Low birthweight

16.118.0 18.7

24.623.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

Obesity (year 6)

145

5.18.2

16.1

35.0

40.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

6.16.7

5.6

7.7

9.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

Child poverty

790

160

Low birthweight

75.672.3

49.9

42.948.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

65

Child development

16.118.0 18.7

24.623.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

77.4

67.6

44.0 41.7 41.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

Obesity (year 6)

145

54

GCSE attainment

92.1100.0 99.2

158.0166.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

Emergency admissions

181

70.184.2 88.5

157.5168.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

239

Deaths (all causes)

1.92.6

3.8

7.0

9.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mostaffluent

Affluent Inter Deprived Mostdeprived

479

Unemployment

790

479

239

181

160

145

65

54

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Child poverty

Unemployment

Deaths (all causes)

Emergency admissions

Low birthweight

Obesity (Year 6)

Child development

GCSE attainment

Inequality gaps within Stockton

RatioMost affluent to most deprived quintiles of child poverty

Values above 100 mean that rates are HIGHER

in the most deprived wards

Values below 100 mean that rates are LOWER

in the most deprived wards

Value of 100 means that there is NO DIFFERENCE

between affluent and deprived wards

The example of… unauthorised absence from school

8,990good reasons

to reduce child poverty

Trying to get every child into school every day

‘The best days of our lives…?

Persistent absence is when a child is not in school

for more than 20% of the time(15% from October 2011)

We know that some childrenare persistently absent from school…

1,345 childrenwere persistently absentfor more than 1 day in 6in Stockton in 2011/12

Absence from schoolis strongly associatedwith young people not being in being further education or employment.

Trying to get every child into school every day

Headline findings

The reading, writing and numeracy attainments of this age group at the top end are among the best in the world.

But more needs to be done… …about 17% of young people aged 16–19 have poorer literacy, and about 22% have poorer numeracy, than is needed for full participation in today’s society.

Trying to get every child into school every day

Headline findings

The reading, writing and numeracy attainments of this age group at the top end are among the best in the world.

But more needs to be done… …about 17% of young people aged 16–19 have poorer literacy, and about 22% have poorer numeracy, than is needed for full participation in today’s society.

Some companies find that some school leavers are insufficiently prepared for basic transactions in the workplace.

Trying to get every child into school every day

Would it be possible…

To improve attendance at school by:• Making a step change in ambition to achieve 100%?• Investigating the weakness of current processes?• Tackling poor literacy (given 11 years of education)?• Just getting a list of children who are ‘not in school’?

If we can’t get all children to school every day,we won’t break the cycle of child poverty

8,990good reasons

to reduce child poverty

The example of… people who do not receive benefit entitlements

8,990good reasons

to reduce child poverty

Trying to increase income for people in need

Poverty rates particularly increase among:

• families with three or more children; • households with younger children; and • those people living in private rented accommodation,

all of which are groups with above average levels of child poverty already.

…child poverty is set to increase between 2010/11 and 2015/16 by around 400,000 to 500,000.

Trying to increase income for people in need

Unclaimed benefitsin Teesside alone

could total£65 - 100 million

per year

Vast amounts of money that are allocated to people with legitimate needs and entitlements remain unclaimed every year.

It would be cost-effective to allocate resources locally to maximise the uptake of benefits in all localities.

 

Estimated take up of income-related benefits, Stockton-on-Tees, 2009/10

BenefitEstimated take-up (Great Britain)

Estimated number of people with unclaimed benefits in Stockton

Income Support and Employment and Support Allowance (Income Related)

77-89% 800 - 2,000

Pension Credit 62-68% 3,800 - 5,000

Housing Benefit (including Local Housing Allowance) 78-84% 2,400 - 3,600

Council Tax Benefit 62-69% 7,400 - 10,100

Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-based) 60-67% 1,400 - 1,900

Source: DWP, 2012

More people miss out on benefits than ‘scrounge’ them

Trying to increase income for people in need

Would it be possible…

To improve household income by:• Making a step change in uptake of entitlements?• Focussing on those with the greatest needs• Resourcing an effective system to improve uptake?• Advocacy of a system to pursue non-claimants?• Just getting a list of entitled people who don’t claim?

If we can’t get benefits to people who are entitled,we won’t break the cycle of child poverty

8,990good reasons

to reduce child poverty

Professor Sir Michael Marmot

The Marmot Principles

1. Give every child the best start in life

2. Enable people to maximise their capabilities

3. Create fair employment and good work for all

4. Ensure a healthy standard of living for all

5. Create and develop healthy communities

6. Strengthen the role and impact of prevention

“Social injustice kills… on a grand scale”

Trying to address fundamentals rather than fads

Published 2010

Professor Marmot’s approach is to tackle inequalities by addressing riskssystematically across the life courseand especially in infancy and childhood.

‘No bird soars too high…if he soars on his own wings’William Blake

8,990good reasons

to reduce child poverty