1

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Child Poverty Needs Assessment

Produced by Vicky Wheawall, Research and Performance Development Manager, Strategy Team, Directorate for Children, Schools and Families. With thanks to Benn Huntley (Skills Match Placement) and Philip Waters (Graduate Trainee).

2

Contents Strategic Overview and Limitations 5 Executive Summary 6 1. Introduction 10 1.1 Impact of Poverty 10 1.2 Risk of Poverty 11 1.2.1 Associated Risk Factors 11 1.3 The Reality of Poverty 17 1.4 The position in the UK 18 1.5 Policy Context 18 1.6 Defining Child Poverty 19 1.7 Low Income 20 2. Child Poverty in Tower Hamlets 21 2.1 Child Poverty Strategy and Performance Management 21 2.2 Tower Hamlets Profile 22 2.3 Tower Hamlets Poverty Facts 25 2.4 Child Population 26 2.5 The Future Population 28 2.6 Planning for Population Change and Growth 28 2.7 Population Density 29 2.8 Fertility and Birth Rates 30 2.9 Ethnicity and Language 31 3. Child Poverty at Ward Level in Tower Hamlets 35 3.1 Income Deprivation 36 3.1.1 Income by Ward 38 3.1.2 Local Area Analysis 38 3.2 Multiple Deprivation Analysis 45 3.2.1 Ward Level Analysis 47 3.2.2 Lower Super Output Area Analysis 49 3.3 Child Wellbeing Index 2009 50 3.4 Material Deprivation and the Family Resources Survey 51 4. Economic Assessment 52 4.1 Recession and Impact on Poverty 52 4.2 Enterprise 54 4.3 Housing Market 54

3

5. Removing Barriers to Work 56 5.1 Worklessness 56 5.2 Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance Analysis 57 5.3 Impact on Children 59 5.4 Tower Hamlets Labour Market Analysis 61 5.5 Barriers and Vulnerable Groups 63 5.6 Child Care 64 5.6.1 Tower Hamlets Childcare Capacity 65 5.7 Qualifications and Skills 66 5.8 The Benefit Trap 67 6. Developing pathways to success 69 6.1 English for Speakers of Other Languages 70 6.2 Family Friendly Employer Schemes 72 6.3 Career Progression 73 6.4 Disabilities 74 6.5 Families with a Disabled Child 76 6.6 Mental Health 77 6.7 Volunteering 79 7. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty 80 7.1 Early Years 81 7.2 Looked After Children 84 7.3 Free School Meals 84 7.4 Post 16 85 7.5 Teenage Conception and Abortion 85 7.6 Family Values and Parental Engagement 85 7.7 Social and Cultural Development 88 7.8 Offending 89 7.9 Intergenerational Work with Workless Families 90

4

8. Mitigating the Effects of Poverty 92 8.1 Housing and Overcrowding 92 8.2 Overcrowding 94 8.3 Homelessness 98 8.4 Squatting 98 8.5 Homes in poor physical condition 98 8.6 Central Heating and Facilities 99 8.7 Fuel Poverty 99 8.8 Financial Exclusion 100 8.9 County Court Judgements 102 8.10 Poverty, Environment and Environmental Health 102 8.10.1 Air quality 102 8.10.2 Road Traffic Collisions 103 8.10.3 Provision of Open Space 105 8.11 Crime and Poverty 106 8.11.1 Recorded Offences in Tower Hamlets - 2009/10 107 8.11.2 Perception Measures 107 8.11.3 Effects on Children 108 8.12 Poverty and Health 109 8.12.1 Pre Natal Health 109 8.12.2 Infant Health 110 8.12.3 Immunisation 111 8.12.4 Breastfeeding 112 8.12.5 Obesity 112 8.12.6 Mental Health 115 8.13 Attainment and Aspirations 115 8.14 Looked After Children 116 Conclusion 118

5

Strategic Overview and Needs Assessment The Child Poverty Act (Part 2, Section 1) requires local authorities to prepare and publish an assessment of the needs of the children living in poverty in its area. Research has shown that a needs assessment is a key driver to addressing child poverty within a local area. The Secretary of State is expected to set out regulations concerning the child poverty needs assessment, including the matters that must be considered. This report has explored the matters which guidelines suggest must be covered in a local needs assessment. These are:

• An assessment of the extent and distribution of child poverty in the local area and in each part

• An assessment of associated risk factors and their correlation with the

extent and distribution of child poverty

• An assessment of the drivers of child poverty set out in Part 1 section 8 CPA.

Limitations This first collation of data forming our needs analysis is a start on developing our understanding of data sources and what this tells us specifically about poverty in the borough. It is partial and limited and is intended to add further knowledge to build on our Child Poverty Strategy. There are however limitations to the availability and granulation of available data in relation to some key poverty information. This has limited the extent to which we can fully understand the nature and geography of poverty in the borough. We are unable to provide any meaningful analysis on material deprivation as the Family Resources Survey is not available at borough level or below. This can be overcome but there are a number of obstacles to obtaining data including membership of research organisations and research applications to obtain data. (UK Data Archive, Economic and Social Research Council). There is no borough level data on before or after housing costs income and the only income data we have is in relation to Paycheck data and benefit claimant analysis. Data used relates to the most recent period available.

6

Executive Summary London is the most prosperous area of the country and Tower Hamlets is host to some of London’s most highly paid jobs. Despite this wealth, many families across London live in poverty and Tower Hamlets has the highest level of child poverty in the country. Successive governments have committed to eradicating child poverty and a plethora of initiatives have been introduced to meet this goal. In reality child poverty remains a problem of scale and millions of families live in poverty and experience high levels of social exclusion and material deprivation. A great deal is known about the nature and extent of child poverty in the UK and a compelling body of evidence details the adverse consequences poverty has on the day-to-day lives of children and families living in poverty. Children who live in poverty experience disadvantage in many aspects of their life and are more likely to suffer poor health, die younger, reach a lower level of educational attainment, be the victims or perpetrators of crime and end up out of work or in lower level jobs. This is a tragedy for these children and extremely costly for the rest of society. The effects of child poverty scar and persist into adulthood. Experiences in childhood strongly influence future actions. An intergenerational cycle of poverty can be observed where children who live in poverty remain poor into adulthood and transmit poverty onto their children. It is vital to fully understand the nature and extent of child poverty in Tower Hamlets in order to effectively tackle the problem at a local level. This assessment identifies the needs of children living in poverty in a local context. The extent of child poverty is severe in Tower Hamlets and many families exhibit characteristics typically associated with poverty. The assessment also highlights local conditions that are conducive to poverty and outlines approaches for how to challenge these. Against the backdrop of the current economic climate reducing child poverty is more important that ever, as is working effectively and efficiently with more limited resources than were previously available. This assessment looks in detail at contributing factors within the borough which are used to measure child poverty and deprivation, either directly or indicatively. Comparisons are made with statistical neighbours, London and the national average to highlight where we’re making progress and where we have more work to do. For each measure an explanation of its relevance is given and, where appropriate, we have shown temporal trends.

7

Key findings National research on child poverty

• Rates of poverty vary between ethnic groups with higher levels of poverty experienced by the borough’s ethnic minority populations, particularly Bangladeshis

• Asylum seekers, workless households, young people living independently and children living in poor housing are particularly vulnerable groups to poverty

• More than half of all children living in poverty are in households where at least one of the adults works

• Families that have a disabled member are far more likely to be in poverty due to the high cost of caring for disabled family members

• Larger families are at a significantly higher risk of poverty than smaller families

Child poverty in Tower Hamlets

• 48% of children are living in poverty according to the National Indicator 116

• 50% of children are in benefit dependent families • 33% of families live on less than £20,000 per year • Tower Hamlets has the highest free school meals entitlement in

the UK (52% of children) • 1 in 12 children live in homeless households (temporary

accommodation) • 66% of children are in low income households (the national

target is to bring this down to 10%) • Tower Hamlets has one of the youngest populations in the

country; 54,300 people are 19 or younger. Of these 66% live in low income households.

• Tower Hamlets scores poorly on many indicators of health and over a quarter of 10-year-olds are obese

• Levels of child poverty are significant across the borough, but there are differences between wards – with 52.3% of children in St Katharine’s and Wapping living in poverty, compared with 69.1% in St Dunstan's and Stepney Green.

• According to the multiple deprivation analysis, the most deprived areas in the borough appear to be scattered across several wards

8

Removing barriers to work Many adults in Tower Hamlets are at a disadvantage in the labour market. Tower Hamlets has a high rate of worklessness, particularly amongst women. As would be expected there is therefore a high proportion of working age people claiming benefits. Worklessness is a primary reason for poverty and it is important to provide support and suitable employment conditions that allow people to work and look after their children. Parents, and especially lone parents, face multiple barriers when they move into work from benefits. In addition to worrying about childcare, parents face anxiety and uncertainty about financial stability and the very real possibility that they may be worse off in work, these concerns are compounded for parents who are in debt. Tower Hamlets has a surplus of childcare places across the borough, however, many parents do not use these services and opt to have their children cared for informally. The most commonly sighted reason for this is that childcare is unaffordable. There are more jobs in Tower Hamlets than people and in theory there should be 1.4 jobs per person. In reality, jobs in Tower Hamlets often require qualifications and skills that many local people don’t have and many of these jobs are filled by people who commute into the borough. Only 16.5% of Tower Hamlets jobs are part time, which may present a barrier to some parents who would benefit from taking part time jobs. The borough is also lacking in employment opportunities in lower skilled fields such as construction or hospitality, which may be more suitable to the capabilities of some sections of the local labour market. Developing pathways to success Paid employment is widely recognised as key to reducing the risk of poverty, provided the conditions of employment accommodate the needs of workers. Within working families, family structure and number of hours worked has a strong impact on the risk of children living in poverty. Crucial to success in Tower Hamlets is that residents have access to the provision they need to improve their skills and, in some instances, overcome language barriers to work. The assessment shows that 50% of Tower Hamlets’ population have language needs. Families need access to family friendly working conditions that allow them to balance work and their parental obligations. It is essential to raise parents’ awareness of their working rights and employers of their obligations towards their employees. The assessment also details how extra provision needs to be made for people with disabilities, mental health needs, lack of experience or lack of confidence to find a route into employment.

9

Breaking the cycle of poverty There is a strong correlation between parents’ and their children’s earnings and social immobility is a major issue facing British families. In some families a tendency not to work may develop where children have no suitable role models or ambitious aspirations. Children in these families need the opportunity to develop skills and aspirations to equip them for the future. Families, in most cases, are the key determinant of positive outcomes for their children. Lower levels of parental engagement are more common in families experiencing higher levels of deprivation. It is particularly during a child’s early years that parental engagement is most effective in securing better outcomes for their children in later life. There is a need to develop strategies that work with whole families to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. It is necessary to look for whole family solutions that challenge the ‘culture of worklessness’ that develops in some families. Success in education is identified as a key priority because higher educational attainment increases opportunities for social mobility. We have set ambitious targets in this area and are making good progress, but there is still a perceptible gap between the attainment level reached between children who are entitled to free school meals and those who are not. Looked after children do not perform as well academically as their peers in secondary schools and while improvements have been made in Tower Hamlets, looked after children are still reaching a far lower level of educational attainment than the borough average. Mitigating the effects of poverty Poor children are more likely to suffer poor health in childhood and throughout their lives. Tower Hamlets scores poorly on many indicators of health. Obesity is a problem for young people and over a quarter of 10-year-olds are obese in this borough. Poor nutrition and unhealthy lifestyles contribute. Children living in poor quality homes or overcrowded homes are more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes in their health and educational achievement. Tower Hamlets is making progress in tackling the housing shortage in the borough, with 9,000 new homes built between 2004 and 2008. Despite this, the housing waiting list remains high with over 11,000 families waiting to be housed and more than 23% of social renters living in overcrowded homes. Tower Hamlets also has a high number of homeless people and one in twelve children live in homeless households. There are also large numbers of homes which are in a poor physical condition. 44% of homes do not meet the decent homes standard and the vast majority of these are privately rented.

10

1. Introduction In the UK there are 4 million children living in poverty1, that’s almost a third of all children, and 1.7 million children live in severe poverty2, 13% of all children.3 Although the number of children living in low income households is 10% less than 1998/99, since 2004/05 the numbers have been increasing back to the levels recorded in 2000/01. Children are also much more likely to live in low income households than the population as a whole, 31% compared to 22%. 1.1 Impact of Poverty Growing up in poverty can affect every area of a child’s development- social, educational and personal. As adults they are more likely to suffer ill health, unemployment and poor housing. Living in a poor family can reduce children’s expectations for their own lives and lead to a cycle of intergenerational poverty.

In 2009 the Department of Work and Pensions published a research report titled ‘Living in Poverty: A review of the literature on children’s and families experiences of living in poverty’.

The key findings of the report on the impact of poverty on children are that poverty can pervade and disrupt all aspects of children’s lives:

• causing material deprivation (lack of toys, clothes, food, bedding) • restricting opportunities at school (inability to pay for uniforms, study

guides, trips) • resulting in bullying and stigma (due to visible signs of poverty) • restricting chances to make and sustain friendships (costs of

attending/hosting social events) • creating tensions with parents (who have to work long hours or rely on

childcare) • generating additional responsibilities (housework, caring

responsibilities, employment) • generating anxiety about finances, debt and parents’ well-being

1 Department for Work and Pensions. 2009. Households Below Average Income 2007/2008. Figures are after housing costs. 2 M. Magadi and S. Middleton Severe Child Poverty in The UK, Save the Children. Definition ‘a household below the income of 50% of the median (after housing costs) and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities’. 3 Save the Children ‘Measuring Severe Child Poverty in the UK’ Policy Briefing January 2010.

11

• low quality housing and children having difficulty sleeping, studying or playing at home)

• neighbourhood deprivation and lack of safe, local and low-cost leisure facilities.

This work also acknowledges that often children are not passive ‘victims’ of poverty: many employ coping strategies such as taking jobs so they can contribute financially, taking on caring duties so parents can work, and restricting financial demands (for example, not telling parents about school trips to reduce parental stress).

1.2 Risk of Poverty Research has shown that risk of poverty is largely dependant upon the amount of paid work a family does. Other important factors affect the risk of poverty including ethnicity, the area in which you live, social housing and being in a lone parent family. The graph below shows the risk of poverty by region. It can be seen that children living in inner London have the highest risk of poverty compared to other regions.

Risk of Poverty by region

0 10 20 30 40 50

Inner London

London

Outer London

West Midlands

North West

North East

East Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber

South West

South East

East of England

Reg

ion

% of children

Source: Households Below Average Income 2008/09 (HBAI) 1.2.1 Associated Risk Factors The Barnado’s report ‘It doesn’t Happen Here’4 identified children in black and minority ethnic families, those in families struggling on low wages, lone parent families, families affected by disability and large families as being most at risk of suffering from poverty. The report also looks at other vulnerable groups,

4 Barnado’s 2007 It doesn’t Happen Here: The reality of child poverty in the UK.

12

including children in asylum-seeking families, children in poor housing and young people living independently. Lone parents ‘Over half of all children in lone parent families are living in poverty compared to 23% in two parent families’ 5 Much of this is due to high levels of worklessness and low out of work benefits: A lone parent with two children, one aged 14 and the other aged five, needs £271 to take them above the after housing costs poverty line. The minimum benefit level for a single mother with two children aged five and 14 is well below the poverty line6.

Additionally, some lone parents often feel isolated and lack confidence. They may also experience poor physical and mental health and be socially excluded. More needs to be done to help lone parents to overcome the psychological barriers that prevent them from getting back into work.

As part of its anti-poverty agenda, the government has set a target of getting 70% of lone parents into paid work by 2010 (currently 57%). While the employment rate for lone parents is improving, 42% of those actively seeking work say the scarcity or cost of childcare prevents them from getting a job7. Whilst the provision of affordable childcare is improving, there is still a lot of work to be done to help support lone parents into getting back to work.

Most lone parents in low income are not working whereas most of the couples with children in low income do have someone in paid work. The result is that most of the children in low income households are either in couple families where someone is in paid work or in workless lone parent families.

• The median age for a single parent is 36. • 55% of single parents are separated from marriage, divorced or

widowed. Only 6% of all births are registered alone. • Only two fifths of single parents receive maintenance from their child’s

other parent. • Once children reach the age of 12, the employment rate for single

parents is similar to mothers in couples. • Many workless single parent households often face health related

issues. 36% of unemployed single parents have a disability or longstanding illness and 30% have a child with a disability.8

5 Poverty.org; Barnado’s.co.uk/Who does poverty affect? 6 DWP 2009, Households Below Average Income 2007/08. Figures after housing costs. 7 Daycare Trust 8 Gingerbread – The Facts about Single Parents

13

Large Families

‘Within large families with three or more children, 43% of children are at risk of being in poverty, in comparison to 26% of families with one or two children9.’

The rate of worklessness in large families is higher than for parents in smaller families10. This is largely due to a lack of affordable childcare. Large families can often struggle to meet the costs of school uniform and equipment. Large families are also at particular risk of going into debt.

Of mothers with two children, 59% are in employment compared with 14% of mothers with 5 or more children who, if they do work, earn on average £1.30 an hour less than those with two children (£7.50 compared to £8.90)8.

Disabilities

Over a million children living in poverty are affected by disability. Having either an adult or a child with a disability in the family increases the likelihood of being in poverty. Within families with a disabled child and a disabled adult, there is a 44% risk of being in poverty, compared to 28% where no one in the family has a disability.

The cost of living is considerably more for a family with disabled children. It costs three times as much to bring up a disabled child as a non-disabled child. It has been calculated that it costs, on average, an additional £99.15 a week to raise a disabled child, and that benefits are not enough to cover the extra costs10.

Black and minority ethnic groups

Within Black or Black British households, 48% of children are living in poverty. This rises to 67% in Pakistani and Bangladeshi households; 27% of White children are living in poverty.11

Worklessness is one of the key drivers for higher poverty rates for some ethnic minority groups. The employment rate for working age adults from minority ethnic groups is 60%, the overall UK rate is 75%12.

Educational achievement is an important factor in poverty rates amongst ethnic minority groups. The achievement gap between white pupils and their Pakistani African-Caribbean classmates has almost doubled since the late 1980s.

9 DWP 2009 Households Below Average Income 2007/08. Figures after housing costs. 10 Willetts and Swales 2003 in Barnado’s 2007 It Doesn’t Happen Here; The reality of child poverty in the UK. 11 DWP 2009, Households Below Average Income 2007/08 12 DWP 2009, Households Below Average Income 2007/08

14

In-work poverty rates are also higher - 54% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in working households are in poverty in comparison to 12 per of White children.13

Working Families

The government's main strategy for tackling poverty is to increase employment rates. Despite this, more than half of all children (57%) in poverty live in homes where at least one of the adults works. Families with children face twice the risk of working poverty than those without. A large part of the problem is that many families are surviving on low pay in jobs where there is little chance of progressing. This means that low-paid workers tend to stay low-paid, which keeps them trapped in poverty.

Working households headed by younger people, those from ethnic minorities and those that include a disabled adult also face higher risks of poverty.

Nearly two thirds of families have struggled to find a job which pays enough for their family to live on. In addition, less than a fifth of low paid adults earned enough to lift their household out of poverty through their wages alone.14

Asylum seeking families

Asylum seeking families and their children are among the most disadvantaged groups in the country. Asylum seeking families are not allowed to apply for permission to work for the first 12 months of their application. This increases the chances of having to rely upon state benefits to support their families and limits their integration into the community. Adult benefit payments are set at a reduced level of 70% of Income Support levels.

Workless households

Around 1.8 million children live in workless households, 16% of all children, and this rate has not reduced since 2004.Two thirds of these children are also in lone parent households.

In inner London a third of children live in workless households which is higher than any other region in the UK. The UK has a higher proportion of children whose parents do not work compared to any other EU country, almost twice that of the EU average and of France and Germany.

13 Department for Work and Pensions 2007b in Barnardo's 2007. It Doesn't Happen Here: The reality of child poverty in the UK 14 Save the Children, 2006. Hard Times

15

Young people living independently

Young people aged over 16 who do not get family support are much more likely to be poor and as adults to remain dependent on benefits or low paid work. Young people receive less benefit and have a lower minimum wage than older adults. Young people receive less income support, are ineligible for tax credits and are restricted to a lower level of housing benefit. Children leaving care are particularly vulnerable to poverty as young adults. At the age of 19, only 19% of care leavers are in further education compared to 38% of all young people.

Children living in poor housing

High rents in the private sector have increased demand for affordable housing. Children who live in poor housing are more likely to suffer from ill health, and to suffer from disability or long term illness. Children living in poor housing often have poor educational attainment. They are more likely to have been excluded from school and to leave school with no GCSEs.

‘Lifeshocks’ Theory Research has also shown that families are at a higher risk of poverty where there have been increased incidences of ‘lifeshocks’. These relate to a range of transitionary or critical turning points in a family and young person’s life. Those who had 8 or more lifeshocks were far more likely to live in poverty than those who had 0 to 7 life shocks. These include events such as:

• Marriage (or similar) break-ups (divorce) • Forced sale of house • Unexpected and substantial drop in income • Eviction • Bankruptcy • Substantial financial loss • Redundancy (being laid off from a job) • Becoming a sole parent • 3 months or more unemployed • Major damage to home • House burgled • Victim of violence • Incarceration • A non-custodial sentence (community service, or fines, but not

imprisonment) • Illness lasting three weeks or more • Major injury or health problem • Younger children (under 5)

16

Additional vulnerable groups include:

• Children whose mothers have low educational attainment • Children living in socially rented accommodation • Children with young parents (under 25) • Children whose parents have no savings/assets

17

1.3 The Reality of Poverty

‘I do without my dinner quite a lot, in fact I would say about 4 days a week, I pretend that I have had my dinner, I would rather give the kids their dinner’ Extract Barnado’s

‘I’m sometimes sad, like other people get stuff and I wish I had that. Sometimes I feel like I am acting selfishly, I should be happy with what I’ve got’ Walker et al 2008

‘It’s freezing in the winter; you have to wear hats and scarves…Even though you wear too much clothes you still feel cold. It’s bad when you sleep.’ Rice, 2006

‘I get sick often, I get a lot of flu… I get sick so much, then I miss my school work, but I don’t stay at home that much…Maybe I catch it from other people or maybe I get it from this home…[The Landlord] never repairs anything…Everything breaks.’ Rice, 2006

‘I’ve always been broke. I only get money at birthdays and Christmas, maybe Easter. Nothing else. I feel really poor. I just think why did my dad left [sic] ‘Walker et al 2008

‘I have a box under the bed. I fill it up with extra food for them when I can afford it. But I don’t tell the children about it.’ Gill & Sharma 2004

‘I am a single mum of two living on benefits. My daughter starts secondary school in September and I am panicking about the cost of the uniform as it is so expensive. I just know I won’t be able to manage. Not only will I have to buy uniform for her there is also my son to consider. He will need a new uniform too. I just don’t know how I will cope.’ CAB services, 2008b

‘If you don’t have the same clothes as other people they say that you’ve got rags.. they will tease you until you have the right clothes…when you don’t have any clothes and you don’t have any shoes people bully and people laugh at you when you go somewhere.’ Extract DWP Research Report 594 

18

1.4 The position in the UK The UK has a higher proportion of its population in relative low income than most other EU countries; only 6 countries have a higher rate than the UK, and the proportion of people living in relative low income in the UK is almost twice that of the Netherlands, and one-and-half times that of France. The UK also reports the highest levels of children living in workless households than any other EU country. UNICEF Report For the first time, in 2007 UNICEF assessed the wellbeing of children and young people in 21 industrialised countries; the UK was ranked bottom in the child wellbeing assessment. The report measures and compares child wellbeing across six dimensions,

• material wellbeing • health and safety • education • peer and family relationships • behaviour and risks • children’s sense of their own wellbeing.

A total of nine European countries (all in Northern Europe) have brought child poverty rates below 10%. The UK ranks in the bottom third of the country rankings for five out of six dimensions.15 The report also ranked the UK as having the 2nd highest rate of relative deprivation16 out of 24 of the 30 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This rank is based on income and not material deprivation and hence is not inclusive of lifestyle domains.17 1.5 Policy Context There is wide political support for tackling child poverty and there are ambitious targets to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it completely by 2020. At present targets to measure progress against child poverty focus on three measures:

15 UNICEF Report Card 7 Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries 16 Defined here as ‘0-17 years in households with income less than 50% of the median. 17 BBC, (2007), Poverty ranking is all relative, [Internet] Available from < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6361349.stm>

19

1) Children experiencing relative low income – income below the poverty line (60% of the national median income)

2) Children experiencing material deprivation and relative low income

combined (income below 70% of national median income and who are experiencing material deprivation)

3) Children experiencing absolute low income (incomes below 60% of

1998/99 national median income). Income can be measured by looking at income ‘Before Housing Costs’ or looking at income ‘After Housing Costs’. At present ‘before housing costs’ are used to assess progress towards child poverty targets, however many child poverty organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and Save the Children prefer to use the ‘after housing costs’ measure as it gives a better indication of real disposable incomes, and makes a particular difference for families with children and for families living in areas of with high housing costs such as London. In the UK 2.9 million children were living in households where income was below 60% of the national median income before housing costs, this figure increases to 4 million after housing costs. The recently announced review by Frank Field on poverty and life chances will include an examination of the case for reforms to poverty measures. 1.6 Defining Child Poverty There is no generally agreed definition of poverty. Reference to income levels and material deprivation is useful and forms the basis for measuring progress in reducing child poverty. It is helpful to also take account of wider definitions in order to respond more holistically to the needs of children and families experiencing poverty.

‘A child in poverty lives in a family with resources that are far lower than the average, with the result that they cannot fully participate in society. It can also mean that the family experiences poorer access to services and other disadvantages such as poorer quality housing and neighbourhoods or lower levels of financial assets’18 ‘Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living

18 DWP Child Poverty Strategy 2007

20

conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged in the societies in which they belong’.19

1.7 Low Income A household is defined as having a ‘low income’ if its income is less than 60% of the median UK household income for the year in question. Single adult

no children Lone parent 2 children U14

Couple with no dependant children

Couple with 2 children U14

60% threshold AHC

£119 £247 £206 £333

60% threshold BHC

£164 £293 £244 £374

In 2008/09 13.5 million people were living in households below the 60% median threshold, this is around a fifth of the population (22%). Many families living in poverty in Britain have only about £10 per day per person. This needs to cover all expenditure including household bills such as gas, electricity, water, TV licence and telephone bills. It also needs to cover necessities such as food and transport and occasional items including clothes, shoes, school trips, activities and replacing broken items such as washing machines or perhaps car repairs if the family own a vehicle. Persistent Low Income The duration of time spent on a very low income can also have a considerable effect on the deprivation of a family. Around a sixth of the UK population – around 10 million people are in persistent low income. A family are considered to be in persistent low income if they are in the poorest fifth of households for at least two years in three. Some families will move in and out of low income known as ‘income churning’, for other families they will experience a long duration of poverty. This also measures those in intermittent poverty. This is measured annually but is considered to underestimate families who may have temporarily moved out of the poorest fifth of households and are in the ‘income churning’ process. 19 Peter Townsend Theory of relative poverty

21

2. Child Poverty in Tower Hamlets In 2009 Tower Hamlets launched its Child Poverty Strategy 2009 -2012. It set out our vision and identified 4 key priorities:

1) Removing barriers to work 2) Developing pathways to success 3) Breaking the cycle of poverty 4) Mitigating the effects of poverty

The strategy outlines the actions and progress we have already made in reducing child poverty. This is supported by a strategic action plan to take forward new activities to continue our pace of progress. 2.1 Child Poverty Strategy and Performance Management Local Area Agreement In 2008 the Tower Hamlets Partnership agreed a second Local Area Agreement (LAA) with government. Reflecting the priority given to tackling child poverty NI116 – the proportion of children in poverty – was included as one of our targets. The measurement for this National Indicator was revised in 2010 so that it measures the proportion of children who live in families in receipt of out of work means-tested benefits and those families in receipt of tax credits where their reported income is less than 60% of the median income. The latest performance data available against this new measure is for 2008 and shows child poverty has reduced in the borough to 48%, a 3.4 percentage point reduction from the baseline and 1.9% better than the 2008 LAA target. This equates to 1,300 children lifted out of poverty in 2008. Child Poverty Strategy 2009-2012

Tackling child poverty sits at the heart of the borough’s Community Plan aspiration to create ‘One Tower Hamlets’. Tackling child poverty is also identified as a cross-cutting priority in the Children and Young People’s Plan 2009-2012. Alongside this the Tower Hamlets Partnership and Council’s Cabinet agreed a Child Poverty Strategy to 2012 in May 2009. This was recognised in the award of Beacon status for preventing and tackling child poverty in 2009. This sets out our framework for preventing and tackling child poverty and includes a detailed action with shared accountability across partner agencies. Our strategic framework for tackling child poverty maps onto the government’s building blocks and is described below.

22

Removing barriers to work – including supporting parents who are job-ready or close to job-readiness to find work, developing strategies to reduce systematic disincentives to work, providing high quality childcare options, and offering top-up skills and training. Developing pathways to success – including investing in longer term training and development, for example around basic skills and English language needs, working with community organisations to create more accessible local and supported work or volunteering opportunities, and actively supporting parents with disabilities and poor mental health into sustainable work options. Breaking the cycle of poverty – including the continued and strong focus on education, personalised strategies to prevent young people from becoming not in employment, education or training (NEETs), targeted intergenerational work with families with a history of worklessness, interventions to reduce youth offending, raising community aspirations and active parental engagement in young people’s learning. Mitigating the effects of poverty – including opening up cultural, sporting and leisure opportunities to those who would not normally access them, maximising the take-up of benefits, improving access to health services and health promotion opportunities, developing localised extended services, and making the greatest use of the borough’s green spaces. The Children and Families Trust, one of the borough’s Community Plan Delivery Groups (CPDG), has overall responsibility for NI116. However, child poverty is everyone’s business in Tower Hamlets and it is recognised that all strands of the Partnership have a role to play in this agenda. This is particularly true of the Prosperous Community CPDG which owns our employment strategy and targets. The role of monitoring progress and developing our child poverty strategy is delegated to the Achieve Economic Wellbeing Commissioning and Delivery Group of the Children and Families Trust. The membership of this group includes a range of organisations including the Council, NHS, Tower Hamlets College, employment services, third sector and Education Business Partnership. The group receives six-monthly monitoring of the action plan and invites representatives from across the Partnership to meetings to talk about progress against child poverty related activities. 2.2 Tower Hamlets Profile Pen Picture The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is one of the UK’s most culturally vibrant and diverse areas. The borough is densely populated with an estimated 235,000 people living within 8 square miles at the heart of London’s East End. There are 82,250 children and young people resident in the

23

borough which accounts for 35% of the resident population, representing a very high proportion of children compared to an inner London average of 18%. The population is expected to increase by 32% by 2021, the highest increase projected for all London Boroughs.20

The borough has for centuries welcomed and been home for many immigrants to Britain. Today, some 49% of residents are from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities; 33% are of Bangladeshi heritage, and there are also sizable Somali, Caribbean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian and Pakistani communities and over 100 languages are spoken21

It includes much of the redeveloped docklands region of London, and the Canary Wharf Financial District. Canary Wharf provides over 103,000 jobs, accounting for more than 52% of all jobs in the borough, however the proportion of jobs undertaken by residents of Tower Hamlets is very low. Tower Hamlets has one of the largest economies in Britain underpinned by very high levels of productivity and enterprise associated with Canary Wharf, this ranks the Borough 7th in Britain for productivity. Average workplace based weekly earnings are approaching double the national average and Gross Value Added per head was £49,783 in 2004 compared to £18,273 nationally.

Despite this, there is a wide and deep presence of deprivation and poverty in the area, providing a stark contrast to the wealth and prosperity that has grown around Canary Wharf and the City fringes that also lie within the borough.

20 GLA 2008 Round Projections Low 21 Community Plan 2020

24

A map of the borough and wards are shown below.

25

2.3 Tower Hamlets Poverty Facts

Tower Hamlets has the highest rate of child poverty in London. It is the second most deprived borough in London and is the third most deprived borough nationally.22

• 66% of children in Tower Hamlets live in low income households (less than 60% of the national median income).23

22 Government Office for London 23 Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index 2007(IDACI 2007)

26

• Over one half of children in Tower Hamlets live in benefit dependent

families. This is the highest rate in the country and the borough is ranked ‘1’ out of 405 authorities.

• 33% of families live on an annual income of less than £20,00024

compared to 22% nationally.

• Free school meals entitlement is the highest in the country, with 52% of pupils entitled to free school meals. 25

• Almost a fifth of working age people in the borough are claiming a key

benefit.26

• 20% of the population have an annual income of £15,000 or less.27

• One in twelve Tower Hamlets children live in homeless households28

• 44% of ‘Tower Hamlets Homes’ do not meet the Decent Homes Standard.

• 41,000 residents say they do not want to work.29

2.4 Child Population The borough has one of the youngest populations in the country, 25.2% of the resident population. This is 54,300 children and young people in the borough who are 19 years or younger30 and 76% of the school age population is from an ethnic minority group. The graph below shows the consistently higher percentage across all age groups of children and young people in the borough compared to London and the UK overall.

24 Paycheck 2009 25 London Council, ONS, London Statistics; Free School Meals, ONS (2007), 26 Neighbourhood Statistics ‘Key Figures for Economic Deprivation. 27 Paycheck Data 2009 28 LBTH Housing Strategy 2009-2012. 29 LBTH Employment Strategy 2010 30 ONS Mid year estimate 2008

27

Percentage of population by Age Band

0123456789

0-4

5 to

78 to

9

10 to

14

15

16 to

17

18 to

19

Age Band

%

Tower Hamlets London UK C Data Source: Census 2001 Age Structure. The table below also shows how the high number of young people affects the average age of the resident population compared to London and nationally. Tower Hamlets London UK Median Age 31.85 35.95 38.60 Mean Age 29.00 34.00 37.00 Child poverty has become an even greater challenge for the borough in the light of continued growth in the borough’s population and the young age profile of our residents. This growth is attributed to in-migration, more births than deaths and growth expected to continue to increase as a result of planned housing developments. The number of young people also magnifies the effect on the local working age population, as large cohorts of young people become of working age. The borough already reports a working age population of 157,00031 which represents 71% of the total population; much higher than the working age population rate of 66.9% for London and 66.2% nationally. In addition, the resident population is growing at a faster rate in Tower Hamlets (7%) than Inner London (4.9%) and the whole of London (3.2%). These factors together place a considerable demand upon the labour market to supply jobs for the growing working age population.32 The local working age population is also growing at a rapid rate (13%) compared to 8% for Inner London and 5% for the whole of London. The working age population in Tower Hamlets is growing nearly twice as fast as the resident population; this is a result of the young age profile of the borough which is strongly increasing the demand for local jobs. 31 ONS Mid 2002-mid 2008 local authority population estimates. May 2010. 32Tower Hamlets Economic and Labour Market Bulletin 2009.

28

2.5 The future population The resident population in the borough is expected to increase by over 90,000 between 2006 and 2026, which equates to a 41% increase. The impact of this upon infrastructure and service delivery is considerable. The capacity of the local labour market, education services, housing and a whole range of other factors should be high on our agenda for reducing poverty which might otherwise be exacerbated by such large population increases.

The GLA population projections for Tower Hamlets estimates an increase to 274,685 residents by 2016.The GLA population projection growth for Tower Hamlets stands at 32% from 2006-2021; the highest projection estimate of all London boroughs. 2.6 Planning for Population Change and Growth The Planning for Population Change and Growth Capacity Assessment33 details the borough’s plans for housing development and the effect upon the population. The results are similar to the GLA projections above. The tables below highlight significant housing developments in the borough over the next 10-15 years, particularly in LAPs 7&8. Lower Density Housing Provision Total New Homes

2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 Total

LAP 1&2 3,094 2,753 1,335 7,182 LAP 3&4 1,019 2,503 298 3,820 LAP 5&6 2,902 3,520 433 6,855 LAP 7&8 5,839 7,946 3,839 17,624 12,854 16,722 5,905 35,481 Higher Density Housing Provision Total New Homes

2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 Total

LAP 1&2 3,336 3,496 1,989 8,821 LAP 3&4 1,060 2,982 442 4,484 LAP 5&6 3,121 4,514 570 8,205

33 August 2009

29

LAP 7&8 6,406 10,427 4,798 21,631 13,923 21,420 7,799 43,142 Linked to these housing growth developments the population is estimated to rise from the existing estimate of 226,542 in 2009 to 283,486 by 2020 based on lower density development and to 295,893 using higher density development plans. In view of our child population comprising 25% of the total population, this equates to 14,350 additional children living in the borough by 2020 based on lower density development and 17,477 additional children based on higher density housing developments. The PPCG estimates that 28% of the new homes to be built will be social rented housing and 45% of these homes will be of 3 and 4+ bedrooms to accommodate the larger family sizes expected for this housing type and tenure. This demonstrates the requirement or expectation of larger families residing in the borough and the concentration in the social rented sector linked with poverty and deprivation. This is also expected to ease some of the overcrowding prevalent in the borough. 2.7 Population Density Tower Hamlets already reports a very high population density, currently 9,919 people per square kilometre compared to 4,562 in London and 377 nationally. Based upon the above housing developments, the population is expected to increase to around 296,038 (high density) and 283,583 (low density) by 2020.34 Although not an entirely appropriate comparison, the table below shows how this compares with other countries and cities in the world, demonstrating how the increased population may contribute to high risks of poverty associated with overcrowding and labour demand. Population Square Km Population

Density Tower Hamlets 200835

220,500 19.77 11,154

Tower Hamlets 2020 296,038 19.77 14,974 Countries China 541,200 29.2 18,534 Monaco 33,000 1.95 16,923 Singapore 4,987,600 710.2 7,022 Hong Kong 7,008,900 1,104 6,348 Gibraltar 31,000 6.8 4,558 Cities

34 PPCG Capacity Assessment Baseline Report August 2009 35 2008 Census Mid Year Estimate

30

Mumbai (India) 14,350,000 484 29,650 Karachi ( Pakistan) 9,800,00 518 18,900 Seoul (South Korea) 17,500,000 1049 16,700 Taipei (Taiwan) 5,7000,000 376 15,200 Shanghai (China) 10,000,000 746 13,400 Delhi (India) 14,300,000 1295 11,050 Hoh Chi Minh City (Vietnam)

4,900,000 518 9,450

Sao Paulo (Brazil) 17,700,000 1,968 9,000 36 Although these are comparisons with major countries and cities, the borough is ranked third in the country for population density after Kensington and Chelsea and Islington.

Rank District Density(per km²)

1 Kensington and Chelsea 14,864 2 Islington 12,847 3 Tower Hamlets 11,154 4 Hackney 11,131 5 Westminster 10,988 6 Camden 10,814 7 Hammersmith and Fulham 10,497 8 Lambeth 10,234 2.8 Fertility and Birth Rates Since 1996 the birth rate in Tower Hamlets increased from 3,445 to 4,261 in 2008, a 23.6% increase. Further, the birth rate is expected to increase a further 7% up to 2020, accounting for an extra 280 births between 2008 and 2020.

Numbers of Births

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Live

Birt

hs

Red = ActualBlue = LBTH Projections

36 United Nations World Prospects Report 2004

31

Source: LBTH Pupil Projections Model based upon actual births. GLA projections 2008 are for 296 additional births by 2020 compared to 280 locally. Fertility Rates There a number of ways of measuring fertility rates, the most common definitions, and used by the Office for National Statistics, are the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and the General Fertility Rate (GFR). This rate is derived from using age specific fertility rates of women in their ‘child bearing’ years. This represents the average number of children a woman would have if she were to fast forward through all her childbearing years in a single year, under all the age specific rates for that year. In Tower Hamlets the TFR is regarded as being quite low. In 2006, the rate was 1.83 and the borough is ranked 233 out of 328 local authorities, with 1 being the highest fertility rate37. The rate for the borough is lower than the national average which in 2007 was 1.92 and 1.97 in 2008. This would be considered to be a positive situation indicating greater wealth, education and urbanization, and where birth control is understood and accessible. However, increasing abortion rates within the borough may be acting to keep the fertility rate appearing lower than had those females continued with pregnancy to a live birth. In addition this may not be the most accurate reflection of reality in the borough as it is independent of the age and sex structure of the population. Using the GFR however gives a very different perspective and ranks the borough 19 out of 328 authorities. This is the number of births per 1000 women aged 15-49 and the borough reported 70.2 in 2006 from a range of 90.4 in Newham to 36.2 in Durham. Tower Hamlets exhibits a pattern of very early childbearing and it has the youngest modal age of all boroughs – 24.2 years. This, combined with the fact that Bangladeshi women have the highest fertility rates of any major London ethnic population, contributes to the high ranking using the GFR method for measuring fertility.38 The age structure of Bangladeshi women is also a factor affecting fertility rates the ethnic composition for women aged 15-49 is 35% Bangladeshi, this rises to 56% for women aged 15-19. 2.9 Ethnicity and language Risks of poverty are highest for Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Black Africans, and are also above average for Caribbean, Indian and Chinese people. Muslims also face much higher risks of poverty compared to other religious groups. Child poverty rates are also much greater than adult poverty rates across groups, so that children from minority groups are poorer than both white children and adults from their own ethnic groups. These ethnic differences are

37 ONS 2006 38 DMAG Briefing 2004

32

also found across measures of poverty and deprivation as well as material deprivation and duration of poverty. Research has highlighted the differences between minority ethnic groups with 65% of Bangladeshis living in poverty compared to 55% of Pakistanis, 45% of Black Africans and 30% of Indians and Black Caribbeans. Over half of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African children in the UK are growing up in poverty with a staggering 70% of Bangladeshi children growing up poor. Half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani employees earn less than £7.00 per hour, higher than for any other ethnic group. These ethnic groups have the lowest work rates and once in work, the highest likelihood of low pay.39 Bangladeshis have the highest poverty levels for most measures and appears to be more severe and long lasting, with 33% of the borough’s population of Bangladeshi ethnicity this has a significant effect for poverty in the borough. Of the borough’s Bangladeshi population, over a third are 15 years or less. Children make up a much larger proportion of the Bangladeshi population, 35% are aged 0-15 compared to 14% of the white British population. The graphs below illustrate the ethnic breakdown and high composition of young people in Bangladeshi families.

39 Labour Force Survey, ONS average for data 2006 to 2008.

33

Although there is limited local data on ethnicity, income and employment, the ONS has produced a local area analysis of the Labour Force Survey 2002/03. This shows Tower Hamlets to have the lowest employment rate and highest unemployment rate in the country. This appears to be largely driven by the levels of employment/unemployment of non white British ethnic groups, which make up more than half of the borough population.

34

Tower Hamlets Employment/Unemployment Rate by Ethnicity

0

1020

30

4050

60

7080

90

Employment rate 72.1 33.4 71 77 30.5 36 35.5

Unemployment rate 7.6 23.7

WhiteAll Non w hite Mixed Indian

Pakistani/Banglade

shiBlack Other

The Labour Force Survey for Tower Hamlets also supports the national trend where almost one third of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are both not in paid work and do not want paid work. This is particularly apparent for females in general in the borough and is discussed further in the borough’s Labour Market Analysis. It is clear that employment, low income from employment and take up of benefit entitlements are central themes in lifting families out of poverty. Research has shown40 the following key issues concerning poverty and ethnicity:

• Issues concerning take up of benefit entitlements • Low income (particularly for Bangladeshi males) • Ethnic penalties apparent in relation to access to social security

benefits, financial support, employment and pay. In Tower Hamlets take up of working tax credits is 43.8%, much lower than the London take up of 61% and national rate of 76.5%. However families out of work receiving child tax credit is higher at 59.2% compared to 39% in London and 23.5% nationally. A more detailed benefit take up analysis and income is included further in this report. 40 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Poverty and Ethnicity in the UK. April 2007

35

3. Child Poverty at Ward Level in Tower Hamlets The following information highlights the extent of child poverty at ward level in the borough. The information is based upon National Indicator 116 which defines poverty as: The number of children in families in receipt of either out of work benefits or tax credits where their income is less than 60% of the median income, divided by the number of children in that area.

Ward % in

poverty (U16)

% in poverty

(All children)

Children in families in receipt

of CTC (less than

60% median) or

IS/JSA

Children in families receiving WTC & CTC &less than

60% median (% working of

those earning less than 60%)

Bethnal Green North 63.7% 64.4% 1,920 415 (21.6%)

Bethnal Green South 66.2% 66.9% 2,360 575 (24.3%)

Blackwall and Cubitt Town 58.7% 59% 1,785 270 (15.1%)

Bow East 62.9% 62.4% 1,500 140 (9.3%)

Bow West 53.1% 53.7% 1,350 185 (13.7%)

Bromley-by-Bow 67.4% 67.6% 2,750 680 (24.7%)

East India and Lansbury 67.5% 66.9% 2,990 530 (17.7%)

Limehouse 65.2% 65.2% 2,535 470 (18.5%)

Mile End and Globe Town 62.3% 62.3% 1,910 410 (21.4%)

Mile End East 67.1% 67.4% 2,390 445 (18.6%)

Millwall 52.9% 54.1% 1,470 230 (15.6%)

Shadwell 65.7% 66.4% 2,255 600 (26.6%)

Spitalfields and Banglatown 58.4% 62.4% 1,220 265 (21.7%)

St Dunstan's and Stepney Green 68.7% 69.1% 3,100 720 (23.2%)

St Katharine's and Wapping 50.4% 52.3% 950 250 (26.3%)

Weavers 62.2% 63.1% 1,620 340 (20.9%)

Whitechapel 61.1% 62.9% 1,770 420 (23.7%)

UK average 22.4% 21.6%

Source: HM Revenue and Customs Child Poverty Statistics 2007 All wards report considerable levels of child poverty compared to the UK average. The ward with the highest level of child poverty is St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green, where nearly 70% of children live in poverty. This is closely followed by Bromley by Bow, Mile End East, East India and Lansbury, Bethnal Green South and Shadwell, each reporting more than two thirds of children living in poverty. Spitalfields and Banglatown report larger numbers of children over 16 which increases the poverty level for all children more significantly than other wards. This also shows the proportion of families who are in work claiming a working tax credit but still earn less than 60% of the median. Shadwell has the highest

36

proportion of those in work and earning whilst Bow East has the lowest levels of families in work and earning less than 60% of the median. The table below shows the proportion of children considered to be in poverty and the proportion that is accounted for by lone parent households. Tower Hamlets has lower than the UK average levels accounted for by lone parent families, however the results vary widely and are significant in targeting employment and childcare policies.

Ward

Children in families in receipt of CTC (less than 60% median) or

IS/JSA

Lone parents

Families in IS/JSA (Couple families)

Bethnal Green North 800 (41.6%) 1,340 (47%) Bethnal Green South 775 (32.8%) 1,575 (55%) Blackwall and Cubitt Town 985 (55.1%) 1,355 (34.3%) Bow East 935 (62.3%) 1,240 (30.6%) Bow West 735 (54.4% 1,050 (37.1%) Bromley-by-Bow 1,045 (38%) 1,830 (47.2% East India and Lansbury 1,435 (47.9%) 2,270 (40.5%) Limehouse 1,150 (45.3%) 1,825 (41.6%) Mile End and Globe Town 790 (41.3%) 1,380 (45.6%) Mile End East 1,000 (41.8%) 1,730 (47.1%) Millwall 725 (49.3%) 1,115 (40.3%) Shadwell 710 (31.4%) 1,470 (56.1%) Spitalfields and Banglatown 320 (26.2%) 845 (66.8%) St Dunstan's and Stepney Green 1,080 (34.8%) 2,175 (53%) St Katharine's and Wapping 345 (36.3% 600 (49.1%) Weavers 630 (38.8%) 1,170 (50.4%) Whitechapel 600 (33.8%) 1,200 (55.8%)

UK average 66.3% 23.9% This also shows by contrast the high level of children in families claiming Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance where the household is made up of a couple, where both adults are not in work. The levels across the borough are considerably higher than the UK average. 3.1 Income Deprivation The mean income in Tower Hamlets in 2009 was £36,389 and the median £28,199. 41 This is 12% higher than the national mean and 6% higher than the national median income; however the most frequent income levels both

41 Paycheck 2009

37

nationally and within Tower Hamlets are between £15,000 and £20,000. The median income level, however, is lower than for inner and outer London whilst residents within the borough face the high living costs associated with living in London. London has one of the highest living costs compared to other international cities both in Europe and the rest of the world. The International Cost of Living Survey April 2009 ranked London 27th out of 143 cities for the highest costs of living, this relates to the cost of over 200 items including food, transport, housing, clothing, household goods and entertainment.42 This has dropped from being the 8th most expensive city in April 2008, considered to be a result of economic downturn and fluctuating exchange rates. The only other UK city to make it onto the index is Manchester in 70th place, London’s high living costs disproportionately affect income after housing costs leaving less disposable income for many families. The table below shows the latest DWP Households Below Average Income thresholds 2008/9. It is not clear what housing costs to income ratio is used by the DWP in calculating housing costs, however in London this can be up to 47% of income and can be up to 72% for lone parents in London.43

Median Relative Low Income (Less than 60% of

median) Before Housing Costs Couple no children 407 244 Single no children 273 164 Couple with children 5 and 14 623 374 Single with children 5 and 14 489 293 After Housing Costs Couple no children 343 206 Single no children 199 119 Couple with children 5 and 14 555 333 Single with children 5 and 14 411 247

Source: Households Below Average Income 2008/09 For this reason we cannot make direct comparisons to weekly income thresholds, however local income data (Paycheck 2009) enables some analysis of local income deprivation by ward area. 42 Economist Intelligence Unit Cost of Living Survey 2009. 43 Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research 2009: Dataspring Tenant Services Authority

38

3.1.1 Income by Ward The table below shows annual median salaries by ward, the most frequent income band and the percentage of households in the ward with an equivalised income of less than £15,000 per year.

Ward Median Income

Modal Income Band

15K and Under (%)

East India and Lansbury £20,829 10-15k 31.82% Bromley-by-Bow £22,132 15-20k 28.58% St Dunstan's and Stepney Green £22,804 15-20k 27.39% Mile End and Globe Town £23,562 15-20k 26.27% Mile End East £23,900 15-20k 25.54% Bethnal Green South £25,028 15-20k 24.29% Shadwell £25,703 10-15k 24.56% Weavers £26,442 15-20k 20.98% Bethnal Green North £26,773 15-20k 20.97% Limehouse £28,008 15-20k 21.05% Bow East £28,828 15-20k 18.11% Whitechapel £29,301 15-20k 20.46% Bow West £29,460 15-20k 16.59% Spitalfields and Banglatown £29,460 15-20k 18.76% Blackwall and Cubitt Town £37,492 20-25k 11.72% Millwall £38,306 20-25k 11.54% St Katharine's and Wapping £40,467 100k+ 9.40%

Tower Hamlets £28,199 15-20k 20.28%

Great Britain £26,518 15-20k 20.84%

Inner London £30,766 15-20k 16.29%

Outer London £29,797 20-25k 16.19% Source: Paycheck 2009 The table also shows the percentage of households in the ward reporting a £15,000 or less income band to show the density of deprivation in a ward, which may otherwise be masked by more affluent households in that ward. Although the percentage earning less than 15k is similar to the UK average, when the income band increases to households earning £0 - £20,000 this increases to 32.5% of households in Tower Hamlets and 22% nationally. 3.1.2 Local Area Analysis Using output areas (OA) for more detailed analysis shows where pockets of income deprivation exist which are not apparent at ward level. For example, Whitechapel reports a median salary above that for Tower Hamlets as a

39

whole whilst containing two OA’s that have the lowest median incomes in the borough.

Ward OA Median Income

Modal Income Band

15k and under (%)

Whitechapel 00BGGN0018 £10,557 5-10k 74.71% Whitechapel 00BGGN0003 £11,726 5-10k 67.83% St Dunstans & Stepney Green 00BGGH0034 £11,808 5-10k 66.98% Mile End & Globe Town 00BGGE0008 £11,850 5-10k 67.27% East India & Lansbury 00BGGC0019 £12,151 5-10k 65.21% Limehouse 00BGGD0016 £12,399 5-10k 63.96% Shadwell 00BGGK0029 £13,308 10-15k 58.65% Mile End & Globe Town 00BGGE0007 £13,314 10-15k 58.79% East India & Lansbury 00BGGC0013 £13,530 10-15k 57.52% East India & Lansbury 00BGGC0014 £14,016 10-15k 54.95% St Dunstans & Stepney Green 00BGGH0025 £14,109 10-15k 54.43% Whitechapel 00BGGN0017 £14,123 10-15k 54.40% Bethnal Green South 00BGFX0027 £14,148 10-15k 54.26% Mile End East 00BGGF0018 £14,419 10-15k 52.87% Bethnal Green South 00BGFX0018 £14,596 10-15k 51.94% Shadwell 00BGGK0010 £14,674 10-15k 51.54% Blackwall & Cubitt Town 00BGFY0030 £14,708 10-15k 51.41% Limehouse 00BGGD0026 £14,737 10-15k 51.27% Mile End East 00BGGF0031 £14,853 10-15k 50.71% Bethnal Green South 00BGFX0001 £14,865 10-15k 50.64% Shadwell 00BGGK0031 £14,900 10-15k 50.47% Whitechapel 00BGGN0020 £14,915 10-15k 50.40%

Source: Paycheck 2009 The table above shows the 22 output areas with the lowest median income, which are also those with more than 50% of households on an income of 15k or less. Despite having the 6th highest median income at ward level, Whitechapel has 4 OA’s in this group, more than any other ward. Out of 626 OA’s in the borough, the 22 listed in the table above account for 9.1% of the households with incomes of £0-£15,000 year. In total, 36 output areas have median incomes of less than 60% of the national median and a further 50 have incomes of less than 60% of the London median. These output areas combined account for 12.4% of households in the borough and 29% of households with incomes of 15k and under. Of the 36 with the lowest median income, the areas with the highest prevalence are Bethnal Green South, East India & Lansbury and St Dunstans

40

& Stepney Green which account for 5 OA’s each. Whitechapel and Shadwell are next with each one contributing 4 to the total. Whereas the ward level data shows that over 20% of households in Tower Hamlets have incomes of less than 60% of the national median and 32.5% earn less than 20 thousand, the data at output area level shows the concentration of these income levels. Certain output areas in wards experience severe concentrations of income deprivation. The following table highlights the most income deprived output area in each ward accompanied by a brief description of its geographic location.

Ward/Output Area Area and streets Median Income

Bethnal Green North 00BGFW0025

Surrounding Middleton Street, near Beatrice Tate and Oaklands School. £15,249

Bethnal Green South 00BGFX0027

Area around Dunbridge St and Hemming St at Weavers fields park. £14,148

Blackwall & Cubitt Town 00BGFY0030

Area between Manchester Rd and Stewart St, north east of Cubitt town infant school. £14,708

Bow East 00BGFZ0013

Between Wick Ln and Parnell Rd, including Lefevre Walk. £17,547

Bow West 00BGGA0023

Area east of Hewlett Rd south of Victoria Park, near to 00BGFZ0013 £18,691

Bromley by Bow 00BGGB0016

Surrounding Whitethorn St, near Clara Grant Primary school £15,377

East India & Lansbury 00BGGC0019

Teviot ST and surrounding area up to Limehouse Cut, near Manorfield primary. £12,151

Limehouse 00BGGD0016

Between Gill St and Rich St, northwest of Westferry DLR. £12,399

Mile End & Globe Town 00BGGE0008

Around junction of Harford St and Commodore St, north side of Shandy park. £11,850

Mile End East 00BGGF0018

Area around Selsey St and Burgess St, near to Stebon primary school. £14,419

Millwall 00BGGG0041

Between Mellish St and Tiller Rd, near Arnhem Wharf school. £18,502

St Dunstans & Stepney Green 00BGGH0034

Avis SQ and Westport St, near Marion Richardson school. £11,808

St Katharine’s & Wapping 00BGGJ0029

Between John Fisher ST and Blue Anchor Yard, west of St Pauls primary school. £18,624

Shadwell 00BGGK0029

Albert Gardens, Lipton St and Pitsea Rd. Southern neighbour of 00BGGH0034. £13,308

Spitalfields & Banglatown 00BGGL0004

Hanbury St and part of Montague St. Near Osmani primary school. £15,381

Weavers 00BGGM0023

Area surrounding Camlet St, near St Leonard C of E school. £16,180

Whitechapel 00BGGN0018

Most deprived area in borough, surrounding Golding St and Stutfield St near Harry Gosling Primary and neighbouring the second most income deprived area in LBTH.

£10,557

From this table it can be seen that Bow East, Bow West, Millwall, Weavers and St Katharine’s & Wapping do not have any output areas with median incomes of less than 60% of the national median (£15,911). However in three

41

wards (Bow West, Millwall and St Katharine’s & Wapping) all output areas have annual incomes greater than 60% of the London median which is £18,100. Median Income of Output areas

The map above shows the output areas in the borough with the lowest median incomes (BHC) in three bands. Red areas indicate those with median incomes below 60% of the national median, orange areas have medians below 60% of the London median and yellow indicates areas with median incomes of less than 20 thousand per annum. Low median incomes can be seen to be concentrated in the east and west of the borough with the north and south less affected. Low income output areas are predominately located in Whitechapel, Shadwell, Bethnal Green South, East India & Lansbury and Bromley by Bow. These wards all have multiple

42

areas on the lowest band with median incomes below 60% of the national median. However, measures of median income can only capture areas where the median income falls below a certain level. When housing is mixed between high and low income households, areas containing income deprivation can be masked by producing a relatively higher median. Households with incomes of less than 60% of median by output area.

This map shows the number of houses in each output area which have income of less than 60% of the national median.

43

In contrast to the first map income deprivation can be seen to be more widespread with this measure which shows concentrations of deprivation that are not apparent when only using median income per output area. Although output areas are not equal in the number of households they contain which can have a bearing on the numbers in each suffering from income deprivation, this map in conjunction with the one above shows how areas which may seem prosperous based on median income can still contain relatively high numbers of deprived households. A clear example of this is Millwall which whilst having no output areas with incomes below 60% of the national median, does contain high numbers of income deprived households, as does Bow East. However, a major problem with comparing median incomes is that this does not take account of the high living costs associated with living in London. When housing costs have been accounted for, inner London has by far the highest rate of child poverty, with nearly half of all children being poor (48%). This information can be highly misleading because the high living costs associated with living in London disproportionately affect income after housing costs leaving less disposable income for many London families. London has one the highest living costs compared to other international cities both in Europe and the rest of the world. The International Cost of Living Survey April 2009 ranked London 27th out of 143 cities for the highest costs of living, this relates to the cost of over 200 items including food, transport, housing, clothing, household goods and entertainment.44 This has dropped from being the 8th most expensive city in April 2008, considered to be a result of economic downturn and fluctuating exchange rates. Overall affordable housing has deteriorated in London between 2002 and 200845, largely because average incomes have risen more slowly than rent increases. Rent to income ratios are a useful measure for gauging the effect of housing costs and provide further insight to the extent of poverty experienced by families in the borough. Unfortunately local area data is not available to assess relative low income for the borough on an after housing costs basis. It is possible however to use an appropriate rent to income ratio which applied to local paycheck data gives some idea of the disposable income of households after housing costs. The table below takes median pay data for Tower Hamlets by ward and deducts a 47% housing cost for all wards. Although a crude measure it is more helpful than looking at before housing costs alone.

44 Economist Intelligence Unit Cost of Living Survey 2009. 45 Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research 2009: Dataspring Tenant Services Authority

44

Ward Median Income

Net Annual Net Monthly (AHC)

Net weekly (AHC)

East India and Lansbury £20,829 £16,295 £1,357

(£719) £313

(£166)

Bromley-by-Bow £22,132 £17,194 £1,432

(£758) £330

(£175)

St Dunstan's and Stepney Green £22,804 £17,658 £1,471

(£779) £339

(£179)

Mile End and Globe Town £23,562 £18,181 £1,515

(£802) £349

(£185)

Mile End East £23,900 £18,414 £1,534

(£813) £354

(£187)

Bethnal Green South £25,028 £19,192 £1,599

(£847) £369

(£195)

Shadwell £25,703 £19,658 £1,638

(£868) £378

(£200)

Weavers £26,442 £20,168 £1,680

(£890) £387

(£205)

Bethnal Green North £26,773 £20,397 £1,699

(£900) £392

(£207)

Limehouse £28,008 £21,249 £1,770

(£938) £408

(£216)

Bow East £28,828 £21,814 £1,817

(£963) £419

(£222)

Whitechapel £29,301 £22,141 £1,845

(£977) £425

(£225)

Bow West £29,460 £22,251 £1,854

(£982) £427

(£226)

Spitalfields and Banglatown £29,460 £22,251 £1,854

(£982) £427

(£226)

Blackwall and Cubitt Town £37,492 £27,793 £2,316

(£1,227) £534

(£283)

Millwall £38,306 £28,354 £2,362

(£1,251) £545

(£288)

St Katharine's and Wapping £40,467 £29,845 £2,487

(£1,318) £573

(£303)

Tower Hamlets £28,199

£21,380 £1,781 (£943)

£411 (£217)

The table below shows the latest DWP Households Below Average Income thresholds. It is not clear what housing costs to income ratio is used by the DWP in calculating housing costs, however in London this can be up to 47% of income and can be up to 72% for lone parents in London.46 46 ibid

45

Median Relative Low Income After Housing Costs Couple no children 332 206 Single no children 241 119 Couple with children 5 and 14 537 333 Single with children 5 and 14 398 247 Source Households Below Average Income 2008/09 Based upon this information all wards report relative low income for a couple with 2 children (less than 66% of median) after housing costs. Even the ward with the highest weekly earnings, St. Katharine’s at £303 per week, falls below the relative low income defined nationally as less than £333 per week for a couple with children.

3.2 Multiple Deprivation Analysis

The Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007) and Income Affecting Children Index 2007 (IDACI 2007) enable one to look at statistics at a small area level, known as local super output areas (LSOA). It uses 38 indicators chosen to cover a range of economic, social and housing issues over seven domains and combines them into a single deprivation score. These domains are:

• Income deprivation based upon proportion of the population in receipt of means tested benefits.

• Employment deprivation measuring involuntary exclusion from work within the working age population.

• Health deprivation and disability measuring high rates of premature mortality and quality of life impairment through ill-health.

• Education, skills and training, measuring deprivation in educational attainment, skill and training for children, young people and the working age population.

• Barriers to housing and services which uses measures of overcrowding and affordability as well as wider issues such as distance from services (i.e. schools and GP surgeries).

• Living environment deprivation uses measures on air quality, road traffic accidents involving pedestrians and the proportion of households with central heating and housing (social and private) in poor condition.

• Crime domain which uses the rates of burglary, theft, criminal damage and violent crime to represent the risk of personal victimisation.

In 2007, Tower Hamlets was ranked the 3rd most deprived borough nationally compared with 4th in 2004 and ranked 8th on the income scale (for both years). Tower Hamlets has also dropped one position when ranked by Local Concentration which indicates that the relative deprivation of the most deprived 10% of Tower Hamlets residents has increased slightly, although the

46

new ranking of 21 continues to keep Tower Hamlets above the bottom 5% of all districts for this measure. Tower Hamlets IMD National Ranking 2004 2007 Change

Average LSOA Score 4 3 -1

Average LSOA Rank 2 3 1

Extent (Proportion Living in Most Deprived 20% Nationally) 2 3 1

Local Concentration (Average Rank of most deprived LSOAs containing exactly 10% of LBTH Population) 22 21 -1

Income Scale 8 8 0

Employment Scale 34 36 2

• There has been improvement for Tower Hamlets in three of the six

summary measures within the deprivation domain. These are Average LSOA Rank (up 1 position to 3rd), Extent (up by 1 place to 3rd) and the Employment Scale (up 2 positions to 36th).

• The areas with lowest female employment rates were Burnley, Lancashire

(54.3%) and the London boroughs of Newham (48.4%) and Tower Hamlets (47.5%).

• Four areas had unemployment rates over 10% – the east London

boroughs of Tower Hamlets (11.3%), Newham (10.6%) and Hackney (10.3%); and Leicester (10.4%).

• The areas with the highest proportion of claimants were Birmingham and

Liverpool, both at 5.3%. This was followed by Tower Hamlets, London and Wolverhampton, West Midlands, both at 5%. The two highest regions are the North East at 3.1% and West Midlands at 3%.

Within London, Tower Hamlets is the 2nd most deprived borough (second only to Hackney) out of 33 when ranked by average score, although when ranked by the average rank of LSOAs, LBTH is the 3rd most deprived borough behind both Hackney and Newham.

47

The following table shows the national ranking for the 10 most deprived boroughs in London.

10 Most Deprived London Boroughs

Average LSOA Score

Average LSOA Rank

Extent Local Concentration

Income Scale

Employment Scale

Hackney 2 1 1 39 10 24 Tower Hamlets 3 3 3 21 8 36 Newham 6 2 2 51 7 26 Islington 8 6 6 56 36 39 Haringey 18 13 13 57 14 29 Lambeth 19 9 17 93 16 16 Barking & Dagenham 22 11 21 74 47 64 Greenwich 24 17 26 61 33 48 Southwark 26 19 18 104 18 22 Waltham Forest 27 15 30 73 30 50

• Employment deprivation provides Tower Hamlets with its highest ranking;

9th out of the 33 London boroughs. This is likely to be a result of the continuing development and employment opportunities in the Canary Wharf area.

• In all other summary measures Tower Hamlets is amongst the 3 most

deprived boroughs in London. • The local concentration rank for Tower Hamlets is higher than for any of

the other 10 most deprived authorities, indicating that Tower Hamlets has the highest concentrations of deprivation in the group.

• Out of the 10 most deprived London boroughs, Tower Hamlets has the

second highest income deprivation rank. 3.2.1 Ward Level Analysis The table below sets out the ward-level deprivation ranks (within London). Also shown are the number of super output areas within each ward with the worst 10% levels of deprivation, 47and the IDACI48 rank. The number of people living in the most deprived 10% of lower super output areas is just over 115,000 people49, which is approximately 55% of all residents living in Tower Hamlets. Four wards in Tower Hamlets are in the top ten most deprived wards in England and Wales and two are the first and second ranked ward for deprivation. 47 GLA DMAG Briefing 2008 48 Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index 2007 49

48

Ranks Within London

Average Score Income Employment SOA’s In

Worst 10% IDACI

East India and Lansbury 1 5 24 7 7

Bromley by Bow 2 4 62 8 5

St Dunstans and Stepney Green 7 1 25 6 4

Mile End East 8 14 86 5 6

Shadwell 13 11 135 6 17

Weavers 15 35 50 7 22

Spitalfields and Banglatown 18 103 181 3 24

Limehouse 19 13 54 5 8

Bethnal Green South 23 6 43 5 11

Bethnal Green North 27 24 66 5 19

Bow East 34 126 198 4 10

Whitechapel 54 34 148 2 36

Bow West 85 132 155 4 41

Mile End and Globe Town 97 36 153 1 23

Blackwall and Cubitt Town 192 53 173 2 2

St Katharine’s and Wapping 231 217 279 1 66

Milwall 272 125 274 2 52 • Out of 628 wards, Tower Hamlets contains 4 out of the 10 most deprived

wards in London and 8 of its wards are within the most 20 deprived. • For income deprivation LBTH also contains 4 out of the 10 most deprived

wards. • Concentrations of deprivation occur in East India & Lansbury, Bromley-by-

Bow and Weavers. • Despite being the third least deprived ward in LBTH, Blackwall and Cubitt

Town received the second highest rank within London for income deprivation which affects children.

49

3.2.2 Lower Super Output Area Analysis The following table shows the 10 most deprived LSOAs in Tower Hamlets

LSOA Code Ward

IMD SCORE

National IMD Rank

London IMD Rank

National IDACI Rank

E01004252 Limehouse 70.59 221 1 9

E01004284 St Dunstans & Stepney Green 69.72 258 2 45

E01004245 East India & Lansbury 67.03 375 3 211

E01004304 Shadwell 65.97 430 4 940

E01004298 Shadwell 65.19 475 6 546

E01004219 Blackwall & Cubitt Town 64.32 537 8 30

E01004309 Spitalfields & Banglatown 63.93 559 11 477

E01004310 Spitalfields & Banglatown 63.68 582 13 74

E01004302 Shadwell 63.13 617 14 381

E01004238 Bromley-by-Bow 61.90 717 19 239

The most deprived areas in the borough appear to be generally scattered across several wards with seven wards containing the 10 most deprived areas. Although this is the same as it was in 2004, the location of ‘hotspots’ has changed - Shadwell and Spitalfields and Banglatown are now showing multiple occurrences in the top 10 most deprived; these wards only featured 1 area each in the most deprived for 2004. In addition, East India & Lansbury whilst having 7 SAOs in the worst 10% now has only one area out of the top ten most deprived; in 2004 it was a ‘hotspot’ of deprivation with 4 out of the 10 most deprived areas in the borough. Almost all the least deprived areas in the borough are within 3 wards – Millwall, St. Katharine’s and Wapping and Blackwall and Cubitt Town. This remains unchanged since 2004. Some wards in Tower Hamlets contain some of the most deprived areas in the borough, and the country, sitting alongside the least deprived areas in the borough/country. Limehouse and Blackwall and Cubitt Town are the most striking examples of this. The area that was the most deprived in Tower Hamlets in 2004 is still the most deprived in 2007 (E01004252 in Limehouse). Likewise the least

50

deprived area in 2004 is still the least deprived in 2007 (E01004276 in Millwall). 3.3 Child Well-being Index 2009 The Child Well Being Index50 produces data suitable for local level analysis level and looks at domains affecting children using the 2007 IDACI index, 2005 English deprivation data and 2001 census information. Tower Hamlets reports the second lowest score for child wellbeing after Manchester. Local Authority Districts with the lowest and highest average score on child poverty Lowest Wellbeing Highest Wellbeing 354 Manchester 1 Hart 353 Tower Hamlets 2 Ribble Valley 352 Liverpool 3 Mid Sussex 351 Islington 4 East Hertfordshire 350 Hackney 5 Rutland 349 Kingston Upon Hull 6 Waverley 348 Southwark 7 Wokingham 347 Birmingham 8 South Northhampshire 346 Nottingham 9 Surry Heath 345 Middlesbrough 10 Horsham 344 Lambeth 11 Chiltern 343 Leicester 12 Elmbridge 342 Newcastle upon Tyne 13 Mid Bedfordshire 341 Haringey 14 South Cambridgeshire 340 Sandwell 15 West Oxfordshire 339 Knowsley 16 St Albans 338 Barking and Dagenham 17 Fareham 337 Lewisham 18 Congleton 336 Newham 19 Rushcliffe 335 Bradford 20 Uttlesford Child Well-being Index 2009

50 Communities and Local Government Summary Report 2009

51

The following table contains the rank by average score of LBTH in the seven key domains. It combines the total scores of all the lower output areas within the borough for each domain.

Rank of Average Scores Material well-being 354 Health and disability 331 Education 240 Crime 334 Housing 354 Environment 309 Children in need 352

LBTH CWI Rank 353 Child Well-being Index 2009

Out of the seven, Tower Hamlets reports the lowest score nationally in respect of material wellbeing and housing.

Material Wellbeing This is determined by the percentage of the total 0-15 population living in low income households. Low income is defined by reference to receipt of in work and out of work benefits. Housing The borough also scored the lowest rating nationally for housing. This is determined by reference to access to housing including overcrowding, homelessness and shared accommodation, and quality of housing by lack of central heating. 3.4 Material Deprivation and the Family Resources Survey An application has been made to UK Data Archive, Economic and Social Data Service and ONS to access LA level data for the Family Resources Survey. This will be invaluable in understanding material deprivation experienced within the borough. The latest survey was released in May 2009 and contains a range of questions relating to adult and child material deprivation. The Family Resources Survey asks families a range of questions relating to families lacking a list of essential items because they cannot afford it. This includes items such as two pairs of all weather shoes, repair or replacement of broken electrical equipment, a holiday once a year, enough bedrooms for a child over 10, having friends around for tea once a fortnight, celebrating special occasions and a hobby or leisure activity.

52

4. Economic Assessment Tower Hamlets has a very large local economy, ranked 11th out of 408 local area districts in the UK. The average economic scale for these districts is indexed at 100, London as a whole scores 196.4 and Tower Hamlets scores 321.8. This large economic scale is supported by high levels of productivity ranking the borough 7th in the UK. Tower Hamlets has a healthy enterprise culture, ranking the borough 1st in London and in Britain. The borough records a high level of business formation and closure rates, and large growth in VAT registered stock. Nevertheless the borough’s business density and self employment rates are below the London average and the average business size is the second highest in the capital due to the presence of major employers.51 This section should be read in conjunction with the 2010 Local Economic Assessment for Tower Hamlets. 4.1 Recession and Impact on Poverty The importance of the financial and business support services sector to the high productivity and economic activity detailed in the State of the Borough report meant that Tower Hamlets has been more susceptible to the economic crisis than both London as a whole and the UK. Whilst the UK ‘officially’ came out of recession in the third quarter of 2009 and had 0.3% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2010, GDP growth in the borough is expected to have fallen by 7.6% in 2009 (compared with growth of 2.5% in 2008) and is not predicted to fully recover until 201152. Unemployment is predicted to lag behind economic recovery and increase through 2010 until 2011 when recovery is expected to be driven by the financial services sector, with employment predicted to rise by 0.8% in LBTH53. The sizes of these two sectors in the local economy mean that the recovery should be stronger in the borough than for the UK. Mid 2009 figures showed employment in financial services falling by 3.8% and in business support sectors by 3.3% over the year to June. Job creation over the same period was mainly in the public sector (health 3.3% and education 2.9%) though this is not likely to continue in 2010. For the period of 2007 to 2010 LBTH is estimated have lost 18,400 jobs, of which the financial services sector will account for 14,100. However, high numbers of net in-commuters (120,000 in 2007) mean that residents will suffer less due to this as there are a lower proportion of 51 State of the Borough 2007 52 Oxford Economics report 11/2008 53 Economic outlook for London, Oxford economics 2009

53

residents employed in the financial and business services sectors than the borough’s workplace population. Over the same period the number of residents in employment is predicted to have fallen by 5,500, between October 2008 and September 2009, 3000 jobs were lost in sales and customer service positions54. Despite the majority of job losses being borne by in-commuters, the borough started from a position of high unemployment compared to London and the UK with 13.1% of the economically active population currently unemployed. This is in contrast with 8.4% for London and 7.4% for the UK as a whole55. The primacy of the financial sector (55% of jobs in 2008) and the high levels of in-commuters mean that whilst the effects of recession will have been less severe for local employment, recovery will also have a smaller effect on resident employment and the borough’s high unemployment rate. This is in spite of a job density of 1.4 positions per working age resident, much higher than London (0.94) and the UK (0.83)56. The following table shows predictions for employment by sector57; the figures for 2009 are for the whole year and may differ from the mid 2009 numbers.

Tower Hamlets Forecasts 2009 2010 2011 2012 Employment (1000's) 220.3 215.5 217.1 222 % change over previous year -1.6 -2.2 0.8 2.3 Financial services 73.7 70.9 72.1 74.6 % change -2.3 -3.8 1.7 3.4 Proportion of Employment 33.5% 32.9% 33.2% 33.6% Business services 44.3 43.6 44.2 45.6 % change -2.9 -1.5 1.4 3.3 Proportion of Employment 20.1% 20.2% 20.4% 20.5% Health & Eduction 28.6 28.8 28.8 29 % change 3.6 0.7 -0.1 0.5 Proportion of Employment 13.0% 13.4% 13.3% 13.1% Manufacturing 11.7 11.2 10.8 10.5 % change -7.9 -4.4 -3.4 -3.2 Proportion of Employment 5.3% 5.2% 5.0% 4.7% Hotels & Catering 9.6 9.6 9.8 10.1 % change -2.3 0 1.6 3.1 Proportion of Employment 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% Construction 8.2 7.6 7.8 8.3 % change 1.4 -6.7 2.5 5.4 Proportion of Employment 3.7% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% Public Admin 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.1 % change 0.6 -0.7 -2.2 -0.2 Proportion of Employment 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2%

54 Nomis 55 ibid 56 ibid 57 Economic outlook for London, Oxford economics 2009

54

Output in GVA 16.3 16.4 17.1 18 % change -3.6 0.9 4 5.7

From these predictions it can be seen that after the local economy begins to recover there will have been a net increase of 1,700 jobs over the period 2009 to 2012. However, financial and business support services will account for 2,200 more jobs, increasing the share of the labour market taken up by these sectors. Despite recovery beginning in 2011, by 2012 levels of employment of 222,000 will still not have returned to the peak of 223,800 reached in 2008. The forecasts are that by 2012, compared to 2008, only health and education will have experienced significant growth in job numbers at 1400 positions. 4.2 Enterprise The numbers of new enterprises in Tower Hamlets has fallen between 2005 and 2007 but the number of enterprises closing over the same period has fallen at a faster rate, increasing the total number of enterprises by 400 or more each year. This means that Tower Hamlets has good rate of net enterprise births with the number of enterprises in the borough increasing by 4% annually between 2005 and 2007 which was double the rate for London in 2005 and 2006 and 1% higher than in 2007. Although 94% of these new enterprises were those with 4 employees or less, as would be expected, the proportion of self-employed residents in the borough is lower than the average for London and the UK. The self employed, as a proportion of the economically active, in LBTH was in 2008/09 almost 2% lower than for the UK and 3.5% lower than for London.

Gross value added (GVA) a measure of productivity in the area fell from £16.9 billion in 2008 to £16.3 billion in 2009 which represented a decline of 3.6% over the previous year. In 2009 GVA is expected to have reached £16.4 billion (an increase of 0.9%) but will not achieve strong growth until 2011 when it is predicted to reach 4%. Current forecasts show GVA in the borough growing by an average of 5.5% annually between 2011 and 2016. The recovery is expected to receive a short term boost from investment in the Olympics, stimulating construction and distribution services, after which financial and business support services will dominate the recovery with employment growth in the borough expected to average 2.1% between 2011 and 201658.

4.3 Housing Market After house prices fell during the recession there is recent evidence of an upturn driven by a shortage of supply as sellers are reluctant to enter the market. High levels of unemployment and credit availability are expected to

58 Oxford Economics: The Economic Outlook for London 2009

55

halt this trend and predictions are for little change in house prices over the next 2 to 3 years59. Average house prices in the borough have historically been higher than the regional and national average. In August 2009 the average price for a house in the borough was £384k compared to a London average of £352k and despite the recession lowering prices in the short term, this trend is set to continue. This, combined with credit difficulties and unemployment make access to market housing less attainable, increasing the demand for affordable housing and privately rented accommodation. At the start of 2009 the housing waiting list stood at about 23,000 households60.

59 LBTH Economic and Labour Market Bulletin 2010 60 Tower Hamlets Housing Strategy 2009

56

Child Poverty Strategic Priorities

Our framework to address child poverty is structured around four key priorities:

• Removing barriers to work • Developing pathways to success • Breaking the cycle of poverty • Mitigating the effects of poverty

5. Removing Barriers to Work

Research

Research has shown that there are a range of groups that are disadvantaged in the labour market and have a higher risk of being workless, these include lone parents, ethnic minorities, disabled people, carers, offenders and ex offenders. Worklessness can be characterised by multiple disadvantage, where people face more than one barrier to participating in the labour market.

Inadequate employment such as involuntary part time or very low paid work can be counterproductive and may have similar effects on wellbeing as unemployment.

Low income is now increasingly affecting more groups such as lone parent families and in-work families, a change from the mid 1990’s where worklessness was the main reason for low income. However 1.8 million children live in workless homes in the UK, and a third of all children in inner London live in workless households.61

The local labour market is more difficult to define in London because the geographical area within which people look for work varies both by transport availability/affordability and skill level. It is important however that interventions to help workless families are directly relevant to the needs of local employers and increased engagement needed to secure employment.

5.1 Worklessness

At a national level the number of children in workless households has risen by 170,000 to 1.9 million,62 and the workless household rate has increased by 1% to almost 17% nationally, the highest rate since 1999.

The proportion of children in households receiving out of work benefits is 50% in Tower Hamlets, the highest in London.63 Tower Hamlets also has the fourth

61 Labour Force Survey April – June 2009 62 Labour Force Survey April - June 2009 63 London Poverty Profile

57

largest proportion of working age adults receiving out of work benefits in London.

In Tower Hamlets it is estimated that only 57% of the working age population is in work.64 The unemployment rate has remained high for the last 15 years and unemployment among 16 to 24 year olds is twice the London average.

The Tower Hamlets Labour Market Profile reports an economic activity rate of 70.2%; this is lower than the London average of 75.8% and national average of 78.9%65.

This profile also shows a higher economic inactivity rate of 29.8% compared to 24.2% for London and 21.1% nationally. Economic inactivity refers to those who are neither employed nor unemployed, but could be retired or looking after a family. Further analysis shows that disproportionately more women are economically inactive 42.3% compared to 31.7% for London and 25.8% nationally, and in addition 37% of the economically inactive women do not want a job. This is higher than for London at 23.9% and nationally at 19.2%

5.2 Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance Analysis

The figure for JSA claimants in Tower Hamlets in 2009 is quite significant. There are almost twice as many working age individuals claiming out-of-work benefits for over a year compared to the London average.

There were over 10,000 Jobseekers Allowance Claimants in the borough in April 2010, 6.5% of the working age population, which is higher than London and national levels.

64 Tower Hamlets Employment Strategy 65 ONS Labour Market Profile Oct 2008 – Sep 2009

58

Jobseekers Allowance Claimants

0

1000

2000

30004000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Males Females

No.

Cla

iman

ts

Data Source: Nomis web JSA ClaimantsMay 2010.

Tower Hamlets

London UK

Males 8.9%* 5.5% 5.4% Females 4.1% 3.0% 2.3%

*% is percentage of resident working age population by area and gender

Latest data in November 2009 shows there were 31,820 working age clients claiming key benefits in Tower Hamlets, 28,160 claiming key out of work benefits.

The chart below shows the type of benefits claimed.

Key Benefits Claimed

31%

39%

15%

7%4% 3%1%

Jobseekers

ESA and Incapacity Benefits

Lone parents

Carers

Others on income relatedbenefitsDisabled

Bereaved

59

This shows that Jobseekers Allowance and Incapacity benefits make up almost three quarters of key benefit claims.

The proportion of working age people claiming key benefits is higher across all benefit types, except disabled benefit, than London and national levels. Over 20% of the working age population are claimants compared to 15% in London and nationally.

5.3 Impact on Children

Over 50% of children in the borough live in families claiming key out of work benefits.

There are over 24,000 children in Tower Hamlets in families on Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance. Over 20,000 of these children are under 16 years old.

Nearly 13,000 children (53%) in families claiming income support or JSA are in lone parent families and the remainder in couple families.

The proportion of homes where both parents are not in work varies from a high of 66% in Spitalfields and Banglatown to 30.6% in Bow East.66

Although worklessness is a primary reason for poverty and being below the 60% median income threshold, there is almost an additional 10,000 more children in receipt of child tax credit (less than 60% median income) taking the total to 33,855. This would be accounted for by low income working families or workless families claiming a benefit other than Income Support or JSA, for example Incapacity Benefit.

It is clear that there are larger than average sized families in the borough, almost 36% of children in families earning less than 60% median income or claiming an out of work benefit are in families where there are 4 or more children. This is very high compared to the national average which is 21.8%.67

66 HMRC 2007 67 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Personal Tax Credits by Ward 2007.

60

Children in Families in receipt of Child Tax Credit (less than 60% median) or Income Support/JSA

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1 child 2 children 3 children 4 or morechildrenFamily Size

Num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% o

f tot

al c

hild

ren

Number of children in families Percent of total

The graph above illustrates that larger families of 4 or more children are reported mostly in Stepney Green, Bromley by Bow and East India and Lansbury.

Number of children in household in families IS/JSA or less than 60%

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Bethna

l Green

Nort

h

Bethna

l Green

South

Blackw

all an

d Cub

itt Tow

n

Bow E

ast

Bow W

est

Bromley

-by-B

ow

East In

dia an

d Lan

sbury

Limeh

ouse

Mile End

and G

lobe T

own

Mile End

East

Millwall

St Duns

tan's

and S

tepney

Green

St Kath

arine

's and

Wap

ping

Shadw

ell

Spitalfie

lds an

d Ban

glatow

n1 child2 children3 children4 children

60% of children in these families are 10 years old or under. The graph below shows that most children in these circumstances are between 5 and 10 years old, closely followed by 0 to 4 year olds.

61

Age of Children in Families in receipt of Child Tax Credit (less than 60% median) or Income Support/JSA

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 to 4 5 to 10 10 to 15 16 to 19

Age Band

Num

ber o

f Chi

ldre

n

5.4 Tower Hamlets Labour Market Analysis

The Labour Market Profile reports a jobs density of 1.4 which is higher than national and London jobs density levels, which in theory suggests there should be more than one job available per person.

Only 16.5% of jobs are part time in Tower Hamlets compared to 31.2% nationally and 26.1% in London. This may be particularly problematic in encouraging women to take up paid work and for families with young children.

Over half of the jobs (55%) are in Finance/IT and other business activities, much higher than 34.7% for London which includes the city and 22% nationally. Also, other than Finance/ IT there are much fewer opportunities compared to London and national levels in the service industries, for example distribution, hotels and restaurants.

The borough also has lower job availability than national levels in construction, hospitality and tourism.

Employee Jobs by Type

No. Tower Hamlets %

London % National %

Manufacturing 10,100 4.9 4.3 10.2 Construction 4,300 2.1 2.9 4.8 Services 188,100 92.2 92.4 83.5 Distribution, Hotels and restaurants

23,400 11.5 21.0 23.4

Transport and Comms 8,600 4.2 7.4 5.8 Finance, IT, other business activities

112,900 55.3 34.7 22.0

Public admin, education 34,100 16.7 22.2 27.0

62

& health Other services 9,100 4.4 7.2 5.3 Tourism 9,300 4.6 8.3 8.2

The borough Employment Strategy reports growth of industries within the city fringes which has brought jobs within reach of the local community, including jobs in the administrative, secretarial and sales sectors.

It is also of note that the borough has a very low number and percentage of available part time jobs. Only 16.5% compared to 26.1% for London and 31.2% nationally. This presents a challenge as the encouragement of double income households as a route out of poverty would to some extent depend upon the availability of part time working and flexible working arrangements to accommodate childcare. As a result of the borough’s young population, Tower Hamlets reports almost a 10% higher working age population than nationally and 4% higher than in London. Despite this the borough has a disproportionately higher percentage of people unemployed and a lower percentage of people in employment. TH

Number % %

London % National

All Residents 220,500 Males 112,500 Females 108,000 Working Age Residents 157,000 71.2 66.9 62.0 Working Age Males 82.500 73.4 70.0 66.1 Working Age Females 74,500 69.0 63.8 58.1 Economically active 109,100 69.6 75.5 78.9 In employment 94,900 60.4 69.2 73.3 Employees 81,200 51.7 58.1 63.9 Self Employed 13,100 8.3 10.7 9.1 Unemployed 14,300 13.1 8.2 6.9 Economically active people are classed as people employed or unemployed, whereas economically inactive people are neither employed nor unemployed but may be looking after a home or retired. Despite the high working age population and high levels of unemployment, Tower Hamlets reports low levels of economically active people compared against national and London levels. This suggests that there are much higher levels of economic inactivity in the borough due to reasons of family raising or retirement. The table below shows that there are proportionately more working age males in Tower Hamlets than in London or nationally, but similar levels of economic activity (availability for work). However for men in the borough there are higher levels of unemployment. There are also fewer self employed men than nationally and in London.

63

TH

Number % %

London % National

Working Age Males 82.500 73.4 70.0 66.1 Males economically active (un/employed) 67,400 82.5 82.6 83.3 Males in employment 57,900 70.7 75.9 77.0 Males unemployed 9,500 14.1 8.0 7.5 The situation is very different for females in the borough. There is a significant number and percentage of economically inactive females in Tower Hamlets, this large group helps to explain Tower Hamlets’ high overall economic inactivity levels. Levels of economic inactivity amongst males are the same as national levels. TH

Number % %

London % National

Economically inactive 46,600 30.4 24.5 21.1 Economic inactivity males 14,200 17.5 17.4 16.7 Economic inactivity females 32,400 38.4 24.1 19.3 Whilst there are far more economically inactive females in the borough than males, similar levels of men and women report they do not want a job.

5.5 Barriers and Vulnerable Groups

The scale of the task is large: to increase the employment rate by 1% a further 2,000 residents, in addition to those currently assisted, must be supported into employment.

Lone parents

We already know that lone parent families are more likely to experience poverty. In Tower Hamlets there are around 5,500 lone parents with dependant children, which equates to 7% of the total households. This is higher than the national rate of 6.4% but lower than London overall at 7.6%. Fifty% of lone parent households in the borough have two or more dependant children.

Analysis of child tax credits and families on Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance shows that 14,060 children in the borough live in a lone parent household. This equates to 42% of all families claiming Child Tax Credit, Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance.

Women make up 94% of the lone parent households in the borough. Lower levels of employment, full time or part time are recorded for lone parents in Tower Hamlets compared to London and national levels.

64

Tower Hamlets

London National

Female Lone Parent in Full Time Employment

14.37% 24.57% 21.61%

Female Lone Parent in Part time employment

11% 16.4% 26.4%

• The employment rate amongst lone parents in London is far lower (42%) compared to the national average (54%)68

• Worklessness amongst lone parents is especially high in the five (inner London) boroughs, including Tower Hamlets, running at 59%, which is a full 11 percentage points higher than England and Wales as a whole.69

Lone parents face multiple barriers when they move from benefits to work. In addition to finding good quality childcare and juggling family needs by themselves, the complexity of the combined benefits and tax credit systems and the fluctuating income levels can lead to uncertainty concerning housing and other entitlements relating to financial and family stability.

Some employers are also reluctant to employ a lone parent or find it difficult to provide flexible working arrangements.

Health related problems are also frequently cited as a significant constraint to work and in addition to flexibility concerning childcare, an understanding employer and a job that is suited to the individual’s health needs are cited as key factors to maintaining employment.

5.6 Child Care

The availability, cost and quality of childcare are significant barriers to many finding and sustaining work. Recent Daycare Trust research suggests there are fewer childcare places per child in London than any other region, and the cost is around 20% higher than elsewhere in the country.

Many parents are also unable to pay up front costs associated with childcare, including advance fees and deposits, an initial barrier to starting work.

A significant gap is also reported nationally in holiday childcare availability with only 20% of Family Information Services (FIS) able to state that they have sufficient holiday care in place to meet parental need. Nationally, FISs reported that 63% of parents had complained of lack of childcare in their area.

68 Child Poverty Commission, 2006, Monitoring child poverty in London, GLA p13 69 Technical Annex to the London Employment and Skills Taskforce for 2012 Action Plan October 2006, Targeting Worklessness in London, Socio-Economic Analysis, LDA, p13

65

5.6.1 Tower Hamlets Childcare Capacity

The supply of childcare varies across the borough, by ward and setting. There are 157 registered private and voluntary group providers, including 81 out-of-school and breakfast clubs, 21 playgroups, 16 crèches and 39 day nurseries. In addition, there are around 112 childminders providing day care and a significant number of these are accredited to provide funded nursery education.

Ward Number of childcare

places

Bethnal Green North 624 Bethnal Green South 117 Blackwall and Cubitt Town 636 Bow East 382 Bow West 347 Bromley-by-Bow 254 East India and Lansbury 279 Limehouse 246 Mile End and Globe Town 185 Mile End East 221 Millwall 647 Shadwell 256 Spitalfields and Banglatown 241 St Dunstan's and Stepney Green 317 St Katharine's and Wapping 435 Weavers 278 Whitechapel 322

5787

In Tower Hamlets day nurseries are more likely to be used for younger children with working parents and families on higher incomes. Playgroups and other sessional provision are more likely to be used by non working parents and Bangladeshi parents.

A sizeable minority of parents make no use of formal childcare. This group is predominantly Bangladeshi or other Asian or Black ethnic minority. The main reasons for not using childcare is not working, being unable to afford the cost of childcare or wanting to look after their children informally.

There is evidence that there is currently under occupancy in childcare settings in the borough, each place is used by 0.9 children.

66

The Children’s Information Service Monitoring Report and the Supply and Demand of Childcare Assessment survey reveal the following childcare vacancy rates:

• A 33% vacancy rate among day nurseries in the borough. • A vacancy rate of between 53% and 75% for childminders and many

reporting inactivity due to lack of children or vacant/partially vacant places.

• Sessional providers, playgroups and crèches reported higher occupancy rates with between 1.5 to 2 children per place.

This report concludes that there is an adequate supply of childcare places in the borough, but that decisions about childcare are very cost sensitive. For the majority of parents childcare is seen primarily as being needed in order to work. But many parents in Tower Hamlets do not work.

There is little evidence that parents are able or willing to pay more than a token element of the actual cost of childcare places. The free entitlement to funded early education/care means that poorer families can access benefits for their children and themselves, after their children reach their third birthdays, at no cost. Outside of this entitlement, many parents will choose to rely on informal childcare arrangements as a low-cost alternative.

5.7 Qualifications and Skills

Over 35,000 working age people in the borough have no qualifications, making up almost one quarter (23%) of the working age population.70 This is almost double the London and national levels of people with no qualifications.

Over 90,000 residents report having a Level 1 qualification or above, with fewer reporting higher levels of qualifications. All levels including Level 1 show lower levels than London and national rates.

Residents' Highest Qualification Level

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

L1 and above L2 and above L3 and above L4 and above Noqualif ications

70 Nomisweb Labour Market Profile ONS Annual Population Survey Jan 2008 – Dec 2008

67

The low levels of skills and qualifications mean that local residents are poorly placed to compete in the labour market; this is exacerbated by intense competition for jobs. Many workless people lack the skills and qualifications that employers want, underpinned by the need for English Language skills in many cases. The New Deal Programme is a key part of the strategy to get people back into work, the table below shows the number of starts for each New Deal Programme and the number of jobs gained.

New Deal Starts

New Deal Jobs Gained

New Deal Young People (Cases)1 1,040 460

New Deal Young People; White (Cases)1 210 90

New Deal Young People; Black or Black British (Cases)1 100 30

New Deal Young People; Asian, Asian British or Chinese (Cases)1

570 270

New Deal Young People; Mixed or Other (Cases)1 60 30

New Deal Young People; Unknown or Prefer Not to Say (Cases)1

100 50

New Deal 25plus (Cases)1 60 10

New Deal 25plus; White (Cases)1 20 0

New Deal 25plus; Black or Black British (Cases)1 0 0

New Deal 25plus; Asian, Asian British or Chinese (Cases)1

20 0

New Deal 25plus; Mixed or Other (Cases)1 10 0

New Deal 25plus; Unknown or Prefer Not to Say (Cases)1

0 0

New Deal Lone Parents (Cases)1 50 30

New Deal Lone Parents; White (Cases)1 30 10

New Deal Lone Parents; Black or Black British (Cases)1 10 10

New Deal Lone Parents; Asian or Asian British or Chinese (Cases)1

0 10

New Deal Lone Parents; Mixed or Other (Cases)1 10 0

New Deal Lone Parents; Unknown or Prefer Not to Say (Cases)1

0 0

5.8 The Benefit Trap This is where any increase in earnings from work is cancelled out by losing benefits. Research undertaken by the Centre for Social Justice71 identifies

“The current benefits system disincentivises work - the swift withdrawal of benefits, offsetting any earnings from work, punishes the lowest earners trying to earn more. It makes leaving welfare a risky proposition.”

71 Dynamic Benefits towards Welfare that Works

68

A parent can often be financially better off by remaining out of work. In many cases starting work leads to the loss tax credits, housing and council tax benefit and the need to pay childcare costs to make work possible. Some families may also be in debt and, whilst on benefit, able to negotiate reduced repayments. Returning to work, many families would lose this reduced repayment arrangement and be liable to make increased debt repayments. This also disincentivises work for many families. Returning to work can be a daunting prospect in terms of financial and family stability for parents. There is likely to be a period of financial instability and uncertainty, as many employers will pay employers in arrears where workers will be expected to find travel costs and subsist without an income for up to one month. In addition, families will face uncertainty about their income in terms of the effect of tax and national insurance contributions on their net income. Families on benefits at least have some certainty about income levels and have a familiar budget and financial routine. Other employment issues such as sickness pay, holiday arrangements and organising childcare in holidays are also new issues for parents to consider. It is clear that returning to work for many parents provides a range of psychological as well as practical barriers. Parents will need confidence, courage and resilience to make the move towards work supported holistically and sympathetically by employment support agencies.

69

6. Developing pathways to success Research

The most important factor in reducing the risk of poverty is paid employment. This is illustrated by analysis of the difference in such risks between children in families where parents are working, and where they are out of work72. The most important driver of poverty for all social groups – including ethnic minority groups, lone parent families and families with disabled members – is a higher risk of worklessness73.

Paid employment is associated with better family and childhood outcomes74, such as better physical and mental health and improved well-being for parents75. On average, children in workless families experience poorer health and do worse at school than those in working families. However, low income employment is also a problem and can sustain families in near or actual poverty with few opportunities for advancement. Although children in working families have a relatively low risk of poverty, at 14%, because so many children live in working families they still account for 1.4 million children living in poverty. Within working families, the family structure and number of hours worked have a strong impact on the risk of children living in poverty. The group with the highest risk of poverty among working families is children in couple families with one part-time earner. The presence of disability, young children and large families may distance these families from participating more fully in the labour market. One in four children in poverty live in a family with at least one disabled adult76 and this accounts for around 700,000 children in poverty. A significant proportion of disabled parents say they would like to work and mental health represents a particular barrier; only 24% of adults with long-term mental health problems are in work, the lowest employment rate for any of the main groups of people experiencing ill-health or disability77. Evidence suggests that this issue may be particularly salient for some minority ethnic groups, for whom it is compounded by other factors. Children living in Bangladeshi and Pakistani families where there is a disabled adult face a much higher risk of poverty than white children in similar circumstances78. Of the children in poverty in couple families where one adult works part-time, around two fifths have a disabled member and two fifths have a child under the age of five. In the majority of these families the working parent is likely to be the mother: 75% of the non-workers in this group of families are male79. 72 Households Below Average Income 2007-08 73 ,Platt, L. (2009) Ethnicity and Child Poverty, DWP 74 Waldfogel, J. (2006) What Children Need 75 Waddell, G. and Burton, A.K. (2006) Is work good for your health?; Brinkley, I. et al. (2008) Hard Labour: Jobs, unemployment and the recession 76 Households Below Average Income, Department for Work and Pensions, 2007 77 Mental Health and Social exclusion, Social Exclusion Unit, ODPM, 2004, 78 DWP White Paper (2009) Building Britain’s Recovery; HMT (2008) Ending Child Poverty: Everybody’s Business; HMT (2004) Child Poverty Review 79 Delivering on Child Poverty: What would it take? Harker, L., for the Department for Work and Pensions, 2006 80 ibid

70

In contrast, children in families with one full-time earner have a lower risk of poverty: nine out of ten of the non-working parents in these households are women80. Of the children in poverty in couple households with one full-time earner just under half have a child under five, and around two fifths have more than three children. For children in poverty that live in couple households the priority must be supporting additional earners to move into sustainable work when appropriate, and improving retention and progression for those in work. Children in families with one parent in fulltime work and one parent in part-time work have only a 4% risk of poverty, enabling an additional earner to partake in part-time work has clear benefits in reducing risk of poverty. 6.1 English for Speakers of Other Languages A crucial pathway to success in Tower Hamlets is to ensure that those who have chosen to settle here have access to the provision they need to improve their skills and overcome language barriers to work. In 1999, Skills for Life (including ESOL), was identified as a priority. Most of the demand for services has been from refugees and asylum seekers keen to improve their literacy, numeracy and their English Language skills. The rate of growth in demand for ESOL out-stripped all of the 1999 forecasts, in 2003 42,000 adults nationally achieved level 1 or above literacy or an ESOL qualification this rose to 215,000 in 2006/07. In recent years there have been a number of changes to ESOL funding, including the introduction of a cap on overall government expenditure and means-testing of tuition fees for ESOL learners which has removed universal access to free ESOL provision. Since August 2007, free tuition has only been available for certain priority groups. These include people who are unemployed or receiving income based benefits and asylum seekers whose applications are still pending after 6 months or who are unable to leave the UK for reasons beyond their control. A problem with basing free or subsidised ESOL provision on claiming out of work or other benefits is one of access whereby a person with language needs may have difficulties in accessing services in the first instance. Unmet language needs could impact their ability to access services which in turn would limit their ability to gain English language skills, preventing them from accessing the help which is available. A further issue identified which has a particularly adverse affect on access to ESOL provision in the borough is that courses are directed at new settlers, whereas many of the language needs of residents in the borough are required for individuals who may already be settled here and have not previously learned the English language.

71

The language needs indicator taken from the 2001 census ranked Tower Hamlets 3rd highest nationally for the percentage of population with language needs, second only to Brent and Newham81. On this indicator it was estimated that 50% of Tower Hamlets’ population had language needs which translated to 98,189 residents82 compared to a third of those in London. Although this is likely to be an overestimate, as it takes the country of origin of the household head as a proxy for determining need, this overestimation will also occur with comparators, with Tower Hamlets residents having significant language needs compared to other authorities in the UK and London taken as a whole.

Percentage of population in the Language Needs Indicator, 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Eng

land

Lond

on

Bre

nt

New

ham

Tow

erH

amle

ts

Eal

ing

Hac

kney

Har

inge

y

Har

row

Wes

tmin

ster

Ken

sing

ton

& C

hels

ea

Hou

nslo

w

One of the main providers of ESOL courses in the borough is Tower Hamlets College with ESOL provision forming 43% of its adult places in the 2008 academic year. In June 2009 the college outlined plans to reduce student places for ESOL from 3000 to 2300 to save £1.75 million this year. Although measures have been taken to mitigate this loss in provision, the measures are short term and funding is not secure after 2011. Demand for ESOL is greatest with pre-entry, entry level 1 and entry level 2, with entry level 1 having the highest demand. With new government guidelines tasking local authorities with identifying priority groups (most vulnerable and/or under-represented) for targeting services there is a danger that without extra funding, resources will be reallocated. This would leave some individuals or groups who previously would have received help with no provision.

81Net - http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/London/lon-londonworkfocusedESOLstatistics-apr08.XLS 82 GLA DMAG Briefing 2006

72

6.2 Family Friendly Employer Schemes Nationally, just under two thirds of working parents are aware of the right to work flexibly, as introduced in 2003, and only 12% of working parents are aware that the right to request flexible working has been extended to all parents of children aged 0 to 16. Three in ten parents have made a request to work flexibly and 81% of those requests have been granted. Working parents perceive requesting to work flexibly could have negative consequences, many are concerned it would mark them out as uncommitted to their job.83 Flexible working includes part-time work as well as flexible hours and can be essential in enabling parents to enter the labour market. However, flexible hours are limited mainly to large firms with the resources to come to flexible arrangements, infrastructure support for working from home or work which lends itself to flexibility in patterns and those with the HR resources to administer schemes. Although flexible and part-time work can improve participation in the labour market, for it to be a viable route out of poverty pay levels for work of this type need to be comparable with full time positions. At present the part time pay gap in hourly earnings (which compares women’s part time pay to men’s full time pay) is 39.4%84 which impacts women the most as they account for a larger share of part-time working than men. There is also an issue with the availability of part-time or flexible work, in Tower Hamlets part-time jobs only account for 16.5% of positions in the borough, compared to 26.1% in London and 31.2% nationally. This disparity limits opportunities for those who cannot reconcile full time employment with other responsibilities and can prevent them from entering the labour market when they wish to do so. There are a number of organisations supporting better work life balance for families, a leading UK charity Working Families helps children, working parents, carers and their employers find a better balance between home and work responsibilities. The charity organises annual Top Employers for Working Families Awards, winners in 2009 include Lloyds TSB, American Express, BT, Metropolitan Police and B&Q. In 2009, the London Child Poverty Awards awarded Exemplary Employer Award to Asda for its range of family friendly policies that enable parents to thrive. Jobs 4 Mothers is an online jobs site for flexible family friendly work and also offers advice about training, job applications and childcare. There were 40 83 DWP Building Britain’s Recovery 2009 84 Office for National Statistics (2009) Annual Survey of Hours and Earning

73

jobs registered in London and none for East London. Many of the roles were advertised by the same organisations, suggesting a need for wider awareness of the scheme by employers and mothers too. In Tower Hamlets there are a significant number of major employers which are more likely to promote work life balance. However, local residents are more likely to be recruited into support functions in large organisations through a company’s procurement lines, for example security, retail and administration roles. At present, residents are targeted through employment strategies using this approach. Therefore the employee will not directly be employed by the major employer but a recruitment organisation which may not offer the flexible working conditions. It is not certain how many local employers operate family friendly schemes, or take up of flexible working. However there appears to be scope for increased promotion of family friendly working with local employers and the potential for a local family friendly accreditation scheme. National Work-Life Week will take place this year between 27th September – 1st October 2010, which would provide a good opportunity to work with parents and employers to promote family friendly working practices. 6.3 Career Progression As a remedy to living in poverty, simply gaining employment is not always sufficient. As the economy suffers more employers are resorting to short term contracts and using agency employees. These positions do not give security or enable employees to plan for the future and can trap them in a cycle of low pay and unemployment. The number of people claiming out of work benefits who had been claiming less than 6 months previously rose significantly in 2009 by 60%85 indicating that for some people employment is no more than a temporary escape from poverty. In the first quarter of 2010 over half of new male applicants for JSA and over a third of new female applicants had signed-off unemployment benefits less than 6 months earlier. It is estimated that 20% of poverty is recurring, where people only move out of poverty temporarily86. Entering work will not be a sustainable route out of poverty unless security and lack of progression are tackled alongside removing barriers to employment. To help people get the skills and qualifications to help them progress in work the adult advancement and careers service will be introduced from August 2010 which replaces Nextstep and the Careers Advice Service. This will

85 ONS May 2010 86 Joseph Rowntree Foundation Cycles of Poverty, Unemployment and Low Pay

74

provide independent and impartial information, advice and guidance to help people assess their skills and make choices about training and career paths. Support and encouragement for employers to improve the skills of their employees will be needed to increase the chances for those in low skilled occupations to train and progress in work. Nationally, a new right for employees to request time to train was introduced in April this year for the 11 million employees working in businesses with 250 or more employees. This will be extended to all employees from April 2011 who have worked for their employer for 26 weeks or more, including part-time employees87. The Train to Gain scheme by which central government funds or co-funds training for employers tailored to employees needs has been highly successful in encouraging development of staff. Nationally, the numbers on the train to gain scheme have increased from 32,400 in 2005/6 to 346,200 in 2007/8, although in Tower Hamlets the utilisation of this programme has lagged behind that of some of our statistical neighbours. The table below shows the increase over the previous 3 years from the initiatives of LBTH and its statistical neighbours

Train to Gain Starts

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Camden

Westminster

Hammersmith and Fulham

Islington

Tower Hamlets

Barking and Dagenham

Hackney

Newham

Manchester

Birmingham

Source: thedataservice.org.uk Train to Gain Starts 6.4 Disabilities People in poverty have a higher incidence of disability, and people with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty. The employment rates for those with a disability (defined in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)) are less than half than for those with no disability and around a quarter of all children living in poverty have a disabled parent88. 87 Skills for Growth White Paper 88 Department for Work and Pensions. 2006. Households below average income

75

However, even when in employment disabled people are at a greater risk of poverty through median hourly earning levels which are 20% lower than the median for men and 12% lower than for women89. This is before the extra expense that may be required for a disabled person to reach the same quality of life as an able bodied person is taken into account. The disparity in hourly pay rates can only be partially attributed to the fact that nearly 50% of those who report work limiting disability and meet the DDA definition possess no or only low qualifications, which is twice the proportion of those who have no disability. With the changes to incapacity benefit through the introduction of the work capability assessment, there will be more people assessed as capable of work and who need further support to enter the labour market as they attempt to fulfil the obligations placed on them as part of accessing support. With this expected increase in the numbers of disabled persons entering the labour market and their low employment rate, support will be needed to enable disabled persons to access training to improve their opportunities and reach their potential. Pathways to Work is a programme run by Jobcentre Plus to help people to get to work if they are claiming an incapacity benefit. It also offers a Condition Management Programme. There is also a return to work Tax Credit available of £40 per week, payable for up to 52 weeks. Users of the system have claimed that many people have experienced a negative series of interviews and assessments to ‘prove themselves’ by agencies giving benefits. Disability Employment Advisers need to be more sensitive to the needs of people with disabilities and tackling employers’ attitudes to disabled workers.90 In Tower Hamlets there were a total of 10,080 Disability Living Allowance claimants up to August 2009, 13% of claimants are under 16 years of age. The table below shows Disability Claimant details for Tower Hamlets. The largest claimant age group are those aged between 25 and 49. This is the same nationally and in London however Tower Hamlets has the highest proportion in this working age group. Tower

HamletsLondon UK

Claims 10,080 310,510 2,537,590 Mobility Lower Rate

37% 36% 30%

Mobility Higher Rate 45% 49% 56% Mobility Nil Rate 18% 14% 13%

89 An Anatomy of Economic Equality in the UK: Government Equalities Office 2010 90 Association of Service Users May 2006

76

Age 16-24 7% 6% 6% Age 25-49 33% 32% 26% Age 50-59 19% 19% 19% Age 60 -69 18% 20% 24% Age 70 or over 11% 11% 14% Two thirds of the DLA claims are for a duration of 5 years and over and 8% of claims are less than 12 months old. There were also 9,300 care awards for the care of people with disabilities. This equates to care awards for 92% of disability claimants. A quarter of care awards were at the higher rate, 38% at the middle rate and 29% at the lower rate. The Census 2001, although likely to be an underestimate at this time, reported 33,714 people in the borough with a limiting long term illness. This equated to 17% of the population, compared to 15% for London and 18% nationally. However, this should be noted against the Tower Hamlets’ younger age structure. The Tower Project is a community based voluntary organisation part funded by the Council, providing a range of services to children, young people and adults with disabilities who are resident within the corporation of London. This provides respite services, education and training projects, employment services, information and advocacy services. 6.5 Families with a Disabled Child 84% of mothers with a disabled child do not work compared to 39% of mothers without a disabled child and over a quarter of parents with a disabled child are a lone parent household.91 Enabling parents of disabled children to take up paid work has obvious benefits, but barriers to getting and sustaining paid work may make the task seem impossible. Lack of suitable and affordable childcare, non-inclusive after-school activities, inflexible working conditions, schools and nurseries that do not understand or meet their child’s needs, time-consuming hospital appointments, inflexible school transport arrangements and poorly paid part-time jobs all combine to make work seem practically and financially impossible. The borough Childcare Capacity Assessment reported an expression of need by parents for provision for children with special needs across all daycare settings. It was recommended that this was an issue to be further explored. There are around 17,000 unpaid carers in the borough and both the status of parents of disabled children and people with other caring responsibilities need 91 Working Families Achieving a Work/Life Balance with a Disabled Child

77

to be taken into account in the development of employment participation and child poverty reduction strategies.

In Tower Hamlets we know some of the following facts about children with disabilities.

• 3,052 out of 55,080 are disabled or have learning needs which represent 5.54% of the population

• 1,030, age 5-17 years are on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) • 210 are on the higher rate of DLA (2007) • 235 children have autistic spectrum disorders • 86 children have complex healthcare or have a care package • 18 children have sensory impairment • 238 disabled children are known to Children’s Social Care Services • 82 of the above are aged between 14-18 • 5 disabled children are subject to a Child Protection Plan • 170 disabled children in need are known to social care • 28 disabled children are looked after92

6.6 Mental Health

An individual’s mental health is about emotional resilience, the ability to build positive relationships and cope with life’s challenges.

Despite the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act and the recognition within it of mental health problems as a disability, research has found that there is a lack of understanding and perceptions of stigma around the issue. This prevents both employers and employees from tackling problems directly, affecting the potential of sufferers to gain and retain employment93.

Measures identified to bring change to this situation, apart from increasing awareness of mental health issues, may include making services more accessible for people in employment and training. This could include providing services out-of-hours and through earlier identification of problems and intervention. Due to the fluctuating nature of some mental health issues the move off benefits and into work during a period where a person ‘felt better’ was seen as a ‘risk’ for some people, if work proved unmanageable. The opportunity to make a gradual transition to work, while retaining an entitlement to reclaim benefits quickly, was thought to be helpful and would encourage sufferers with some mental health issues to move into work94.

92 Integrated Service for Disabled Children Team, 2009 93 DWP: Mental Health and Employment 2008 94 ibid

78

Mental illnesses are common, with one in six adults suffering a form of mental illness at any one time. Many of the accepted risk factors are prevalent in Tower Hamlets, such as high population density and overcrowding, high rates of poverty and unemployment and high levels of substance misuse. Only 20% of people with mental health problems are in employment which is the lowest proportion of any disabled group95.

This suggests high levels of mental health problems in the borough and estimates based on the National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey are that around 30,000 adults in Tower Hamlets have a common mental disorder. Using prevalence estimates from the mental health of children and young people in Great Britain 2004, there are also expected to be around 3,000 children aged 5-16 years to have some kind of mental disorder. However, actual numbers are likely to be higher due to higher levels of risk factors96.

The following mental health issues have been raised for Tower Hamlets:

• Under representation of BME service users in some talking therapies • Under representation of children with conduct disorders compared to

national prevalence and caseload (9% to compared to 47% nationally) • The prevalence of schizophrenia is four times the national average • Under reported levels of depression97

The table below shows the number of diagnosed mental health problems in Tower Hamlets:

Condition North West

North East South West

South East Tower Hamlets

SMI 1,344 639 570 781 3,334 Schizophrenia 512 181 277 228 1,198 BPAD 771 388 297 466 1,922 Depression 1,922 767 851 1,516 5,056 Total 4,549 1,975 1,995 2,991 11,510

Source: Tower Hamlets Mental Health Promotion Strategy 2009 - 2011

SMI – Severe Mental Illness BPAD Bipolar Affective Disorder

In Tower Hamlets, there are almost 12,000 people claiming Incapacity Benefit. Of these 44%, almost five thousand claimants, report mental health and behavioural conditions as the reason for their incapacity to work.98

The Beside Mental Health Community project is a Tower Hamlets based charity open to residents who have recurrent or long term mental health

95 Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey, Jan - March 2009 96 http://www.towerhamlets.nhs.uk/about-us/public-health/our-priorities/mental-health/ 97 Tower Hamlets Disability Equality Scheme 2010-2013 98 ibid

79

difficulties. They offer a range of activities for residents to help them develop coping strategies and support for their conditions.

The Tower Hamlets Mental Health Promotion Strategy has a range of key priorities and action plans to develop pathways to success for residents and workers in the borough. These include culturally appropriate mental health promotion, tackling stigma and discrimination and promoting mental health in the workplace.

6.7 Volunteering For those finding difficulties entering the labour market through lack of experience or a long break from employment, volunteering can provide an avenue to acquire transferable skills, experience and confidence to improve an individuals potential for finding meaningful employment. Voluntary positions can also offer a low pressure and rewarding opportunity to explore and experience a completely new industry sector.

A local volunteer programme by the Women Environmental Network did find some success in preparing economically inactive participants for work. However, they also found that volunteering opportunities had to fulfil certain criteria, such as fitting in with school hours or childcare arrangements and requiring little or no costs in terms of local transport, to attract participation. An individual experiencing poverty with family responsibilities is also likely to experience similar barriers to volunteering as to employment99.

To engage volunteers there also have to be clear objectives to any programme and tangible benefits to completion in terms of skills, in addition to the benefits of community engagement.

99 WEN Getting to the Roots - Volunteering programme External Evaluation

80

7. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty

Research Overview The cycle of poverty relates to the situation where poor families become trapped in poverty for generations. There are many disadvantages, not only related to financial resources, that work together to make it very difficult to break the intergenerational cycle. Individuals therefore experience disadvantage as a result of their poverty, which then increases their poverty. Research has shown that children born to low income families are more likely to become low income adults themselves.100 Money is not seen as the only, or most important, factor influencing intergenerational income mobility, but that children have the skills and opportunities needed to succeed in the labour market and society more generally. Research also confirms the effect of family values, parental interests and behaviours on their children. One piece of research identified that parental income had little or no effect on reading and maths test results, but that differences in family values such as reading to children, parental interest in their children’s education and wellbeing, and focussing on children’s social and cultural development were more closely related to improved attainment and success in the labour market. In addition to a good education, children whose parents help expand their social networks and undertake a ‘concerted cultivation’ of their children, for example through involvement in activities and who adopt a non authoritarian parental style are more likely to succeed than children whose parents did not display these characteristics101. Young people's family of origin is a crucial determinant of their future success. Good family relationships can provide a route out of poverty by enabling young people to follow their chosen careers.102 This relates closely to the theory of a culture of poverty103 which proposes there are family values, behaviours or beliefs that keep children trapped within poverty. This forms the basis of much of the Family Intensive Support Programme work where family behaviours, beliefs and aspirations are perpetuated across the generations in that family. The importance of breaking the cycle of poverty and targeting interventions starts before birth, and should consider teenage conception and early years development as well as achievement at Level 4 and beyond. Success in education and training is increasingly an important route out of poverty for children and young people. Schools in Tower Hamlets set ambitious targets for their pupils and strive to meet them. Schools are also

100 Do poor children become poor adults? 101 Devine F. Class practices, how parents help their children get good jobs. 102 Joseph Rowntree Foundation ‘ Routes out of Poverty; 2004 103 Payne R A Framework for Understanding Poverty

81

important in raising aspirations and creating a culture where deprivation does not necessarily lead to lower educational attainment. 7.1 Early Years The Early Years Foundation stage is an assessment of children’s achievement by the time they reach 5. It covers six areas of learning:

• Personal, Social and Emotional Development (3 scales) • Communication, Language and Literacy (4 scales) • Problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy (3 scales) • Knowledge and understanding of the world (1 scale) • Physical Development (1 scale) • Creative Development (1 scale)

Tower Hamlets has reported consistent improvements each year in relation to the National Indicator 72 relating to the achievement of at least 78 points across all scales with at least 6 in Personal, Social and Emotional Development (PSED) and Communication, Language and Literacy (CLL); however we have not met our target. There is still a need for significant improvement in Tower Hamlets as the results compare less favourably than the UK average, the London top quartile and London median which places the borough in the bottom quartile.

% Children achieving at least 78 points across Early Years Foundation Stage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

Year

% A

chie

ving

LBTH Target LBTH Result London TQLondon Median London BQ UK average

The graph above shows the percentage of children achieving at least 78 points, with at least 6 in PSED and 6 in CLL.

82

The borough also has a target (NI092) to narrow the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the Early Years Foundation Profile and the rest of the group. We have traditionally reported a smaller gap in performance compared to London levels, however we have succeeded year on year on narrowing the gap. Key Stage 1 This covers 5 to 7 year olds studying the National Curriculum in Years 1 and 2 at primary school. Good improvements have been made in key stage 1 and we have set in place local ambitious attainment targets. The following improvements are reported in 2009/10.

• Percentage of pupils achieving level 2b in reading at key stage 1 improved from 63% to 69% in 2009/10.

• Percentage of pupils achieving level 2b in writing at key stage 1 improved from 52% to 55% in 2009/10.

• Percentage of pupils achieving level 2b in maths at key stage 1 improved from 69% to 71% in 2009/10.

The percentage of pupils achieving 2+ for science at Level 1 shows the highest level of all subjects but has reduced slightly from 84.6% to 84%. Key Stage 2 This covers 7 to 11 year olds studying the National Curriculum in Years 3, 4, 5 and 6 at primary school. The graph below shows that achievement to Level 4 at Key stage 2 has improved but stayed the same in 2009/10. Whilst this is better than the London bottom quartile, it is lower than the national and London average.

83

Achievement of Level 4 at Key Stage 2

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

79 79 80 81

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Year

% A

chie

ving

Lev

el 4

Level 4 KS2 London TQ London MedianLondon BQ UK average

In 2009/10 the number of schools reporting fewer than 55% of pupils gaining Level 4 at Key Stage 2 has increased from 3 to 6 schools. Progression by two levels in English and Maths between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 4 has improved. It improved from 86.5% to 89.1% for English and from 84% to 87.2% for Maths. Key Stage 2 Attainment by ethnicity The chart below shows the Level 4 attainment at Key Stage 2 by ethnicity. Targets are set for each ethnic group based upon the cohort size and characteristics. It is not reliable to compare the percentage across ethnic groups as the number of pupils will vary in each ethnic group. Most groups however showed improvements last year, with the exception of Chinese which reduced by around 10% and slight reductions in Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

84

Attainment of Level 4 at KS2 by Ethnicity (2009/10)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

White

White Irish

White Roma Traveller

White Other

Mixed White/Black Carr

Mixed White/Black Afr

Mixed White/Asian

Mixed White/Other

Black Carribean

Black African

Black Other

Asian Indian

Asian Pakistani

Asian Bangladeshi

Asian Other Asian

Chinese

Ethn

icity

%

7.2 Looked After Children Although the annual rates will change with size of the cohort, the percentage of looked after children achieving Level 4 at key stage 2 English has increased from 36.4% in the previous year to 50% in 2009/10. This is still much lower than children who are not ‘looked after’. The result for Maths is a decrease in 2009/10, only 35.7% looked after children achieved Level 4 at key stage 2 in Maths. 7.3 Free School Meals The attainment gap at key stage 2 has been reducing year on year in Tower Hamlets between those children eligible for free school meals and those ineligible. There is however still an attainment gap of 8.6% at this key stage. Key Stage 4 This covers 14, 15 and 16 year olds studying the National Curriculum in Years 10 and 11 at secondary school. Tower Hamlets has an excellent track record of improvement for key stage 4 results.

• The number of children achieving 5 or more A*-C Grades at GCSE including English and Maths has increased from 30.3% in 2005/06 to

85

45.8% in 2009/10. This is one of the fastest improvement rates across the country.

• There has been a reduction to just one school where fewer than 30% of pupils achieve 5 or more A*-C Grades including English and Maths.

• The achievement of two or more A*-C grades in Science has improved from 44.5% in 2006/07 to 51.3% in 2009/10.

7.4 Post 16 All young people will undergo a transition period at this point, either into working life, vocational training or continue in formal education. Tower Hamlets has a strong focus upon personalised strategies to ensure young people fulfil their potential and achieve their career aspirations.

• In 2009/10 328 young people took up Learning Diplomas and we are aiming for at least 700 young people to take up this path next year.

• We beat our target this year with 86.6% of 17 year olds in education or work based learning. Research has shown that many young people drop out of post 16 education and training, we are therefore aiming to ensure that support is provided to young people which enables 90% to complete their studies and training by 2015.

• The number of young people who are not in education employment or training (NEET) has reduced significantly, from 13% in 2005/06 to 6% in 2009/10.

• The achievement of a Level 2 and 3 qualification at 19 has also improved. For Level 2 from 58% in 2006/07 to 70.5% in 2009/10 and Level 3 from 33% in 2006/07 to 40.9% in 2009/10.

Only 6% of young people from low income backgrounds progressed to higher education, this is a percentage point reduction from last year. 7.5 Teenage Conception and Abortion Teenage mothers are more likely to smoke during pregnancy and less likely to breastfeed. Teenage mothers are also at an increased risk of poverty and more likely to have lower educational attainment, poor housing and poor health. The number of teenage conceptions has reduced in the borough from 222 in 1998 to around 155 in 2007. The number of abortions has however increased within the borough considerably, from 44% of conceptions leading to abortion in 1998, to 74% in 2007. 7.6 Family Values and Parental Engagement Families, in most cases, are the key determinant of positive outcomes for their children. Good parenting is therefore integral to improving children’s life

86

chances and future mobility. Lower levels of parental engagement are more common in families experiencing higher levels of deprivation104. Parental engagement is most effective in children’s early years and has less of a bearing on childhood development as a child approaches adulthood. It is for this reason that parents with young children are most in need of parental advice and support. Poor parents are less likely to engage for a variety of reasons including long or inflexible working hours, parental illiteracy, indifference to education, or more serious family problems. Local authorities need to develop engagement strategies that take account of these variables. In 2007 the government published Every Parent Matters. This paper outlines the importance of parental engagement and how to develop services that achieve this. Key Transition Universal support agencies Birth Midwives, health visitors Parental return to work Children’s Information Service, childcare

providers, children’s centres Transition to primary education Pupil Services, children’s centres,

Foundation Stage providers, primary schools

Transition to secondary education Pupil Services, primary schools, secondary schools

Transition to post 16 education/work Connexions, secondary schools, colleges, employers, Lifelong Learning Service

Parental Engagement in Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets has developed a range of family support services to increase parental engagement. Many are operated as extended school services. The parental engagement Team provide universal and targeted services to parents through workshops, short courses and information sessions. In particular there are a range of programmes, specifically geared towards enhancing parental involvement in their children’s learning, these are:

- Curriculum focused workshops exploring the national curriculum and supporting parents to play an active role within their child’s learning

- Out of school hours family learning programmes, encouraging parents and children to learn new skills together.

- Targeted workshops with parents of Year 7 children, introducing secondary school organisation, routine and strategies for supporting their children’s learning.

104 The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievements and Adjustment: A Literature Review; DfES; 2003

87

- ‘Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities’ parenting programmes, building resilience within families, strengthening parent/child relationships.

- Mellow parenting programmes, exploring child development, play, discipline and support mechanisms for pre and post natal parents up to 5 years.

There is also a Parents Advice Centre which provides information, support and advice to parents and carers of children with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools. In addition, it supports schools in developing close relationships with parents and works closely with voluntary and other agencies in the community. Tower Hamlets has also set up the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) which addresses issues of quality and level of provision in early education, childcare, and out of school provision for children aged 0-14 (0-16 with special educational needs). The EYDCP aims to create new out of school and pre-school places to increase opportunities for local parents and children. In 2008, young people were consulted about how parental engagement could be more effective. Suggestions included:

- Provide more education opportunities for parents so they can understand and support young peoples learning

- Translation services for children whose parents do not speak English - Recognition and incentives for parents to engage - Making it easier financially for parents to get involved, e.g. pay for

traveling costs Awareness-raising of existing activities was also recognised as a key issue to increasing effective parental engagement and points of access should be friendly and welcoming for parents.105 Extended Schools Extended schools offer a range of family and child-centred services designed to improve family welfare and narrow the gaps between privileged and deprived children. The rationale behind providing family services is explicitly to break the cycle of poverty. Extended services include parenting support, community access, access to targeted and specialist services and a varied menu of extracurricular activities. 105 Children and Young Peoples Strategic Partnership Group, March 2008.

88

7.7 Social and Cultural Development The borough has an on line Family Services Directory which provides a range of information including regular and one off events, childcare, childminder and nurseries, toddler groups, 1 o’clock clubs, holiday activities, play schemes and summer activities. Children’s Centres offer support for children and their families from birth to five. They offer a range of play and learning opportunities including speech and language activities, access to health services, parenting advice and routes for parents into training and employment. There are 23 children centres in Tower Hamlets.

89

7.8 Offending An estimated 150,000 children have a parent in prison. 66% of women and 59% of men in prison have dependent children under 18. The impact of a parent’s imprisoning on a child is deep and wide ranging. The emotional effects of being away from a parent for a long time, the stigma of imprisonment, reduced resources and financial support and possibly being taken into care, especially in the cases of lone parents, can all impact upon the child. In addition to parental incarceration, the disadvantages of poverty may also increase an individual’s propensity to get into a lifestyle of crime or they may be vulnerable to becoming part of a gang, attracted to the ostensibly strong peer relationships and bonds offered within that culture. Tower Hamlets has developed a range of targeted and personalised support for young offenders. The Youth Offending Team is a multi-agency team that brings together staff from the council, the police, social services, education, the youth service, probation and health. The team works with young people from arrest through to sentencing. The team also works throughout the community to prevent young people entering the criminal justice system, particularly the most vulnerable and at risk. Preventative work is particularly important for young people at risk of offending because criminal activity can escalate for individuals caught on the ‘slippery slope’. Tower Hamlets’ Rapid Response Team works to prevent youth offending in the borough. Through a range of targeted activities, they help young people who may be involved in anti-social behaviour, territorial conflict or substance misuse, to engage in more positive activities, and to reduce local conflict. In the borough 83% of young offenders are involved in suitable education, training or employment. This has increased over the last four years, and we aim to increase this to 90%. Youth Offending Tower Hamlets reports a higher proportion of violence and drug offences committed by young people compared to London, between 1% and 2%. However given the age profile of the borough this may not be considered a significant proportion. Lower levels of youth offences are reported for other types of crimes such as criminal damage. In 2008/09106 the number of youth offences resulting in charges, cautions or warnings in Tower Hamlets for those aged 10-17 was 1,016. This represents a marginal increase on the previous year’s figure of 1,003. Four main offence types comprised over 55% of this total. 106 MPS and LBTH Strategic Review 2009.

90

Violence against the person accounted for 20.1% of youth crime (the largest contribution) with 204 offences. This is an increase of 20% on the 2007/8 figure of 170 offences when it accounted for 16.9% of youth crime. The number of drug related offenders was 153 which was consistent with the previous year and accounted for 15.1% of youth sanctions in 2008/09. Theft and handling made up 10.9% of the total, with 111 offenders, which is also consistent with the previous year, although it accounted for a lower proportion of total offenders than for 2007/08, for which it was 11.4%. Public order offences saw an increase of 34%, from 73 to 98 offenders, between 2007/08 and 2008/09. This number, as a proportion of total offenders, rose from 7.3% to 9.6% of youth crime. There was also a high incidence of motor vehicle crime (8.0% of total offenders), robbery, which accounted for 6.9%, and criminal damage related offences at 6.6% of the total. Despite these rises, on the available figures, first time entrants to the criminal justice system as a proportion has fallen and accounted for 36.8% of offences dealt with (374 out of 1,016) in 2008/9. This is an improvement on the previous year (07/08) where out of 1,003 offences 415 were first time entrants (41.4%). 7.9 Intergenerational Work with Workless Families The past few decades have seen the rise of intergenerational worklessness, where unemployment is deeply entrenched in families. This is despite the fact that employment rates have increased overall, the current recession notwithstanding107. Intergenerational social immobility is a major issue facing British families. The correlation between fathers’ and sons’ earnings is very high in Britain compared with other countries including Canada, Finland and Denmark where social mobility is much higher108. Intergenerational worklessness is costly to society and can lead to social problems in health, crime and substance misuse. Children who grow up in workless families are more likely to experience poverty and may have less ambitious aspirations. Research has shown that sons whose fathers were unemployed were twice as likely to experience unemployed as the sons of employed fathers109.

107 Target families to end worklessness; 2009; Children and Young People Now 108 State of the nation report: poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK; DWP; 2010 109 Intergenerational Mobility in Britain: Evidence from unemployment patterns; Donal O'Neill and Olive Sweetman; 1997

91

Minimising the relationship between family background and later economic and social status is an important goal for public policy. Children in workless families need the opportunity to develop aspirations of work that will help them prepare for employment in adulthood and less likely to transmit poverty to their children. In some families, such as those with care givers or with disabled members, there are good reasons to explain why no one works. In many workless households children are growing up with no working role models within the family and work is often stigmatised. These families are often the hardest to reach and to help. Intervention programmes enjoy a lower level of success when aimed exclusively at individual members within the family. Individual family members may have prejudices towards work which influence other members’ decisions. A family member may seek to prevent other members from entering work because they are fearful it could negatively impact their benefit claims. Recent intervention initiatives have therefore addressed this problem by working with whole families. Family intervention Projects (FIP) are examples of working with whole families to achieve positive outcomes. FIPs are aimed to reduce antisocial behaviour perpetrated by the most anti-social and challenging families, and achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes for children from these families. FIPs use an ‘assertive’ and ‘persistent’ style of working to challenge and support families to address the root causes of their anti-social behaviour. Child poverty FIPs are aimed specifically at families who are workless and have significant barriers to work, for example substance misuse, mental health issues. Support for adults might include drug treatment, parenting classes, debt and budgeting advice and JobCentre Plus employment related training and support.

92

8. Mitigating the Effects of Poverty Research There is a wide range of research which highlights the impact of poverty upon children and which shows that growing up in poverty has adverse outcomes for children. Health There are significant differences between social class in relation to still birth, prenatal and infant mortality rates. The average birth weight is also lower for babies born into poorer families and much lower for babies whose birth is registered solely by the mother. The incidence of chronic sickness and accident and injury are also higher for children in poverty. The health related behaviour of the mother is disadvantageous to children born into poverty as the mother is more likely to smoke and less likely to breastfeed. Poor nutrition is also associated with poverty featuring less fruit, vegetables and cereals and more inappropriate foods, less rich in dietary fibre vitamins and minerals. Socio-economic disadvantage is a significant risk factor in the probability of a child developing a mental health problem. Housing A child’s healthy growth and development is highly dependant on the immediate environment in which they live. Research has demonstrated that children’s current and future wellbeing, particularly around their health but also in terms of learning and education, is affected by the standard of their housing. Poor housing conditions increase the risk of severe ill health or disability by up to 25% during childhood and early adult hood. Children in overcrowded housing are up to 10 times more likely to contract meningitis, more likely to contract Tuberculosis, suffer respiratory conditions affecting sleep and school attendance and to have accidents in the home. Children also experience terrible hardship being homeless, over 100,000 families in the UK are considered to be homeless and this affects 300,000 children. Education Attainment results have shown that children in receipt of free school meals achieve lower attainment that their peers not eligible for free school meals. National Indicator 102, relating to the achievement of Level 4 in English and Maths, shows that only 53.6% of children receiving free school meals achieved level 4 compared to 75.7% for non eligible FSM pupils. Efforts are in place to narrow the gap across all attainment areas and are a key driver to mitigate the effects and break the cycle of poverty. 8.1 Housing and Overcrowding Bad housing covers a wide range of issues from homelessness, overcrowding and housing that is in poor physical condition.110

110 Shelter- Chance of a Lifetime – The Impact of Bad Housing on Children. 2006

93

The housing challenge in Tower Hamlets is immense and the borough continues to witness major new housing developments and redevelopments. Between 2004 and 2008, 9,000 new homes were built, 36% of these were affordable housing.111 There are 95,845 households in Tower Hamlets112. The chart below shows the tenure of properties in the borough.

Housing Tenure in Tower Hamlets

Owner/Occupier35%

Private Renter23%

Council rented14%

Housing association

28%

Tower Hamlets Housing Facts113

• 83% of homes are flats or maisonettes • Just under half of housing is in the social sector • Average property price £309,306 • An income of £46,100 (single) is needed to access the cheapest entry

level property (one bedroom flat) in Bromley by Bow/Mile End East area and £60,300 (dual) in Bethnal Green North/Weavers/Mile End/Globe Town area.

111 Tower Hamlets Housing Strategy 2009-2012. 112 LBTH Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2009 113 LBTH Housing Strategy

Tenure Number of Households

Owner Occupier 33,545 Private Renter 22,044 Private Total 55,589 Council Rented 13,418 Housing Association 26,836 Socially Rented 40,254

94

• The lowest private sector entry rental costs in the Borough start at £720 a month for a one bedroom flat in Bow East/Bow West rising to £1,000 in St Katharine’s/Wapping/Shadwell.

8.2 Overcrowding The graph below provides a national picture of the percentage of overcrowding across three types of tenancy. Overcrowding is four times as prevalent in socially rented housing as in owner occupation: 12% of people compared with 3%. Overcrowding is highest in London and overcrowding rises sharply for larger houses. 31% of houses with 5 or more persons in London are overcrowded. BME families are most likely to live in overcrowded houses. This is because BME families tend to be larger and many live in cities

95

which do not have enough social housing, particularly with higher numbers of bedrooms. This is very relevant to Tower Hamlets as 45% of social housing developments will be 3 and 4+ bedroom sizes to accommodate larger families.

The following graph clearly shows that overcrowding becomes increasingly more common as households become large and most common in households with five or more bedrooms. Households from BME backgrounds are more than twice as likely to live in overcrowded houses of any size.

Overcrowding in London (All Tenures)

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

One ortwo

Three Four Five ormore

All

number of bedrooms

Survey of English Housing, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: 2001, 2002, 2003 combined

perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

lds

belo

w

bedr

oom

sta

ndar

d

BME

All ethnic groups

96

The borough has an Overcrowding Reduction Strategy with annual targets linked to reduction initiatives. It states that ‘No housing problem in Tower Hamlets is as acute as that of household overcrowding’. The percentage of households with 6 or more people is 7.5% in Tower Hamlets compared to 2.8% in London and 2% nationally, and over 13% of residents live in households where there are over 1.5 persons per room, this is 3.7% for London and 1.1% nationally. 114 The chart below sets out overcrowding by tenure in the borough.

Overcrowding in Tower Hamlets

16.41926.6

14.720.9

05

1015202530

Ow neroccupied

PrivateRented

Tow erHamletsHomes /CouncilRented

RegisteredSocial

Landlordrented

All

Tenure

2009 Housing Survey Data

perc

enta

ge o

f ove

rcro

wdi

ng

The borough’s Overcrowding Strategy defines overcrowding where a household lacks one bedroom and severely overcrowded where it lacks 2 or more bedrooms. The table below shows that in almost 5% of socially rented homes there are at least 3 people sharing one bedroom. Number of

Households Per cent

Overcrowded (socially rented) 9446 23.4% Severely overcrowded 1798 4.5% Whilst the borough has made significant progress in reducing overcrowding, the number of families on the waiting list remains very high. This poses a substantial barrier in providing housing for families in overcrowded homes. The graph below shows more than 11,000 households are registered for two, three, four or five-bedroom plus properties. While some of those will be

114 Census 2001, Neighbourhood Statistics.

97

households placed in suitably-sized temporary accommodation, a significant proportion of the remainder are currently living in overcrowded conditions.

Tower Hamlets social housing waiting list

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1 2 3 4 5+ TotalDemand

Number of Bedrooms

Num

ber o

n w

aitin

g lis

t

The waiting list assesses those of emergency priority, priority and those not having an assessed priority need. The table below highlights the housing need and priority level of people on the housing waiting list in Tower Hamlets. Bedrooms Needed

CG1 CG2 CG3 CG4 Total

1 911 661 7,679 2,293 11,544 2 426 768 2,929 572 4,695 3 160 903 3,231 383 4,677 4 53 331 994 87 1,465 5+ 20 78 133 12 243 Total Demand 1,570 2,741 14,966 3,347 22,624 Note: CG denotes Community Group category as referenced above CG1: People who have been given an emergency priority need to move because their building is being emptied for repair or demolition, or are social housing tenants who are moving to a smaller home CG2: People who are priority need homeless, because they have extenuating health/social need, are social housing tenants who need to move because of extenuating repair needs, or people from a quota group e,g key public sector workers, care leavers, or people moving on from supported accommodation.. CG3: This group includes all applicants on the housing list who do not fall under groups one, two or four, including persons who are homeless and who do not have an assessed priority need. CG4: Others

98

8.3 Homelessness Overcrowding is a key driver of homelessness in the borough, including statutory homeless acceptances. In 2008/09 there were 853 statutory homeless cases, bringing total households in temporary accommodation to 2,400. In 2008/09 about 70% of those homeless had dependant children or were expecting. One in twelve children in Tower Hamlets live in homeless households. The borough has developed a new 5 year Homeless Strategy. The needs assessment informing this strategy clearly indicated an issue for young people. 60% of homeless acceptances were the result of ejection by parents and one in twelve children in Tower Hamlets are in homeless households. Around 300 young people aged 16 and17 present themselves as homeless to the Tower Hamlets Homeless Service each year. 8.4 Squatting Squatters are people occupying an empty or abandoned property which they do not own or rent. Squatters are also obviously often homeless people and not squatting by choice. Latest statistics as at October 2009 show there were 142 squatters in properties managed by Tower Hamlets Homes (concentrated in the 'regeneration' areas of Cotall Street and Ocean, and Ashington House which has a number of empty properties due to structural problems). 8.5 Homes in poor physical condition The borough Housing Strategy 2009-2012 reports that 44% of ‘Tower Hamlets Homes’, 15% of housing association homes and 33% of private rented homes did not meet the Decent Homes Standard. The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) is a minimum standard that triggers action to improve social housing. The standard encompasses four criteria:

1. It meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing (i.e. the dwelling should be free of category 1 hazards under the HHSRS)

2. It is in a reasonable state of repair 3. It has reasonably modern facilities and services 4. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

On a national scale the number of non-decent homes in the social housing sector has been reduced by 1.1 million since 2001 and nearly 86% of all social homes are now decent115.

115 Communities and Local Government website

99

Tower Hamlets Homes manages homes and estates owned by Tower Hamlets council. Of 12,827 Tower Hamlets managed social homes 44.04% meet the DHS. 8.6 Central heating and facilities The 2009 Housing Need Survey asked households about the heating/ energy saving facilities in their home.

This information highlights that 5% of homes do not have central heating facilities in all rooms and 3% have no central heating at all. 8.7 Fuel Poverty A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10% of its income to maintain a satisfactory heating regime (21 degrees for a main living area and 18 degrees for other rooms). The average UK home spends 3% of its income on energy whilst the poorest households spend 7% on average. Almost 6% of people in Tower Hamlets were in fuel poor households in 2006. This equates to over 5000 households.

100

Although fuel poverty in the borough is lower than its statistical neighbours, it remains a major issue in Tower Hamlets, where many households are on low incomes and living in hard to heat homes. The borough operates an Energy Efficiency and Fuel Poverty Service for local residents, where energy advisers are able to provide one to one tailored energy advice in a resident’s home. This includes Sylheti and Bengali advisers. There are also a range of Energy Saving Schemes operating in the borough such as East End Energy Savers and Warm Front which offers energy efficiency grants and advice for residents wanting to take out energy efficiency measures in their home. These are for private sector residents, but a council tenant scheme is also in operation providing draught sealing for tenants in receipt of a qualifying benefit or where a member of the household is over 65.

LA Name No. households No. fuel poor households

% of households fuel poor

Barking and Dagenham 66,438 5,362 8.1%

Camden 90,451 7,451 8.2% Greenwich 94,325 7,778 8.2% Hackney 89,953 6,891 7.7%

Hammersmith and Fulham 74,101 6,287 8.5% Islington 85,943 6,945 8.1% Newham 92,634 9,054 9.8%

Westminster 103,924 11,780 11.3% Manchester 190,937 31,068 16.3% Birmingham 392,226 57,866 14.8%

Tower Hamlets 87,859 5,126 5.8% 8.8 Financial Exclusion Financial Exclusion is defined through identifying people, households or communities who display behavioural, attitudinal and demographic characteristics that collectively indicate a requirement for, and exclusion from, mainstream financial services; such indicators include income, financial products holdings, affluence, outstanding borrowings and proportion of disposable income spent on household fuel. The chart below shows how financial exclusion affects families.

101

The map above shows that there are significant levels of financial exclusion across the borough, all wards rated in the fifth and sixth septile for financial exclusion. The table below shows the level of financial exclusion by ward. Bromley by Bow shows the highest level of financial exclusion in the borough and St Katharine’s the least.

102

Ward Financial Exclusion Rank (1 – 10,000)

Bromley by Bow 1,945

East India and Lansbury 1,976 Whitechapel 1,982

Bethnal Green South 2,043 St Dunstans and Stepney Green 2,138 Mile End East 2,209 Bethnal Green North 2,257

Mile End and Globe Town 2,320

Limehouse 2,517

Weavers 2,590

Spitalfields and Banglatown 2,593

Shadwell 2,614

Bow East 2,874 Blackwall and Cubitt Town 3,331

Bow West 3,386

Millwall 3,517

St Katharine’s and Wapping 3,966 8.9 County Court Judgements Over the period 2003 – 2005 there were over 3,000 county court judgements in the borough with an average value of £2,978. Most of these (40%) were for values of over £1000 and almost a quarter for values up to £250. 8.10 Poverty, Environment and Environmental Health Children can be particularly susceptible to harm from environmental hazard. The Children’s Environment and Health Strategy for the UK116 identifies such hazards as including vulnerability to unintentional injuries and accidents, respiratory conditions, obesity, road traffic collisions, indoor and outdoor air pollution and chemical and biological hazards. Many of the risks for these hazards are increased for children living in deprived areas, for example children of parents who have never worked or long term unemployed are 13 times more likely to die from unintentional injuries.117 8.10.1 Air quality Despite the success of attempts to reduce air pollution in London, poor air quality remains a problem for many people living in London. Studies carried out by the GLA have estimated that poor air quality contributes towards over 116 March 2009 117 Edwards et al 2006

103

4,000 deaths per year. Research has also shown that poor air quality has a more pronounced impact on children and people living in deprived areas. This is partly the result of higher density traffic and increased susceptibility to health problems. Over 40% of air pollutants in London are blown into London from outside, however local pollution can be reduced by encouraging people to use alternative transport to cars, smoothing traffic flow and making improvements in energy efficiency in homes and offices.118 Air quality is not currently improving in London or Tower Hamlets. This is particularly the case for those pollutants associated with traffic. The Council operates continuous air pollution monitoring sites, these have shown similar nitrous oxide pollution concentrations to other inner London sites. There is an EU Limit Value of 40 µg m-3 (which is also the government’s health based objective) with monitored concentrations over 60 µg m-3. The table below shows pollution levels in the borough at the various sites which show both roadside site levels to be higher than EU limits and concentrations of over 60 for the past 3 years.

LAQN site 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Tower Hamlets 1 Annual mean 42 35 38 40 37 38 35 (Urban background) Tower Hamlets 2 Annual mean 67 60 61 60 67 63 61 (Roadside) Tower Hamlets 3 Annual mean 44 43 41 50 45 39 38 (Urban Background) Tower Hamlets 4 Annual mean 73 63 63 (Roadside)

8.10.2 Road Traffic Collisions The borough has the highest increase in children killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents over the past decade as well as the highest rate of intentional and deliberate injuries in children and young people. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Tower Hamlets NHS have the second highest expenditure per 100,000 on trauma and injuries in the country. The graph below shows the number of children killed or seriously injured, or slightly injured in road traffic accidents in Tower Hamlets.

118 (Clearing the Air: The Mayors Draft Air Quality Strategy for Public Consultation: 2010)

104

Child Killed or seriously injured Casualties 1996 to 2008

Child Slight Casualties 1996 to 2008 The following table shows that 10-15 year olds are most likely to be involved in traffic accidents. Boys are more likely to become a victim of a road accident than girls.

105

8.10.3 Provision of open space There is a strong relationship between open spaces and an individual’s sense of health and wellbeing. The availability of pleasant open spaces also enhances the ability to address health issues through health and leisure activities, especially in dense, urban areas where there may be overcrowding. The provision of parks and playground equipment can positively affect a child’s physical, cognitive and social development.

Tower Hamlets has over 120 parks and green spaces and a network or canals and rivers traversing the borough. Tower Hamlets’ children also benefit from over 30 fixed play areas in parks and over 100 play areas on housing estates across the borough. These are used by 83% of residents, generating around 12 million visits per year. The most popular reasons for using the parks were to relax (27.5%) to take the children to play (23.7%) and to exercise (16.1%). Four of the borough’s

106

parks have won and retained Green Flag awards and the borough has received a Green Heritage Award and a Green Pennant Award. It has been recognised in the borough’s Open Space Strategy that open space is a scarce and an over used resource that will come under more demand due to significant increases in the population. 75% of the borough’s parks are less than the size of a single football pitch, and the west of the borough and Leaside have the lowest levels of open space. The strategy also provides that only 43% of the borough has access to local parks, determined as being within 400m of the doorstep, or about a 5 minute walk, and 50% of the borough is considered deficient in terms of access to major parks. The National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) standard is 2.4 hectares of open spaces per 1000 people. Tower Hamlets, similar to all inner city boroughs, is unable to achieve this and currently has 1.2 hectares per 1000 people. Many of the parks contain interesting features and opportunities for physical activity and sporting pursuits, this helps to mitigate the lack of open space. Consultation with children and young people through the national Tellus Survey showed that in Tower Hamlets a higher proportion of children rated their parks and play areas as very good compared to national ratings; over half of the children rated the borough’s parks and play areas as very good or fairly good. When asked about their local area, over 60% rated Tower Hamlets as a very good or fairly good place to live, however levels were lower than national levels and those reporting ‘neither’, ‘fairly poor’ or ‘very poor’ were higher than national levels. 8.11 Crime and Poverty In 2008/09 Tower Hamlets had a lower overall crime rate than its statistical neighbours, except for Barking & Dagenham, Greenwich and Birmingham. The rate of reduction in crime in Tower Hamlets has also exceeded the London reduction rate, 2.7% down compared to 1.9% down for London. However, whilst the overall picture is a one of falling crime rates and a reduction in total recorded offences, in Tower Hamlets this fall has mainly been driven by reductions in motor vehicle crime which had 869 fewer offences in 2009/10 (a reduction of 26% over 2008/09). Other types of crime have risen in prevalence over the same period and now account for a larger proportion of total crime in the borough, and within the categories of crime used as indicators in the creation of the Child Well-being Index there have been mixed results.

107

Tower Hamlets is ranked 359 out of 373 Crime and Reduction Partnerships, with the higher the rank the worse the level of crime. Levels of violent crime, sexual offences, robbery and vehicle crime are higher than the London and national averages.119 8.11.1 Recorded Offences in Tower Hamlets - 2009/10 Over the last year the following reductions in offences were reported:

• Burglary down by 7.6%

• Criminal damage down by 5.7%

• Vehicle crime down by 26%

• Domestic violence down by 1.6%

• Robbery down 12.7% In addition, the number of most serious violent crimes per 1,000 people is down from 2.35 to 2.14, and the number of most serious acquisitive crimes is down from 25.51 to 20.29. Increases are reported for the following offences

• Violence up by 2% • Theft and Handling Stolen Goods up by 9.6%

• Increase in gun crime from 65 to 90 offences.

8.11.2 Perception measures In addition to recorded crime, the perception of crime is crucial in dealing with residents’ fear of crime and feelings of safety and risk. A measure relating to how effectively the police and local council deal with antisocial behaviour and crime issues shows that residents report significantly lower levels of confidence. The outturn was 23.3% in 2008/09 compared to London average of 29.64%. A target has been set to increase this to 33% in 2010/11. The percentage of residents who feel that drug use or drug dealing is a very big or fairly big problem is 60.5%, significantly higher than the London and national averages of 36% and 22%. This has reduced from 68% for the previous reporting period.

119 Financial Year 2007/08 crime figures

108

Residents’ perception of antisocial behaviour is also significantly higher than London and national averages. 46% view antisocial behaviour as a very big or fairly big problem compared to a London average of 26% and national average of 13%. Residents’ perceptions of rowdy and drunken behaviour are also higher than London and national levels. Further research would be required to understand if these perceptions are in fact driven by crime and incident levels or if there are other drivers operating to increase fear of crime levels. 8.11.3 Effects on Children Statistics on children as victims of crime are not readily available120 although the 2006 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (2006) did cover those from 10 to 25 years of age. This survey showed that young people are overrepresented as victims of crime, reporting that 26% of young people aged from 10 to 25 had been a victim of either personal theft or assault in the 12 months prior to the study. Those in the 10-15 age group were more likely (at 30%) than those between 16 and 24 (at 24%) to be a victim of personal thefts and assault. The survey also showed the majority of these incidents occurred in school for 10 to 15 year olds, 55.5% of assaults and 52.5% of personal thefts. Investigation into the risks arising from exposure to criminal activity has found that having a convicted close relative increases an individual’s likelihood of becoming an offender. Whether the relative is a father, mother, brother, or sister are all independently important predictors of a child's own convictions121. In the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development 63% of boys with convicted fathers were themselves convicted compared with 30% of those in the cohort who did not have a convicted father. The effect of crime on children is also recognised in the creation of the Local Index of Child Well-being. This uses a weighted measure of four main crime types (burglary rate, theft rate, criminal damage rate and violence rate) which it identifies as having major effects on individuals and communities. In compiling the index a significant correlation between the crime indicators and the final score achieved was found, and these indicators were also found to be most strongly associated with the measures of material deprivation, numbers of children in need and educational attainment. In the 2009 index Tower Hamlets was ranked 353rd of 354 for average child well-being score (354th having the lowest levels of well-being).

120 From 2009 under 16’s are included in the British Crime Survey which will be published later this year. 121 Farrington, D. P. (1996c) The childhood origins of crime: The Cambridge Study, 1961-96.

109

Young people appear to show greater feelings of confidence about their levels of safety. The latest Tellus Survey reported that 80% of young people indicated they are feeling very safe or quite safe from being hurt by other people – this puts the borough in the top performance quartile. Interestingly this contrasts with the perceptions of adults about crime and disorder, where perceptions are significantly worse than London and national levels. 8.12 Poverty and Health Tower Hamlets position as one of the most deprived boroughs in the country has significant implications on the borough’s health. Income, employment, education, housing quality, overcrowding and crime are strongly associated with physical and mental health. Health inequalities in Tower Hamlets are well documented. Life expectancy in the borough has been increasing however is lower than the national average and the gap is not reducing. In 2006 the probability of a man surviving to age 75 in Tower Hamlets was 54%, compared to 66% nationally. Women have a higher life expectancy but it is still lower than national levels. There are higher death rates from circulatory disease, cancer and respiratory diseases. People in the borough live with a range of long term conditions; 33,000 people have high blood pressure 12,000 have diagnosed diabetes, 11,000 people have asthma and 7,000 have coronary heart disease. The borough also has higher rates of new diagnoses of lung, cervical bowel and stomach cancers.122 Disadvantage starts before birth and action to reduce health inequalities need to take place before birth.123 8.12.1 Pre Natal Health The borough reports 3.6% of mothers smoking in pregnancy compared to a 16.9% rate in London, although the rate is significantly higher for young white mothers (16.2%). Increased access to maternity services is also reported with over three quarters of women (76%) having seen a midwife or maternity healthcare professional for a health and social care assessment by the end of the twelfth week of pregnancy. This has increased year on year since 2007. The borough has developed a Maternity Health Improvement Strategy which includes a range of pre natal interventions to reduce adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

• Support for women to stop smoking 122 Tower Hamlets NHS Public Health Report 2008/09 123 Strategic Review of Health Inequalities 2010 Marmot Review.

110

• Education and outreach work to increase access to antenatal services and screening programmes

• Promotion of healthy eating and access to Healthy Start Vitamins, particularly for low income families.

8.12.2 Infant Health In 2008 there were 4,230 live births in Tower Hamlets, with over two thirds of births to mothers who were born outside of the UK. Infant mortality rates are lower than the national average and there has been a decrease of 27% since 1999.

Infant Mortality Rate - trendNumber of deaths at ages under one year per 1,000 live births

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1999/01 2000/02 2001/03 2002/04 2003/05 2004/06 2005/07 2006/08

Rat

e pe

r 1,0

00

Tower Hamlets London England

Source : ONS and Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators (17/12/09)

The infant mortality rate is higher for routine and manual groups in the borough at 5.4 per 1000 live births compared to 5% for all live births in Tower Hamlets. Low Birth Weight Low birth weight is one of the most important contributory factors to neonatal mortality and morbidity. Tower Hamlets clearly reports a higher incidence of low birth weight babies than the London or the national average.

111

Trend in low birth weights (live births and still births), under 2500g

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Per

cent

age

Tower Hamlets London England

Source : Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators (17/12/2009)

2006 2007 2008Tower Hamlets 10.6 9.2 9.9London 8.3 7.9 7.9England 7.9 7.5 7.5

Babies born to Bangladeshi mothers account for 35% of very low birth weights and 67% of low birth weights. South Asian women tend to be shorter than European mothers and this may provide some explanation in addition to socio-economic factors producing low birth weights in the borough. This is supported to some extent by the fact that this does not translate into higher infant mortality for this community. 8.12.3 Immunisation Current recommendations by the World Health Organisation (WHO) are that nationally at least 95% of children receive three primary doses of Diphtheria, tetanus, polio and pertussis in the first year of life, and one dose of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine by 2 years of age. Evidence shows that those at risk of low take up of immunisation experience barriers to access and include:

• Children in care • Young people who missed previous immunisations • Children with physical or learning difficulties • Children of lone parents • Children not registered with a general practitioner • Children in larger families • Children who are hospitalised • Minority ethnic groups

112

Immunisation rates in the borough are improving but are lower than 95%, which is the level required for herd immunity (the rate needed to prevent an outbreak).

Immunisation Tower

Hamlets

(%)

London(%)

England

(%)

1st birthday% completed DTP, Pertussis, HIB 88.9 83.4 92.0% completed Men C 89.7 81.8 91.2% completed Pneumococcal vaccine 89.3 82.0 91.32nd birthday% completed DTP, Pertussis, HIB 91.8 86.5 93.9% completed MMR 81.7 76.3 84.9% completed Men C 86.7 79.7 91.9% completed Hib/MenC (experimemental) 78.2 70.3 85.4% completed Pneumococcal vaccine (experimental) 86.7 67.5 81.5  Source: NHS Immunisation Statistics, 2008/09, NHS Information Centre In 2008/09 NHS Tower Hamlets had immunisation uptake rates that were lower than England for all immunisations, with the exception of the pneumococcal vaccine by second birthday. However, they were higher than the averages for London for all immunisations. 8.12.4 Breastfeeding Breastfeeding rates in the borough are relatively high and have been improving each year. There has been a particular focus to improve the recording of mothers’ breastfeeding status and efforts to promote breastfeeding for child and maternal health. 8.12.5 Obesity One of the major threats to children’s health, as children and carrying through into adulthood, is obesity. The prevalence of obesity in Tower Hamlets is the fifth highest in the country for four year olds and sixth highest for 10 year olds. Although efforts to reduce obesity appear to be reversing the trend amongst 4 year olds, 10 year olds are reporting annual increases in obesity levels. Obesity is associated with health problems such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease as well as depression and other mental health afflictions.

113

Prevalence of Obese Children

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Tow er Hamlets London England

Source: ONS 2008 - 2009

Perc

enta

ge Prevalence of ObeseChildren; Reception %

Prevalence of ObeseChildren; Year 6 %

Tower Hamlets has a higher proportion of obese children in reception and year 6 than the London and national average. Prevalence of obesity is highest in more deprived areas of the country. School Lunches The take up of school lunches in the borough is higher than London and national levels, likely to be a result of high free school meal eligibility. The rates are highest in special schools and primary schools. In secondary schools the take up rate is surprisingly lower than the FSM eligibility rate. There is anecdotal evidence that children prefer to eat in local establishments and are not making healthy food choices. A mapping study of fast food outlets by NHS Tower Hamlets found there were 42 fast food outlets per school compared to 25 in Inner London. A key concern for parents in low income families is the provision of additional meals for their children in the school holidays. The daily cost of an equivalent school meal for parents at a secondary school is £1.95 (£1.85 for primary pupils), which equates to approximately £39 (£37 for primary) a month. For a family with two children, the average family size in the UK, a monthly school lunch bill of £78. This is likely to be even higher for the larger families living in Tower Hamlets. The cost of introducing free school meals to all primary school pupils in the borough would be approximately £46,580 a day (at an annual cost of £8,850,200).

114

Healthy Eating Results of the latest Tellus survey indicate that more Tower Hamlets children report eating no fruit or vegetables per day, around 15%, this is double the percentage of children nationally.

How Many of the 'five a day' fruit and vegetables did you eat yesterday

05

10152025303540

None 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 ormore

Don'tknow

Results of Tellus 4

Perc

enta

ge Tower HamletsNationalStatistical Neighbours

Physical Activity A significantly lower proportion of children in Tower Hamlets (55%) reported taking part in physical activity on three or more days a week, compared to 71% nationally.

Physically Active Children

85868788899091

Tow er Hamlets England

Source: NHS 2009

Perc

enta

ge

The Tower Hamlets Pupil Attitude Survey, which asks 9 year old pupils for their views, reported one fifth of children said they spend more than 5 hours a day watching TV/DVDs, an increase of 4% since 2008, 16% to 20%. 50% said they watch TV/DVD’s between 1 and 2 hours per day and 25% watch TV/DVD from 3 to 4 hours per day. Self reported health of children in the 2001 Census shows that 86% of children feel they are in good health, 12% fairly good and 2% not good.

115

8.12.6 Mental Health Deprivation is a well established risk factor that impacts on mental health, however the borough reports lower than expected rates of mental health issues for children and young people based on national prevalence rates. The borough reports lower caseloads of conduct disorders (9%) compared to almost half of all CAMHS caseloads nationally. Also White children are overrepresented and Bangladeshi children are underrepresented compared to the respective population composition. A national survey measure reported in the Tellus survey showed that children in Tower Hamlets reported they were less likely to be able to speak to someone if they were worried about something. The strength of support networks is judged in the national measure (now deleted) as key to good mental health and emotional resilience.

Emotionally healthy children (NI 50)

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

Tow er Hamlets London England

Source: DoH 2009

Perc

enta

ge

8.13 Attainment and Aspirations In the last academic year, 61%124 of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals achieved 5 or more A* to C grades at GCSE. While this was a significant achievement, and higher than the national average for males and females, the number of A*-C grades was lower than their peers that were not eligible for FSM in Tower Hamlets (72%). The achievements of Female pupils on FSM was, however, smaller than the gap with males.

GCSE 5+ A*-C grades

Pupils known to be eligible for FSM Pupils not eligible for FSM

Males Females All Male Females All Tower 56 67 61 69 76 72

124 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000900/index.shtml

116

Hamlets England 45 54 49 69 77 73

Similarly, children in Tower Hamlets on FSM had higher levels of achievement than their peers nationally, including English and Maths. The achievement gap between those children eligible for FSM and their peers in tower hamlets was also narrower than the national average.

GCSE 5+ A*-C grades, inc English and Maths

Pupils known to be eligible for FSM Pupils not eligible for FSM

Males Females All Male Females All Tower Hamlets 36 47 41 46 57 51 England 24 30 27 51 58 54

Notwithstanding this achievement, there is still a disparity between those children on FSM and their peers not eligible for FSM. In 2008/09 10 out of 23 children excluded from school were eligible for free school meals (43%). There is room for further work to explore the relationship between school absence rates and poverty in the borough. Aspiration It is important that children and young people have high aspirations for themselves to mitigate the effects and help break the cycle of poverty. The Pupil Attitude Survey 2009 of nine year old children reported that 75% wanted to go to University. Despite lower levels of physical activity in the borough, the most popular career choice was to be a sportsman/woman followed by a teacher, beautician, fashion designer, doctor or nurse, lawyer or an artist/musician. 8.14 Looked After Children Many looked-after children (sometimes called children in care) suffer disadvantage in later life. In Tower Hamlets, the Children Looked After service provides care packages, support and a direct social work service for children and young people who are presently being looked after by the local authority and are expected to be looked after for at least a year. For those children and young people expected to be looked after up to the age of 18 the service also prepares these young people for independent living. The service also moves children onto adoptive or other permanent placements. This service covers all children looked after by Tower Hamlets. This includes those placed in and outside the borough.

117

In November 2009 there were 327 children looked after in Tower Hamlets. Most children were placed in residential placements and only 16 children identified in care with disabilities. We also have a high proportion of children in care from ethnic minorities and this means many are from low income families including families living on state benefits. Children Looked After do not perform as well academically as their peers in secondary schools and this is evident in Tower Hamlets. In 2008/09 10% of looked after children achieved 5 or more A*-C at the end of Key Stage 4. This is very low and Tower Hamlets far below the local target of 23%. There are very robust measures in place for the tracking and monitoring of pupils performance in key stage 4 and the provision of additional support plans. These were put in place following the disappointing results from the previous year.

118

Conclusion and Policy Implications

This assessment has identified and explored key indicators associated with poverty and more specifically child poverty. What is clear is that a range of factors conspire to create disadvantage and poverty for children, young people and adults. It is imperative that we develop solutions to tackle child poverty but also that we recognise that many of the causes and effects of child poverty are interlinked and can not be challenged in isolation. This assessment also serves to highlight the different ways that poverty manifests itself and the range of measures from which we can identify groups at risk. Importantly, this assessment clearly links child poverty to family poverty and any attempt to tackle child poverty, beyond providing services to mitigate the effects, must consider the whole family unit and explore approaches to lift whole families out of poverty. Intergenerational work with workless families is especially important where there is culture of dependency. Across a range of performance measures, children in Tower Hamlets have been identified as experiencing high levels of deprivation. This document should be read alongside the report highlighting the findings of some consultation with families and the child poverty implications paper.