Child Poverty Map of the UK Part 1: England

Transcription

1 Child Poverty Map of the UK Part 1: England March 2011

2 2

3 Contents Introduction How child poverty is measured Where child poverty is highest Where child poverty is lowest Comparison with local authority spending settlements Current and future pressures on child poverty Regional poverty maps and tables The East of England The East Midlands London The North East The North West The South East The South West The West Midlands Yorkshire & The Humber Annexe: Note on method Compilation and presentation of local data by Donald Hirsch and Jacqueline Beckhelling of the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University, for the Campaign to End Child Poverty. 3

4 4

5 Introduction We can make British poverty history and we will make British poverty history David Cameron In October 2007, David Cameron spoke to an audience at Chance UK in North London and made the historic commitment to making British poverty history. This built on an earlier promise in 2006 by the Conservative Party to support the aim set by the Tony Blair s government in 1999 to eradicate child poverty by The commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020 was also signed up to by the Liberal Democrat party in a policy paper called Freedom from Poverty, Opportunity for All at their conference in September In the 2009/10 parliamentary session, both future coalition partners voted in favour of the bill that became the Child Poverty Act 2010, with clear targets for substantial child poverty reductions by The Coalition s Programme for Government stated: We will maintain the goal of ending child poverty by This report provides a localised map of child poverty on the closest possible measure to that used nationally by the Government. The figures presented are for mid 2010 and therefore represent the starting point from which the Government will embark upon its strategy to keep its promise of making British poverty history and ending child poverty by The figures show that for some parts of the country, this starting point is particularly challenging. In three parliamentary constituencies and in 96 local wards, the majority of children are in poverty. Progress in tackling child poverty had already been made when the new government came to power. In 1998/99 there were 4.4 million children in the UK living below the poverty line. By 2008/09 this had been reduced to 3.9 million children. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predict that when the data is available for the current year, it will show child poverty has fallen further to 3.5 million children. The progress made by the previous government was is significant part due to investment in tax credits, child benefit, jobs growth, lone parent employment and support from services such as Sure Start. Poverty in the UK can be ended. British children face much higher rates of poverty than many other similarly wealthy EU countries and there is no reason why British children should suffer more than their European neighbours. This report serves as a warning of the situation we are in, and the pressures we face, as the current government embarks on its goal of making British poverty history and ending child poverty. 5

6 How child poverty is measured The national targets: There are four dimensions of poverty captured under the Child Poverty Act, each with a target to be met by They are: Relative low income poverty (below 60 per cent median household income) Absolute low income poverty (below 60 per cent of median household income held constant at 2010/11 level) Persistent low income poverty (below 60 per cent of median household income for three years or longer) Material deprivation combined with relative low income (below 70 per cent median household income and suffering from inability to afford essential spending needs) The most well known measure is relative low income poverty, often referred to as the headline measure. The figures given are for the relative low income measure after housing costs. The Government targets are tracked using figures before housing costs, which show a lower rate of poverty because the costs of housing are so high. The change in the number of children in the whole of the UK below the official poverty line in key years is shown below. Table 1: UK child poverty 1998/ / /11 Change from 1998/99 to 2010/11 Children in poverty 3.4 million 2.8 million 2.5 million -0.9 million before housing costs Children in poverty after housing costs Source DWP actual DWP actual IFS projection 4.4 million 3.9 million 3.5 million -0.9 million What the official poverty line means for family budgets: There is evidence to suggest that material deprivation can start to become apparent in low income households even when household income is between 60 and 70 per cent of the median. At below 60 per cent of the median, material deprivation becomes a more and more apparent problem, and families struggle to meet basic needs like food, heating, transport, clothing and the extra costs of schooling like equipment and trips. The poverty line means that after housing costs all the household bills and family s spending needs will need to be met by around 11 or less per family member per day. For many families, especially those reliant on out of work benefits, it can be substantially less. Parents will often try and shield their children from some of the impacts of financial hardship and the stigma of poverty. Sometimes parents will make sacrifices, such as skipping meals, so that they can send their child off to school with a warm coat, or out to play in the same popular brand of trainers that their friends have. They do not 6

7 want their children to feel excluded, or become bullied. But behind the doors of the home, the hardship is often far more visible and many are deeply trapped in debt. The local indicators in this report: The figures presented in this report use tax credit data to give the percentage of children on low incomes in local authorities, parliamentary constituencies and wards across England. They also use local trends in unemployment to estimate recent changes in the number of children who are in poverty because their parents have lost their jobs to update the tax credit data which is more than two years old. This is not a direct measure of exactly how many children are in poverty on the official definition, but is the closest measure we have of local levels of child poverty. The figures are estimates for mid In the figures presented below, children are classified as being in poverty if they live in families in receipt of out of work benefits or in receipt of in-work tax credits where their reported income is less than 60 per cent of median income. The measure is of income before housing costs, and therefore replicates the more modest, official estimate of how many children are in poverty, not taking account of the impact of high rent or mortgage payments. This indicator, compiled officially as a local estimate of child poverty, has been reported for August 2008 by HMRC. However, other HMRC data reported only at a national level show that the number of children in out of work families (who comprise the great majority of children in poverty on this indicator) rose significantly between 2008 and 2010, corresponding with a rise in unemployment. Local figures on general unemployment trends have been used to estimate how many more children were in poverty locally by mid Advantages of this methodology are that: It presents an estimate of child poverty as recently as mid 2010, whereas the most recent official data are for April 2008 to March It is based on data showing households where their reported income is less than 60 per cent of median income; therefore it corresponds with the official measure of poverty. It provides local figures, including local authorities and parliamentary constituencies (in this report) and wards (see the spreadsheets available on the End Child Poverty website). For more details see the Appendix: Note on method. 7

8 Where child poverty is highest On average throughout England, one in five (21.3%) children are classified as below the poverty line (before housing costs). In some areas of our large cities, this rises to over half. This is true in one whole local authority (Tower Hamlets), as well as in the parliamentary constituencies of Bethnal Green and Bow, Poplar and Canning Town, and Manchester Central. In six London Boroughs and in Manchester, at least four in ten children are in poverty. At ward level, there are even greater concentrations. Table 2: Top 20 parliamentary constituencies with highest levels of child poverty across England: Constituency (pre-2010 boundaries) % of children in poverty 2010 Bethnal Green and Bow 57% Poplar and Canning Town 55% Manchester Central 52% Islington South and Finsbury 49% Birmingham, Ladywood 49% Hackney South and Shoreditch 49% Regent's Park and North Kensington 48% Tottenham 48% Liverpool, Riverside 48% Holborn and St. Pancras 47% Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath 47% Edmonton 45% Birmingham, Hodge Hill 45% Islington North 44% Manchester, Blackley 43% Manchester, Gorton 43% West Ham 43% East Ham 42% Leeds Central 41% Barking 41% 8

9 Table 3: Top 20 local authorities with highest levels of child poverty across England: Local Authority % of children in poverty 2010 Tower Hamlets 57% Islington 46% Hackney 44% Newham 43% Manchester 42% Westminster 41% Camden 41% Haringey 40% Barking and Dagenham 39% Nottingham 37% Enfield 37% Birmingham 36% Hammersmith and Fulham 36% Lambeth 36% Liverpool 35% Brent 35% Waltham Forest 35% Southwark 34% Middlesbrough 34% Leicester 34% 9

10 Where child poverty is lowest The constituencies with the lowest levels of child poverty differ by a factor of nearly 10 compared to the highest. In these areas, child poverty is already well below the target level for 2020 contained in the Child Poverty Act. Table 4: Top 20 parliamentary constituencies with lowest levels of child poverty across England. Constituency (pre-2010 boundaries) % of children in poverty 2010 Buckingham 6% Sheffield, Hallam 6% Ribble Valley 6% Haltemprice and Howden 7% Henley 7% North East Hampshire 7% Witney 7% South Cambridgeshire 8% Wokingham 8% Vale of York 8% Chesham and Amersham 8% Mole Valley 8% Horsham 8% Winchester 8% Mid Bedfordshire 8% Cheadle 8% Westmorland and Lonsdale 8% Rushcliffe 8% Skipton and Ripon 8% Woodspring 8% 10

11 Table 5: Top 20 local authorities with lowest levels of child poverty across England: Local Authority % of children in poverty 2010 Isles of Scilly 4% Ribble Valley 6% South Northamptonshire 6% Hart 6% Harborough 7% Wokingham 7% Rutland 8% West Oxfordshire 8% Chiltern 8% Uttlesford 8% Mole Valley 8% Winchester 8% South Oxfordshire 8% Waverley 8% Mid Sussex 8% Rushcliffe 8% South Cambridgeshire 8% East Hertfordshire 8% Harrogate 9% South Lakeland 9% 11

12 Comparison with local authority spending settlements The Child Poverty Act requires local authorities to produce child poverty strategies and work with local partners on reduction and prevention of child poverty in their area. The scale of this task and the action needed is clearly greater for those local authorities with the highest rates of child poverty. However, the spending settlements that have been provide by central government for 2011/12 and 2012/13 tend to be less favourable for those local authorities with higher rates of child poverty, and more favourable for those with lower rates of child poverty. As shown in the graph and tables below, 37 councils stood to lose more than 8.9% of their spending power in 2011/12, but had their losses capped at this level in the transition arrangement. Four of these are among the five local authorities with the highest child poverty rates, but none are among the 130 local authorities (i.e. 40% of all authorities) with the lowest child poverty rates. Chart 1: Comparison of child poverty rate with reductions in local authority spending power for 2011/ % 9.00% Reduction in L.A. spending power for 2011/ % 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Child Poverty Rate Source: DCLG

13 Table 6: Top 20 local authorities with highest child poverty alongside their ranking for reduction in spending power Local Authority % of children in poverty 2010 DCLG ranking for reduction in spending powers in 2011/12 (out of 318) Tower Hamlets 57% =1 Islington 46% 40 Hackney 44% =1 Newham 43% =1 Manchester 42% =1 Westminster 41% 87 Camden 41% 136 Haringey 40% 61 Barking and Dagenham 39% 180 Nottingham 37% 48 Enfield 37% 294 Birmingham 36% 54 Hammersmith and Fulham 36% 132 Lambeth 36% 69 Liverpool 35% =1 Brent 35% 187 Waltham Forest 35% 223 Southwark 34% 49 Middlesbrough 34% =1 Leicester 34% 113 Source: DCLG 13

14 Table 6: Top 20 local authorities with lowest child poverty alongside their ranking for reduction in spending power Local Authority % of children in poverty 2010 DCLG ranking for reduction in spending powers in 2011/12 (out of 318) Isles of Scilly 4% 318 Ribble Valley 6% 168 South Northamptonshire 6% 186 Hart 6% 289 Harborough 7% 195 Wokingham 7% 316 Rutland 8% 307 West Oxfordshire 8% 183 Chiltern 8% 266 Uttlesford 8% 241 Mole Valley 8% 264 Winchester 8% 228 South Oxfordshire 8% 218 Waverley 8% 262 Mid Sussex 8% 263 Rushcliffe 8% 191 South Cambridgeshire 8% 203 East Hertfordshire 8% 238 Harrogate 9% 206 South Lakeland 9% 224 Source: DCLG 14

15 Current and future pressures on child poverty Relative low income and absolute low income poverty: Although the recession has made life harder for many low income families, its full impact has been lessened by direct investment in financial support for families in the final years of the previous government. Similarly, investment through child tax credits by the Coalition Government will protect against the full impact of spending cuts for at least the first two years of the current government. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that by 2013 both relative low income poverty and absolute low income poverty will have started rising again. In part this will be due to social security and welfare benefit cuts that will total 18 billion per year by the end of the current parliament. Material deprivation: In whichever area of the country a low income family lives, the experience of poverty is being exacerbated by rapidly rising prices, particularly of food and fuel. This is likely to continue, as global pressures drive up commodity prices. The following graph shows that in the past four years, food and domestic fuel have risen much faster than inflation generally, meaning that the cost of these essentials has for many families in poverty been rising faster than their incomes. In the past 3 years, the official inflation rate has shown prices rising by a total of 11%, but food has gone up nearly twice as much, by 19% and domestic fuel by 31%, three times the official rate. Chart 2: Price rises, (January 2008 = 100) Source: National Statistics 15

16 At the same time those families who face poverty without a parent in work will be hit by reductions to benefits like Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support, and Employment and Support Allowance, which are having their uprating restricted to the CPI measure of inflation. This means annual increases can be expected to be lower than previously when they were linked to the RPI measure of inflation. Other benefit cuts will hit both in-work and out-of-work parents in low income families, such as the cap on housing benefit and the three year freeze on child benefit. In-work parents on low incomes also face cuts to tax credits, including a substantial reduction to the amount of financial support provided to help meet childcare costs. The cost of preschool childcare rose by 4.8% last year (Day Care Trust, Annual Childcare Costs Survey 2011). Low income families with a parent in work may be under threat of redundancy for many public sector jobs and for some private sector jobs that are highly dependent on public sector commissioning. Wage stagnation will also affect many low income families with a parent, or both parents in work. Families will therefore face multiple pressures on both their incomes and their outgoings, which can be expected to lead to a very significant and damaging increase in the number of families facing material deprivation, as well the severity of material deprivation low income families will suffer. Persistent poverty: While unemployment remains at a high level, with the Office for Budgetary Responsibility predicting it has still not reached its peak, the threat of persistent poverty due to lack of opportunities for those out of work to gain employment will increase. Wage stagnation will also threaten to leave families below the poverty line for longer where parents are receiving low wages. We can therefore expect a high risk of an increase in persistent poverty over the coming years. Life chances: There has been much recent discussion in government about life chances for children from low income families. It is expected that the Government s first Child Poverty Strategy, to be published by the end of March 2011, will contain proposals for a set of Life Chance Indicators to supplement four dimensions of poverty already captured by the Child Poverty Act. While it is not yet clear quite what these indicators might be, they are likely to look at factors thought to be predictors of longer term outcomes in life, including the likelihood of benefitting from social mobility. 16

17 Should the increases occur in income poverty, material deprivation and persistent poverty warned about above, along with expected losses in access to services, then we believe that the life chances of children from low income families will be negatively impacted. This is because inequality would then be expected to increase, which is know to be associated with lower levels of social mobility. Educational outcomes, which are crucial to life chances and social mobility are also known to be undermined by lack of material resources, which can limit a child s capacity to take advantage of educational and developmental opportunities both within the home and at school. Areas at risk: In light of the coming cuts and growing cost of living, there is a risk of child poverty deteriorating greatly in the years ahead. A contraction in the employment market is also a key risk factor. Some parts of the country have already seen steep rises in joblessness. These rises are greatest in six local authorities that were already deprived before the recession, and which depend greatly on public sector jobs: North-East Lincolnshire Middlesbrough Sandwell Hartlepool Hull Walsall In these local authorities, growth in jobless benefit claims rose by at least at twice the national average, relative to the adult population, between 2008 and But the pain is not restricted to already-deprived areas. Some local authorities that up to now have experienced more modest poverty rates are seeing high relative increases in unemployment. For example in the following local authorities, claimant unemployment at least doubled between 2008 and 2010: Surrey Heath, Surrey Brentwood, Essex Elmbridge, Surrey Vale of White Horse, Oxfordshire Reigate and Banstead, Surrey Three Rivers, Hertfordshire West Berkshire Guildford, Surrey Purbeck, Dorset Mole Valley, Surrey Eden, Cumbria 17

18 These are all affluent areas, where previously small levels of unemployment are growing rapidly, placing children at risk who previously may have been secure. Government action: These warnings are made on the basis of the known and reasonably expected pressures on child poverty in the near and medium term. However, the Government has yet to publish its first Child Poverty Strategy, which is due by the end of March The Government also has periodic opportunities such as the Budget to introduce measures that will have downward pressures on the multiple dimensions of child poverty captured under the Child Poverty Act. It is therefore possible that Government action may lessen and counter pressures that would otherwise be expected to increase child poverty. To keep its commitments under the Coalition Agreement and the Child Poverty Act, Ministers will need to implement a comprehensive strategy that can demonstrably make substantial year on year progress reducing child poverty towards the target year of

19 Regional poverty maps and tables The following pages provide levels of child poverty by local authority and constituency, presented by English regions: The East of England The East Midlands London The North East The North West The South East The South West The West Midlands Yorkshire & The Humber For comparison, just over one in five children (21.3%) in England live in poverty on the local estimate of child poverty in 2010 used here. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland The full official data needed to produce child poverty maps for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not yet available. In producing an updated version in late 2011, we will include these parts of the United Kingdom 2. The indicator Official measures of child poverty are based on a national survey of family income, which shows poverty at national and regional level, but not in more local areas. The official relative low income measure is published both before housing costs, and after housing costs. The figure after housing costs shows a significantly higher proportion of children in poverty (due to the high cost of housing leaving families with less disposable income), but the figure the Government uses to track progress for the national target to end child poverty by 2020 is before housing costs. The measure we have used for the local figures in this report is before housing costs too. On this adjusted measure, across England, 21.3% of children are in poverty. This represents 2.4 million children, almost exactly the same as the number officially counted as being in poverty in England, before housing costs. (Note however that the after housing cost poverty measure, which takes into account the relatively large amounts that low income families spend on rent or mortgage payments, is much higher.) 2 HMRC have indicated that Scotland and Wales figures will be available by then; a decision on Northern Ireland data has not yet been taken 19

20 East of England Percentage of children in poverty By Local Authority Babergh 12% Basildon 23% Bedford 20% Braintree 14% Breckland 15% Brentwood 10% Broadland 10% Broxbourne 18% Cambridge 17% Castle Point 16% Central Bedfordshire 12% Chelmsford 12% Colchester 17% Dacorum 14% East Cambridgeshire 11% East Hertfordshire 9% Epping Forest 15% Fenland 20% Forest Heath 15% Great Yarmouth 25% Harlow 22% Hertsmere 14% Huntingdonshire 11% Ipswich 22% King's Lynn & W Norfolk 18% Luton UA 29% Maldon 13% Mid Suffolk 9% North Hertfordshire 13% North Norfolk 16% Norwich 30% Peterborough UA 25% Rochford 11% South Cambridgeshire 8% South Norfolk 11% Southend-on-Sea UA 24% St. Albans 10% St. Edmundsbury 12% Stevenage 19% Suffolk Coastal 11% Tendring 24% Three Rivers 12% Thurrock UA 20% Uttlesford 8% Watford 16% Waveney 22% Welwyn Hatfield 16% Colour Key: % of children in poverty 40% or more 30% to 40% 20% to 30% 10% to 20% 0% to 10% 20

21 By Parliamentary Constituency Basildon 25% Bedford 25% Billericay 18% Braintree 15% Brentwood and Ongar 11% Broxbourne 17% Bury St. Edmunds 11% Cambridge 18% Castle Point 16% Central Suffolk & N Ipswich 12% Colchester 20% Epping Forest 16% Great Yarmouth 25% Harlow 21% Harwich 28% Hemel Hempstead 17% Hertford and Stortford 9% Hertsmere 14% Hitchin and Harpenden 9% Huntingdon 12% Ipswich 22% Luton North 27% Luton South 30% Maldon and East Chelmsford 13% Mid Bedfordshire 8% Mid Norfolk 12% North East Bedfordshire 11% North East Cambridgeshire 19% North East Hertfordshire 12% North Essex 11% North Norfolk 16% North West Cambridgeshire 15% North West Norfolk 20% Norwich North 18% Norwich South 28% Peterborough 28% Rayleigh 9% Rochford and Southend East 28% Saffron Walden 9% South Cambridgeshire 8% South East Cambridgeshire 10% South Norfolk 12% South Suffolk 12% South West Bedfordshire 17% South West Hertfordshire 9% South West Norfolk 16% Southend West 17% St. Albans 11% Stevenage 18% Suffolk Coastal 13% Thurrock 22% Watford 15% Waveney 22% Welwyn Hatfield 16% West Chelmsford 13% West Suffolk 13% 21

22 East Midlands Percentage of children in poverty By Local Authority Amber Valley 17% Ashfield 22% Bassetlaw 19% Blaby 9% Bolsover 23% Boston 19% Broxtowe 15% Charnwood 13% Chesterfield 21% Corby 20% Daventry 11% Derby UA 25% Derbyshire Dales 10% East Lindsey 20% East Northamptonshire 12% Erewash 18% Gedling 15% Harborough 7% High Peak 13% Hinckley and Bosworth 11% Kettering 15% Leicester UA 34% Lincoln 25% Mansfield 23% Melton 10% Newark and Sherwood 17% North East Derbyshire 15% North Kesteven 10% North West Leicestershire 13% Northampton 22% Nottingham UA 37% Oadby and Wigston 12% Rushcliffe 8% Rutland UA 8% South Derbyshire 13% South Holland 15% South Kesteven 12% South Northamptonshire 6% Wellingborough 19% West Lindsey 15% Colour Key: % of children in poverty 40% or more 30% to 40% 20% to 30% 10% to 20% 0% to 10% 22

23 By Parliamentary Constituency Amber Valley 19% Ashfield 23% Bassetlaw 20% Blaby 9% Bolsover 23% Boston and Skegness 21% Bosworth 12% Broxtowe 13% Charnwood 9% Chesterfield 20% Corby 16% Daventry 9% Derby North 21% Derby South 30% Erewash 18% Gainsborough 15% Gedling 16% Grantham and Stamford 14% Harborough 10% High Peak 13% Kettering 13% Leicester East 30% Leicester South 34% Leicester West 38% Lincoln 23% Loughborough 16% Louth and Horncastle 19% Mansfield 22% Newark 16% North East Derbyshire 16% North West Leicestershire 13% Northampton North 25% Northampton South 16% Nottingham East 38% Nottingham North 40% Nottingham South 30% Rushcliffe 8% Rutland and Melton 9% Sherwood 18% Sleaford and North Hykeham 10% South Derbyshire 14% South Holland and The Deepings 13% Wellingborough 17% West Derbyshire 10% 23

24 London Percentage of children in poverty By Local Authority Barking and Dagenham 39% Barnet 24% Bexley 19% Brent 35% Bromley 17% Camden 41% City of London 19% Croydon 27% Ealing 30% Enfield 37% Greenwich 34% Hackney 44% Hammersmith and Fulham 36% Haringey 40% Harrow 24% Havering 19% Hillingdon 25% Hounslow 29% Islington 46% Kensington and Chelsea 29% Kingston upon Thames 16% Lambeth 36% Lewisham 34% Merton 21% Newham 43% Redbridge 29% Richmond upon Thames 12% Southwark 34% Sutton 17% Tower Hamlets 57% Waltham Forest 35% Wandsworth 26% Westminster 41% Colour Key: % of children in poverty 40% or more 30% to 40% 20% to 30% 10% to 20% 0% to 10% 24

25 By Parliamentary Constituency Barking 41% Battersea 26% Beckenham 16% Bethnal Green and Bow 57% Bexleyheath and Crayford 18% Brent East 38% Brent North 27% Brent South 39% Brentford and Isleworth 25% Bromley and Chislehurst 17% Camberwell and Peckham 38% Carshalton and Wallington 20% Chingford and Woodford Green 24% Chipping Barnet 19% Cities of London and Westminster 28% Croydon Central 31% Croydon North 31% Croydon South 16% Dagenham 37% Dulwich and West Norwood 26% Ealing North 29% Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush 39% Ealing, Southall 30% East Ham 42% Edmonton 45% Eltham 28% Enfield North 40% Enfield, Southgate 20% Erith and Thamesmead 33% Feltham and Heston 32% Finchley and Golders Green 21% Greenwich and Woolwich 37% Hackney North and Stoke Newington 40% Hackney South and Shoreditch 49% Hammersmith and Fulham 32% Hampstead and Highgate 33% Harrow East 26% Harrow West 21% Hayes and Harlington 35% Hendon 30% Holborn and St. Pancras 47% Hornchurch 18% Hornsey and Wood Green 29% Ilford North 25% Ilford South 37% Islington North 44% Islington South and Finsbury 49% Kensington and Chelsea 19% Kingston and Surbiton 18% Lewisham East 33% Lewisham West 32% Lewisham, Deptford 37% Leyton and Wanstead 32% Mitcham and Morden 28% North Southwark and Bermondsey 38% Old Bexley and Sidcup 13% Orpington 18% Poplar and Canning Town 55% Putney 26% Regent's Park and Kensington North 48% Richmond Park 12% Romford 19% Ruislip-Northwood 14% Streatham 34% Sutton and Cheam 13% Tooting 26% Tottenham 48% Twickenham 12% Upminster 21% Uxbridge 24% Vauxhall 40% Walthamstow 37% West Ham 43% Wimbledon 11% 25

26 North East Percentage of children in poverty By Local Authority Darlington UA 22% Durham UA 22% Gateshead 25% Hartlepool UA 30% Middlesbrough UA 34% Newcastle-upon-Tyne 32% North Tyneside 20% Northumberland UA 17% Redcar and Cleveland UA 26% South Tyneside 28% Stockton-on-Tees UA 22% Sunderland 26% Colour Key: % of children in poverty 40% or more 30% to 40% 20% to 30% 10% to 20% 0% to 10% 26

27 By Parliamentary Constituency Berwick-upon-Tweed 14% Bishop Auckland 24% Blaydon 18% Blyth Valley 22% City of Durham 17% Darlington 24% Easington 28% Gateshead East and Washington West 24% Hartlepool 29% Hexham 9% Houghton and Washington East 23% Jarrow 24% Middlesbrough 38% Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 24% Newcastle upon Tyne Central 31% Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend 34% Newcastle upon Tyne North 24% North Durham 21% North Tyneside 23% North West Durham 20% Redcar 27% Sedgefield 20% South Shields 31% Stockton North 28% Stockton South 16% Sunderland North 28% Sunderland South 29% Tyne Bridge 39% Tynemouth 16% Wansbeck 23% 27