Campaign to End Child Poverty releases figures

Child poverty shame: damning stats for Worcester, Malvern, Droitwich and Kidderminster Child poverty shame: damning stats for Worcester, Malvern, Droitwich and Kidderminster

MORE than a third of children in deprived parts of Worcester are living in poverty which has been branded ‘shameful’ and ‘appalling’.

One of the poorest areas is Warndon, Worcester, where 34 per cent of children live in poverty according to figures published today by the Campaign to End Child Poverty.

The gap between rich and poor is illustrated by the difference between Warndon (34 per cent of children living in poverty) and Warndon Villages, often considered the city’s affluent suburban commuter belt, where only 6 per cent of children live in poverty in Warndon parish north and 5 per cent in Warndon parish north.

Jo Hodges, the Labour councillor who represents Warndon, said: “It’s an appalling figure. Any child living in poverty is a shame on our country and to have 34 per cent is appalling. Worcestershire may seem like an affluent, leafy county but there are pockets of deprivation and disadvantage within the county. It is something, as a country, we should be ashamed of. The measures that this government is bringing in with benefits will hit some of those families that are already hard hit and will make the situation worse.”

Gorse Hill (Tolladine) showed 32 per of children living in poverty. The mayor of Worcester, Coun Roger Berry, who represents that ward said: “Unfortunately these figures are likely to increase with the benefit cutbacks from April 1. The city council should not allow its residents to be ignored.”

Other hotspots of child poverty were Rainbow Hill in Worcester (29 per cent) Pickersleigh in Malvern (31 per cent) and Droitwich West (24 per cent).

Worcester’s Conservative MP Robin Walker said: “I think it is appalling that anyone has to live in poverty. We have to constantly strive to help people out of that situation. I don’t think trapping people in welfare dependency is the answer.”

He said there were initiatives to help people in deprived areas including the Tolladine Mission which provided support and advice to families in difficulties, the Troubled Families Initiative and also work to reduce fuel poverty through better insulation of homes which involved Worcester Bosch. He also said the Government was in the process of changing the National Curriculum so people develop budgeting skills at school.

Dr Carl Ellson, chief clinical officer for NHS South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, which holds the purse strings for care, said: “Reducing health inequalities is a priority and the child poverty figures released indicate some of the challenges we face as a commissioner of local healthcare.

Their ‘Strengthening Healthy Communities’ project looks at health inequalities in Gorse Hill (Tolladine), Rainbow Hill and Warndon.

The project, led by Turning Point, involves Worcester Community Trust and the CCG is recruiting 20 local community champions in these wards to help find out their views and experiences of health.

Figures show that 20.2 per cent of British children are classified as below the poverty line, before housing costs.

In eight areas of large cities, more than four out of every 10 children lived in poverty in 2012, the research showed.

The poorest constituency for children was Manchester Central, with nearly half (47 per cent) of children living in poverty. The poorest local authority was Tower Hamlets (42 per cent).

A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said: "We are committed to eradicating child poverty, but we want to take a new approach by tackling the root causes including worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown.

"Our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities, with the Universal Credit simplifying the complex myriad of benefits and making three million people better off."

* How child poverty is measured: Children are classified as being in poverty if they live in families in receipt of out of work benefits or in-work tax credits where reported income is less than 60 per cent of median income (before housing costs are taken into account). The figures represent only a ‘modest’ official estimate of poverty according to the campaign without taking into account high rents and mortgage payments.

Worcestershire child poverty league of shame (percentage of children living in poverty).

(1) Oldington and Foley Park, Kidderminster (Wyre Forest): 41 per cent.

(2) Warndon, Worcester (Worcester City): 34 per cent.

(3) Pickersleigh, Malvern (Malvern Hills): 31 per cent

(4) Rainbow Hill, Worcester (Worcester City): 29 per cent.

(5) Broadwaters, Kidderminster (Wyre Forest): 27 per cent.

(6) Droitwich West, Droitwich (Wychavon): 24 per cent.

Greenlands, Redditch (Redditch): 24 per cent

(7) Batchley, Redditch: 23 per cent

(8) Areley Kings, (Wyre Forest): 22 per cent St John’s, Worcester (Worcester): 22 per cent.

(9) Abbey, Redditch (Redditch): 21 per cent.

(10) Charford, Bromsgrove (Bromsgrove): 20 per cent Least poor areas in Worcester with under 5 per cent child poverty: Warndon Parish south, St Peter’s and Claines.

Comments(20)

lizzyloolah says...
5:14pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Does 'children living in poverty' mean 'children whose parents are on benefits'?

daffy says...
5:33pm Wed 20 Feb 13

no it doesn't lizzyloolah

robin walker made me laugh, he was approached recently about a wch tennant who got a temp job and was threatened with being repossessed and he did absolutely nothing - totally useless and a waste of space.

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
6:17pm Wed 20 Feb 13

There are lies, **** lies and then there is "median income" on which the definition of "poverty" is based. There is poverty in this country, but not to the level that the above statisics appear to show!

lizzyloolah says...
7:46pm Wed 20 Feb 13

I suppose it must depend on your idea of poverty. If poverty means not being able to afford a holiday abroad, a new car, designer clothes, then my children must be destitute. They do not, however, go without. They have nice clothes, they are very well fed, they have lovely bedrooms, sports equitment, bikes, everything infact, except the stuff that the posh people with well paid jobs can afford. I get paid the minimum wage and although I'm not rolling in it I certainly dont consider my family to be povvistruck!

Arthur Blenkinsop says...
8:10am Thu 21 Feb 13

It's not always the case, but i'm always amazed at how many 'poverty stricken' familes can afford Sky TV, expensive mobile phones, a car and cigarettes!

New Kid on the Block says...
8:41am Thu 21 Feb 13

I agree with the comments above. I was brought up in the Pickersleigh area and no-one I knew considered themselves to be living in poverty.
For some more information try looking here.
http://www.findahood
.com/locations/picke
rsleigh/6281924

Respectable says...
9:10am Thu 21 Feb 13

Is this an issue of poverty or parental neglect ?

Not meaning to be arrorgant or argumentative. I'm just struggling to understand the definition of poverty.

There is a world of difference between "life's essentials" and the "Nice to have's"

ushmush83 says...
1:54pm Thu 21 Feb 13

'It is something, as a country, we should be ashamed of.'

The only people who should be ashamed are the parents.

Respectable says...
2:37pm Thu 21 Feb 13

ushmush83 wrote:
'It is something, as a country, we should be ashamed of.' The only people who should be ashamed are the parents.
That doesn't make sense...

Doogie 46 says...
3:05pm Thu 21 Feb 13

I think to label Warndon Villages as "rich" is quite wrong - I doubt that the people who live there would consider themselves rich. I suspect they are merely hard working "strivers" who look after their children well.
I would say that probably "affluent" would be overstating their financial situation.
Not sure how child poverty is measured or how you separate it from poor parenting, but labelling a modest housing estate as "rich" is not really sensible.
Some of the comments above are well made - do all parents put their children`s needs first - I think probably not.

gemma6 says...
3:17pm Thu 21 Feb 13

It is indeed uncomfortable to acknowledge that poverty exists in our, so called, civilised country. Does it make us feel better to convince ourselves that it doesn't exist and consequently, that we need not concern ourselves with it? The above comments certainly would appear to demonstrate this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/education-1947
8083

Arthur Blenkinsop says...
3:30pm Thu 21 Feb 13

I think you have missed the point Gemma66. In an awful lot of cases, it is bad parenting, ie. parents who spend money on cigarettes, drink etc. and do not look after the needs of their offspring, that drive that family into what is wrongly called poverty. By contrast, 'real' poverty is something that should not happen in a civilised country. But the article doesn't state how this 'poverty' is measured, so is therefore pretty meaningless IMO.

grumpy woman says...
3:36pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Nobody lives in real poverty these days. That is why the benefits system exists. Travel through Warndon - nearly every home has a large flat screen TV and satellite dish.
However it does appear that some children are emotionally impoverished and this is what we should be concentrating on. A lot of parents are sadly lacking parenting skills.

gemma6 says...
6:35pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Is your evidence of the non-existence of child poverty based on a trip around Wardon, Grumpy woman?
Arthur Blenkinsop where is your evidence that parents are solely to blame? Even if there were that does not mean we should shrug off our responsibilities as a civilised society.
Open your eyes for goodness sake - the world does not revolve around Wardon!

http://www.cpag.org.
uk/child-poverty-fac
ts-and-figures

gemma6 says...
6:42pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Child poverty facts and figures

There are 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.1
There are even more serious concentrations of child poverty at a local level: in 100 local wards, for example, between 50 and 70 per cent of children are growing up in poverty.2
Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one member works.3
People are poor for many reasons. But explanations which put poverty down to drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, poor parenting, or a culture of worklessness are not supported by the facts.

Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 62 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.5
Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier peers.6 Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower earnings over the course of a working life.
Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average, eight years longer than unskilled workers.7
Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £25 billion a year.8 Governments forgo prospective revenues as well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
Child poverty reduced dramatically between 1998/9-2010/12 when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty (BHC).9 This reduction is credited in large part to measures that increased the levels of lone parents working, as well as real and often significant increases in the level of benefits paid to families with children.
Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 300,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.10 This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.2 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020. (CPAG 2012)

lizzyloolah says...
7:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Yes, but what constitutes poverty? Poverty to me would be no food, no heating or hot water, a cardboard box for a home and if any child were to be living in those conditions I would definately blame the parents!

Maggie Would says...
7:54pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Crumbs, there are some pretty smug and rather presumptous points of view on this thread. A few rather stupid ones too.
The aggressive attitude of the 'Daily Mail chattering classes' to those down the social scale (and others that find themselves in poverty) never ceases to sicken me. As soon as articles of this type appear, ill-informed and prejudiced opinion is spouted by those pointing fingers at the wastrels in society, people that we are keeping in the lap of luxury on benefits. Do you all honestly believe that families living in poverty are drinking, smoking layabouts, spending their time watching Jeremy Kyle on their 50 inch plasma screens as they loll on their brand new sofas?
The reality is that every day can be a struggle to exist on a weekly income that many people might spend on a new outfit or a couple of good nights out. I know I can spend lots when the fancy takes me. I can afford it. I am lucky (hardworking and financially astute, perhaps, but it's also lucky that I have never been too ill to work and have always been able to find sufficient work to keep me and my family comfortable).
Let's consider a typical example of how the hardworking, decent people who form a sizeable chunk of the statistics above end up living in poverty in our modern, caring sharing society. Mr & Mrs Bloggs, with their 2.4 children, might have been earning an average-ish income, he might be working in a factory, she could be (say) working part-time in Tesco. A good solid working class family, working hard and paying their way. He will have had a pretty good income during the last two decades, plenty of overtime. In 2005, say, the family decide to buy a modest property. In 2007, he loses his job, the factory closes down. He only receives the statutory minimum redundancy pay, the company is insolvent. Suddenly, the £400 a month mortgage payments for their small 3 bed semi are unaffordable, as are many other bills: Council Tax, fuel, car loan etc. The wife's income is insufficient to cover the majority of bills. She only went back to work after the kids started school to buy those little extras really.
Before they know it, they have missed a couple of months on the mortgage and the house is repossessed, as is their car. They find themselves living in a housing association flat in Warndon, free school meals for the kids, benefits to keep them going. What did they do to deserve that? Are they lazy layabouts?
A homeless charity recently reported that the majority of working people in this country are only 2-3 missed paydays away from being penniless, with all the knock-on effects that might ensue. Think on. It might be you next time.

Arthur Blenkinsop says...
9:49am Fri 22 Feb 13

gemma6 wrote:
Is your evidence of the non-existence of child poverty based on a trip around Wardon, Grumpy woman? Arthur Blenkinsop where is your evidence that parents are solely to blame? Even if there were that does not mean we should shrug off our responsibilities as a civilised society. Open your eyes for goodness sake - the world does not revolve around Wardon! http://www.cpag.org. uk/child-poverty-fac ts-and-figures
I didn't say they were. And i fully agree that real poverty should not be tolerated, but how is that poverty is measured? I have been unemployed for short times with a morgage, bills and offspring to support with no savings, and very blooming difficult and worrying it was too.
My question was, how are these figures determined, because i don't know!

lizzyloolah says...
10:14am Fri 22 Feb 13

Maggie Would, that was me, only my husband wasnt made redundant, he died. I believe every parent is responsible for making sure that their children are not living in poverty.

Doogie 46 says...
3:06pm Fri 22 Feb 13

lizzyloolah seems to fit Maggie Would`s scenario but not with quite the same end product and I would imagine that her children are doing better than gemma6`s prognosis - which probably shows that this subject is a complex issue but some parents cope and prioritise better than others.
(not sure why Daily Mail readers are treated with such contempt - I find its views pretty tame.....)

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree