POLICY BRIEFING. Poverty in Suburbia: Smith Institute report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "POLICY BRIEFING. Poverty in Suburbia: Smith Institute report"

Alfred Norris
5 years ago
Views:

Poverty in Suburbia: Smith Institute report Sheila Camp, LGIU Associate 8 May 2014 Summary The Smith Institute's recent report "Poverty in Suburbia" examines the growth of poverty in the suburbs of

1 Poverty in Suburbia: Smith Institute report Sheila Camp, LGIU Associate 8 May 2014 Summary The Smith Institute's recent report "Poverty in Suburbia" examines the growth of poverty in the suburbs of towns and cities in England and Wales, particularly in the major conurbations. It argues that policy makers have glossed over poverty issues outside the inner cities and rural areas; suburbia is still perceived as relatively prosperous whilst in fact poverty is prevalent and is growing here. As a consequence of the report's findings, the author, Paul Hunter, argues for recognition of the growing incidence of poverty in the suburbs and policy changes which will benefit households in poverty in these areas. This briefing will be of interest to members and officers in all councils with an interest in economic development, poverty reduction and welfare and those with responsibility for health, social services and housing and to those elected members who represent suburban wards. Briefing in full Introduction The report starts from the premise that, although the majority of the population lives in suburbs, the incidence of poverty there and how it is increasing (or decreasing) has been largely ignored by researchers and policy makers. Indeed, the suburbs

2 themselves have been seen as largely affluent places to live and have not needed or benefitted from any urban renaissance initiatives. The report sets out to demonstrate that this is an outdated view, that there is evidence to show that the majority of households in poverty live in the suburbs and that there is increasing displacement of poor households from the inner areas to the suburbs. This has obvious implications for future policies to tackle poverty. But a major drawback is that there is no nationally agreed definition of suburbia, nor any small area statistics on poverty. What is "suburbia"? One of the obstacles to studying poverty in suburbia is that there is no agreed definition of a suburb. Peter Hall is quoted as saying "suburbia tends to be defined in terms of what it is not" (introduction to the Smith Institute 2009 publication "Housing and Growth in Suburbia"). Suburbs cannot be directly defined from census data or other government statistics. They differ from urban centres in that they have lower populations and housing density; they tend to be situated on the edges of cities and towns; and they are primarily residential. But this is not a precise definition. To overcome this and to have a working definition of suburbia, the report uses both population density above a certain level (to exclude rural areas) and residential property type, ie those areas having proportionately low numbers of flats and terraced housing (to exclude predominantly commercial areas of the inner city). Whilst this enables the definition of suburbia to reflect the popular concept of it consisting of mainly detached and semi-detached homes, it has the disadvantage of excluding many peripheral social housing estates, which by their nature include numerous households in poverty. Their inclusion could strengthen the overall thrust of the report, that poverty strategies need to look further than the inner cities and rural areas. Thus, the report uses a definition that by combining architectural form and density matches the popular image of the suburbs. As indicated above, suburbia is thought of as having high levels of semi-detached or detached housing and not being either densely populated or so sparsely peopled as to be rural. The definition adopted in fact adopts Peter Hall's approach by identifying suburbia by what it is not: Areas where less than 20% of households live in semi- detached or detached housing are not classed as suburban (these areas are urban). Areas where the population per hectare is less than 10 people are also not classed as suburban (these areas are rural). What remains is categorised as suburban. To identify suburban areas, the report uses the smallest areas for which official census data on population and dwelling type is available ( lower super output areas or LSOAs); there are around 35,000 in England and Wales, typically containing around 1,500 people and presenting census data for that small area. From this data,

3 the author has constructed maps showing suburban areas in England and Wales and in Greater London. Using information from the 2001 and 2011 census, the report calculates that, whilst 60% of the population live in the suburbs, population growth over the 10 year period was unevenly distributed. Nationally, the population grew by 8%, with growth in the suburbs of 5% and an increase of 11%, over double this, in non-suburban areas. The growth in households followed a similar pattern, although a slightly lower overall proportion of all households live in the suburbs around 58%, suggesting that the number of people per household is higher in non-suburban areas. The changing face of poverty Households in poverty are generally defined as the percentage of the population living in households with income below 60 per cent of the median or middle income for the country as a whole. There are separate income figures for before and after housing costs are deducted. There is no official data on poverty which goes below regional level, except for some data collection on the narrowing gap in poverty rates between inner and outer London. Census questions do not ask about income, because of understandable sensitivities and official data on poverty (based on the Family Resources Survey), being survey based, means results cannot be broken down below a certain geographic scale. There is no equivalent of the LSOAs for poverty. Nationally, over the period , data on poverty showed that: Poverty rates (after housing costs) remained the same, at 22%. Rising housing costs push more people into poverty, even if their headline income has increased Poverty rates among children and older people were reduced substantially. Deliberate welfare policies, such as child benefit and pension credit were targeted on these groups Poverty among households of working age without children rose over the period, as did poverty in households where at least one member was working. The rise of in-work poverty was a major change during this period Poverty differed by region, with London having the biggest rise in poverty levels and the highest proportion of people in poverty. Rapidly rising housing costs in the capital, far outstripping income rises, are a major contributor to this. Whilst most regions experienced rises in housing costs over the 10 year period, London's was by far the greatest and triggered most movement from the centre to less expensive areas As there is no official data on poverty rates at a small spatial level to enable comparisons between suburban areas and the rest of the country, the report uses

4 census data which contains proxy indicators of poverty, that is factors which render a household more likely to be in poverty, to make comparisons. These indicators cover a range of risk factors and include housing tenure, work status, household formation, disability, and entitlement to means-tested benefits. The indicators are weighted and tested against regional data on poverty in 2001 and The full list of proxy indicators is set out below. Overcrowding Lone parenthood Unemployment Social housing Private renting Part-time working Workless (other - students, carers, and people unable to work through disability or ill health) Income support/pension credit Not owning a car Limiting disability Self-employment Poverty in the suburbs - the national context The report analyses the individual proxy indicators for poverty using the 2001 and 2011 census data, both to assess the incidence of these factors in suburbs and nonsuburbs and to examine the changes over the 10 year period. It then uses the combined and weighted proxy indicators to assess the extent of poverty in suburbia, rather than just looking at single indicators, and thereby to assess the picture of change. It also attempts some analysis of the post-recession changes, using DWP data on means tested benefits. The overall findings are set out below: Most people in poverty live in suburban neighbourhoods, however the incidence of poverty in the suburban population is lower than in non-suburban areas. In total, 6.8million or 57% of people in poverty live in the suburbs The number of suburban areas with above-average levels of poverty rose by 34% between 2001 and For particular indicators, suburbs have higher-than-average concentrations (lone parents; part-time workers; people with a disability; pension credit recipients). Non-suburbs, on the other hand, (particularly urban areas) have higher levels of overcrowding; private renting; lack of access to a car; and self-employment. Government policies to reduce poverty among children and older people are likely to have tempered the growth of poverty in suburbs more than in other areas. While poverty indicators are slightly higher for suburbs in more urban than more rural local authorities, the disparities are not as wide as those between (non-suburban) rural and urban neighbourhoods.

5 The proportion of people claiming job seeker s allowance rose by more than 80% in suburban areas between 2001and The rates of pension credit, job seeker s allowance, income support and disability living allowance increased more per head (or decreased less) in the suburbs. Moreover, for all four benefits, the prevalence per head of population is now greater in the suburbs than in the rest of the country. Suburban poverty in 8 major conurbations The report next examines in more detail poverty in the suburbs of eight major urban areas - London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Bristol and Leeds. In all cases (except London where the boroughs are an integral part of the Greater London area) neighbouring local authorities are included. Thus, Leeds for example, includes Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. For each city, the author has constructed a detailed map of levels of poverty in 2011 and how it has changed in the suburbs, using the same data and methods as for depicting poverty on a national scale. A summary of the findings is set out below. London Over the period , London's population grew by 14% (17.6% in non-suburban areas) and the capital experienced a rise in poverty rates, which was unevenly distributed across the 32 boroughs; it rose by 1 percentage point in suburban areas but fell by 3 percentage points in non-suburban areas. Poverty is highest in inner London and runs north-, south- and eastwards out of the centre, but the growth in poverty is spread across an outer ring of suburbia all around the capital. Birmingham. including Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell and Solihull Over the period , Birmingham's population grew by 10%; growth was concentrated in non-suburban areas but the suburbs still grew by 6%. Poverty fell by more than one percentage point overall, with falls of 1.2 percentage points in the suburbs and 2.6 percentage points in non-suburban areas. Poverty is highest in inner-city Birmingham, then moves out from the centre to the east of the city (within the local authority s borders). In the surrounding districts, the wealthier Solihull has much lower levels of poverty but high levels of poverty spread west from Birmingham into Sandwell, and then into Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley. Manchester, including Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside, Stockport, Trafford and Salford Over the period , Manchester's population grew by 100,000, with the biggest rise in non-suburban areas. Over the 10 years, poverty fell by 3.2% in the suburbs and 6.1% in non-suburban areas. Poverty is highest in inner-city Manchester, and high levels are witnessed across most of the local authority area, spreading out to Salford and also high in the centres of Oldham, Rochdale and Bury. Areas with lower

6 levels of poverty are found on the outskirts of the authorities furthest away from Manchester s centre. Liverpool, including Sefton, Knowsley and Wirral Over the period , Liverpool's population grew by 27,000 in total, with rises of 6% over the whole city and 3% in suburban areas. Over the 10 years, poverty fell slightly by just over 1 percentage point, with the decline fairly evenly spread between suburban and non-suburban areas. Poverty is highest in inner-city Liverpool and covers most of the local authority area, spreading out to the east into Knowsley and north into the south of Sefton. Sheffield, including Rotherham Over the period , Sheffield's population grew by 8%, most of this being in non-suburban areas. Over the 10 years poverty in Sheffield decreased by 1.7 percentage points to 23.9%. This drop was largest in non-suburban areas, with a fall of 3.5 percentage points. Poverty in Sheffield is located in the east of the local authority area and heads north-east into Rotherham. Over the period there seems to be a relative worsening at the edge of suburbs, with those close to the centre experiencing improvements. Newcastle, including Gateshead, North and South Tyneside and Sunderland Over the period , Newcastle's population grew by 5%, more slowly in the suburbs. Over the 10 years poverty in Newcastle fell by 3.2 percentage points, the fall being greater in non-suburban areas, where poverty decreased by 5.2 percentage points. Poverty in Newcastle and the surrounding districts is still relatively high, and spread across the five local authorities. There are particularly high rates running directly either side of the Tyne, and for Sunderland next to the Wear. The suburbs closest to the strip next to the river appear to have improved over the period, with those set back slightly not faring as well. Bristol, including South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Over the period , Bristol's population grew by 11%, mainly outside the suburbs. Over the 10 years, poverty grew from 22.3% to 23.7%, rising faster in nonsuburban areas. Poverty in Bristol is highest at the centre, but is also noticeably high at the northern and southern edges of the local authority area. The other two local authorities examined North Somerset and SouthGloucestershire have very low levels of poverty. Leeds, including Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield Over the period , Leeds' population grew by 5%, mainly outside the suburbs. Over the 10 years, poverty grew by more than half a percentage point, mainly in non-

7 suburban areas. Leeds, like other core cities, has high levels of poverty in the centre. However, poverty does not spread outwards to other areas in the same way as it does in the other cities examined. Poverty in the other local authorities is contained within their separate city or town centres. The report also looks at changes in the eight cities in means-tested benefits since There was a drop of around 50% in income support in all areas, which was in line with suburbs across the country. The increase in the proportion of people claiming job seeker's allowance varied widely, with Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Bristol seeing far higher rises, but less noticeable changes in Liverpool and Birmingham, which already had high rates. Rises in disability living allowance were below the national suburban average in all but Leeds and Bristol. Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Bristol saw above-average increases in pension credit against the suburb average. In summary, suburbs in the eight cities examined produce a mixed picture. Poverty levels remained higher than national suburban averages, and there was a noticeable worsening in the positions relative to the national average in the suburban areas of Sheffield, Leeds and Bristol. Compared with the non-suburban average, the four major cities of Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and London saw their relative position improved. Although particular types of poverty and particular poverty-related issues are more common in suburbs, not least lone-parent households and older people, there are large variations across the indicators in the different cities. This implies that a onesize-fits-all approach to poverty in suburbia would miss the varied experience of different suburbs and indeed different cities. Future trends and implications for policy makers The report's overall findings are that most people in poverty - some 57% or 6.8 million people - live in suburbia, yet policy responses to poverty have largely ignored the suburbs. Analysis of the trends in the decade has demonstrated that the number of suburban areas with above-average levels of poverty rose by 34% and the major cities study showed some areas experienced a narrowing gap in concentrations of poverty between urban cores and suburbs. Rates of the four major means-tested benefits post the recession (pension credit, job seeker s allowance, income support and disability living allowance) have increased more per head (or decreased less) in the suburbs and the prevalence per head of population is now greater in the suburbs than in the rest of the country.

8 These trends seem likely to continue. Ever-increasing housing costs are a major driver of poverty. These impact on poor households already living in the suburbs, including existing owner-occupiers and, as the inner cities become unaffordable to people on limited incomes, result in an influx of poorer households to cheaper areas in the suburbs. This latter movement is particularly evident in London. Certain types of households are more likely to be at risk of poverty and in three cases - lone parents, older people and disabled people - are more prevalent in the suburbs. Thus, benefit changes affecting any of these groups, for example the "bedroom tax" or changes to disability living allowance could have a greater impact on suburban poverty. The report concludes that rising poverty in the suburbs has been ignored for too long. It calls for a "suburban renaissance, including sensitive increases in density (to enable cheaper, more reliable transport), greater access to shops and services, and investment in public services. Perhaps most importantly, it asserts that policy makers need to understand fully the impact of welfare reforms on poorer suburban economies, especially for vulnerable groups and that a comprehensive review of the appropriateness and relative cost-effectiveness of the anti-poverty infrastructure in suburbia is long overdue. Comment This report aims to fill a gap in existing research on poverty by systematically demonstrating that targeting anti-poverty strategies on the inner cities and, to a lesser extent rural areas, in fact misses out the majority of households in poverty. In this, it largely succeeds and, by using proxy indicators from census data in 2001 and 2011, is able to show that the incidence of poverty in suburbia is growing. It is hampered by two factors. First, there is no agreed definition of a suburb and it has to fall back on a somewhat arbitrary definition of what is not a suburb. The criteria adopted exclude peripheral social housing estates, which other studies (for example "Building for Communities", David Page's 1993 study of new housing association estates) have shown to contain high levels of disadvantage. Adopting a definition which included these estates would have strengthened the report's findings. The second problem is that there is no small area data for poverty; this is tackled by adopting weighted proxy indicators for poverty, which can only identify types of households - for example lone parents and older people - that are more likely to fall into poverty. However, even given these limitations, the report makes a cogent case for policy makers to recognise the growing numbers in poverty in suburbia and to be aware of the impact of different welfare strategies on the suburbs as well as the inner cities.

9 Related briefings Readers may want to read these two previous briefings that consider the issues raised in the Smith Institute report from different perspectives. Cities, Growth and Poverty: a Review of the Evidence Statistical Digest of Rural England 2014 For more information about this, or any other LGiU member briefing, please contact Janet Sillett, Briefings Manager, on janet.sillett@lgiu.org.uk

Residential & labour market connections of deprived neighbourhoods in Greater Manchester & Leeds City Region. Ceri Hughes & Ruth Lupton

Residential & labour market connections of deprived neighbourhoods in Greater Manchester & Leeds City Region Ceri Hughes & Ruth Lupton 1 Contents 1. Introduction... 3 1.1 Overview of the report... 3 1.2