Report shows child poverty ‘hot spots’

Stamp Out Poverty campaign

Stamp Out Poverty campaign

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

NEARLY a quarter of children in some York neighbourhoods are living in poverty but the city is doing better than most, a landmark new report has revealed.

Almost one in nine children in York (11 per cent) are in poverty, according to the Campaign To End Child Poverty.

But the figure is 24 per cent in the Hull Road area, 23 per cent in Westfield and Clifton and 21 per cent in Guildhall.

York’s overall figure is well below the national average of 20.2 per cent.

The campaign group, a coalition of more than 150 charities, social justice groups and unions, said there were “gross levels of inequality that children face in every region”.

Outside York, the figures were ten per cent in Selby, eight per cent in Ryedale, 19 per cent in Scarborough, 11 per cent in the East Riding, seven per cent in Hambleton and six per cent in Harrogate. In York Outer the figure was five per cent and in York Central it was 17 per cent.

The campaign predicted that, as benefits started to fall in real terms later this year, the proportion of children in poverty would increase significantly.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts a growth in child poverty of 400,000 between 2011 and 2015, and a total of 800,000 by 2020.

Related links

Enver Solomon, chair of the Campaign To End Child Poverty, said: “There are still far too many children whose parents are struggling to make a living and are having to go hungry and miss out on the essentials of a decent childhood that all young people should be entitled to.

“In Yorkshire and the Humber, the huge disparities that exist across the region are becoming more entrenched and are now an enduring reality as many more children are set to become trapped in long term poverty and disadvantage. Local authorities are having to deal with reduced budgets but they have critical decisions to make.

“We’re calling on authorities to prioritise low-income families in the decisions they make about local welfare spending, including spending on the new council tax benefit, and on protecting families hit by the bedroom tax.

“The Government must also closely examine its current strategy for reducing poverty and consider what more it could do to ensure millions of children’s lives are not blighted by the corrosive impact that poverty has on their daily existence.’’

The local authorities with the highest levels of child poverty in 2012 were Tower Hamlets in London at 42 per cent, Manchester with 38 per cent and Middlesbrough with 37 per cent.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:27am Wed 20 Feb 13

Guy Fawkes says...

Where the poor children are living isn't going to tell us how to solve the problem. The following data would, however.

1. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought in a family unit that does not include both their biological parents, married to each other?

2. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) with abnormally low educational qualifications?

3. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who have never worked?

4. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who cannot speak,read and write English to near native fluency?

Time and time again, studies have shown that these are the biggest risk factors.
Where the poor children are living isn't going to tell us how to solve the problem. The following data would, however. 1. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought in a family unit that does not include both their biological parents, married to each other? 2. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) with abnormally low educational qualifications? 3. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who have never worked? 4. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who cannot speak,read and write English to near native fluency? Time and time again, studies have shown that these are the biggest risk factors. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

9:31am Wed 20 Feb 13

Eric Olthwaite says...

Guy Fawkes says...
9:27am Wed 20 Feb 13


Spot on!
Guy Fawkes says... 9:27am Wed 20 Feb 13 Spot on! Eric Olthwaite
  • Score: 0

10:19am Wed 20 Feb 13

working class tory says...

Socialists/social democrat intelligentsia talk about inequality and poverty constantly but do little to remove it (they use it for political ends); they talk but do not act because of the politically correct barriers they mount in front of themselves. Until people can openly ask the correct questions and state the facts without being accused of bigotry the problem will not go away.
Socialists/social democrat intelligentsia talk about inequality and poverty constantly but do little to remove it (they use it for political ends); they talk but do not act because of the politically correct barriers they mount in front of themselves. Until people can openly ask the correct questions and state the facts without being accused of bigotry the problem will not go away. working class tory
  • Score: 0

10:20am Wed 20 Feb 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Guy Fawkes' interesting points raise the perennial question "Is poverty a sin?"

Don't forget in your pondering that it was not too long ago a York priest, Father Tim Jones, parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda, who advocated stealing food from large multinationals if you were poverty stricken.
Guy Fawkes' interesting points raise the perennial question "Is poverty a sin?" Don't forget in your pondering that it was not too long ago a York priest, Father Tim Jones, parish priest of St Lawrence and St Hilda, who advocated stealing food from large multinationals if you were poverty stricken. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

10:48am Wed 20 Feb 13

Capt. Dobie says...

working class tory wrote:
Socialists/social democrat intelligentsia talk about inequality and poverty constantly but do little to remove it (they use it for political ends); they talk but do not act because of the politically correct barriers they mount in front of themselves. Until people can openly ask the correct questions and state the facts without being accused of bigotry the problem will not go away.
I concur.

Still, what do we do about these kids in poverty? It's when you hear news like this that you realise just how well-off we are by being able to provide for our families...

...an interesting story juxtapposed to the one about the horse-owning benefit family...
[quote][p][bold]working class tory[/bold] wrote: Socialists/social democrat intelligentsia talk about inequality and poverty constantly but do little to remove it (they use it for political ends); they talk but do not act because of the politically correct barriers they mount in front of themselves. Until people can openly ask the correct questions and state the facts without being accused of bigotry the problem will not go away.[/p][/quote]I concur. Still, what do we do about these kids in poverty? It's when you hear news like this that you realise just how well-off we are by being able to provide for our families... ...an interesting story juxtapposed to the one about the horse-owning benefit family... Capt. Dobie
  • Score: 0

11:58am Wed 20 Feb 13

eeoodares says...

'....and miss out on the essentials of a decent childhood that all young people should be entitled to'. What are the essentials? Hot meals and an education or Sky and a mobile phone?
'....and miss out on the essentials of a decent childhood that all young people should be entitled to'. What are the essentials? Hot meals and an education or Sky and a mobile phone? eeoodares
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Guy Fawkes says...

Guy Fawkes' interesting points raise the perennial question "Is poverty a sin?"


What makes this problem so complicated is that even if you believe that it is, children cannot be held responsible for the actions of their parents; yet the actions of irresponsible parents can have a devastating effect on their children.

What we need is a way of discouraging people from having children who are not capable of providing the financial and pastoral stability needed for those kids to grow into well educated, responsible and productive adults. But furthermore, it has to be a way that does not resort to the more sinister methods such as those advocated by Marie Stopes (who promoted contraception in order to prevent poor people from breeding, and called for the forcible sterilisation of poor people who didn't go along with that idea) and her ilk, because history shows us that this cure is worse than the disease.

Yet at the same time it cannot be right that the taxpayer providing a no questions asked home and income to anyone who deliberately becomes pregnant in the full knowledge that they cannot bring up the resulting child without them. If these children stood a good chance of growing up into productive, contributing adults, then maybe. But all the evidence is that they don't.

There has to be some middle way (that discourages feckless parenting without punishing the children as well), though I don't know what it is.
[quote]Guy Fawkes' interesting points raise the perennial question "Is poverty a sin?"[/quote] What makes this problem so complicated is that even if you believe that it is, children cannot be held responsible for the actions of their parents; yet the actions of irresponsible parents can have a devastating effect on their children. What we need is a way of discouraging people from having children who are not capable of providing the financial and pastoral stability needed for those kids to grow into well educated, responsible and productive adults. But furthermore, it has to be a way that does not resort to the more sinister methods such as those advocated by Marie Stopes (who promoted contraception in order to prevent poor people from breeding, and called for the forcible sterilisation of poor people who didn't go along with that idea) and her ilk, because history shows us that this cure is worse than the disease. Yet at the same time it cannot be right that the taxpayer providing a no questions asked home and income to anyone who deliberately becomes pregnant in the full knowledge that they cannot bring up the resulting child without them. If these children stood a good chance of growing up into productive, contributing adults, then maybe. But all the evidence is that they don't. There has to be some middle way (that discourages feckless parenting without punishing the children as well), though I don't know what it is. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Oncebitten says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Where the poor children are living isn't going to tell us how to solve the problem. The following data would, however.

1. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought in a family unit that does not include both their biological parents, married to each other?

2. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) with abnormally low educational qualifications?

3. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who have never worked?

4. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who cannot speak,read and write English to near native fluency?

Time and time again, studies have shown that these are the biggest risk factors.
1) biological parents do not need to be married to each other to provide financial and pastoral support to children.

2) education does not mean poverty, people can be thrown into poverty through no fault of their own ie redundancy, bereavement etc.

3) Working parents do not mean that children are exempt from poverty.

4) poverty does not need or understand language, so no English speaking people are in poverty in the UK?!

Please give the supporting evidence you have for your time and time again studies !!

Poverty in children/adults in the UK in the 21st century is an issue for us all and blame should not be put at the feet of the vulnerable.

Spare a thought, never be so complacent to think it could never be you....
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: Where the poor children are living isn't going to tell us how to solve the problem. The following data would, however. 1. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought in a family unit that does not include both their biological parents, married to each other? 2. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) with abnormally low educational qualifications? 3. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who have never worked? 4. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who cannot speak,read and write English to near native fluency? Time and time again, studies have shown that these are the biggest risk factors.[/p][/quote]1) biological parents do not need to be married to each other to provide financial and pastoral support to children. 2) education does not mean poverty, people can be thrown into poverty through no fault of their own ie redundancy, bereavement etc. 3) Working parents do not mean that children are exempt from poverty. 4) poverty does not need or understand language, so no English speaking people are in poverty in the UK?! Please give the supporting evidence you have for your time and time again studies !! Poverty in children/adults in the UK in the 21st century is an issue for us all and blame should not be put at the feet of the vulnerable. Spare a thought, never be so complacent to think it could never be you.... Oncebitten
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Paul Meoff says...

1. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up in a family unit that can afford their 40 fags a day

2. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who are obscenely obese

3. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who live on a diet of Maccy Ds

4. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who can always find enough money to get p1ssed every night
1. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up in a family unit that can afford their 40 fags a day 2. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who are obscenely obese 3. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who live on a diet of Maccy Ds 4. What proportion of children in poverty are being brought up by parent(s) and/or guardian(s) who can always find enough money to get p1ssed every night Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Oncebitten says...

Well Paul Meoff I have read and instantly dismissed your comments.
Your previous comments on other posts have shown you to be a complete arse.

Poverty is not about smoking or fast food and certainly not obesity. Think before you put your fingers to the keyboard.
Well Paul Meoff I have read and instantly dismissed your comments. Your previous comments on other posts have shown you to be a complete arse. Poverty is not about smoking or fast food and certainly not obesity. Think before you put your fingers to the keyboard. Oncebitten
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Paul Meoff says...

Oncebitten wrote:
Well Paul Meoff I have read and instantly dismissed your comments.
Your previous comments on other posts have shown you to be a complete arse.

Poverty is not about smoking or fast food and certainly not obesity. Think before you put your fingers to the keyboard.
With your obsession with arses and fingers I hope you've washed your hands before fingering the keyboard.

I picture you as a fat 40-a-day p1ss artist with destitute kids living on horse burgers if you take offence so readily.
[quote][p][bold]Oncebitten[/bold] wrote: Well Paul Meoff I have read and instantly dismissed your comments. Your previous comments on other posts have shown you to be a complete arse. Poverty is not about smoking or fast food and certainly not obesity. Think before you put your fingers to the keyboard.[/p][/quote]With your obsession with arses and fingers I hope you've washed your hands before fingering the keyboard. I picture you as a fat 40-a-day p1ss artist with destitute kids living on horse burgers if you take offence so readily. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

8:34am Thu 21 Feb 13

Oaklands Resident says...

"We’re calling on authorities to prioritise low-income families in the decisions they make about local welfare spending, including spending on the new council tax benefit, and on protecting families hit by the bedroom tax".

There is no such thing as a "bedroom tax".

In future housing benefit will not be paid for under occupied bedrooms.

It is difficult to think of any "poor" families who would lose out through this change. In fact they may gain as many are likely to be living in overcrowded accommodation.

The controversy over this change to housing benefit revolves mainly around single people and couples whose children have left home and who therefore have "spare" bedrooms.

They argue that they should not be pressured into downsizing.

On the other hand, many taxpayers will argue that they should not have to pay to subsidise empty and underused rooms.
"We’re calling on authorities to prioritise low-income families in the decisions they make about local welfare spending, including spending on the new council tax benefit, and on protecting families hit by the bedroom tax". There is no such thing as a "bedroom tax". In future housing benefit will not be paid for under occupied bedrooms. It is difficult to think of any "poor" families who would lose out through this change. In fact they may gain as many are likely to be living in overcrowded accommodation. The controversy over this change to housing benefit revolves mainly around single people and couples whose children have left home and who therefore have "spare" bedrooms. They argue that they should not be pressured into downsizing. On the other hand, many taxpayers will argue that they should not have to pay to subsidise empty and underused rooms. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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