deprivation and need - west sussex county councildeprivation and need headlines • the 2010 index...

139139West Sussex Life - 2013 | West Sussex County Council [email protected] |<< < > >>|

8. Deprivation and NeedHeadlines

• The 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks West Sussex as 130th out of a total of 152 upper tier local authorities for overall deprivation, where rank 1 is the most deprived. West Sussex has become relatively more deprived since 2007, when it was ranked 132nd.

• Adur is the most deprived district in West Sussex according to the IMD 2010 data, ranked 145th out of a total 326 local authorities in England. Mid Sussex is the least deprived district in the county, ranked 315th.

• 47 West Sussex LSOAs (9.4% of total) are among the 30% most deprived LSOAs nationally, up from 42 LSOAs (8.4% of total) ranked in the top 30% most deprived in 2007, and 30 such LSOAs (6.0% of total) in 2004.

• In 2010, 13.3% of all children in West Sussex were living in relative poverty, using a definition based on income deprivation. This equates to to a total of 22,100 children across the county. Child poverty rates vary by district, from 8.2% in Mid Sussex to 18.9% in Crawley, but all districts remain below the national rate of 20.6% of children.

• Four LSOAs across the county have more than 40%, or two in every five children living in relative poverty. Two of these LSOAs are in Arun, in Ham and Pevensey wards, with one each in Broadfield South, Crawley and Northbrook, Worthing.

• The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) ranks Crawley as the most deprived district for older people living in West Sussex, ranked 161st out of 326 local authorities in the country. Mid Sussex and Horsham both have very low levels of deprivation affecting older people, ranked 312th and 318th respectively.

• The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimates that in 2011, 11.0% of households in West Sussex were in fuel poverty; representing a total of 37,331 households. Compared to 2010, the proportion of households in fuel poverty decreased by 1.0% (2,891 fewer households).

• In West Sussex, an estimated 400 households will be affected by the benefits cap, with a total reduction of just under £2 million per year that will be paid out to these 400 families – approximately £5,000 less per family per year.


Deprivation and Need - Index of Multiple Deprivation

Description

The English Indices of Deprivation is a relative measure of deprivation across England. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) releases the English Indices of Deprivation every three years , with the last release in 2010. Deprivation covers a wide range of issues and refers to unmet needs caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just financial. The English Indices of Deprivation measures a broad concept of multiple deprivation made up of seven distinct domains:

• Income deprivation• Employment deprivation• Health deprivation and disability• Education, skills and training deprivation• Barriers to housing and services • Living environment deprivation • Crime

Along with two supplementary indices:

• Income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI) • Income deprivation affecting older people index

(IDAOPI)

The English Indices of Deprivation uses 38 indicators across the seven domains. These are combined (using weighting) to calculate an overall value of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for each Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) in England. LSOAs are typically smaller than wards, containing around 1,500 people each.

Each LSOA is ranked according to their IMD score either in a specific domain or as the overall IMD score. This ranking allows users to identify the most and least deprived areas in England, where pockets of deprivation are present and to compare areas against each other. All LSOAs are ranked nationally, where 1 is the most deprived, out of a maximum of 32,482.

Overall an area has a higher deprivation score (and is therefore ranked higher) than another LSOA if there are a higher proportion of people living in that area that are classed as being deprived. The area itself is not deprived; it is only the circumstances and the people living within that area that will affect the deprivation score.

However, not everyone who lives in a deprived area is deprived and not all deprived people live in deprived areas. The English Indices of Deprivation is a relative measure so is able to identify which areas are more deprived than others, but is unable to say by how much. Additionally it does not reflect how affluent an area is; therefore areas that are ranked as being the least deprived are not necessarily the most affluent. The IMD is usually divided up into deciles (ten groups of equal size) to allow for comparisons to take place, this is usually set at being the top 30% most deprived and the 70% least deprived.

Performance

Analysis of the individual domains can be found throughout the subject chapters of West Sussex Life 2013. This chapter is focused on the overall rank of the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

In 2010 West Sussex was ranked 130th out of a total of 152 upper tier local authorities, where rank 1 is the most deprived. West Sussex has become relatively more deprived, rising from rank 132nd in 2007. Compared to neighbouring authorities, West Sussex is less deprived than East Sussex (ranked 90th) and Brighton & Hove (ranked 53rd), but more deprived than both Hampshire (ranked 141st) and Surrey (ranked 150th).

Table 8.1: Number of areas in West Sussexwithin the top percentiles of IMD, 2010

Source: English Indices of Deprivation, Departmentfor Communities and Local Government

0 to 10% 10 to 20% 20 to 30%

Adur 0 4 7

Arun 3 5 11

Chichester 0 0 2

Crawley 0 1 2

Horsham 0 0 0

Mid Sussex 0 0 1

Worthing 0 6 5

West Sussex 3 16 28


The most deprived district in West Sussex is Adur, ranked 145th out of a total of 326 local authorities in England. Mid Sussex is the least deprived district, ranked 315th. Although Adur is the most deprived local authority in the county, its relative position has improved nationally since 2007, when it was ranked 138th in England.


Source: English Indices of Deprivation, Department for Communities and Local Government

Figure 8.1: Local authorities in England ranked by average IMD score, 2010

Worthing has remained at a similar ranking, while all other districts and boroughs have experienced falls in the index, indicating a decline in relative deprivation (i.e. an improvement). The largest change in rank occurred in Crawley (down 18), followed by Arun (down 16) and Chichester (down 15).

There are a total of 47 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in West Sussex that fall within the top 30% most deprived nationally in 2010, with three of these LSOAs in the top 10% most deprived. By district, Arun has the most LSOAs in the top 30% with 19, followed by Adur with 11, while Horsham is the only district to have none of its LSOAs fall within the top 30% most deprived.

Ove

rall

IMD

Sco

re

Most deprived Least deprived


Table 8.3: Percentage of West SussexLSOAs by decile group, 2004 to 2010

Source: West Sussex JSNA Indices of Deprivation 2010, Results and Analysis Report


Table 8.2: Highest and lowest ranked LSOAs in West Sussex in the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2010

Source: English Indices of Deprivation, Department for Communities & Local Government

Within Arun, there are pockets of deprivation in the wards of River and Ham in Littlehampton, with three LSOAs in these two wards falling in the top 10% most deprived nationally. These three are the only LSOAs in West Sussex that are within the 10% most deprived nationally. Relative deprivation in these areas has increased since previous IMD rankings, since none of them were ranked within the top 10% in 2004 or 2007.

Overall there was an increase in the number of West Sussex LSOAs ranked among the 30% most deprived nationally, at 9.4% of all West Sussex LSOAs in 2010, compared to 8.4% of LSOAs in 2007 and 6.0% in 2004. The number of LSOAs in the least deprived 30% nationally has also decreased, with 42.5% of West Sussex LSOAs in the least deprived 30% in 2010, compared to 52.9% in 2004. In particular, the proportion of West Sussex LSOAs in the least deprived 10% fell by 6.4% from 2004 to 2010.

Using the DEFRA rural/urban classification, out of the total 503 LSOAs in West Sussex 64 are classified as town and fringe, 58 as village, hamlet and isolated dwellings and 381 as urban (where the population is over 10,000). The IMD shows that in general, our urban LSOAs are relatively more deprived, as only the urban LSOAs feature in the more deprived decile groups.

West Sussex IMD rank

Area DistrictNational Rank

of IMD

1 Ham Arun 1,764

2 River Arun 2,616

3 Ham Arun 2,783

4 River Arun 3,270

5 Northbrook Worthing 3,650

499 Haywards Heath Franklands Mid Sussex 32,371

500 East Grinstead Herontye Mid Sussex 32,392

501 Holbrook East Horsham 32,437

502 Chichester North Chichester 32,438

503 East Grinstead Imberhorne Mid Sussex 32,457

2004 2007 2010

10% (most deprived 10% in England) 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6%

20% 1.8% 3.8% 3.2% 1.4%

30% 4.2% 4.6% 5.6% 1.4%

40% 7.0% 7.4% 7.8% 0.8%

50% 7.6% 10.7% 13.1% 5.5%

60% 13.1% 15.3% 15.7% 2.6%

70% 13.5% 11.3% 11.5% -2.0%

80% 14.1% 12.1% 11.5% -2.6%

90% 15.9% 14.7% 14.5% -1.4%

100% (least deprived 10% in England) 22.9% 20.1% 16.5% -6.4%

% of West Sussex LSOAsDecile Group

% Change 2004-2010




Figure 8.2: Overall deprivation by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), 2010


Description

Child poverty encompasses a wide variety of factors that have a negative impact on the quality of life for children, such as income deprivation, education deprivation, social exclusion and poor health. Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) produce the local child poverty measure based on benefits claimant data, which indicates where children are living in relative poverty specifically in terms of income deprivation. The Child Poverty Act 2010 places a duty on local authorities and partners to cooperate towards reducing the local child poverty measure to below 10% nationally by 2020.

HMRC’s local child poverty measure is defined as the proportion of children living in families in receipt of out of work benefits or in receipt of tax credits where their reported income is less than 60% of median income (£211 per week when the latest measure was calculated in 2010). The measure is produced using administrative data held by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The measure is relative – that is, it counts how many children are comparatively poor when taken against the average (median) income across the UK.

Performance

According to the HMRC local child poverty measure, 13.3% of all children living in West Sussex were in relative poverty in 2010, equating to 22,100 children. The percentage of children in relative poverty fell by 0.5% (540 children) from 2009 to 2010 in West Sussex; this was in line with national and regional change.

Crawley had the highest rate of children in relative poverty in 2010, at 18.9% of all children in the borough, equating to 4,695 children living in relative poverty. Mid Sussex had the lowest rate at 8.2% of all children, or 2,420 children in relative poverty. Every district saw a decrease in the proportion of children in relative poverty from 2009 to 2010. In 2010, Adur, Arun, Crawley and Worthing all had a greater proportion of children in relative poverty than the regional average, but no districts exceeded the national average of 20.6% of all children.

Deprivation and Need - Income Deprivation: Children

Source: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC, www.hmrc.gov.uk)

Figure 8.3: Percentage of childrenin relative poverty, 2006-2010 Source: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC, www.hmrc.gov.uk)

Figure 8.4: Number of children in relative poverty (income based) by district, 2010

2006

, 12.

7%

2006

, 14.

4%

2006

, 20.

8%

2007

, 13.

2%

2007

, 14.

9%

2007

, 21.

6%

2008

, 12.

8%

2008

, 14.

5%

2008

, 20.

9%

2009

, 13.

8%

2009

, 15.

4%

2009

, 21.

3%

2010

, 13.

3%

2010

, 15.

0%

2010

, 20.

6%

West Sussex South East England

2,07

0

4,44

5

2,69

5

4,69

5

2,50

5

2,42

0 3,27

0

Adur Arun Chichester Crawley Horsham Mid Sussex Worthing


As the indicator is a relative measure, a fall in the rate of child poverty reflects a fall in national median income, which has acted to lower the relative poverty line. Couple households with two children aged between 5 and 14 saw their median income fall by £20 from £661 per week in 2009 to £641 per week in 2010. Similarly, single households with two children aged 5 and 14 saw their median income fall by £16 from £518 per week to £502 per week. This was the first fall in median income in fifteen years. Although lower quartile incomes also fell, the fall was not proportionately as great; therefore fewer households were 60% or more below the median level, meaning that the national child poverty rate was also lower.

Deprivation and Need - Income Deprivation: Children

Table 8.4: Numbers and proportions of allchildren in relative poverty 2006-2010


Table 8.5: Top ten most deprived LSOAs for child poverty, 2010


Over the last five years, the proportion of children in relative poverty has risen from 12.7% in 2006 (20,360 children) to 13.3% in 2010 (22,100 children) in West Sussex. A similar increase occurred across the South East region, from 14.4% to 15.0% over the past five years, while nationally there was a slight fall in the proportion of children living in relative poverty over the same period. Despite the national decrease in the proportion of children in relative poverty, the actual number of children increased to 2.37 million in 2010 due to overall population increase.

Number % Number %

Adur 2,035 16.8% 2,070 16.9%

Arun 4,310 15.7% 4,445 15.8%

Chichester 2,540 11.8% 2,695 12.2%

Crawley 3,945 17.2% 4,695 18.9%

Horsham 2,260 8.3% 2,505 9.1%

Mid Sussex 2,270 8.0% 2,420 8.2%

Worthing 3,000 14.6% 3,270 15.4%

West Sussex 20,360 12.7% 22,100 13.3%

South East 255,475 14.4% 275,935 15.0%

England 2,298,385 20.8% 2,367,335 20.6%

2006 2010Rank District Ward

Number of children in

poverty

% of total children

1 Arun Ham 215 42.6%

2 Worthing Northbrook 175 42.5%

3 Arun Pevensey 140 40.6%

4 Crawley Broadfield South 170 40.3%

5 Arun Ham 140 39.8%

6 Worthing Broadwater 160 39.5%

7 Arun Bersted 150 37.5%

8 Adur Churchill 120 36.8%

9 Adur Southlands 100 35.6%

10 Chichester Chichester East 105 34.1%


Source: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) (www.hmrc.gov.uk)

Figure 8.5: Proportion of childrenin relative poverty by LSOA, 2010

Deprivation and Need - Income Deprivation: Children Across the county, there are a total of 15 LSOAs that have more than 30% of all resident children living in relative poverty, which is six fewer LSOAs than in 2009. Five of these LSOAs are in Arun, three are in Worthing and three in Adur. The LSOA with the highest proportion of children living in poverty is in Ham ward in Arun, where 42.6% of all children are in relative poverty, closely followed by an LSOA in Northbrook ward, Worthing where 42.5% of all children are living in relative poverty.

In total these 15 LSOAs have 2,135 children living in relative poverty between them, at an average rate of 36.3% of total children. The top 15 LSOAs account for less than 4% of total children in West Sussex, but account for 9.6% of all children living in relative poverty.


Deprivation and Need - Income Deprivation: Older People

Description

The English Indices of Deprivation also includes a supplementary index called the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). The index represents the proportion of adults aged 60 or over living on Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit (Guarantee).

For this index all LSOAs are ranked to show the most and least relatively deprived areas and it is then possible to identify geographical areas where the proportion of older people on low incomes is highest. As low income is generally linked to social exclusion and poorer health this indicator is useful to show where these problems are likely to be found within West Sussex. Similar to the overall IMD measure, the IDAOPI ranks all LSOAs nationally, where 1 is the most deprived, out of a maximum of 32,482.

Performance

In West Sussex, Crawley has the most relative income deprivation affecting older people, ranked 161st out of 326 local authorities in the country. This is closely followed by Worthing, ranked 173rd, and Adur, ranked 175th. Mid Sussex and Horsham both have very low levels of relative deprivation affecting older people, ranked 312th and 318th respectively. Horsham is the 9th least deprived local authority in the country according to average IDAOPI score.

In West Sussex, there are fewer LSOAs in the 30% most deprived nationally for income deprivation affecting older people in 2010 than there were in 2007. In 2007 there were 47 LSOAs in the 30% most deprived,


Figure 8.6: Local authorities in England ranked by average IDAOPI score, 2010

compared to 40 in 2010, showing that there has been a relative improvement for this indicator. However, there are now five LSOAs that are in the top 10% most deprived nationally compared to only three in 2007.

Most deprived Least deprived


Table 8.6: Highest and lowest ranked areas in West Sussex for income deprivation affecting older people



Table 8.7: Average rank of the five most andleast deprived LSOAs, 2007 and 2010


The most deprived LSOA is in Broadfield South, Crawley, ranked 2,226th out of 32,482 LSOAs across England; this is 303 places higher than in 2007 meaning that the area has become relatively more deprived. The LSOA with the greatest increase in deprivation is in Ham ward in Arun, which has gone up 1,185 places since 2007, and is now the second most deprived area in the county and 2,477th in England.

The highest concentration of deprivation affecting older people is in Arun district, with 35 LSOAs among the top 30% most deprived in West Sussex. This is followed by Crawley, with 33 LSOAs in the top 30% most deprived, and Worthing with 30 LSOAs in the top 30%. By comparison, more than half of the LSOAs in Horsham district are amongst the 30% least deprived in terms of income deprivation affecting older people.

By comparing the average ranks of the five highest and the five lowest ranked LSOAs in 2007 and 2010, it is possible to see if the difference between them has increased or decreased and therefore whether relative deprivation has improved or declined within the county. There has been a small decline in the average rank of the five least deprived areas (down 7 ranks), while there has been a rise of 199 in the average rank of the five most deprived areas.

This has resulted in the gap between the average ranks of the five most deprived and the five least deprived LSOAs increasing by 206 from 2007 to 2010, indicating that the deprivation gap within the county has widened. This means that the most deprived areas in West Sussex are becoming relatively more deprived, while the least deprived areas become less deprived still.

2007 2010

1 Broadfield South Crawley 2,529 2,226 303 ▲

2 Ham Arun 3,662 2,477 1,185 ▲

3 Pevensey Arun 3,028 2,837 191 ▲

4 Bersted Arun 2,067 3,048 981 ▼

5 Castle Worthing 3,437 3,143 294 ▲

499 Haywards Heath Lucastes Mid Sussex 32,346 32,336 10 ▲

500 Nuthurst Horsham 32,269 32,342 73 ▼

501 Chichester North Chichester 32,403 32,423 20 ▼

502 Forest Horsham 32,469 32,448 21 ▲

503 Chanctonbury Horsham 32,476 32,452 24 ▲

West Sussex rank

Area DistrictChange in rank

2007 to 2010National Rank of IDAOPI

2007 2010 Change

Average rank of 5 most deprived LSOAs 2,945 2,746 199 ▲

Average rank of 5 least deprived LSOAs 32,393 32,400 7 ▼

Difference between most and least deprived 29,448 29,654 206

IDAOPI




Figure 8.7: Income deprivation affectingolder people rank by LSOA, 2010


Description

A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime (usually 21 degrees for the main living area, and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms). Fuel poverty can occur due to the interplay of a number of different reasons:

• Low household income• Poor home energy efficiency• Large household size or high occupancy levels• High household fuel costs• External and environmental factors (e.g. weather)

This interplay means that different households can be affected by different reasons; people living in social rented housing may have central heating and more energy efficient homes but low incomes may mean they do not use the heating available. In contrast, people living in detached rural houses on higher incomes may have much higher fuel costs due to a lack of access to mainstream gas, as well as living in less energy efficient homes which are not suited to some efficiency measures. Both of these situations could result in a household that is considered to be in fuel poverty.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which monitors poverty and social exclusion, the proportion of households who struggle to keep their houses warm has risen for all tenure types since 2003, when it was 6% of households. This has risen dramatically and in 2009 it was closer to 18% of all households, including 21% of those in rented accommodation (both social and private) being in fuel poverty.

Performance

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimates that in 2011, 11.0% of households in West Sussex were in fuel poverty; representing a total of 37,331 households. Compared to 2010, the proportion of households in fuel poverty decreased by 1.0%, equating to 2,891 fewer households living in fuel poverty across the county.

Deprivation and Need - Fuel Poverty

By district, Arun has the highest estimated number of households living in fuel poverty, with 8,035 households in 2011, followed by Chichester with 7,034 households. Crawley has the fewest households living in fuel poverty with an estimated 2,665 in 2011. Every district saw a decrease in the estimated number of households in fuel poverty from 2010 to 2011.

Figure 8.8: Estimated number of households in fuel poverty by district, 2011

Source: Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC)

3,01

9

8,03

5

7,03

4

2,66

5

5,45

6

5,67

8

5,44

4



Table 8.9: Top ten LSOAs for proportionof households in fuel poverty

However, when viewed as a proportion of total households in each district, Chichester has the highest proportion of households in fuel poverty at 14.3%, while the lowest proportion was in Crawley at 6.3% of total households. One reason for the high proportion of households in fuel poverty in Chichester is low energy efficiency of many buildings, both due to their method of construction as well as the age of the property.

By Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), an LSOA in Easebourne ward has the highest proportion of households in fuel poverty at 25.0% of total households. This represents an increase from 23.1% of all households in 2010 for this LSOA. Eight of the top 10 LSOAs by proportion of households in fuel poverty are located in Chichester, with one each in Arun and Mid Sussex.


Deprivation and Need - Fuel Poverty

Table 8.8: Estimated number ofhouseholds in fuel poverty, 2011


All of the LSOAs in the top 10 are rural; the main reasons for the high proportions of households in fuel poverty in these areas are the lack of mainstream gas supplies, and a higher number of less energy efficient homes. This is often due to the age of the buildings, some of which are not suitable for modern energy efficiency measures.

Rank Ward DistrictEstimated number of

households in fuel poverty 2011

% of households

2011

1 Easeburne Chichester 128 25.0%

2 Bury Chichester 118 24.0%

3 Wisborough Green Chichester 115 22.8%

4 Ferring Arun 164 21.7%

5 Funtington Chichester 129 21.3%

6 Petworth Chichester 155 21.0%

7 Bolney Mid Sussex 93 20.7%

8 West Wittering Chichester 145 20.5%

9 Stedham Chichester 105 20.4%

10 Boxgrove Chichester 200 20.3%

Estimated number of households in fuel poverty 2010

% of households

2010

Estimated number of households in fuel poverty 2011

% of households

2011

Adur 3,573 13.6% 3,019 11.3%

Arun 8,807 13.4% 8,035 12.1%

Chichester 7,111 14.7% 7,034 14.3%

Crawley 3,499 8.4% 2,665 6.3%

Horsham 5,488 10.4% 5,456 10.2%

Mid Sussex 5,804 10.6% 5,678 10.2%

Worthing 5,940 13.1% 5,444 11.8%

West Sussex 40,222 12.0% 37,331 11.0%

South East 401,054 11.5% 363,556 10.3%

England 3,535,932 16.0% 3,202,000 14.6%


Deprivation and Need - Welfare Reform

Description

The Government believes that the current welfare system is too complex and that there are insufficient incentives to encourage people on benefits to start paid work or increase their hours. As a result, Universal Credit will be introduced in 2013 for people who are looking for work or on a low income. Universal Credit brings together a range of working-age benefits into a single payment. The new system aims to:

• encourage people on benefits to start paid work or increase their hours by making sure work pays;

• smooth the transitions into and out of work;• simplify the system, making it easier for people to

understand, and easier and cheaper to administer;• reduce the number of people who are in work but

still living in poverty;• reduce fraud and error.

The main changes relate to the replacement of a range of existing benefits with one single new benefit, known as Universal Credit. The existing benefits that will be merged into Universal Credit are: Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit, and Working Tax Credit.

Universal Credit is intended to provide financial support to people in and out of employment, support the transition back into employment, and to eliminate the situations in which the loss of benefits as earnings rise creates a financial disincentive to continue with paid employment. In addition, there will be a cap on the total amount of benefits payments that a household can

receive, which will be approximately equal to the average wage for a working household after tax.

Performance

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) carried out several impact assessments prior to the implementation, finding that around 3.1 million households will have higher household entitlement under Universal Credit but that also, in the long run around 2.8 million households would have lower benefit receipt under Universal Credit than in the current system.

Research conducted by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University estimated the number of households which will be affected by the benefits cap in each local authority area. In West Sussex, an estimated 400 households will be affected by the benefits cap, with a total reduction of just under £2 million per year that will be paid out to these 400 families – approximately £5,000 less per family per year.

Crawley has the most households that will be affected by the benefits cap with 110, followed by Arun with 90 households. Crawley also exceeds the regional and national averages for the number of households affected per 10,000 total households in the borough, at 26.7 households per 10,000. The remaining districts in West Sussex have between 30 and 50 households each who will be affected by the cap.

Table 8.10: Estimates for number of households affected and financial loss due to benefits cap

Source: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, 2013

Source: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)(www.hmrc.gov.uk)

Figure 8.9: Estimated number of households affected by benefits cap in West Sussex

Source: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, 2013

30

90

40

110

40 40

50


Number of households

affected

Estimated loss, £ per

year

Number per 10,000

households

Adur 30 £152,801 11.8

Arun 90 £427,844 13.3

Chichester 40 £213,922 8.9

Crawley 110 £550,085 26.7

Horsham 40 £183,362 6.9

Mid Sussex 40 £213,922 7.7

Worthing 50 £244,482 10.8

West Sussex 400 £1,986,418 11.9

South East 5,270 £25.5 million 14.9

Great Britain 56,060 £270 million 21.7


The UK economy dropped back into recession during the first half of 2012 and growth averaged zero over the year as a whole. With families continuing to face multiple pressures on both their incomes and their outgoings, there is likely to be an increase in the number of families facing poverty as well as an increase in the severity of the deprivation that low income families will suffer.

The Government pledged to turn around the lives of 120,000 ‘Troubled Families’ across England in the three years to April 2015, with approximately 1,165 of these families living in West Sussex. The Think Family Expansion Programme, as it is known in West Sussex, seeks to target interventions at those families who cause the most problems in their communities.

Success is to be achieved through working with families as a whole, rather than working separately with individual members of a family. West Sussex County Council have budgeted more than £10 million for delivery of the programme over three years, with additional funding provided via a payment by results scheme for families that are turned around. In June 2013 the Government announced an extension of the Troubled Families programme and an additional £200 million in funding for 2015-16.

From April 2013 the Government has changed the way it helps people in crisis situations, no longer offering Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants from Job Centre Plus. Instead, West Sussex County Council are introducing a new support scheme called the Local Assistance Network. It will provide immediate short-term aid to help protect a person’s welfare in the event of a crisis. The assistance will cover a range of basic needs, such as food, accommodation and furniture, in many cases from charitable sources.

The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts a seven per cent rise in energy costs for families in winter 2013/14. and a three per cent rise the following year. Average bills are currently £1,420 per family for gas and electricity, signalling an average increase of £99 in 2013/14 followed by a £46 rise in 2014/15.

A review of the fuel poverty definition and target was commissioned in March 2011; following the review, an alternative measurement framework focused directly on the overlap of high costs and low income has been proposed. This contains twin indicators; a ‘Low Income High Costs’ indicator LIHC (which measures the extent of the problem) and the ‘fuel poverty gap’ (which measures its depth).

Deprivation and Need - OutlookThis framework is designed to help identify the people at risk of fuel poverty and those with the greatest difficulties, and to compare the effectiveness of different policies. Initial projections made by the Department for Energy and Climate Change suggest that the key ‘fuel poverty gap’ indicator will rise by more than 50% between 2009 and 2016.


Deprivation and Need - Further Information

To access other chapters and data from West Sussex Lifewww.westsussex.gov.uk/westsussexlife

The Welfare Systemhttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-the-welfare-system-and-making-sure-work-payshttps://www.westsussex.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=69b9f1bb-0640-42c5-b87f-2b9d24ad2904&version=-1

Troubled Familieshttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around

West Sussex Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)http://www.westsussex.nhs.uk/JSNA_home

Tackling Child Poverty in West Sussex 2011-2014http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/your_council/plans_projects_reports_and/reports/social_care_-_childrens_servi.aspx

Department for Education, Children and Young People - Child Poverty datahttp://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/families/childpoverty/b0066347/child-poverty-data

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customswww.hmrc.gov.uk

Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2011http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoring-poverty-2011

Fuel Poverty: changing the framework for measurementhttps://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fuel-poverty-changing-the-framework-for-measurement

deprivation and need - west sussex county councildeprivation and need headlines • the 2010 index...

Documents