A Report by Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP and Cllrs John Cotton and Tim …liambyrne.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Birmingham... · It’s patently clear that the government simply doesn’t

A Report by Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP and Cllrs John Cotton and Tim Evans

Standing Up for Birmingham – Page 1

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP with Rt Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham at Child Poverty Summit in April 2014



Cllr John Cotton with Rt Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham at Child Poverty Summit in April 2014




Liam Byrne MP with Cllrs John Cotton and Tim Evans meeting representatives of local third sector

organisations at St Georges’ church in Newtown, Birmingham, January 2014







APPENDIX 1

Birmingham Labour Manifesto 2014

The Birmingham Labour Manifesto sets out our ambition to tackle child poverty

Living Wage and Poverty

Everyone in work is worth more than the minimum wage. We have already made sure our staff get a

Living Wage and we will take that further to make Birmingham a Living Wage City. We will insist on

all contracts for services to the public sector being Living Wage contracts and we will work with

employers across Birmingham to end poverty pay. We will set up a Birmingham Child Poverty

Commission to help the city's schools, health services and employers break the poverty that blights

the lives of a third of our children.

Reducing Child Poverty:

We want to create a prosperous city where prosperity is fairly shared. And that's why we will not

stand by and watch Birmingham's children get trapped in poverty. We believe in something simple.

Every child in Birmingham is equal.

Child poverty affects many families who are in work and struggling on low wages, as well as those

who cannot find work. It is a damning indictment that in Birmingham in 2014 31% of children are

growing up in poverty. The pattern of child poverty varies across the city. In three of the four Sutton

Coldfield wards, it is just 5%. By contrast, in Nechells it stands at 47%.

Labour's approach

Labour in Birmingham has already taken radical steps to tackle the effects of poverty on families and

individuals. Since 2012, your Labour Council has:

- Introduced the Living Wage for all council employees and a Business Charter for Social

Responsibility, designed to drive the Living Wage through the supply chain and help to make

Birmingham a 'Living Wage City'

- Continued to provide 100% support with Council Tax costs for low income families with children

under the age of 6

- Launched Birmingham Fair Money - providing access to affordable credit via the credit unions,

together with debt advice and support for hard-pressed families

- Taken action on fuel poverty. Through the Warm Home Discount Project, EON are now working

closely with Birmingham City Council to target Warm Home Discounts to the citizens of Birmingham

most at risk of fuel poverty. We are also setting up an affordable fuel partnership with the Citizens

Advice Bureaux and Carillion


- Worked to support families with complex needs through the Think Family programme - a multi-

agency approach designed to improve outcomes for 4,000 Birmingham families.

- Secured extra funds to support council tenants affected by the Government's unfair Bedroom Tax.

We've also been working with the Child Poverty Action Group and other key partners in the city to

provide help and support for those affected by other benefit cuts

- Invested £9.2m for each of the next three years in frontline child protection to give our children the

safe, secure start in life they need.

Labour's mission, especially in these tough times, will be to ensure that our children and young

people - and our city as a whole - is no longer held back by inequality. We will do this through a

Birmingham Child Poverty Commission that will work with the city's schools, social care, health

services and employers to break the poverty that blights the life of a third of our children.


APPENDIX 2

Child Poverty in Birmingham – Birmingham Labour Party launches investigation

Birmingham Labour Party today launched a city wide investigation into child poverty as figures

showed child poverty may be costing the city nearly a billion pounds a year.

Across the city a third of young Brummies are now growing up on the breadline with the figure rising

to almost half in some wards.

Yet ministers have admitted they simply don’t know about the problem because they’re refusing to

collect official figures.

The review is being led by Liam Byrne MP and Councillors John Cotton and Tim Evans and aims to

create a bold city-wide plan for tackling the problem.

The team launched the review at a visit to the City Centre food bank ‘Re.source Central’ this morning

as part of their work collecting evidence and testimony from all over Birmingham.

The review comes as Child Poverty Action Group figures show 84,114 children in poverty in

Birmingham - 31% of the children in the city – at an estimated cost to the city in 2013 of £914 million

in extra services such as education, healthcare and benefits, as well as, lost tax receipts and lost

earnings.

In reply to questions tabled by Liam Byrne in Parliament, DWP minister, Esther McVey claimed;

‘Information at authority level is not available’ – yet the campaign group, End Child Poverty, has

produced detailed statistics.

Evidence submitted by primary school head-teachers in Hodge Hill reveals widespread concern that

child poverty rates are rising and evidence that schools are now distributing food vouchers. One

head teacher said; “School staff should not have to feel the need to donate food/clothing to

desperate parents.”

Liam Byrne said:

‘We know that growing up in poverty can scar a child for life and that’s why we have to take action.

Everything I’ve learned in ten years serving Birmingham is that this is a city of good neighbours – and

good neighbours cannot stand by and watch the next generation suffer.

It’s patently clear that the government simply doesn’t give a stuff about Birmingham’s youngsters, so

we’re going to have to take action ourselves.

Our ambition is really simple. To produce a plan that helps all good people and public servants work

together to make child poverty history in our city’.

Cllr John Cotton, Labour's Cabinet Member for Social Cohesion & Equalities said:


"Birmingham's Labour-led Council is already working hard to pick up the pieces by supporting

families hit hard by Government cuts and the unfair Bedroom Tax. We've introduced a Living Wage

to make sure that work really does pay and launched Birmingham Fair Money to promote credit

unions and tackle payday lenders and illegal loan sharks. But we know we still have a hill to climb.

This review is the next stage in our on-going battle to ensure that every child in this city gets the fair

start they deserve".

Cllr Tim Evans said:

“As someone who professionally works with children, young people and families as well as

supporting local residents, every day I see the effects of child poverty on people's lives. I'm passionate

about seeing national and local government working alongside communities, charities and

community groups, to see every child get the best start in life.”

Notes to editors:

Local Authority and wards

Percentage of children in

poverty Local Authority and wards

Percentage of children in poverty

Acocks Green 31% Northfield 25%

Aston 41% Oscott 19%

Bartley Green 35% Perry Barr 21%

Billesley 31% Quinton 31%

Bordesley Green 36% Selly Oak 22%

Bournville 19% Shard End 39%

Brandwood 26% Sheldon 25%

Edgbaston 20% Soho 38%

Erdington 28% South Yardley 31%

Hall Green 18% Sparkbrook 45%

Handsworth Wood 22% Springfield 33%

Harborne 14% Stechford and Yardley North 32%

Hodge Hill 32% Stockland Green 27%

Kings Norton 37% Sutton Four Oaks 5%

Kingstanding 41% Sutton New Hall 5%

Ladywood 42% Sutton Trinity 12%

Longbridge 29% Sutton Vesey Below 5%

Lozells and East Handsworth 38% Tyburn 33%

Moseley and Kings Heath 19% Washwood Heath 39%

Nechells 47% Weoley 35%

(Percentage of children in poverty per Birmingham ward)

Figures from;


Campaign to End Child Poverty – www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-

your-area

Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) - www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-publishes-cost-child-poverty-

every-local-authority-and-constituency

Contact: You can contact me via email at [email protected] or via telephone on 0121 789 7287.

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-your-area

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-your-area

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-publishes-cost-child-poverty-every-local-authority-and-constituency


mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX 3

Minutes from Tackling Child Poverty in Birmingham Summit

Date: 11.04.2014 Venue: Unison Offices, Livery Street, Birmingham

Present:

Liam Byrne MP Member of Parliament for Birmingham Hodge Hill

Rt Rev David Urquhart Bishop of Birmingham

Cllr John Cotton Birmingham City Council

Cllr Tim Evans Birmingham City Council

Geoff Bateson Forward Thinking Development

Dr Dennis Wilkes Public Health Consultant for Birmingham City Council

Gurdeep Singh Unison

Chanel Conilleri-Willis Unison

Adrian Phillips Director of Public Health for Birmingham

Patricia White Birmingham Central Foodbank

John Hillen South and City College

Ian Smith Department for Work and Pensions

Sara Beamand Midland Heart Housing Association

Jean Templeton St Basils

Peter Richmond Castle Vale Community Housing Association

Jas Bains Ashram Housing

Karen Helliwell NHS England

Lesley Ahearn Parkfield Primary School

Jessica Foster Near Neighbourhoods

Opening Remarks and context:

Rt Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham & Cllr John Cotton, Cabinet Member Birmingham

City Council.

Bishop of Birmingham:

- Expressed determination to tackle child poverty and is fully supportive of this review. Linked

the review to the ‘social inclusion’ process; giving hope changing lives; the agenda for which

has been growing over the last few years and the process of which is already progressing

with support from Birmingham City Council – examples include the #fairbrum project. Of the

seven major conclusions of ‘giving hope changing lives’ tackling Child Poverty is integral to; i.

All families should be able to flourish ii. Young people should be involved and invested in

society.


- The Bishop noted that the past few years have seen a move from a grant regime model to

social enterprise models – networks are more important than ever.

- The fact that our affluent country still struggles with Child Poverty is a scandal. A scandal

that many feel a deep unease about, but feel unsure of how to respond; there is a need for

coordination and mobilisation.

- The Bishop praised the four themes of the national child poverty reduction strategy. (1)

Jobs; holistic, sustainable, secure jobs. (2) Livelihood – housing, health, support. (3)

Education - including a commitment of resources to the front line. (4) Local – Subsidiarity is

key – our approaches must all have a local focus with local networks and local businesses

involved.

- Relationships are central to any initiative to tackle Child Poverty. Not merely partnerships

but integrated relationships across the private and public sector. There is a vital role for

business – Aston University’s recent ‘Business and Poverty’ research is of note here, there is

also a vital role for people of faith. These relationships must connect economic drivers to the

eradication of Child Poverty.

Cllr John Cotton:

- Child Poverty is a priority for the Council cabinet. This is an entrenched problem correlating

to multiple depravation which has been a problem in parts of the city for generations. This is

also a problem across the city - 31 out of 40 wards see Child Poverty over 20%.

- Although child poverty is a priority – Birmingham City Council faces major financial

challenges – it will see its disposable budget reduce by two thirds over the next few years.

- These financial constraints mean that Birmingham City Council is seeking to partner with a

far wider range of organisations in much deeper ways than was previously the case.

- However the Council also remains committed to prioritising its own funding in a way which

helps to tackle Child Poverty. These include a focus on; i) In-work poverty – insecure, low-

paid employment is one of the major causes of Child Poverty. ii) Welfare cuts – the effect of

these have been particularly bad in terms of housing; the Council is doing all it can to help –

Birmingham’s DHP claim has gone from 3.7m to 4.1m in the last year. The loss of Council Tax

benefit has hit families hard; Birmingham City Council is trying to prioritise families with

children when allocating its assistance funding. iii) Indebtedness; with initiatives such as

#fairbrum and the Fair Money Charter, the Council is also seeking to lead the response to

the increase of loan sharks and increasing levels of personal indebtedness.

Item 2 - 10:20 – 10:35:

‘The state of Child Poverty in Birmingham’ – contributions from Liam Byrne MP and Cllr Tim Evans

Liam Byrne MP:

- Our response to Child Poverty has to be about building a model for inclusive growth.


- Business in Birmingham is booming. Birmingham is second only to London in terms of new

companies setting up shop; Birmingham is the region in the UK with the biggest export

surplus to China. There is huge new infrastructure investment, there is growth, and

Birmingham is booming but alongside this new wealth sits entrenched poverty.

Cllr Tim Evans:

The review has been keen to begin by speaking to people on the ground and then to policy-makers,

rather than the other way. Those conversations have helped crystallise a number of reflections

which are listed below. However there are two key points to make first;

1) This is not an abstract exercise; it is not emotionally neutral. The review has heard testimony

of kids sharing a bed with their parents, having to sleep on the sofa, going to school without

food, having a ‘scrounge week’ at the end of the month because their budget can’t stretch –

in a country such as ours in the 21st century this is scandalous and heart-breaking.

2) The ‘discourse’ around this agenda is very toxic. The ‘Benefit Street’ effect and idioms such

as ‘scroungers’ creates a negative and unhelpful atmosphere. It is so important to set out

that - being on benefits does not make you a bad person. This kind of rhetoric can be very

damaging in how we think of the issue and how we think about our response. We all have a

responsibility to guard against this rhetoric and the tone of the debate.

Reflections from the review so far:

a) Cost of childcare – which is ‘ever-increasing’ – is a significant driver of child poverty as a

disincentive to taking up work.

b) The deal is broken – young people lack aspiration and hope, many feel that there used to be

a deal that if you worked hard at school and got the grades you would be able to get a

secure and affordable job. Many feel that this deal is now broken – the effect of this ‘broken

deal’ on young people’s aspirations, commitment to education and hope for the future is

drastic.

c) Lack of affordable work – the availability of it and access to it. We may have a ‘boom’ in the

city but it is not bringing the jobs that we need. There are not secure and well-paid jobs

available. What jobs there are available are either too highly skilled or do not pay enough to

make them worthwhile.

d) Supporting education: both adult and child education. The removal of EMA for young people

and adult learning opportunities such as ESOL for over 19’s has had a drastic effect on child

poverty and aspiration.

e) Poor housing – overcrowding, poorly maintained with rogue landlords. This is a particular

problem in the private rental sector and raises the question of licensing landlords as a

response. Poor housing often has a negative effect on educational attainment.

f) Cost of living – rising cost of essentials such as heating, food and transport.


g) Being ‘tipped over the edge’ – families being unable to cope with the effect of small financial

shocks. These are often related to debt and payday lending.

h) Welfare changes – the delay of benefits and imposition of sanctions etc.

i) The removal and/or degradation of ‘social capital’. The loss of services such as youth groups

or after-school clubs, even the loss of family holidays and days out has a profoundly negative

effect on family well-being.

j) Healthcare – increasing incidences of mental health problems and lower health outcomes

caused by family stress or poor housing exacerbates and compounds the effects of child

poverty.

k) The need to build stronger communities – an asset-focused approach. Much of the research

asked - why don’t you look at what already exists within communities and build on that,

support and resource that, rather than imposing top-down interventions. Building and

nurturing ‘associational life’.

Open discussion on ‘The state of Child Poverty in Birmingham’:

Housing Association:

- This analysis is of no surprise. Child poverty has become a priority and housing associations,

of their own volition, are providing a vast amount of ‘social services’ to their tenants. There

is a desire to do more, to connect up with other support structures in a more coordinated

response.

- Have seen a growth in very poor quality private rental sector properties, this along with a

growing cost of living crisis saps aspirations and drives child poverty.

- The ‘elastic’ analogy: The local context is very important. Our responses are very often

focused on individuals – these can have profound impact but do not recognise the power of

context and of community. With these individual interventions, individuals can be lifted out

of poverty, found secure work, see their aspirations rise etc., but when those interventions

come to an end, as if on elastic, those individuals are pulled back to poverty by their context

- be that community, family, housing etc. We must take a more community focused, holistic

approach to interventions, recognising that unless we change the context the elastic will

always be a pull.

College:

- Agrees with the analysis, particularly on the effect of high transport costs. One of their

projects, working in conjunction with the council, takes referrals of young offenders, pairing

them with work coaches, part of this project provides the young people with a very small

amount of support to help with cost of transport – this small assistance is transformational

and goes a long way in raising aspirations.


NHS:

- Child poverty is on the increase: the effects on health outcomes are being increasingly felt.

There have been far higher (and increasing) incidences of children with mental health issues.

Often these young people present at A&E as suicidal. Just in the last year there has been a

significant increase in incidence of suicide risk. Those presenting are getting younger and

younger. A primary concern for the NHS is why these young people aren’t being picked up

before they present at A&E.

Primary School:

- Also attests to young people presenting with mental health issues. These are often linked to

family issues, particularly parents’ lack of capacity to cope with challenges – being ‘tipped

over the edge’. The school is trying to raise aspirations (using pupil premium money, which

has been a big help) but agrees with ‘elastic’ analogy - local schools are doing good work and

have a role to play but they can’t be a sufficient solution – they can’t change the context.

St Basil’s:

- There are approximately 3,500 16-21 year olds presenting as homeless in Birmingham each

year. There is a clear link between; educational drop out, family breakdown and

homelessness. St Basil’s has also seen an increased incidence of suicide risk.

- 88% of those presenting have no income – they might be entitled to certain benefits but

they’re not claiming them. Often there are lots of opportunities for these young people but

they do not know how to take or capitalise on these opportunities – this perpetuates the

misconception of ‘lazy teenagers’.

Cllr Tim Evans:

- This relates to work that WorthUnlimited and the Jubilee Centre does. There is a growing

recognition that our society has a problem with how to develop character in young people –

this is a point of agreement both in public sector services and employers. What are we doing

to build character?

College:

- The discourse / narrative / rhetoric around 14 – 19 year olds is very powerful and often very

negative. There is a lack of respect for young people in our society. This is a problem within

the services that seek to support young people as well as wider society. This is not a new

problem, it is an entrenched problem for decades and we’re teaching our kids to fail.

Director of public health:

- There is a need to be strategic in our approach. Who are we focusing on? Out of the third of

children in poverty in Birmingham who will be our focus? Is it those most in need, the large

chunk in the middle or the easiest to help? Surely it must be those most in need.


- Focusing money on existing community assets is important – as is making every public

contract count. Gave example of very successful programme which helped over 1,200 drug

addicts into employment.

- This is not merely about economic poverty but also about wellbeing poverty.

Item 3 - 10:35 – 11:35

The future - What do we know about tackling Child Poverty? Open discussion

- Up until 2012 Birmingham was doing well in tackling child poverty. But since then people’s

lives have started to tip back. Interventions that used to work; large scale levers such as

living wage, LEPS etc, don’t seem to be as effective anymore.

- We must think in terms of the range of assistance that can be provided. Immediate help is

required, as is structural change. How can our responses to child poverty fit into the

categories of immediate, near-term and long-term?

- Implementation is a recurring issue. Often there are brilliant ideas and innovations but poor

implementation.

- Negative rhetoric continues to be a problem.

Liam Byrne MP:

- What works? What does good practice look like?

College:

- ESOL courses have been very effective. They are an end in and of themselves however

they’re also a classic example of mismatched response between colleges and DWP. The

College is keen to actively integrate ESOL students into mainstream in order to broaden their

learning aspirations.

Housing Association:

- The ‘back-on-track’ programme is a great example of an approach which works. Working

with police, employers and other services the housing association has been able to provide

wrap-around services centred on a core apprenticeship offer.

- ‘Holiday Kitchen Initiative’ – often during the summer holidays those children who receive

school meals will go hungry. This can have an effect on educational attainment even after

they have returned to school. ‘Holiday Kitchen’ has been set up in response with the aim of

providing good nutrition to these children throughout the summer holidays. Using Children

in Need money last summer 3000 children’s meals were provided. The resource expenditure

was not huge but the effect was. In our fiscally constrained environment our approaches

have to be more strategic in this way. There is a desire to upscale to take 3,000 to 30,000

but there is a need for coordination and mobilisation.


- Housing associations are beginning to take a long-term (10 year) framework. Investing in

long-term research, such as with Sheffield Hallam University, to tackle the ‘elastic’ problem –

working in conjunction with schools, local authority, police, local employers etc.

Primary School:

- Seeking to use Pupil Premium money strategically. For; Ipads, sports clubs, additional staff,

after school clubs teachers etc. This has been mostly school based but there is no reason

why it can’t branch out. This school is considering ways in which it can target it’s

interventions on the whole family in order to raise the child’s educational attainment –

seeking to tackle the ‘elastic’ problem.

Bishop of Birmingham:

Agreeing that this was all spot on. Before leaving wanted to outline his 3 conclusions from the

discussion:

1) Good and wholesome personal relationships: modelled by adults to young people are

central to ‘context’. These must not be merely our ‘on-show’ relationships but also our

working relationships with other service providers. Young people need role models; service

providers themselves must be good role models.

2) An overarching narrative to tackling child poverty: We can’t do it all (referencing Director of

Public Health’s contribution). So we must try and focus on what we can do – in the short and

medium term; we will always have the poor with us – who should we try and focus on?

What are we being asked to deliver? In answering these questions how can we avoid the

pitfalls of ‘target culture’. Our pervasive target culture doesn’t fit with developing a holistic

approach – in fact target culture is an anathema to developing a more wrap-around

approach. If we are to tackle the ‘elastic’ problem, what are we seeking to nurture? Can we

define the context which young people are growing up within now and how can we help to

shape/change that into something more positive?

3) The Birmingham Issue – Birmingham is vast; there are always countless projects and

initiatives starting and finishing. The role of co-ordination is going to be vital. Given its

financial constraints this role can no longer be left entirely to the Council. It used to be that

the Council was in the engine room of the city’s response - co-ordinating and linking projects

and networks – its ability to continue in this role will be limited. So who can take a lead in

this mobilising and co-ordinating role?

Liam Byrne MP:

- Brings the discussion back to a range of more specific topics on ‘what works’ in tackling the

drivers of child poverty; beginning with health issues.


NHS:

- There has been a fragmentation in health responses. There is a need to return to co-

commissioning and working across services. Primary care is a top priority for the NHS in

Birmingham at the moment. Using the resources available to deliver outcomes.

- The role of health visitors is being considered – the return of old-style health visitors who

can help to join the dots on such issues as mental health.

- The old style of health visitor with a broader well-being focus rather than a purely medical

one is being actively considered.

Liam Byrne MP:

- For example the Indian ‘ASHA’ model; Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) are

community health workers commissioned by central Government. The model is that every

village would have an ASHA. These would often be a local woman trained as a health

educator and community organiser. Part feminist campaigner/part social entrepreneur/part

health worker/part government official able to coordinate and signpost to relevant services.

Liam Byrne MP: Introduced discussion on the role of employment in tackling child poverty

DWP:

- Jobs have to be the first point of call; secure, stable, appropriate employment.

Liam Byrne MP:

- The City’s business community have a huge appetite to help but so often don’t know how to

help or who to contact.

- It often helps to imbue initiatives with a sense of civic pride (often through branding) this is

very powerful and taps into the business community’s desire to do the right thing.

- Often those in the business community, well-placed to help, don’t know what tangible help

they can provide.

Cllr John Cotton:

- The Council have a role here in clearly defining who the business community can engage

with, who will be the most appropriate person to contact and what kind of assistance will be

the most useful.


College:

- Sport can often be a very easy way for businesses to support engagement.

Director of Public Health:

- Businesses can provide mentors. But again the question is - how can we mobilise and

facilitate this resource?

Cllr Tim Evans:

- The top-down approach does not work. A neighbour centred/asset focused approach is far

more effect. A very good example is the ‘Business Connector’ project from Business in the

Community. Linking businesses with local people on the ground – building those networks of

relationships which allow discussion and identification of the most helpful assistance.

- We need to shift our thinking from schemes, initiatives and projects to first building

networks, connections and personal relationships.

NHS:

- In terms of whole person care; employers are clearly a vital part of the puzzle, but they must

be supported and most importantly coordinated and signposted.

Liam Byrne MP: Moved discussion onto the impact of childcare provision on child poverty

- Shared example of private childcare providers based within public institutions (primary

schools) that were producing very low outcomes. This lack of control was very frustrating to

the primary schools; there was a real desire from head teachers to take control of that

childcare provider.

- Other types of support are often patchy. Often there is support such as health workers or

speech therapists available but they are not always able to pick issues up because of the

level of their caseload; they’re stretched too thin.

Liam Byrne MP:

- Skills shortages: skills provision in our local educational framework needs to be linked to this

agenda of tackling child poverty.

- There is some engagement on a strategic approach to regional skills however it is patchy and

is often not very meaningful.

- Often colleges are doing their best at discerning the most appropriate focus (for instance

provision of engineering skills) however they are doing this under their own volition – there

is no broad regional collaboration.

- In fact with our current, competitive model where colleges are competing for fewer

resources it is very hard for colleges to collaborate in ensuring the skills provision is correct

for the local area.


- Perhaps a more strategic investment, rather than further investment in skills provision,

would be to build up children’s entrepreneurial abilities and capacity.

- Most importantly raising aspirations – telling young people that they can achieve something.

Often such an approach is better than a prescriptive skills shortage focused approach.

Item 4 - 11:35 – 12:00

Conclusions:

Liam Byrne MP:

Bringing together the pieces of the jigsaw:

1) There is a need for a more appropriate, holistic, overarching narrative in our campaign to

end child poverty – getting our language right must be a priority.

2) There is also a need for a framework for how we think about this problem. This framework

needs to emerge from a strategic conversation about where we are going to focus our

efforts; immediate or short-term; the cohort most in need or the largest group. Today’s

discussions have covered items such as; enterprise training, A&E, asset focused

redevelopment etc. Each of these important responses need to be fitted into an overarching

framework for our response.

Final reflections from the group:

- Capital investment is needed rather than merely revenue fixes. Building houses (homes)

needs a long term, not short term, commitment and implementation. The current set of

welfare changes, such as the benefit cap or bedroom tax are very short-term revenue levers

which do not address the larger capital investment problem.

- ‘Good practice’ looks like not merely a strong reactive safety net but a broader vision of

community well-being. A vision that would address business behaviours, secure

employment, housing provision, health provision etc.

- We have to be careful of having great ideas but poor processes and poor implementation.

- The ‘elastic’ analogy resonated deeply with the group - there are a myriad of great social

enterprise projects across Birmingham but there is little connectivity; people are often

pulled back. How can we change the context?

Cllr John Cotton: Next steps:

Today’s discussion has been useful in teasing out a framework for what we need to do next.

1) We have a need for a mission statement (definition) particularly on short and near term

needs and goals.


2) We will seek to establishment a Child Poverty Commission – invitation extended to all of

those round the table – linking this to the social inclusion project.

ENDS

Minutes submitted by: JP

Approved by: LB

These are non- verbatim notes and should not be quoted as such.


APPENDIX 4

Minutes from Field Meeting

Date: 17.01.2014 Venue: St George’s Church, Newtown.

Present: Liam Byrne (LB), John Cotton (JC), Representatives of local community groups.

(i) Context

Liam Byrne and John Cotton set out the context of the Birmingham Labour Party’s policy review. The

Council budget is heavily constrained and needs are rising, in part due to the effects of Welfare

Reform – a third of children in Birmingham live in poverty and in some areas the number is over

50%. The aim of the meeting was broadly defined as seeking perspectives on the state of Child

Poverty in Birmingham and exploring possible responses. The meeting generally covered 3 topics;

A) Perspectives on the state of Child Poverty in Birmingham and its effects.

B) What are the causes?

C) What are the responses which work – both immediate and long-term?

(ii) Perspectives on the state of Child Poverty in Birmingham and its effects

Child Poverty is getting worse; ahead of the meeting one of the participants who worked in a

school had taken a straw poll of the children and found that a significant number lived in

overcrowded and workless households – e.g. Six people in a three bed property or ten

people in a four bed property. Further education for parents, a route posited as one

solution, is on the whole unaffordable and beyond reach.

Low pay is a major issue – often one adult in the household will work but in part-time, low-

paid and unstable employment.

Foodbank use has increased and the number of clients coming for debt and money advice

has quadrupled. There has been a distinct shift in the demographics of foodbank users with

many in employment accessing the service.

A lack of hard evidence on Child Poverty is a problem. Cases based on empirical facts need

to be explored; and lessons implemented. Many people are able to point to examples of

very severe Child Poverty but these examples are too often anecdotal.

There is a disincentivised, dependency culture amongst adults and parents in communities

with high Child Poverty. This is turn effects the expectations of the children. These

communities do often have a number of assets; skills, community spirit, enterprise,

resilience etc. But on the whole these are under-utilised because traditional routes (i.e.

study hard and automatically get a job) are not working. An emphasis on community

capacity building is necessary.


(iii) Long term consequences; how does it affect children’s ambitions?

It destroys children’s ambitions. Aspirations are very low and behavioural issues are

common with a pervasive feeling of being let down or cheated – “life is unfair”. The most

common aspirations are becoming a footballer or a model; equitable to winning the lottery.

School does not help with this; school is not about ambition or aspiration, it is about box

ticking. The current educational framework is too rigid, too ‘siloed’, with an overwhelmingly

institutional approach which stymies effective engagement.

The number of children with special educational needs in schools is on the rise. Many

schools are spending a lot of time and money on the ‘statementing’ process.

People are often embarrassed about their situation. This embarrassment means that many

issues are not fully disclosed and engagement can be hampered. The inverse can also be

true with some situations being exaggerated – practitioners agreed repeatedly that the need

for evidence-based case studies was pressing.

There is a distinct lack of social mobility – an overriding feeling of being trapped, for both

parents and children.

(iv) What are the causes?

Tim’s story of the ‘broken deal’ resonated deeply with the group and was referred to on

many occasions. One of the young people whom he works with explained the reasons for

his disengagement and feeling of hopelessness as follows; “It’s as if you have been sold a

deal – if you keep your head down and work hard in school then you will be ok, you will get a

job. But the deal is off because the deal isn’t working. I see people working hard, putting the

effort in and then still being left with very few prospects. Why bother making the effort

when the deal that society is offering is not working.”

Institutionalism – broadly defined as an inflexible and dogmatic approach which stifles

innovation, collaboration, enterprise and common sense – was a term attached to

education, to children’s centres and to central and local government approaches. The group

held similar views on the use of ‘statutory processes’ – that these processes and their

proliferation created a culture of powerlessness and a lack of responsibility.

Schools and educational frameworks more generally were seen in both a positive and

negative light. Schools were very much on the front line, with many individuals attempting

to make a real difference but inhibited by a ‘siloed’ educational framework. A similar story

was told of children’s centres – hardworking individuals inhibited by a lack of autonomy

and a hierarchical decision-making structure.

One interesting root that was identified was a situation characterised by relatively high

infrastructure and monetary investment but a lack of institutional investment. In a similar

way to the problem surrounding the new health centres in Hodge Hill were a there has been

a high level of infrastructure investment which has not been matched by institutional


investment from the commissioning bodies who have not made the effort to ensure the

projects succeed.

Policy formation at 20,000ft: The group felt this was caused, in part, because the

community had not been engaged, policy had been formed from a distance and the

community had not “owned” the initiative. It was felt that this merely fuelled the

‘institutional’ issue and fed senses of powerlessness and dependency.

Neglected periphery: Another theme which emerged a number of times was the idea of the

neglected periphery; pockets of deprivation etc. That in Birmingham there had been too

much focus on the City centre; often to the detriment of areas further out. This neglect

often took the form of a lack of institutional investment.

Job Centres were singled out for criticism – underlining the punitive nature of their

approach and highlighting the lack of any kind of careers advice.

(V) Which responses could work?

Short Term:

An example was shared of a Somali community centre, heavily faith-based, which was

providing a wealth of community support for their young people. They had not bought into

‘the deal’ instead they were providing alternative avenues for their young people. It was

stressed that the strength of these schemes laid in the fact that this was ‘family’ unit rather

than ‘institution’ – allowing flexibility and accountability.

The group highlighted that a lack of access to ready cash was often one of the main

immediate concerns for families with children living in poverty. One participant shared the

story of a summer camp for children, which he had helped out at for years, which had seen

falling numbers because parents could not afford the small registration fee.

A church scheme was mentioned where an educational fund had been set up to - for

example- provide undergraduates from the community with an extra £1000 during their

studies or small sums for educational trips which would otherwise be unaffordable. The

decision to give money was at the discretion of the vicar and not beholden to any statutory

process – this allows flexibility and speed.

Representatives from a local Credit Union Circul8 were present and shared their struggles to

get support for their model. Despite having a far better offer than payday loan companies,

Credit Unions are struggling to make ends meet.


Long Term:

A number of people in the group emphasised that an evidential basis for responses was

needed; examples of good practice carefully calibrated to local issues and situations.

Financial education for young people is important. A number of very good educational

examples; one participant shared an example of a school savings scheme where children

were being taught the value of thrift with the incentive that ‘star savers’ would see their

investments topped up by the school. Another participant shared a scheme were children

were taught literacy, numeracy and enterprise through a project to design and produce a

fashion show. The show made a small profit and this was distributed to the children.

Participants spoke of the need for approaches which encouraged and enabled communities

to access the assets already present within them; educating and upskilling parents; and

schemes such as a ‘time bank’ where people can exchange skills rather than merely be

conduits for financial transactions.

There is a lack of trust in Government (whether local or national); this has to be restored.

Part of that restoration is discerning what Government should do and what it should

encourage and mandate the community itself to do. Here an emphasis was put on

empowering the community.

One participant highlighted the importance of engaging the local community; involving

them in designing the solutions not merely being the target of a consultation. And, as

importantly, employing local people – the point was underlined that you can’t get people

out of poverty by expecting everyone to volunteer.

The group felt that there was a strategic role for Government in providing a ‘new deal’

particularly around linking regeneration projects and employment. By providing targeted

educational and vocational opportunities and giving communities advice and assistance well

ahead of any major investment or regeneration to ensure that jobs are kept locally and that

the community is deeply involved. The theme of being more strategic in linking

redevelopment to local job creation was stressed a number of times. By getting people work

ready, skilled up for a project that is going to happen the state can, to some extent, restore

the deal.

Another role posited for Government was one as a community advocate. An example was

shared of a community seeking to renovate some abandoned garages – using the experience

to teach young new skills and provide important vocational opportunities within the locality.

Unfortunately a lack of interest from bodies such as the local housing association blocked

the plans. Government can have a role in incentivising such organisations to engage with

communities and develop this entrepreneurialism.

- Other questions posed included; how do you make these community assets transparent?

How do you link those assets to the community and to community leaders?


APPENDIX 5

Hodge Hill Primary School Survey on Child Poverty

Background: A short survey of seven questions was sent to all primary school Head Teachers in the

constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill in order to gauge their experience and perception of child

poverty levels in the area.

Sample of Responses:

Q1) In your view is child poverty in the constituency increasing?

Respondents were given three options; ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘I don’t know’. 70% of respondents stated that,

in their view, child poverty was increasing in the constituency. The remaining 30% of respondents

stated that they did not know. None of the respondents felt that child poverty was not increasing.

Q2) If increasing, how significantly?

Respondents were given three options; ‘a lot’, ‘a little’, or ‘very significantly’. Of those respondents

who stated that child poverty was increasing 60% stated that, in their view, child poverty was

increasing a lot. The remaining 40% stated that child poverty was increasing a little.

Q3) Do you have a sense of which are the three most important factors driving any increase in

child poverty?

‘Lack of jobs’ was the most commonly cited factor, closely followed by ‘Benefit Changes / Cuts /

Delays’. A number of respondents referred to ‘poorly paid work’ and insecure employment. Other

responses included; ‘SEN services’ and ‘rising living costs’.

Q4) Which do you think may be the most important levers in tackling child poverty – on a scale of

1 – 5? (5 being the most important).

Respondents were offered eight options and asked to rate them on a scale of importance from 1 – 5,

with 5 being the most important. The options were as follows; A) Securing jobs for parents, B)

Securing better wages/conditions for parents, C) Flexible working arrangements for parents, D)

Better childcare, E) Better SEN Services, F) Support for nutrition, G) Skills/ESOL provision for parents,

H) Better respite care for children.

All but one of the respondents listed ‘Securing jobs for parents’ as the most important lever in

tackling child poverty. ‘Securing better wages/conditions for parents’ was deemed the second most

important lever. Other important levers identified were; ‘Better SEN Services’, ‘Skills/ESOL provision

for parents’, and ‘Better respite care for children’.

Q5) Who are the most important partners in our city for tackling child poverty?

Respondents picked out local groups particularly whether that be charities and children’s centres or


other local schools. Central government was also identified as a key partner. Concern over the

finances of the City Council was also expressed.

Q6) Are there relationships between partners within Birmingham which need to work better if we

are to tackle child poverty?

The relationship between schools and social-services was highlighted by most respondents. As was

the poor relationship between schools and the NHS. Respondents felt that often schools are picking

up the slack from cuts to services such as NHS, the Council, Early Years Intervention etc.

There is a need for a wider framework that brings together all agencies concerned.

Q7) Any other observations:

Many respondents pointed to the growing role of local schools – this role has grown as services

provided by local or central Government have been cut or scaled back. A number of respondents

referred to increased staff levels at their schools, funded by the pupil premium, to respond to these

increased demands. Schools are meeting the shortfalls in the NHS, early years provision etc.

A number of respondents pointed out that many parents are from ESL backgrounds – and that the

schools do not have the capacity to provide necessary support to these parents.

SEN needs are growing and a number of schools are being made to take statemented children who

should be at SEN schools but there are not the spaces.

Important verbatim quotes:

“...we nurture parents too.”

“The drive to get all parents into work regardless of their circumstances- pressure is applied at all

times with parents taking jobs that are unsustainable.”

“Schools are becoming more and more the central hub for support”

“...we have just become voucher holders for the new foodbank which is opening.”

“The onus to drive everything needs to be put less on schools however with the city council facing

such financial difficulties and children’s services constantly being monitored by Ofsted the schools

and independent charities are all that are left.”

“Schools are being told to take statemented children – not necessarily because they have the

provision but because the SEN schools are full.”

“Schools are often in the best place to identify real need as opposed to families ‘playing the system.’

School staff should not have to feel the need to donate food/clothing to desperate parents.”

“Constant change and staff shortages mean real limits on the effectiveness of (Early Years Providers)

effectiveness.”


APPENDIX 6

Hodge Hill Constituency Labour Party: child poverty discussion – 28 February 2014

Introduction We're in a difficult position on child poverty which has not really moved for 20 years; nearly a third of children in Birmingham now grow up in poverty. In Nechells it is 47pc; in Sutton it's 5pc. Labour did well in delivering rising incomes but the city is under real pressure with up to 2/3 of controllable spending about to be cut. If we had a hill to climb it's now got a lot steeper. The Council has taken real action; for instance introducing the living wage and Birmingham Fair Money which delivers much wider access to credit unions. £6m has been put aside to fund the crisis support system – although this may be under the threat of being cut. Our current provision is akin to a dented shield which has been thrown over people. Tackling child poverty means we've got to take on some related issues. Issues such as; connecting people to work (meaning we've got to transform childcare); we've got to act on overcrowded accommodation - the stories of mattresses in the living room and children forced to share beds. We've also got to boost education and act on the cost of living crisis. Support for families often driven to breaking point is vital and so are health services. We've got to maximise the effect of good social networks. Discussion We should be much bolder and more explicit about our fight against poverty. We've got to be better at working with the assets in communities and not simply parachuting new initiatives in from above. We need to work with groups and social networks which are already on the ground. Free school dinners are a good idea - but what about free breakfasts as well? Labour needs to think through how we rebuild education pathways from poor homes; for instance bringing back EMAs, cutting tuition fees, improving means tested support, and perhaps shifting to a graduate tax to avoid the disincentive of loans. Ultimately there is no other answer than a better supply of well paid jobs. Education is the building block - but will not provide on its own the good jobs with good pay packets. For example the destruction if the industrial training boards in the 1970s destroyed our ability to train well. The money has to come from somewhere; so clamping down on tax havens and prosecuting illegal banking practises is a good thing. We have to be more explicit about tax, for example the tax on bankers’ bonuses is a good idea.


Some businesses prey on the poor - for example the betting shops which proliferate in poor areas and where there are limited planning controls to stop them – we must take action against such practises.


APPENDIX 7

Child Poverty in Birmingham – House of Commons Library note

29 January 2014

Child poverty in Birmingham

How common is poverty among children in Birmingham?

HMRC data on children living in low income families suggests that 32% of children living in

Birmingham local authority area were in poverty in 2011, more than the figure of 20% that applies

across the UK as a whole.1

The next chart and table show how this varies across Birmingham, including by constituency. The

percentage of children in low income is highest in Birmingham Ladywood, at 43%, and lowest in

Sutton Coldfield, at 9%.

1 These are the latest figures from HMRC. The Child Poverty Action Group have published more recent

estimates, but these are simply the HMRC 2011 estimates updated using some regional trends.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

UK

Birmingham LA

Sutton Coldfield

Birmingham, Selly Oak

Birmingham, Perry Barr

Birmingham, Edgbaston

Birmingham, Yardley

Birmingham, Hall Green

Birmingham, Northfield

Birmingham, Erdington

Birmingham, Hodge Hill

Birmingham, Ladywood

Percentage of children who are in low income families in Birmingham constituencies and Birmingham overall

Source:HMRC


Children in low income families in Birmingham, 2011

Number of children % of children

UK

2,749,515 20%

Birmingham LA 90,060 32%

Birmingham, Edgbaston 5,630 29%

Birmingham, Erdington 8,490 35%

Birmingham, Hall Green 11,420 33%

Birmingham, Hodge Hill 16,285 38%

Birmingham, Ladywood 14,430 43%

Birmingham, Northfield 8,450 34%

Birmingham, Perry Barr 8,430 29%

Birmingham, Selly Oak 5,800 28%

Birmingham, Yardley 9,425 32%

Sutton Coldfield 1,700 9%

Source: HMRC, Child Poverty statistics

Data is a snapshot as of 31 August 2011

As the next table shows, variation across wards is even wider – rates range from 47% in Nechells to

6% in Sutton New Hall.

Percentage of children in low income families in 2011 by Birmingham ward

Ward Percentage in poverty

Sutton New Hall (00CNJE) 6%

Sutton Vesey (00CNJG) 7%

Sutton Four Oaks (00CNJD) 8%

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/child-poverty-stats.htm#3


Sutton Trinity (00CNJF) 14%

Harborne (00CNHE) 17%

Hall Green (00CNHC) 19%

Oscott (00CNHQ) 21%

Edgbaston (00CNHA) 21%

Moseley and Kings Heath (00CNHM) 22%

Bournville (00CNGY) 22%

Perry Barr (00CNHR) 24%

Selly Oak (00CNHT) 24%

Handsworth Wood (00CNHD) 26%

Northfield (00CNHP) 27%

Sheldon (00CNHW) 28%

Brandwood (00CNGZ) 29%

Stockland Green (00CNJC) 29%

Erdington (00CNHB) 30%

Longbridge (00CNHK) 32%

South Yardley (00CNHY) 32%

Billesley (00CNGW) 32%

Acocks Green (00CNGS) 33%

Quinton (00CNHS) 33%

Hodge Hill (00CNHF) 34%

Springfield (00CNJA) 34%

Stechford and Yardley North (00CNJB) 34%

Tyburn (00CNJH) 36%

Bordesley Green (00CNGX) 37%

Weoley (00CNJK) 37%

Bartley Green (00CNGU) 38%


Kings Norton (00CNHG) 39%

Lozells and East Handsworth (00CNHL) 39%

Washwood Heath (00CNJJ) 40%

Kingstanding (00CNHH) 40%

Soho (00CNHX) 40%

Shard End (00CNHU) 41%

Aston (00CNGT) 42%

Ladywood (00CNHJ) 45%

Sparkbrook (00CNHZ) 45%

Nechells (00CNHN) 47%

Source: HMRC, Child Poverty statistics

Data is a snapshot as of 31 August 2011

Note that all of the figures given here are estimates of the proportion of children living in families (a)

in receipt of out of work (means-tested) benefits or (b) in receipt of tax credits where their reported

income (before housing costs) is less than 60% of median income. Having less than 60% of the

median income is a common measure of relative poverty.

Children are included in the analysis if they are aged under 16, or are aged 16 to 19 years and are

living with parents; and are not married nor in a Civil Partnership nor living with a partner; and are in

full-time non-advanced education or unwaged government training. Further information about

methodology and definitions is available in a HMRC technical note. Different statistics, from

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) surveys, tend to be used to assess child poverty at the

national and regional level – the HMRC figures above for the UK is provided for comparison with the

constituency figures.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/child-poverty-stats.htm#3

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/child-poverty/measure.pdf


What are the trends in poverty in Birmingham?

The HMRC estimates, which are based on benefit data, suggest that child poverty rates declined in

Birmingham between 2007 and 2011, a period when rates for England overall did not fall – as shown

in the chart and table below. It may be that the underlying levels fell by even more than these

figures suggest – poverty in the UK as whole, as measured by the DWP HBAI figures, the key source

in this area, fell by more over the period than the HMRC figures for England did.

Projections by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that child poverty in the UK – using the HBAI

relative low income measure based on income before housing costs – will rise over much of the

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Percentage of children who are in low income families in Birmingham and related areas

Birmingham (HMRC statistics)

England (HMRC statistics)

UK (DWP HBAI statistics)

Percentage of children who are in low income families in Birmingham and related areas

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Birmingham (HMRC statistics) 36% 38% 36% 35% 34% 32%

England (HMRC statistics) 21% 22% 21% 21% 21% 20%

UK (HMRC statistics) 21% 21% 20%

UK (DWP HBAI statistics) 22% 23% 22% 20% 18% 17%

Note: DWP HBAI statistics are for financial years, whereas HRMC low income statistics are for the August of each

year. The figures are produced using slightly different definitions and different methods.


period to 2020. Their publication Child and working-age poverty in Northern Ireland over the next

decade: an update (Jan 2014) has more on this.

Further information

You might find the following material useful:

Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, Why do neighbourhoods stay poor?

Deprivation, place and people in Birmingham (2010)

Child Poverty Action Group (rough) estimates of the cost of child poverty in each area (July 2013)

– Birmingham topped the list (partly because of its size – some other local authorities had higher

poverty rates).

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn144.pdf

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn144.pdf

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/WDNSP_Final_report.pdf

http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/WDNSP_Final_report.pdf



APPENDIX 8

Data on increase in A&E attendances for 0-17 year olds with a patient group

of self-harm

A) “In the last year alone admissions of under 18’s with symptoms of self-harm has

increased by 20% across the three Birmingham PCTs.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140714/text/140714w0001.htm#140714

w0001.htm_wqn51

Self-Harm: Birmingham

Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged under 18

have presented at accident and emergency departments in need of treatment for self-

harm at hospitals in the Greater Birmingham area in each of the last five years.

[204952]

Norman Lamb: The information is not available in the format requested.

Information on the number of accident and emergency (A&E) attendances for 0 to 17-

year-olds, with a patient group of deliberate self-harm and with a primary care trust

(PCT) of treatment within Greater Birmingham in each of the last five years, is shown in

the following table:

PCT of Treatment 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-141

Birmingham East and North PCT 74 95 59 60 68

Dudley PCT 402 351 330 245 327

Heart of Birmingham PCT 36 78 42 47 68

South Birmingham PCT 94 97 101 100 114

Walsall Teaching PCT 157 117 138 179 164

Wolverhampton PCT 0 147 255 211 228

1 Provisional. Notes: 1. Self-harm: A&E Patient Group—a code that indicates the reason for the A&E episode.

Group 30 indicates those attending because of intentional self-harm. There were no A&E attendances recorded

with a patient group for deliberate self-harm for Wolverhampton PCT in 2009-10. Patient group is a non-

mandatory field and nil entry may indicate that the PCT did not submit any data for patient group for this year.

2. PCT of main provider: This indicates the PCT area within which the organisation providing treatment was

located. The following PCTs were identified as having an A&E department located within Greater Birmingham:

5PG—Birmingham East and North PCT 5PE—Dudley PCT 5MX—Heart of Birmingham Teaching PCT

5M1—South Birmingham PCT 5M3—Walsall Teaching PCT 5MV—Wolverhampton City PCT Data for

Sandwell and Solihull PCTs is not included due to the PCTs not submitting A&E data to Hospital Episodes

Statistics (HES) for the time period covered. 3. PCT of treatment 2013-14 data: Although PCTs ceased to exist

after 31 March 2013, HES A&E data for 2013-14 still contains data for PCT of treatment. The relationship

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140714/text/140714w0001.htm#140714w0001.htm_wqn51

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140714/text/140714w0001.htm#140714w0001.htm_wqn51


between providers and their respective PCTs as at the end of 2012-13 has been propagated through to 2013-14

data to allow the relevant PCT to be reported, continuing a time series. 4. Provisional data: The data are

provisional and may be incomplete or contain errors for which no adjustments have yet been made. Counts

produced from provisional data are likely to be lower than those generated for the same period in the final

dataset. This shortfall will be most pronounced in the final month of the latest period, i.e. November from the

(month 9) April to November extract. It is also probable that clinical data are not complete, which may in

particular affect the last two months of any given period. There may also be errors due to coding inconsistencies

that have not yet been investigated and corrected. 5. Accessing growth through time (A&E): HES figures are

available from 2007-08 onwards. Changes to the figures over time need to be interpreted in the context of

improvements in data quality and coverage and changes in national health service practice. For example,

changes in activity may be due to changes in the provision of care. 6. Official Source of A&E data: HES is not

the official source of total A&E activity, this is the NHS England situation reports collection:

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/ However, HES permits

further analysis of A&E activity as there are a range of data items by which HES can be

analysed. Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES),Health and Social care Information Centre (HSCIC)

B) “A&E’s across Birmingham have seen a rise of 40% in admissions of under 18’s with

symptoms of self-harm since 2009/10”

Source: Data supplied by Heart of England NHS trust and University Hospital Birmingham, July 2014.

Under 18's Admitted to A&E with Self-Harm symptoms - 2009/10 to 2013/14

A&E site: 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Good Hope 79 87 71 76 106

Heartlands 100 112 111 136 153

Solihull 16 20 13 12 31

Uni Hospital Birmingham

94 96 101 100 114

Grand Total 289 315 296 324 404


APPENDIX 9

Citizens Advice Bureau Report on Child Poverty in Birmingham

January 2014






Documents

A Report by Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP and Cllrs John Cotton and Tim …liambyrne.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Birmingham... · It’s patently clear that the government simply doesn’t