Children living in area of Droitwich amongst poorest in county

CHILDREN living in an area of Droitwich Spa have been named amongst the poorest in the county.

Nearly a quarter of children from the Droitwich West ward are living in poverty according to figures published by the Campaign to End Child Poverty.

The area came sixth in Worcestershire’s child poverty league of shame by having 24 per cent of children living in poverty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenlands, Redditch (Redditch): 24 per cent

(7) Batchley, Redditch: 23 per cent

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

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

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

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:12pm Sun 24 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

Less than 60% of median income (before housing costs are taken into account)? That must be around £16000 pa . . are we really to consider that an income of less than £16000 pa, £300 per week, is truly poverty?? It is not a vast amount but surely enough to get by on?? It is the case, is it not, that housing benefit would cover the housing costs of someone receiving less than £16 k in benefits so £300 pw would be left to spend on food, clothing, etc.
Surely one of the frequent root causes of child poverty, omitted above, is children being born into a family or to a mother who does not work and is unlikely to ever work?
Less than 60% of median income (before housing costs are taken into account)? That must be around £16000 pa . . are we really to consider that an income of less than £16000 pa, £300 per week, is truly poverty?? It is not a vast amount but surely enough to get by on?? It is the case, is it not, that housing benefit would cover the housing costs of someone receiving less than £16 k in benefits so £300 pw would be left to spend on food, clothing, etc. Surely one of the frequent root causes of child poverty, omitted above, is children being born into a family or to a mother who does not work and is unlikely to ever work? TDH123
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Sun 24 Feb 13

lizzyloolah says...

More likely 'born into a family or to a mother who spends their money on cack and doesnt put the children first'. I get in work tax credits. My children are not living in poverty.
More likely 'born into a family or to a mother who spends their money on cack and doesnt put the children first'. I get in work tax credits. My children are not living in poverty. lizzyloolah
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Sun 24 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

It is quite offensive for the do-gooders to suggest people are living in poverty simply because they have an income below £16 k. There are many people on that income who do not consider themselves living in poverty. Anyone would think that there is a favela overlooking Saltway!
It is quite offensive for the do-gooders to suggest people are living in poverty simply because they have an income below £16 k. There are many people on that income who do not consider themselves living in poverty. Anyone would think that there is a favela overlooking Saltway! TDH123
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Sun 24 Feb 13

lizzyloolah says...

TDH123 wrote:
It is quite offensive for the do-gooders to suggest people are living in poverty simply because they have an income below £16 k. There are many people on that income who do not consider themselves living in poverty. Anyone would think that there is a favela overlooking Saltway!
Exactly TDH123! Offensive indeed!
[quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: It is quite offensive for the do-gooders to suggest people are living in poverty simply because they have an income below £16 k. There are many people on that income who do not consider themselves living in poverty. Anyone would think that there is a favela overlooking Saltway![/p][/quote]Exactly TDH123! Offensive indeed! lizzyloolah
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Sun 24 Feb 13

CYNIC_AL says...

So basically the Westlands estate is still a craphole? Tell us something we don't know...
So basically the Westlands estate is still a craphole? Tell us something we don't know... CYNIC_AL
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Sun 24 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

I don't think anyone would welcome genuine child poverty. But I do think that most people are familiar enough with the areas mentioned to realise that a lot of the 'poverty' is to be found among single-parent, 'Shameless' type families.

It is striking that the largest families are generally to be found among the most benefits-dependent communities.
I don't think anyone would welcome genuine child poverty. But I do think that most people are familiar enough with the areas mentioned to realise that a lot of the 'poverty' is to be found among single-parent, 'Shameless' type families. It is striking that the largest families are generally to be found among the most benefits-dependent communities. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

8:17am Mon 25 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

Why is the situation somewhat different in Tewkesbury? I think of the woman (single of course) with 11 children. £3600 per month in benefits (about the same as someone on a salary of £75k) plus a free 6 bedroom house!
Why is the situation somewhat different in Tewkesbury? I think of the woman (single of course) with 11 children. £3600 per month in benefits (about the same as someone on a salary of £75k) plus a free 6 bedroom house! TDH123
  • Score: 0

9:49am Mon 25 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

TDH123 wrote:
Why is the situation somewhat different in Tewkesbury? I think of the woman (single of course) with 11 children. £3600 per month in benefits (about the same as someone on a salary of £75k) plus a free 6 bedroom house!
That's a very good point.

The big problem with our benefits system is that it gives very little to those who pay in and genuinely need it (I speak from experience). But that Tewkesbury woman is only the tip of the iceberg.

There are plenty of people, and I suspect most of us know someone who fits the bill, who have loads of kids, no job, and no intention of having one, and who do quite nicely out of the benefits system.

People are probably aware of the Somali and Afghan 'refugees' living in luxury in mansions in London.

The system needs an overhaul, to make it generous to those who need and deserve it, but not a lifestyle choice for those who choose to live off it.

That requires benefits reform, in some cases quite ruthless. It also needs higher wages and labour market reform, to protect the low paid.

The problem is, Lib/Labour tend to be very easy about spending other people's money on welfare, so they won't change things.

And the Tories tend to favour high wages at the top, but screwing down the plebs' wages. Robin Walker 'earned' more on his second 'job' than most people get paid in a year's full time work.
[quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: Why is the situation somewhat different in Tewkesbury? I think of the woman (single of course) with 11 children. £3600 per month in benefits (about the same as someone on a salary of £75k) plus a free 6 bedroom house![/p][/quote]That's a very good point. The big problem with our benefits system is that it gives very little to those who pay in and genuinely need it (I speak from experience). But that Tewkesbury woman is only the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of people, and I suspect most of us know someone who fits the bill, who have loads of kids, no job, and no intention of having one, and who do quite nicely out of the benefits system. People are probably aware of the Somali and Afghan 'refugees' living in luxury in mansions in London. The system needs an overhaul, to make it generous to those who need and deserve it, but not a lifestyle choice for those who choose to live off it. That requires benefits reform, in some cases quite ruthless. It also needs higher wages and labour market reform, to protect the low paid. The problem is, Lib/Labour tend to be very easy about spending other people's money on welfare, so they won't change things. And the Tories tend to favour high wages at the top, but screwing down the plebs' wages. Robin Walker 'earned' more on his second 'job' than most people get paid in a year's full time work. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

11:52am Mon 25 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

TDH123 wrote:
It is quite offensive for the do-gooders to suggest people are living in poverty simply because they have an income below £16 k. There are many people on that income who do not consider themselves living in poverty. Anyone would think that there is a favela overlooking Saltway!
Yes, I thought that, when the WN first started reporting on this story. The headlines implied that '34%' of children in Worcester were living in poverty. Then it became clear that it was just in 'certain areas', and then of course, there is the definition of 'poverty'.

I feel we run the risk of having genuine poverty in this country, as wages for the low paid in effect decrease, whilst those at the top rise, and the benefits system retracts.

The Conservatives are right to point out that benefits aren't the answer. Work and skills are. Labour got this completely wrong, and are largely to blame.

But I still worry that the government is doing very little to stem the flow of immigrants to take jobs and drive wages down. They are quicker to hit benefits than they are to protect workers.
[quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: It is quite offensive for the do-gooders to suggest people are living in poverty simply because they have an income below £16 k. There are many people on that income who do not consider themselves living in poverty. Anyone would think that there is a favela overlooking Saltway![/p][/quote]Yes, I thought that, when the WN first started reporting on this story. The headlines implied that '34%' of children in Worcester were living in poverty. Then it became clear that it was just in 'certain areas', and then of course, there is the definition of 'poverty'. I feel we run the risk of having genuine poverty in this country, as wages for the low paid in effect decrease, whilst those at the top rise, and the benefits system retracts. The Conservatives are right to point out that benefits aren't the answer. Work and skills are. Labour got this completely wrong, and are largely to blame. But I still worry that the government is doing very little to stem the flow of immigrants to take jobs and drive wages down. They are quicker to hit benefits than they are to protect workers. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree