Family Poverty Needs Assessment - Central Bedfordshire Council

Central Bedfordshire Council
www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk
Family Poverty Needs
Assessment
Nov 2011

Family Poverty Needs
Assessment
Executive Summary 4-5
Introduction 6-15
Background 6-10
Definitions 11-12
Effects 13-15
The Local Picture 16-23
Extent & Distribution of Children in Poverty 16-23
Financial Support 24-42
Earnt Income 24
Income from Benefits 25-30
Free School Meals 31-34
Family Size 35
Fuel Poverty 35-39
Financial Exclusion 39-42
Parental Employment & Skills 43-54
Unemployment 42-43
Not in Employment, Education or Training 43-44
Job Seekers Allowance 44-45
Qualifications 45-47
Work Related Training 47-48
Increased Training for 14-16 year olds 48
Employment Opportunities 49-51
Childcare 51-53
2

Life Chances 55-78
Disability 55-56
Children in Need 56-58
Ethnicity 58-63
Traveller 63-65
Lone Parents 66-68
Divorce Rate 68-69
Attendance Rates 69-73
Exclusion Rates 74-78
Place 79-102
Housing & Homelessness 79-80
Quality 80
Rents 81
Home Ownership 81-83
Overcrowding 83
Transport 84-85
Car Ownership 85
Transport to Work 85
Crime & Disorder 86-87
Youth Offending 87-88
Parental Substance/Alcohol Misuse 88-89
Health89
General Health & Health Inequalities 89-91
Pregnancy & Birth 91-92
Immunisation & Vaccinations 92
Childhood Dental Health 92-93
Childhood Obesity 93
Children & Smoking 94
Life Expectancy 94-97
Teen Pregnancy 98-100
Infant Mortality 100-101
Mental Health 101-102
Maternal Mental Health 102
3

Executive Summary
Central Bedfordshire has 13.1% of its children living in Poverty. This statistic is provided by
Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue (HMRC) and relates to the year 2009. However this
figure masks some high levels of poverty within particular areas. The five areas (equating
to former wards) with the highest levels of Poverty are;
Houghton Regis 28.0%
Northfields 25.2%
Dunstable Downs 20.2%
Sandy 18.6%
Leighton Linslade Central 18.5%
The local super output areas (LSOA) with the highest Income Deprivation Affecting
Children Index (IDACI) are in the wards of Houghton Regis and Dunstable Downs. These
are in the highest 10% of LSOAs in the East England and within the worst 20% in England.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a basket of indicators including employment
levels, health and disability, education skills and training, housing issues, crime and
disorder and the living environment. The most recent IMD shows that the highest levels of
deprivation based on these indicators are in Parkside (now Houghton Regis), Manshead
(now Dunstable Downs), Tithe Farm (now Houghton Regis), and Northfields.
The key indicators in themselves act as a summary for much of this assessment.
Collecting the data for this Poverty Needs Assessment has been challenging.
Some data pre-dates the creation of Central Bedfordshire Council, and in some cases been
disaggregated as accurately as possible.
Some data is published based on ward boundaries (and names) for prior to 2009. A ward
boundary change took place in 2009 and some data is provided in this form. There has
been a further change which took effect in May 2011.
However whilst there are slight variations for these reasons the overall outcomes are the
same.
Claims for free School Meals, teenage pregnancy levels, levels of educational
achievement, highest levels of lone parenthood, high levels of housing overcrowding,
highest levels of crime and lowest levels of life expectancy – all of these show that our
areas of highest need are in Houghton Regis, Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard, Sandy, Flitwick
and Biggleswade.
The Assessment will be updated on a regular basis online when significant new data
becomes available.
4

Poverty is a cross cutting issue and colleagues from all departments across the Council
and in partner organisations have shared data with us for which we are grateful.
5

Introduction
Background
In 2008/09 across the UK 2.8 million children live in relative poverty (a reduction of 100,000
over the previous 10 years) of which 1.6 million are in absolute poverty and 2.2 million live
in families which suffer low income and material deprivation.
In June 2010 the Child Poverty Act received Royal Assent. This enshrines in legislation, a
long held government ambition to eradicate Child Poverty by 2020. It places a number of
statutory duties both on Central and Local Government.
Central Government is required to publish a UK Child Poverty Strategy, to then publish
annual progress reports and to establish a Child Poverty Commission.
Councils are required to co-operate with partners (Health Authorities – Primary Care Trusts
and Strategic Health Authorities, Job Centre Plus, Police, Youth Offending and Probation
Services) to produce a local Child Poverty Strategy and a Child Poverty Needs
Assessment.
There are wildly varying estimates of the cost to society and the public purse of these levels
of Child Poverty across the UK. (These estimates range from £12 billion pa. to £25 billion)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has carried out substantial research into Child Poverty
on a long-term basis and one recent estimate suggested that Child Poverty is estimated to
cost the economy £13 billion. £2 billion in benefits paid out, £3 billion in lost tax and
National Insurance paid to the exchequer and £8 billion in net earnings lost.
Poverty and Life Chances form an intergenerational cycle:
1) Material
Resources
4) Labour
Market
Position
2) Early
Years
Development
Children's
Life Chances
& Family
Well-Being
3) Social &
educational
trajectories
6

Nationally certain groups have a greater risk of living in relative poverty. These include:
59% of families in Workless Households
58% of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin Households
34% of Lone Parent Households
40% of families with 4 or more children
31% of households with one or more disabled adult
(figures from the Households Below Average Income 2008/09)
There are a number of factors that directly influence families’ resources and incomes. At a
fundamental, high level the key factors are:
Parental Employment and earnings
Financial Support – tax credits, other benefits, maintenance payments
Costs – e.g. housing, utilities
Underlying these factors are a number of others which will directly influence a families
ability to enter and sustain well paid employment in the short and longer term and these
include:
Education
Adult Skills
Childcare
Transport - affordable and available public transport
Job Availability
Further factors indirectly influence the ability of a family to enter and sustain well paid
employment and escape poverty now and in the future:
Children’s educational outcomes
Financial Inclusion
Access to services and facilities
Health, including mental health
Teenage pregnancy
Relationship breakdown
Crime, drug and alcohol use
7

Child
Poverty
Factors that directly influence families’
resources and incomes today
Financial
Support
(tax credits,
benefits &
child
maintenance)
Parental
employment
& earnings
Costs
(eg. housing,
utilities)
Factors that directly influence families’ abilities to enter and
sustain well paid employment in the short and longer term.
Education
Adult Skills
Childcare
Transport
Job
availability
Factors that indirectly influence families’ abilities to enter and sustain well paid employment
and escape poverty now and in the future
Children’s
outcomes
Financial
Inclusion
Access to
services and
facilities
Health
Teenage
pregnancy
Relationship
breakdown
Crime,
drug &
alcohol
use.
Figure 2 – Poverty pyramid
The 2010 Coalition government is committed to ending Child Poverty by 2020. Ministers of
State for Children and Families, for Disabled People, and the Economic Secretary to the
Treasury, in a letter to local authorities have stated “This remains a bold ambition but one
which is at the heart of our drive to tackle the root causes and consequences of social
injustice, poverty and deprivation, and to protect the most vulnerable groups in our society.
The Child Poverty Unit, a cross cutting unit made up from representatives of the Treasury,
the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions, has identified 4
areas, or Building Blocks as they have called them which need to be addressed in order to
achieve the ultimate goal of lifting children out of Poverty.
These have been identified as:
Child Poverty
Financial Support
Parental
Life Chances
Place
Employment and
Skills
Figure 3 – Poverty building blocks
8

These building blocks have been taken into consideration when devising the strategic
objectives of the Strategy of Central Bedfordshire.
The Government has set up a Review on Poverty and Life Chances, chaired by Frank Field
which reported at the end of 2010. The review aimed to; generate a broader debate about
the nature and extent of poverty in the UK, examine the case for reforms to poverty
measures, in particular for the inclusion of non-financial elements, explore how a child’s
home environment affects their chances of being ready to take full advantage of their
schooling and recommend potential action by government and other institutions to reduce
poverty and enhance life chances for the least advantaged, consistent with the
Government’s fiscal strategy. Along with this is The Allen Review which is looking at
aspects of Early Intervention. This is due to complete its final report in May 2011. It is an
independent review on how early intervention projects can improve the lives of the UK’s
most vulnerable children. These reports will undoubtedly impact on future strategies to
reduce Child Poverty.
The National child poverty strategy
The Child Poverty Act was put into place to support the eradication of child poverty by
2020.
There are four aspirations in the target to eradicate child poverty;
More families in work that pays, and with the support they need to progress
Financial support that is responsive to families’ situations
Environments in which children can thrive
Poverty in childhood no longer translating to poor experiences and outcomes
Child Poverty Needs Assessment
The Child Poverty Act places a duty on local authorities and their partners to conduct a
local child poverty needs assessment to enable them to understand the characteristics of
the poor in their area, and the key drivers of poverty that need to be addressed.
Guidance has been issued which states that the needs assessment should be:
An assessment of the extent and distribution of child poverty in the area
An assessment of the associated risk factors and their correlation with the extent and
distribution of child poverty in the local area
An assessment of the drivers of child poverty in the area
9

Before making arrangements to prepare or revise the needs assessment, a responsible
local authority should consult with the following groups;
Children and members of their families
Persons or bodies representing children or families
Persons or bodies representing schools or institutes or further education
Persons or bodies providing voluntary services relating to children
Persons or bodies representing local communities
Child Poverty Strategy
The Child Poverty Act requires local authorities and partner authorities to create a joint
local strategy for reducing child poverty. This strategy must set out the input that each
partner authority will make and must tackle the issues raised in the needs assessment.
The Child Poverty Act also requires local authorities to take their responsibilities to tackle
child poverty into account when preparing their Sustainable Community Strategy.
The strategy should also be linked to;
The Children and Young People’s Plan
Regional Strategies
Regional Economic Strategies
City or Sub-Regional Employment and Skills Strategies
Homelessness Strategies
The strategy must;
Explain at a strategic level how positive outcomes will be achieved;
Identify the partner authorities responsible for taking action;
Say how progress will be measured and monitored; and
Identify the resources available to implement the strategies
10

Defining Child Poverty
Defining and then Measuring Child Poverty is a very complicated process. The Child
Poverty Act incorporates four types of poverty, with differing targets. In the case of some of
these, data is not yet available at all to assess baseline levels and what progress is made.
The four key targets involve:
Relative Poverty
To reduce the proportion of children who live in relative low income to less
than 10%
This is the main indicator used when discussing poverty in the UK. It is defined as families
with income below 60% of contemporary median equivalised household income. The
current median is £600 and therefore this means a family living on £360 per week to cover
all their costs, including housing, gas, electric, insurance, clothes, food and telephone. This
measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the
economy as a whole. It compares the incomes of the less well off in society changes
(‘moving the poverty line’).
Combined Low income and material deprivation
To reduce the proportion of children who live in material deprivation and have
a low income to less than 5%
This is defined as children living in households with incomes below 70% of the current
national median and who are experiencing material deprivation, namely that there are
goods and services which they are less likely to be able to afford for their children. Material
Deprivation is currently measured by asking families whether they have a set of 21 items
such as having friends round for tea or a snack once a fortnight, going on a school trip at
least once a term, home contents insurance, keeping the house warm, one weeks family
holiday a year, two pairs of all-weather shoes for each adult.
Persistent Poverty
To reduce the proportion of children that experience long periods of relative
poverty, with the specific target to be set at a later date
The definition of Persistent Poverty is a household which is living in relative poverty for at
least three consecutive years.
11

Absolute Poverty
To reduce the proportion of children who live in absolute low income to less
than 5%.
This indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real
terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year
of 1998-99 expressed in today’s prices.
An overall definition could be:
“Individuals, families and group in the population can be said to be in poverty when they
lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living
conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged and
approved, in the societies in which they belong.”
12

The Effects of Child Poverty
Children who grow up in poverty will generally be adversely affected by it for the rest of
their lives. Not only will they suffer in childhood by not being able to take part in the
experiences and opportunities which many of their peers enjoy, but their future lives in
terms of educational outcomes, work opportunities, health and even life expectancy will be
blighted. These low outcomes are then reflected across society as a whole. There is
increased deprivation across communities, higher government spending costs on benefits
and health – all society will pay eventually. Eradicating Child Poverty is therefore in the
interest of society as a whole.
Babies born into a family in poverty are
• More likely to be born premature
• More likely to have low birth weight
• More likely to die in first year of life 1
Children from poor families more likely to have a low birth weight and children with a low
birth weight tend to have lower IQ 2
The Infant Feeding Survey shows that in workless families babies are using bottles for
much longer than their peers in working families which in turn leads to more tooth
decay 3 .
Children born to teenage parents are 63% more likely to live in poverty and are twice as
likely to become teenage parents themselves, thus creating further intergenerational
cycles of deprivation 4 . Teenage mothers are 20% more likely to have no qualification
than older mothers (aged 24 plus). Infant mortality is 60% higher for babies born of
teenage mothers, there are higher rates of post-natal depression and poor mental health
for 3 years after a teenage birth, and teenage mothers are three times more likely to
smoke throughout their pregnancy and 50% less likely to breastfeed (JSNA).
By the age of 11 (yr 6) levels of obesity are 10% higher in deprived areas with more
child poverty than in the least deprived areas 5 .
Children who live in families where the parents have never worked are more likely to
suffer from mental health disorders. The figures are 21% against 5.2% of the general
population 6 .
Lower income households are more likely to smoke and have problems with alcohol
abuse 7
13

Many poor families live in poor quality or overcrowded housing. Due to an unmet
demand of social housing many poor families live in temporary accommodation 8 –
further disrupting children’s wellbeing (Kate Barker Review of Housing Supply)
Children who live in bad housing are more likely to suffer from poor health, to suffer a
longstanding illness or disability, to dislike the area in which they live, to have run away
from home, to have been excluded from school and to have left school with no GCSEs 9
Poor housing leads to health risks such as respiratory illnesses, poor nutrition,
accidents, depression and anxiety 10
Children living in poverty are 13 times more likely to die from unintentional injury and 27
times more likely to die from exposure to smoke, fire or flames 11
Poor families living in deprived areas are likely to suffer from crime and the effects of
crime. In 2006-7 the likelihood of experiencing crime was 29% in the most deprived
areas of the UK against 20% in the least deprived area 12
By the age of six, a less able child from a rich family is likely to have overtaken a more
able child from a poor family 13
35.5% children eligible for Free School Meals receive 5 good GCSEs’ compared to
62.8% of all children 14
School Exclusions are more than double the rate amongst children in receipt of Free
School Meals than amongst other pupils, and school attendance is about 5% lower
amongst children in receipt of Free School Meals 15
Families living in poverty have less than £13 per day per person to buy everything they
need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport 16
The total weekly expenditure for an average couple with children in 2008 was £673 per
week for all households, that’s equivalent to £176 per person. However, a family with an
income in the lowest 20 per cent spent just £360 each week, equivalent to £90 per
person. That’s almost half what the average family spends 17
Many poor families are financially excluded – parents will not have bank accounts, and
therefore access to regulated forms of credit 18 . Many utility costs are higher because of
the need to use pay as you go payment schemes rather than direct debits 19 . 57% of low
income families (and 72% of lone parent families) have no savings and in order to deal
with unplanned emergencies will often turn to unregulated credit, paying massive
amounts of interest 20 .
14

Children who grow up in a low income household are more likely than others to
themselves become unemployed and to do low paid jobs – there is evidence of an
intergenerational cycle of poverty 21
Case Studies will be available in the Child Poverty section on the website, as part of the
Needs Assessment work.
1 Child Poverty Review, HM Treasury, July 2004
2 Families with Children in Britain: Findings from 2005 Families & Children Study (FACS) Department for Work
& Pensions. Research Report. 424, Hoxhallari, L., Connolly, A. and Lyon, N. 2007
3 The Infant Feeding Survey NHS 2005
4 Conception Statistics, Office of National Statistics 2008
5 National Child Measurement Programme: 2006/07 school year. The Information Centre for Health & Social
Care, 2008
6 Children and Young People Today, Evidence to support the development of the Children’s plan, Department
for Children, Schools and Families 2007.
7 ibid & Ending child poverty: everybody’s business, 3.14 HM Treasury, March 2008
8 Households Below Average Income, Great Britain figures, Department for Work and Pensions, 2006
9 It doesn’t happen here. The reality of Child Poverty in the UK. Sharma - Barnardos 2006
10 www.barnados.org.uk/childpoverty.htm
11 Better safe than sorry, Audit Commission 2007
12 Crime in England and Wales 2006-07, Home Office, 4th Edition, Ed. Nicholas, S., Kershaw, C., & Walker,
A., 2007
13 Inequality in Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort Feinstein, L. Economica,
Vol. 70 pp.73-97 2003
14 National Statistics First Release (2007) National Curriculum Assessment, GCSE & Equivalent Attainment &
Post-16 Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England, 2006/07. DCSF November 2007
15 Central Bedfordshire Council School Statistics
16 www.barnados.org.uk/childpoverty.htm
17 www.barnados.org.uk/childpoverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty.htm
18 Ending child poverty: everybody’s business. 2.29 HM Treasury, March 2008
19 Robbing Peter to pay Paul, Save the Children Briefing Report 2007
20 The Poverty Premium, Save the Children and the Family Welfare Association 2007
21 Child Poverty Review, HM Treasury, July 2004
15

The Local Picture
Extent and Distribution of Children in Poverty
As stated in the Executive Summary Central Bedfordshire has 13.1% of its children living in
Poverty. This statistic is provided by Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue (HMRC) and
relates to the year 2009. However this figure masks some high levels of poverty within
particular areas. The five areas (equating to former wards) with the highest levels of
Poverty are;
Houghton Regis 28.0%
Northfields 25.2%
Dunstable Downs 20.2%
Sandy 18.6%
Leighton Linslade Central 18.5%
The local super output areas (LSOA) with the highest Income Deprivation Affecting
Children Index (IDACI) are in the wards of Houghton Regis and Dunstable Downs Ward.
These are in the highest 10% of LSOAs in the East England and within the worst 20% in
England.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a basket of indicators including employment
levels, health and disability, education skills and training, housing issues, crime and
disorder and the living environment. The most recent IMD shows that the highest levels of
deprivation based on these indicators are in Parkside, Manshead, Tithe Farm, and
Northfields.
The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA 2010) gives us a further indication on
aspects of the health of those living in areas of deprivation in Central Bedfordshire: the
highest levels of babies born into a smoking household are in Dunstable, Parkside in
Houghton Regis, Flitwick and parts of Sandy, with the lowest levels of breastfeeding at 6-8
weeks in Manshead, Tithe Farm, Houghton Hall, Parkside and other parts of Dunstable.
High rates of Teenage Pregnancy in parts of Central Bedfordshire are concentrated in
Houghton Regis and parts of Dunstable in the main. Figures in the JSNA indicate that the
conception rate in the east of England is presently 31.6 per 1000 (conception rates per
1000 females aged 15-17). In Houghton Hall ward this figure stands at 79.9 per 1000,
Manshead has 78.2 per 1000, with 74 per 1000 in Tithe Farm and 66.7 in Parkside.
At the 2001 census an average of 6.9% of households with dependent children in Central
Bedfordshire were considered to be overcrowded. (Overcrowding is defined as having at
least one less room that deemed to be required for the household size and composition).
However this figure increases massively in areas of deprivation. In Tithe Farm 17.5% of
children are in overcrowded households, with Manshead at 12.8%, Parkside at 12.5% and
Houghton Hall at 11.2%.
16

Whilst there is clearly a concentration of poverty and deprivation across the areas within
Dunstable and Houghton Regis there is however no ward in Central Bedfordshire which
does not have some child poverty and levels of deprivation. Parts of Flitwick, Sandy and
Leighton Buzzard also have high levels of deprivation and poverty. The isolating effect of
being a child in poverty in an area of relative affluence should not be underestimated.
Central Bedfordshire’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment states that a child born into
poverty is more likely to die from an accident in childhood, have low educational
achievement, be involved in crime, be poor as an adult and raise their own children in
poverty. 27% of Children in Central Bedfordshire live in workless or low income
households, rising to between 45% and 50% in parts of Houghton Regis and Dunstable.
Many other sources of data which directly relate to poverty correlate with the figures above:
Manshead, Parkside and Northfield have the highest rate of unemployment in Central
Bedfordshire
Tithe Farm, Parkside, Plantation and Sandy Pinnacle have the lowest level of
educational and skills attainment
Parkside and Dunstable Central, Northfields and Tithe Farm have LSOAs in the top ten
areas with the highest levels of crime, although parts of Biggleswade and Toddington
also feature in this table.
Manshead, Parkside, Northfields, part of Flitwick, Tithe Farm, All Saints in Leighton
Buzzard and parts of Sandy have LSOAs which have the highest levels of health
deprivation and disability
In the 2010 health profile for Central Bedfordshire there is a six year difference in life
expectancy for a man living in the most deprived area compared to the least deprived
Children in Central Bedfordshire who have free school meals have attendance rates
which are on average between 4-6% lower than children who do not, increasing across
the age range
Head teachers in Central Bedfordshire tell us that:
“There is a clear impact on the emotional development of children who are living in a
stressful environment e.g. a household with debt problems”
“Education is often a low priority at home for households in poverty”
“It can be very isolating to be poor in an area of relative affluence.”
“Some children will not be accessing the full curriculum e.g. school trips, cost of transport to
swimming pools, because parents cannot afford this and do not wish to draw attention to
this, so children are kept off school”
“Poor children will often have lower self-esteem”
“Some children will be unable to participate in after school activities”
“Some poor children will have poor attendance due to health problems”
17

Neighbouring Authorities
Central Bedfordshire’s figure of 13.1% of children living in poverty is the lowest in the
Eastern Region at present. Nationally the local authority which has the least child poverty
is the Isles of Scilly at 3.6% and the local authority with the most child poverty nationally is
Tower Hamlets with 55.3%.
Local Authority
% of Children living
in Poverty
Isles of Scilly 3.3
Central
Bedfordshire
13.1
Cambridgeshire 13.3
Hertfordshire 13.9
Northamptonshire 16.5
Bedford 20.0
Luton 27.3
Tower Hamlets 53.0
East of England 16.9
England 21.3
Figure 4 – HMRC August 2009 Child Poverty data
18

%Child Poverty
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Isles of Scilly
Central
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
Northamptonshire
Bedford
Luton
Tower Hamlets
East of England
England
Figure 5
% of
Children in
Poverty
2009
Houghton Regis 28.0
Northfields 25.2
Dunstable Downs 20.2
Sandy 18.7
Leighton Linslade
Central
18.5
Plantation 17.9
Southcott 14.4
Grovebury 14.1
South West
Bedfordshire
14.1
Biggleswade 13.4
Flitwick East 10.5
Icknield 10.5
Marston 10.1
Barton 9.8
Stotfold and Arlesey 9.7
Toddington 9.7
Shefford 9.4
Potton 9.0
Cranfield 8.9
Langford and Henlow
Village
Woburn and
Harlington
8.1
8.1
Northill and Blunham 7.9
Maulden and
Houghton Conquest
7.7
19

Watling 7.7
Silsoe and Shillington 6.4
South East
Bedfordshire
4.9
Flitwick West 4.5
Ampthill 3.9
% of Children in
"Poverty"
2007 2008
Tithe Farm 32.8% 31.4%
Parkside 27.0% 27.1%
Manshead 27.4% 25.6%
Northfields 23.8% 24.8%
Houghton Hall 23.6% 22.9%
Stanbridge 16.8% 19.3%
Dunstable Central 16.6% 17.8%
Planets 16.0% 17.5%
All Saints 17.0% 17.1%
Plantation 17.0% 16.8%
Sandy Pinnacle 16.1% 15.7%
Biggleswade Stratton 12.8% 14.9%
Caddington, Hyde
and Slip End
12.8% 14.5%
Heath and Reach 12.4% 13.5%
Eaton Bray 14.5% 13.2%
Linslade 12.8% 12.5%
Biggleswade Ivel 11.2% 12.4%
Sandy Ivel 12.1% 12.2%
Grovebury 10.9% 11.9%
Flitwick East 11.7% 11.2%
Streatley 10.4% 10.9%
Aspley Guise 6.1% 10.8%
Icknield 9.9% 10.3%
Arlesey 11.3% 10.3%
Biggleswade Holme 8.4% 9.9%
Marston 10.2% 9.6%
Northill and Blunham 10.0% 9.3%
Chiltern 8.4% 9.3%
Cranfield 6.9% 8.8%
Kensworth and
Totternhoe
Shefford, Campton
and Gravenhurst
Flitton, Greenfield
and Pulloxhill
Langford and Henlow
Village
Westoning and
Tingrith
10.9% 8.7%
8.0% 8.3%
5.6% 8.2%
7.2% 8.1%
6.5% 7.8%
Potton and Wensley 7.2% 7.7%
Stotfold 6.3% 7.5%
Maulden and Clophill 8.9% 7.5%
Clifton and
Meppershall
7.0% 7.4%
20

Houghton, Haynes,
Southill and Old
Warden
6.3% 6.8%
Figure 6 – HMRC 2008/09 & 2009
Watling 6.8% 6.8%
Barton-le-Clay 4.8% 6.3%
Woburn 5.6% 6.1%
Toddington 7.7% 6.0%
Shillington, Stondon
and Henlow Camp
7.0% 5.8%
Ampthill 3.7% 4.4%
Flitwick West 3.9% 4.1%
Harlington 4.5% 4.0%
Southcott 4.4% 3.9%
Silsoe 2.2% 2.5%
21

Figure 7
The above information (from Barnados) shows a range of factors that increase the chances
of a child being in poverty. The factor that is most influential is not having a working
parent(s), followed by being of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin.
22

Drivers of Poverty
The Government’s Child Poverty Unit has produced a useful framework in the form of a
child poverty “pyramid” (see below) which illustrates the various key drivers on child
poverty.
The framework categorises the different drivers under three priority headings:
Factors that directly influence families’ resources and incomes today.
Factors that directly influence families’ abilities to enter and sustain well paid
employment in the short and longer term
Factors that indirectly influence families abilities to enter and sustain well paid
employment and escape poverty now and in the future
Child
Poverty
Factors that directly influence families’
resources andincomes today
Financial
Support
(tax credits,
benefits &
child
maintenance)
Parental
employment
&earnings
Costs
(eg. housing,
utilities)
Factors that directly influencefamilies’ abilitiesto enter and
sustain well paid employment in the short andlonger term.
Education
Adult Skills
Childcare
Transport
Job
availability
Factors that indirectly influencefamilies’ abilities toenter andsustainwell paidemployment
and escapepoverty nowand inthefuture
Children’s
outcomes
Financial
Inclusion
Access to
services and
facilities
Health
Teenage
pregnancy
Relationship
breakdown
Crime,
drug&
alcohol
use.
23

The building blocks below are used as a basis to structure the Child Poverty Needs
Assessment. These are all important in breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty.
Child Poverty
Financial Support
Parental
Life Chances
Place
Pg17
Employment and
Pg 42
Pg 63
Skills
Figure 9
24

Financial Support
Earnt Income
Central Bedfordshire residents generally earn more than those living in the East of
England. However income for people who work in Central Bedfordshire is lower than
across the region. This indicates that there are more relatively lower paid jobs in Central
Bedfordshire and that better paid work is obtained by commuting out of the area. The gap
between earnings for residents and workers is greater in Central Bedfordshire than
regionally or nationally (Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Survey of Hours and
Earnings, 2009, via Nomis).
£
600
500
558
447
509
479
496 495
400
300
200
100
0
Residents Workers Residents Workers Residents Workers
Central Bedfordshire East England
Figure 10 – Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2009, via Nomis
While the median earnings of Central Bedfordshire residents compares favourably with
other authorities in the area, many earn well below the average and might be considered
‘working poor’. For example, 20% of male full-time workers resident in Central Bedfordshire
have gross weekly pay of under £403, and 20% of female full-time workers earn under
£325 per week.
25

Income from Benefits
If families are workless, or in a low paid job, they will be reliant on benefits for some or all of
the household income.
There are a range of benefits in what is acknowledged to be a complex system. Some
benefits are contributory benefits, where entitlement is determined by a claimant’s National
Insurance contribution record, some are non-contributory, and some are means-tested.
Changes to the benefits system are planned over the next few years, at present the range
of benefits are:
Contributory benefits for families including:
Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance – for unemployed people who have paid
enough National Insurance contributions
Contributory Employment and Support Allowance (and Incapacity Benefit) – for people
who are unable to work, have a disability and have paid enough National Insurance
contributions
Non-contributory benefits for families including:
Disability Living Allowance – for disabled people with personal care or mobility needs
who are under 65 whether or not they are working
Child Benefit – to help with the costs of bringing up children under 16
Carer’s Allowance – for somebody caring for a disabled person (claiming certain
benefits) for at least 35 hours per week
Means-tested benefits for families are:
Income related Employment and Support Allowance – for people who are unable to
work who have savings of less than £16,000 and do not have a partner working over 24
hours
Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance – This is based on income and savings and is for
people who are unemployed and have not paid enough National Insurance contributions
Income Support – for some lone parents and carers who work less than 16 hours a
week, have a low income and do not have savings over £16,000
Housing Benefit – to help pay rent if your income and capital are below a certain level
Working Tax Credit – for people who are on a low wage and work at least 30 hours a
week
Council Tax Benefit - if you pay Council Tax and your income and capital are below a
certain level
Child Tax Credit – for people who are responsible for a child under 16
Childcare Tax Credit - to assist with costs of childcare for working families on a low
wage
26

Children in
families in
receipt of
IS/JSA
Children in
families
receiving WTC
and CTC, and
income

Figure 13 - Children of workless benefit claimants November 2010
Children of lone parents who claim Income Support make up the largest group across the
country. Due to reforms to the eligibility requirements for Lone Parent benefits this group
has shrunk over the last few years and will continue to fall in the coming years.
Central Bedfordshire
13.7%
16.9%
Prospering Smaller Towns
13.9%
21.3%
Workless families
(receiving workless
benefits: JSA, IB,
IS, Carer's Allowance)
East
17.1%
21.0%
Working families
(receiving both
Working Tax Credits
and Child Tax Credits)
United Kingdom
20.8%
24.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Figure 14 - Children in ‘low income’ families 2009/10
The Prospering Smaller Towns is a cluster group the Office of National Statistics groups
Central Bedfordshire into. It contains other local authorities identified as the most similar to
Central Bedfordshire. The above indicator measures the proportion of dependent children
in families in receipt of out-of-work benefits, and the proportion of families in low income
work. More children are classified as poor under this measure than under the default
measure of poverty (households living on or below 60% of the median income). However,
this Children in ‘Low Income’ Families indicator allows us to analyse child poverty more
locally than the standard measure, and captures both out-of-work and in-work poverty.
While larger percentages in each category indicate higher levels of child poverty, they can
also represent a step on the journey out of poverty.
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Central Bedfordshire 13.2 14.8 14.8 16.4 16.9
Prospering Smaller Towns 17.5 19.1 19.2 20.8 21.3
East 16.8 18.5 18.8 20.5 21.0
United Kingdom 20.5 21.9 22.6 24.3 24.7
Figure 15 - Children in low income working families (receiving CTC and WTC) % - HMRC
28

Income deprivation affecting children
Central Bedfordshire has 15 Lower Super Output Areas that fall into the top 30% of Income
Deprivation Affecting Children (IDACI) nationally. The government has come up with a
basket of indicators to classify those in material deprivation.
Child Level
Outdoor space/facilities to play
Enough bedrooms for every child 10 years or over and of a different gender
Celebrations on special occasions
Leisure equipment such as sports equipment or a bicycle
At least 1 week’s holiday away from home with family
Hobby or leisure activity
Swimming at least once a month
Have friends round for tea or a snack once a fortnight
Go on a school trip at least once a term
Go to a playgroup at least once a week
Parental Level
Money to decorate home
Hobby or leisure
Holiday away from home one week a year not with relatives
Home contents insurance
Friends round for a drink/meal once a month
Make savings of £10 a month or more
Two pairs of all-weather shoes for each adult
Replace worn out furniture
Replace broken electrical goods
Money to spend on self each week
Keep house warm
Central Bedfordshire has no LSOA’s in the Top 10% nationally but they are in the top 10%
in the East of England. However, there is 1 LSOA in Dunstable Downs and 4 LSOA’s in
Houghton Regis that are in the Top 20% nationally. The IDACI scores in Central
Bedfordshire ranges from 0.44 in an LSOA in Dunstable Downs to 0.02 in an LSOA in
29

Maulden and Houghton Conquest. There are 154 LSOA’s in the whole of Central
Bedfordshire and 32,482 LSOA’s in England.
LSOA’s New Ward IDACI
Score
England
Rank of
IDACI
E01017594 Dunstable Downs 0.44 4062
E01017618 Houghton Regis 0.42 4582
E01017580 Houghton Regis 0.39 5546
E01017601 Houghton Regis 0.38 5660
E01017619 Houghton Regis 0.36 6459
E01017609 Plantation 0.34 7037
E01017602 Houghton Regis 0.32 7665
E01017595 Northfields 0.32 7917
E01017557 Leighton Linslade Central 0.30 8599
E01017605 Leighton Linslade Central 0.30 8650
E01017599 Northfields 0.29 8700
E01017400 Flitwick East 0.29 8983
E01017433 Sandy 0.27 9546
E01017571 South West Bedfordshire 0.27 9591
E01017568 Dunstable Downs 0.27 9735
Figure 16
IDACI – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index
The IDACI is the proportion of children ages 0 -15 living in income deprivation households.
The below chart shows the top 15 LSOA’s in Central Bedfordshire, which are also the
LSOA’s in the Top 30% most deprived in England.
LSOA New Ward LA NAME
IDACI
score
England
Rank of
IDACI
East of
England
Rank
E01017594
E01017618
Dunstable Downs
Houghton Regis
South
Bedfordshire 0.44 4062 158
South
Bedfordshire 0.42 4582 189
30

E01017580
E01017601
E01017619
E01017609
E01017602
E01017595
E01017557
E01017605
E01017599
E01017400
E01017433
E01017571
E01017568
Houghton Regis
Houghton Regis
Houghton Regis
Plantation
Houghton Regis
Northfields
Leighton Linslade
Central
Leighton Linslade
Central
Northfields
Flitwick East
Sandy
South West
Bedfordshire
Dunstable Downs
South
Bedfordshire 0.39 5546 258
South
Bedfordshire 0.38 5660 265
South
Bedfordshire 0.36 6459 329
South
Bedfordshire 0.34 7037 370
South
Bedfordshire 0.32 7665 429
South
Bedfordshire 0.32 7917 457
South
Bedfordshire 0.30 8599 516
South
Bedfordshire 0.30 8650 527
South
Bedfordshire 0.29 8700 533
Mid
Bedfordshire 0.29 8983 563
Mid
Bedfordshire 0.27 9546 615
South
Bedfordshire 0.27 9591 618
South
Bedfordshire 0.27 9735 639
Figure 17
0-10% most deprived
10-20% most deprived
20-30% most deprived
31

Free School Meals
Children from families that receive; Income Support, Income-based Job Seeker’s
Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, support under part VI of
the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or the Guarantee element of the State Pension
Credit, are eligible for free school meals. The number of eligible children is often used in
the education sector as a measurement of deprivation.
Despite the fact that the number of children claiming free school meals is useful in
comparing data between schools and between areas, many more children are entitled to
claim free school meals than actually take-up free meals. It is estimated that in the UK
about 20% of children that are entitled to free school meals do not take them (Free school
meals, Child Poverty Action Group).
In Autumn term 2010 there were about 2,850 children in Central Bedfordshire claiming free
school meals.
Ward
No. Children
claiming Free
School Meals
% of Children
claiming Free
School Meals
Northfields 204 34.6
Houghton Regis 339 23.4
Watling 39 15.5
Grovebury 103 15.4
South West Bedfordshire 27 14.0
South East Bedfordshire 281 11.7
Biggleswade 187 10.4
Plantation 43 10.0
Icknield 80 8.9
Stotfold and Arlesey 114 8.7
Southcott 42 8.5
Sandy 246 8.0
Marston 30 7.5
Flitwick East 23 6.9
Dunstable Downs 186 6.8
Leighton Linslade Central 270 6.4
Maulden and Houghton
Conquest
28 5.9
32

Toddington 59 5.9
Barton 47 5.7
Silsoe and Shillington 25 5.4
Potton 37 5.1
Cranfield 38 4.7
Shefford 58 4.6
Flitwick West 50 4.5
Woburn and Harlington 113 4.5
Northill and Blunham 8 4.1
Langford and Henlow Village 104 3.7
Ampthill 73 3.0
Figure 18
% of Children claiming Free School Meals
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
%
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Northfields
Houghton Regis
Watling
Grovebury
South West Bedfordshire
South East Bedfordshire
Biggleswade
Plantation
Icknield
Stotfold and Arlesey
Southcott
Sandy
Marston
Flitwick East
Dunstable Downs
Leighton Linslade Central
Maulden and Houghton Conquest
Toddington
Barton
Silsoe and Shillington
Potton
Cranfield
Shefford
Flitwick West
Woburn and Harlington
Northill and Blunham
Langford and Henlow Village
Ampthill
Figure 19
33

20%
18%
16%
Central Bedfordshire
14%
12%
10%
8%
Prospering Smaller
Towns
East
6%
4%
2%
England
0%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Figure 20 – School pupils’ eligibility for Free School Meals
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Figure 21 – Change in % of school pupils eligible for free school meals
Generally, higher proportions on this indicator mean higher levels of child poverty in the
area, as eligibility for free school meals indicates that children are living in low income
households. However, take up of free school meals can be an important part of combating
child poverty through improving health and chances at educational success.
34

In Central Bedfordshire in 2009–10 the attendance rates for children on Free School Meals
compared to those who are not on Free School Meals were:
Upper
Not on FSM
FSM
93.0 87.3
Middle
Not on FSM
FSM
94.7 90.4
Lower
Not on FSM
FSM
95.1 91.7
All schools
Not on FSM
FSM
94.4 90.5
Figure 22
Children who have Free School Meals have attendance rates which are on average nearly
4% lower than children who do not; at Upper school lever the differential is nearly 6%.
Children who claim Free School Meals are a lot less likely to achieve 5 A* - C’s at GCSE
level.
5 A* - C 5 A* - C
including
English &
Maths
Any
Passes
Boys
FSM 25.5 15.2 91.2
Non-FSM 53.8 42.1 97.1
Girls
FSM 34.4 20.8 93.8
Non-FSM 64.2 50.9 98.1
Total
FSM 29.9 18.0 92.5
Non-FSM 58.9 46.4 97.6
Figure 23
35

Family Size
The national Households Below Average Income figures show that children in large
families, are more likely to live in low income households than children in smaller families,
with under three children. Larger families are more likely to be dependent on benefits for
longer periods of time and also the rate of worklessness in larger families is higher than for
parents in smaller families, often due to the affordability and availability of childcare
(Barnados 2006). The combination of childcare costs and having to co-ordinate between
childminders, schools and nurseries can act as a deterrent to parents of larger families
working. The proportion of large families has declined over the last 60 years; only a third of
children currently live in a family with three or more dependant children. Children in 4+
families make up 19% of all poor children. In 2004/05 50% of children in 4+ families were
defined as poor compared to 23% in one child families (Joseph Rowntree Foundation).
A child in a large family is between 50% and 180% more likely than a one-child family to be
poor and a child in a 4 or more family is between 280% and 800% more likely to be poor
than a one-child family. In Northern Ireland ¼ of all households have three or more
children; 43% of these are low income households.
59% of mothers with two children are employed compared to 14% of those with five or
more children. Mothers of five or more children earn on average £1.30 less an hour than
mothers with two children (Barnados 2006).
Fuel Poverty
Households are considered to be in ‘Fuel Poverty’ if they spend more than 10% of their
household income on fuel to keep their home in a satisfactory condition. It is therefore a
measure which compares income with what the fuel costs ‘should be’ rather than what they
actually are. Whether a household is in fuel poverty depends on a number of factors
including; the cost of energy, the energy efficiency of the property and the household
income.
36

Figure 24
Fuel poverty tends to affect specific groups including lone parents especially those with
young children, and the elderly.
In the UK the average household spends 3% of disposable income on fuel; however, some
people in fuel poverty can spend up to 20% of their income on fuel.
Those that are experiencing fuel poverty will usually spend more time at home, therefore
using more fuel to heat the house. Usually they have no money to invest in energy
efficiency measures or to improve their heating systems or live in privately rented
accommodation on short tenancies, so are not able to make any improvements.
Fuel Poverty data from the 2001 Census shows that Woburn (6.64%) is the ward with the
highest percentage of Fuel Poverty, followed by Dunstable Central (6.20%). The ward with
the least Fuel Poverty is All Saints (4.60%), followed by Linslade (4.86%). The propensity
of rural wards amongst the worst levels of fuel poverty is mainly due to the use of domestic
heating oil as the main fuel, as gas is not available.
Old Ward
% in Fuel
Poverty
No. of
Households in
Fuel Poverty
Woburn 6.64 1129
Dunstable Central 6.20 2031
Apsley Guise 6.09 985
37

Northill & Blunham 6.04 1788
Shillington, Stondon & Henlow Camp 6.01 1931
Parkside 6.00 1983
Houghton, Haynes, Southill & Old
Warden
5.96 1578
Flitton, Greenfield & Pulloxhill 5.96 786
Cranfield 5.96 1997
Sandy Ivel 5.93 1736
Arlsey 5.91 1996
Tithe Farm 5.90 1914
Stanbridge 5.83 895
Maulden & Clophill 5.82 1822
Houghton Hall 5.74 2718
Heath & Reach 5.73 845
Manshead 5.66 2102
Potton & Wensley 5.66 2773
Flitwick East 5.60 2144
Stotfold 5.59 2575
Marston 5.59 1914
Clifton & Meppershall 5.57 1671
Toddington 5.56 2031
Kensworth & Totternhoe 5.56 1835
Westoning & Tingrith 5.55 811
Biggleswade 5.55 6344
Shefford, Campton & Gravenhurst 5.52 2698
Ampthill 5.52 2825
Caddington, Hyde & Slip End 5.51 2522
Icknield 5.50 2363
Eaton Bray 5.50 1073
Northfields 5.48 2738
Sandy Pinnacle 5.44 2737
Langford & Henlow Village 5.42 1954
38

Watling 5.26 2604
Harlington 5.26 932
Barton-Le-Clay 5.22 1897
Flitwick West 5.22 2914
Silsoe 5.21 622
Streatley 5.17 949
Grovebury 5.17 2264
Chiltern 5.16 1840
Plantation 5.15 2408
Planets 4.98 1809
Southcott 4.95 2668
Linslade 4.86 1935
All Saints 4.60 2194
Figure 25
39

Figure 26 - Source: 2001 Census – Fuel Poverty by Output Area
The areas of Mid and South Bedfordshire are now Central Bedfordshire
Financial Exclusion
It is recognised that financial exclusion in the UK can occur due to many different barriers,
such as;
Lack of physical access to banking services
Conditions attached to products and services that make them inappropriate
Risk avoidance strategies of working in cash
Lack of literacy and numerous skills
Socio-cultural and generational habits
40

1.5 million households in the UK do not even have the basic financial products such as a
bank account (Joseph Rowntree Foundation). There are three million people in the UK
without bank accounts (Banking commission), 1 in 12 people in the UK do not have access
to a bank account of any kind (Financial Services Authority).
In the East of England;
28% have no savings account
4% have no current account
13% have been refused credit in the past
29% have no home contents insurance
47% have no credit cards
The poorest families in the UK pay higher prices than more financially wealthy families for
necessities like; gas, electric and banking. It has been calculated that the costs that the
poor families bear in acquiring cash and credit, and purchasing goods and services can
amount to a so-called ‘Poverty Premium’ of around £1,000; which is 9% of the disposable
income of an average-sized family.
Figure 27
41

Personal Debt
The level of personal debt and the associated problems are constantly increasing in Central
Bedfordshire and across the country as a whole. The figures below are enquires made to
the Citizens Advice Bureau Service across Central Bedfordshire in 2009/10 on a variety of
areas of Debt and Benefits.
Subject queries Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total %
Credit,store+chg card debts 276 272 345 460 1,353 10.40
Council Tax Benefit 177 183 247 308 915 7.03
Working+Child Tax Credits 169 181 238 286 874 6.72
Housing Benefit 169 189 205 272 835 6.42
Unsecd personal loan debts 169 154 214 246 783 6.02
Jobseekers Allowance 94 128 155 282 659 5.06
Other benefits issues 108 110 159 223 600 4.61
Income Support 122 133 142 143 540 4.15
Other 102 110 135 168 515 3.96
Council tax,comm.chg arrears 94 111 149 142 496 3.81
Mortgage+secd loan arrears 63 140 104 156 463 3.56
Bankruptcy 100 119 89 154 462 3.55
Bank+building soc.overdrafts 80 96 113 131 420 3.23
DLA-Care Component 36 100 117 121 374 2.87
Fuel debts 75 60 99 106 340 2.61
DLA-Mobility Component 71 92 96 76 335 2.57
Incapacity Benefit 88 89 69 52 298 2.29
Pension Credit 70 64 74 86 294 2.26
Catalogue+mail order debts 58 68 64 76 266 2.04
Water supply+sewerage debts 55 41 72 50 218 1.67
Attendance Allowance 43 51 52 56 202 1.55
Child Benefit 39 40 44 51 174 1.34
National Insurance 50 25 40 48 163 1.25
Carers Allowance 42 34 32 37 145 1.11
Telephone debts 34 27 38 38 137 1.05
Social Fund Loans-Crisis 24 26 22 35 107 0.82
Rent arrears-LAs or ALMOs 27 16 28 36 107 0.82
State Retirement Pension 30 27 21 25 103 0.79
42

Rent arrears-hsg assocs 17 24 26 32 99 0.76
Employment Support Allowance 1 1 36 59 97 0.75
Hire purchase arrears 16 8 26 24 74 0.57
3rd pty debt coln excl bailiffs 21 15 17 18 71 0.55
Private Bailiffs 16 11 14 22 63 0.48
Other legal remedies 14 13 10 24 61 0.47
Overpayments of WTC+CTC 9 14 18 12 53 0.41
Rent arrears-priv.landlords 13 12 12 11 48 0.37
Overpts.Hou+Council Tax Bens. 10 12 9 16 47 0.36
SF Community Care grants 7 14 9 10 40 0.31
Mag.Cts fines+comp.ord.arrears 6 8 13 13 40 0.31
Maint.+child support arrears 5 7 15 13 40 0.31
Social Fund Loans-Budgtg 4 7 13 14 38 0.29
Unpd parkg penalty+cong.chgs 7 11 9 5 32 0.25
Overpayments of IS+/or JSA 2 5 4 6 17 0.13
Social Fund debts 5 1 4 7 17 0.13
13,015
Figure 28
43

Parental Employment and Skills
The concept of Worklessness is a much more accurate indicator of the scale of nonparticipation
since it combines the two key groups outside the labour force – those who are
unemployed and those who economically inactive.
Worklessness has a negative impact on health, though the casual relationships are not
always clear. There seems to be a strong relationship between worklessness and
psychiatric morbidity, and some association between worklessness and mortality due to
health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and higher blood pressure (Health
Development Agency 2005).
It is estimated that 32,000 of Central Bedfordshire’s working age population of 160,400 in
2008/09 were workless; this is 20% of the working age population (Office of National
Statistics). While a majority of those who are economically inactive do not want a job, more
than 5,400 people who are not working and are not actively looking for a job do actually
want one. Combined with the 7,000 people who are unemployed and actively seeking work,
12,400 of the 32,000 workless (38.8%) do want to work.
Unemployment
Figure 29
During the recent economic recession there were still a number of vacancies being
reported to the Job Centre. The level of vacancies fluctuates significantly, though the trend
44

line indicated a gradual increase in the level of vacancies through the economic recession.
It must be noted that these vacancies only include those notified to Job Centre Plus and as
such does not reflect the total number of vacancies or demand for labour in the Central
Bedfordshire Economy.
Unemployment among young people is generally higher than among adults as a whole. Job
Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) is the main benefit for people of working age who are out of work
or working less than 16 hours a week on average. To be entitled to JSA you must be
actively seeking work, be aged between 18 and the State Pension age and work less than
16 hours a week. There are two types of JSA; Contribution JSA, which you can claim if
you’ve paid enough National Insurance contributions, and Income-based JSA, which is
based on income and savings. In July 2010, 1,065 people aged 18-24 were claiming JSA in
Central Bedfordshire; this equates to 27.1% of all JSA claimants. The age group with the
highest proportion increase in JSA claimants in Central Bedfordshire between January
2008 and July 2010 was the 40-44 age group; which saw a 229% increase. The 18-24 age
group saw a 99% increase over the same period.
Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET)
In January 2011 there were 227 young people aged 16-18 and 124 young people aged 19
in the NEET group. This has decreased since 2009 – 10.
April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
2009/10 6.0% 6.2% 6.5% 6.5% 6.8% 8.4% 6.9% 6.2% 6.4% 6.3% 5.5% 5.7%
2010/11 5.4% 5.1% 5.3% 5.1% 5.5% 5.2% 5.3% 4.9% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.1%
Figure 30
2010–2011
Target
5.0%
Figure 31
NEET Percentages for Young People aged 16-18 for Central Bedfordshire geographical
neighbours.
Local
Authority Area
April
2010
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
2011
Feb
Mar
Central
Bedfordshire
Bedford
Borough
5.4% 5.1% 5.3% 5.1% 5.5% 5.2% 5.3% 4.9% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.1%
5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 6.3% 6.9% 6.4% 6.2% 5.9% 6.1% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1%
Luton 7.1% 7.7% 7.7% 8.1% 8.0% 7.4% 7.5% 7.0% 6.3% 6.1% 6.5% 6.5%
45

Milton
Keynes
7.1% 7.4% 7.3% 7.4% 7.8% 6.8% 6.1% 5.4% 4.6% 5.2% 5.7% 6.2%
Figure 32
Central Bedfordshire has the lowest NEET percentage across all our Geographical
Neighbours. It also has the joint 2 nd lowest NEET percentage across all our Statistical
Neighbours.
Central Bedfordshire.
16-18 NEET % (adjusted).
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
Actual Numbers of NEET 16-18 year olds.
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct.
Nov
Figure 33
Dec
Jan
Feb
March
2009-2010
2010-2011
April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
2009/10 335 327 336 336 337 355 338 356 397 380 331 332
2010/11 302 267 274 256 263 257 250 249 224 227
Figure 34
46

Proportion of JSA by Age
25.0
Aged under 17
20.0
Aged 17
Aged 18
15.0
Aged 19
Aged 20-24
%
10.0
Aged 25-29
Aged 30-34
Aged 35-39
5.0
Aged 40-44
Aged 45-49
0.0
Jan-08
Apr-08
Jul-08
Oct-08
Jan-09
Apr-09
Jul-09
Oct-09
Jan-10
Apr-10
Jul-10
Aged 50-54
Aged 55-59
Aged 60 and over
Figure 35 - The proportion of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance by Age
Previous research showed that the majority of children in poverty were living in workless
families. However, this has now reversed and a recent survey shows that the majority of
children living in poverty now have at least one parent in work (Ending child poverty in a
changing economy, report by Donald Hirsch, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, February
2009).
In 1995/96 the proportion of children in poverty whose families were out of work was 60%,
but in 2006/07 the figures showed that 47% have non-working parents and 52% of children
in poverty now have one or both parents in work. This trend is confirmed recently with the
latest Housing Below Average Income figures released by the Government showing that in
2008-2009, 61% of children in poverty have at least one parent in work.
Qualifications
Central Bedfordshire has a higher proportion of working age people with at least NVQ1
qualifications (1 GCSE or similar) compared to both the East of England and England. The
proportion with NVQ4 or above (degree or similar) was also higher in Central Bedfordshire
than for the East of England (Office of National Statistics).
47

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Central Bedfordshire
Prospering Smaller
Towns
East
England
Figure 36 - shows pupils achieving 5+ A* - C GCSE’s (shaded sections represent those achieving 5+ A – C GCSE’s
including English and Maths) 2009 - 2010
In Central Bedfordshire 72.4% of pupils achieve 5+ A* - C GCSE’s, compared to 74.3% of
the East of England and 76.1% of England. However a higher percentage of Central
Bedfordshire pupils achieve 5 A* - C GCSE’s including English and Maths 55.9% compared
to 55.1% of England pupils.
The proportion of 19 year olds achieving National Qualification Framework level 3 (2 A
Levels or equivalent) is higher in Central Bedfordshire than in England and slightly higher
than the East of England.
55%
50%
Central Bedfordshire
45%
40%
East
35%
England
30%
19 in 2005 19 in 2006 19 in 2007 19 in 2008 19 in 2009 19 in 2010
Figure 37 – Proportion of 19 year olds achieving NQF Level 3
48

The census in 2001 showed that a fifth of working age people in Central Bedfordshire had
no formal qualifications. This was more pronounced among certain BME groups, such as
Chinese, White Irish, Pakistani and Bangladeshi (Office of National Statistics).
%
35.0
33.0
31.0
29.0
27.0
25.0
23.0
21.0
19.0
17.0
15.0
Central Bedfordshire
Great Britain
East
South East
2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 38 - Source: NOMIS - % of working age with Level 4 Qualification
The Bedfordshire and Luton Business Survey reports that 27% of businesses have skills
shortages and 1 in 5 experienced difficulties in the areas of technical; practical or job
specific skills; problem solving skills; and communication skills, managerial skills and
literacy.
Almost 1 in 3 of businesses reported skills gaps in their existing workforce. These were
prevalent in; technical, practical or job specific skills (58%); customer handling skills (58%);
team working skills (52%); problem solving skills (52%); oral communication skills (51%)
and management skills (47%).
Work related training & Qualifications
The All Ages Skills Strategy shows that the proportion of Central Bedfordshire residents
receiving job-related training is just above the regional average but below the average for
the whole of the South East and England. The 2010 Bedfordshire and Luton Business
Survey found that 40% of businesses had funded or arranged training over the previous
twelve months. The survey also found that training is most likely to be funded in the hotels
and catering sector and least likely to be funded in the transport, post and
telecommunications sector. Females tend to receive more work related training than males.
Levels of training are consistently higher in the public sector.
In Central Bedfordshire the number of Train to Gain starts has decreased from 2,810 in
2008/09 to 2,120 in 2009/10. The number of achievements increased from 1,700 in
2008/09 to 1,800 in 2009/10.
49

According to the Education, Skills and Training domain of 2007 Indices of Multiple
Deprivation, Central Bedfordshire has 11 lower super output areas that fell within most
deprived 20% nationally. This includes Houghton Regis, Dunstable, Leighton Buzzard,
Sandy and Flitwick. As seen below 51% of students in Central Bedfordshire achieved 5 A*-
C grades at GCSE. However only 27% of students have achieved 5 A*-C’s in Sandy and
Northfields and 34.2% of students in Houghton Regis achieved this.
Percentage of Children achieving GCSE's 5 A*-C
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Central Bedfordshire
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Ickneild
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton-Linsdale
Maulden & Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill & Blunham
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe & Shillington
South East Beds
South West Beds
Southcott
Stotfold & Arlesley
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Figure 39 - Data from Insight team Central Bedfordshire Council 2010 – Data from Cranfield & Marston Not Available
Overall, Central Bedfordshire performs well qualification-wise. In 2009 29.9% of working
age residents in Central Bedfordshire were qualified to level 4. This is above the regional
average of 27.3% and equal to the national average. However, this is below the average of
Central Bedfordshire’s statistical neighbours.
8.2% of the resident working age population have no qualifications which is below the
regional (11.3%) and national (12.3%) averages.
Increased training for 14-16 year olds & more apprenticeships
The growth in the number of apprenticeship starts is slower in Central Bedfordshire than in
many other local authorities. There has even been a reduction in the number of 16-18 year
olds starting an apprenticeship.
The most popular apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds in Central Bedfordshire include;
business administration; hairdressing; construction; hospitality and catering; industrial
applications; vehicle maintenance and repair; childcare learning and development; IT and
50

telecoms professional; customer service, and engineering. The numbers of these
apprenticeships has remained quite constant in Central Bedfordshire over recent years.
Employment Opportunities
In Central Bedfordshire the economic activity are higher than the England average.
In March 2011 the highest amount of job vacancies advertised by Job Centre Plus were in
the Real estate, renting and business activities industry (420). The number of job vacancies
advertised by Job Centre Plus in March 2011 had risen to 829 from 625 in March 2010 and
618 in March 2009.
Industry
March
2009
March
2010
March
2011
Agriculture, hunting and forestry 3 1 1
Fishing 0 0 0
Mining and quarrying 0 0 0
Manufacturing 23 36 55
Electricity, gas and water supply 0 9 8
Construction 9 44 43
Wholesale and retail trade 68 62 78
Hotels and restaurants 17 30 28
Transport, storage and communication 18 29 32
Financial intermediation 4 8 24
Real estate, renting and business
activities
Public administration and defence;
compulsory social security
317 289 420
93 5 18
Education 2 14 21
Health and social work 44 39 72
Other community, social and personal
service activities
Private households with employed
persons
17 17 28
1 0 1
Extra-territorial organisation and bodies 2 42 0
Total 618 625 829
Figure 40 - Job Centre Plus 2011
51

There is a continuing mismatch between the job opportunities available and the types of
vacancies unemployed people are seeking.
Occupation
Vacancies
Notified
Occupation
Sought
Sales and retail assistants 4 85
General office assistants/clerks 2 65
Other goods handling and storage
occupations
Labourers in building and woodworking
trades
3 50
6 25
Van drivers 8 15
Fork-lift truck drivers 2 15
Labourers in other construction trades 1 15
Packers, bottlers, canners, fillers 0 15
Chefs, cooks 8 10
Cleaners, domestic 8 10
Figure 41 - Leighton Buzzard JCP – Top 10 occupations sought
Occupation
Vacancies
Notified
Occupation
Sought
Sales and retail assistants 13 250
Other goods handling and storage
occupations
3 200
General office assistants/clerks 2 130
Van drivers 10 80
Packers, bottlers, canners, fillers 0 80
Labourers in building and woodworking
trades
11 55
Retail cashiers and check-out operators 1 45
Care assistants and home carers 142 40
Fork-lift truck drivers 9 35
Cleaners, domestics 14 30
Figure 42 - Dunstable JCP – Top 10 occupations sought
52

Occupation
Vacancies
Notified
Occupation
Sought
Sales and retail assistants 7 120
General office assistants/clerks 10 55
Other goods handling and storage
occupations
11 55
Van drivers 10 30
Packers, bottlers, canners, fillers 0 25
Retail cashiers and check-out operators 1 25
Cleaners, domestics 16 25
Gardeners ad
groundsmen/groundswomen
Labourers in building and woodworking
trades
Labourers in process and plant
operations
1 20
1 20
11 20
Figure 43 - Biggleswade JCP – Top 10 occupations sought
Data for Bedfordshire from October 2010 showed a significant number of people interested
in sales and retail assistant work; work as general office assistants/clerks; and other goods
handling and storage occupations. The number of vacancies in these occupations was
significantly lower than the level of interest in occupations such as care assistants and
home carers; sales representatives; heavy goods vehicle drivers and postal workers and
mail sorters.
Childcare
For families to be able to move from worklessness into paid employment and training, it is
essential to have a sufficient supply of affordable and accessible childcare in place.
The National Childcare Strategy was released in 1998, since then the Governments have
acknowledged the importance of childcare with regards to tackling child poverty. Although
providing more adequate childcare is a high priority, it is interesting to note that the latest
figures show that the UK government investment is a quarter of the relative amount invest
by Denmark into early childhood education and care and about a third of the investment by
Sweden and Norway (Starting Strong II, OECD, 2006). Despite the fact that progress has
been made since these figures were published, parents on low incomes still report a
shortage of affordable childcare places. A 2007 national survey found that half of parents
53

not using childcare reported “childcare is too expensive” as the reason (Findings from
“Listening to Families” research, Daycare Trust 2007).
In order to ensure that parents can access Childcare when they need it at a reasonable
price the recommendations from the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment are that Central
Bedfordshire Council should:
Continue to build on the strengths of its structures framework for planning child care
services
Promote awareness of childminders as a flexible source of childcare for unconventional
hours
Raise awareness of Tax Credits available to help with childcare costs through
professionals working with parents and children
Continue work to inform parents about the childcare options available to them, to enable
parent to make informed choices. Support should continue to be offered to parents who
are experiencing issues sourcing childcare to meet their needs through the Family
Youth Information Service, Central Bedfordshire website and Children’s Centres
Consider potential geographical gaps that have been highlighted in the assessment due
to housing development into the future and ensure that these gaps are filled when the
housing comes on stream
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Central Bedfordshire East England
Figure 44 - Young children per registered childcare place, March 2011-06-28
54

Mar-11
Central Bedfordshire 4.8
East 4.7
England 4.7
Figure 45 – Number of young children per registered childcare place
Central Bedfordshire has just slightly more young children per registered childcare place.
Evidence suggests that there is a lack of childcare in deprived areas and areas with higher
levels of child poverty. However, availability of registered childcare is also dependent on
whether families with young children live in urban or rural areas, with urban areas tending
to offer more registered/formal childcare opportunities.
55

Life Chances
Disability
Families who are affected by disability are at greater risk of being in persistent poverty.
These families are pushed into poverty by the additional costs of disability. Parents in
families with a child with disabilities are less likely to work and those that do work are more
likely to be in low paid work.
1 in 3 children in poverty has a parent with a self-reported disability or a longstanding
health condition. Families with children who have disabilities are 50% more likely to be in
debt and only 16% of mothers with children who have disabilities work, compared to 61% of
mothers whose children do not have disabilities (Barnados 2006).
In Central Bedfordshire it is estimated that there are currently 480 children who have
significant disabilities including; Autism; Severe Learning Difficulties; Physical Difficulties;
Profound Hearing Loss; Sever Visual; Multiple Complex disabilities. Data is not yet
collected on how many adults with a disability are in families with children.
There is a close correlation between Poverty and Disability. Children living in families
where there is disability are more likely to be living in poverty than families with no disability
(The national Households Below Average Income figures (Department for Work and
Pensions 2006).
A child with disabilities in the family can mean that one or both parents are unable to work
full-time in order that they can carry out caring responsibilities for example attending at
frequent medical appointments. It can also result in additional expenditure for equipment. If
a parent or carer has a disability, or has a long-term illness, this can directly affect their
ability to work and thus the level of income for the household.
Debt amongst families with disabilities is often higher as the extra costs of disability mean
that benefit income is below that needed. (Response to HM Treasury on the “Long-term
opportunities and challenges to the UK: Analysis for the 2007 Comprehension Spending
Review”, Disability Benefits Consortium, 2007). Research from the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation has indicated that the cost of bringing up a child with a severe disability is at
least three times the cost of bringing up a child without a disability (The cost of childhood
disability, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, July 1998).
Recent research has confirmed that the links between poverty and disability are enhanced
through the generations i.e. that poverty can contribute towards a possibility of disability in
the next generation. For example, for a pregnant woman living in a family with a poor diet
and stressful living condition such as overcrowding, there is a greater chance of a
premature birth and low birth weight for their babies, which can be indicators of future
56

disability. (Prevalence of childhood disability and the circumstances of disabled children in
the UK, Blackburn, Spencer and Read, (Warwick University), April 2010).
Children in Need
A relatively small number of children are known to be at risk of abuse or neglect. In Central
Bedfordshire the prevalence of children identified as Children in Need and as Children in
Need of Protection has risen significantly since April 2010. There are over 1,400 children in
Central Bedfordshire that are; Children in Need, on Child Protection Plan’s, or are Looked
After Children. A lot of these children are in the Dunstable/Houghton Regis area.
The rate per 10,000 of children in the population assessed as being Children in Need at
31/10/2011 is 248. This is below the reported position of statistical neighbour authorities. It
represents a 5.8% in year increase and there is a discernable continuing upward trend.
Rate of Children in Need per 10,000 year ending 31/10/11
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Nov-
10
Dec-
10
Jan-
11
Feb-
11
Mar-
11
CBC 230 226 234 233 241 237 255 255 265 267 268 248
SN Av 10/11 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
Eng Av 10/11 343 343 343 343 343 343 343 343 343 343 343 343
Apr-
11
May-
11
Jun-
11
Jul-11 Aug-
11
Sep-
11
Oct-
11
Figure 46 – Rates of Children in Need per 10,000 year ending 31/10/11
The rate per 10,000 children in the population who are the subject of a Child Protection
Plan at 31/10/2011 is 38. This is a little above the 2011 reported position of statistical
neighbouring authorities, although there is evidence of similar national and regional trend
during 2009/10. It represents a 29% in a year increase and there is a discernable
continuing upward trend.
57

Rate of Children Subject to a Child Protection Plan per 10,000
year ending 31/10/11
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Nov-
10
Dec-
10
Jan-
11
Feb-
11
Mar-
11
CBC 31 30 30 30 32 29 31 35 36 37 34 38
SN Av 10/11 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
Eng Av 10/11 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Apr-
11
May-
11
Jun-
11
Jul-11 Aug-
11
Sep-
11
Oct-
11
Figure 47 - Rate of children with a Child Protection Plan per 10,000 year ending 31/10/11
The rate per 10,000 of children in the population who are Looked After (in Care) at
31/10/2011 is 34. This is significantly lower than the neighbourhood authorities but it
represents an 8.9% in a year increase.
Rate of Children Looked After per 10,000 year ending 31/10/11
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nov-
10
Dec-
10
Jan-
11
Feb-
11
Mar-
11
CBC 32 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 32 34 34 34
SN Av 10/11 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Eng Av 10/11 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
Apr-
11
May-
11
Jun-
11
Jul-11 Aug-
11
Sep-
11
Oct-
11
Figure 48 – Rate of Children Looked After per 10,000 year ending 31/10/11
58

Due to the sensitivity of this data we are unable to report the wards these children live in;
however the numbers in each sub-area can be seen below. Dunstable and Houghton Regis
has the highest number in each area.
CBC Sub-Area at 31/03/2011 CIN LAC CPP
Dunstable & Houghton Regis 460 65 45
Leighton Linslade 205 20 45
Rural Mid Bedfordshire 305 30 35
Sandy & Biggleswade 220 25 25
Other Areas 230 35 20
Total 1420 175 180
Figure 49
Ethnicity
The national Households Below Average Income figures show that children living in ethnic
minority households are more likely to be living in poverty. In 2006 67% of Pakistani and
Bangladeshi families, 51% of black and black British children and 48% of children in
Chinese or other ethnic groups live in poverty; compared to 27% of white children (DWP
2006). However work is not always a way out of poverty, as ethnic minorities do not, in
general, get jobs that their qualification levels justify; 54% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi
children in working households are in poverty compared to 12% of white children.
Employment rates vary with different ethnicities; 72% of white women are economically
active but only 27% of Bangladeshi women are (Equal Opportunities Commission 2006).
In Central Bedfordshire White ethnic groups make up 96% of school age population.
At ward level Cranfield has the highest proportion of non-white population (10%), due
mainly to the presence of the University, many of whose foreign students are resident,
temporarily, in the area. 7.1% of the population of Houghton Regis is non-white, followed by
5.4% in Woburn and Harlington as indicated on map at fig 50.
In terms of breakdown of the population by ward in Central Bedfordshire, the 2001 Census
provides the latest information.
59

Figure 50
No. people in ethnic groups
White
Other
Ward British Irish Other Total White Asian or
Asian
British
Black or
Black
British
Chinese or
other ethnic
group
Mixed
Total
Non-
White
Central
Bedfordshire
219666 3081 4597 227344 2079 1144 1044 2108 6375
Ampthill 6558 72 141 6771 42 9 21 46 118
60

% 95.2 1 2 98.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.7
Barton 6566 128 85 6779 67 45 42 52 206
% 94 1.8 1.2 97 1 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.9
Biggleswade 14709 120 189 15018 133 39 51 90 313
% 95.9 0.8 1.2 97.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.6 2.1
Cranfield 4641 56 341 5038 90 54 158 77 379
% 85.7 1 6.3 93 1.7 1 2.9 1.4 7
Dunstable
Downs
13039 277 265 13581 182 74 66 137 459
% 92.9 2 1.9 96.8 1.3 0.5 0.5 1 3.3
Flitwick East 7061 98 119 7278 27 27 23 74 151
% 95 1.3 1.6 97.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 1 2.1
Flitwick West 7179 87 142 7408 24 15 18 52 109
% 95.5 1.2 1.9 98.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.4
Grovebury 5348 77 209 5634 51 12 29 36 128
% 92.8 1.3 3.6 97.7 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.6 2.2
Houghton
Regis
15438 399 213 16050 322 278 87 255 942
% 90.9 2.3 1.3 94.5 1.9 1.6 0.5 1.5 5.5
Icknield 5733 170 134 6037 133 39 21 70 263
% 91 2.7 2.1 95.8 2.1 0.6 0.3 1.1 4.1
Langford &
Henlow Village
7101 52 130 7283 50 6 14 75 145
% 95.6 0.7 1.7 98 0.7 0.1 0.2 1 2
Leighton
Linslade
Central
13205 190 380 13775 58 54 51 167 330
% 93.6 1.3 2.7 97.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 2.4
Marston 4526 61 123 4710 31 27 31 36 125
% 93.6 1.3 2.5 97.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.5
Maulden &
Houghton
Conquest
6737 62 95 6894 42 18 16 42 118
% 96.1 0.9 1.4 98.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.7
Northfields 6440 119 126 6685 50 18 27 56 151
% 94.2 1.7 1.8 97.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 2.2
Northill &
Blunham
5570 39 97 5706 40 9 18 31 98
% 96 0.7 1.7 98.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.7
Plantation 6910 95 118 7123 61 44 20 64 189
% 94.5 1.3 1.6 97.4 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.9 2.6
61

Potton 6540 28 177 6745 28 12 9 36 85
% 95.8 0.4 2.6 98.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.2
Sandy 10368 95 158 10621 73 48 68 119 308
% 94.9 0.9 1.4 97.2 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.1 2.8
Shefford 7491 71 147 7709 49 38 39 65 191
% 94.8 0.9 1.9 97.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 2.4
Silsoe &
Shillington
6782 69 172 7023 57 66 30 82 235
% 93.5 0.9 2.4 96.8 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.1 3.2
South East
Beds
7133 130 144 7407 39 41 14 74 168
% 94.2 1.7 1.9 97.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3
South West
Beds
6387 81 140 6608 64 30 18 50 162
% 94.3 1.2 2.1 97.6 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.7 2.3
Southcott 6520 81 140 6741 42 15 27 72 156
% 94.5 1.2 2 97.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 1 2.2
Stotfold &
Arlesey
10361 111 161 10633 123 50 56 88 317
% 94.6 1 1.5 97.1 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.8 2.9
Toddington 6177 89 86 6352 51 25 30 32 138
% 95.2 1.4 1.3 97.9 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.2
Watling 6242 95 109 6446 85 18 45 64 212
% 93.8 1.4 1.6 96.8 1.3 0.3 0.7 1 3.3
Woburn &
Harlington
8904 129 256 9289 66 33 15 66 180
% 94 1.4 2.7 98.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.9
Figure 51 – 2001 Ethnicity Census figures
2.3
0.9
Ethnicity of School Age Children
0.3
0.4
0.1
White
Mixed
Asian
Black
Chinese
Other
96.0
Figure 52 - Central Bedfordshire data from 2001 Census
62

Nationally children from differing ethnicities have different levels of academic achievement.
Overall nationally children of Chinese origin achieve the highest percentage of 5 A*-C’s at
GCSE level (81%), 99% of Chinese children nationally achieve any pass at GCSE level.
The ethnic minority that achieve the lowest percentage of 5 A*-C’s were the Black children
(44.7%), less than 1 in 3 of black children achieved 5 A*-C’s including English & Maths.
However overall Black children had a higher percentage of getting any passes than White
children (96.8%) and mixed children (96.4%).
Ethnicity 5 A* - C 5 A* - C including
English & Maths
Any
Passes
White 55.1 43.0 96.8
Mixed 54.6 41.9 96.4
Asian 58.7 44.0 98.4
Black 44.7 30.7 97.3
Chinese 81.0 68.8 99.0
Any other ethnic group 54.0 40.3 96.9
All Pupils 54.9 42.5 96.9
Figure 53 - All Pupils GCSE grades – DSCF 2007
Nationally the average for girls achieving 5 A* - C’s at GCSE level is 60% which is higher
than both boys (49.9%) and all pupils (54.9%). The ethnicity to have the highest percentage
of girls achieving 5 A* - C’s at GCSE level is Chinese (85.1%). The ethnicity with the lowest
percentage of girls achieving 5 A* – C’s is Black (51.4%).
Ethnicity - Girls 5 A* - C 5 A* - C including
English & Maths
Any
Passes
White 60.2 47.1 97.4
Mixed 59.9 46.2 97.3
Asian 64.3 48.4 98.7
Black 51.4 36.0 98.1
Chinese 85.1 75.2 99.4
Any other ethnic group 59.1 44.8 97.2
All Pupils 60.0 46.7 97.5
Figure 54 - Girls GCSE grades – DSCF 2007
The highest percentage of academic achievement is seen in boys of Chinese origin, with
77.1% achieving 5 A* - C which is a lot higher than the average of 49.9%. Whereas boys of
63

Black origins achieved the lowest with only 37.7% achieving 5 A* - C and only 25.2%
achieving 5 A* - C including English & Maths.
Ethnicity - Boys 5 A* - C 5 A* - C including
English & Maths
Any
Passes
White 50.3 39.0 96.2
Mixed 49.0 37.3 95.4
Asian 53.4 39.8 98.1
Black 37.7 25.2 96.6
Chinese 77.1 62.8 98.7
Any other ethnic group 49.3 36.3 96.5
All Pupils 49.9 38.4 96.3
Figure 55 – Boys GCSE grades – DSCF 2007
Traveller Families
The bi-annual Count of Gypsy and Traveller Caravans in July 2010 calculates there are
18,146 caravans in England; 14,510 of these caravans are on authorised sites with
planning permission and 3,646 are on unauthorised sites without planning permission.
In the East of England in July 2010 there were 4,180 caravans on authorised sites and 563
are on unauthorised sites.
In Central Bedfordshire in July 2010 there were 271 caravans; 47 of these are socially
rented, 161 are on authorised sites with planning permission and 68 are on unauthorised
sites without planning permission which the gypsies own.
In Central Bedfordshire there are 21 Traveller sites which are a mixture of private and local
authority sites;
Greenvale (A5) – Dunstable
Ashtree Paddocks – Billington
Stanbridge Road – Billington
Timberlands – Pepperstock
The Stables (1) –Greenacres/Todbury Farm/Slapton – Little Billington
The Stables (2) – Billington
Potton
Cartwheel – Sandy
Magpie Farm – Sandy
64

Chiltern View – Eaton Bray
Jockey Farm (A5) – Dunstable
Eversholt Beeches –Dunstable
Hermitage Lane – Greenfield
Pulloxhill
Great North Road (Talamanca)
Hatch
Chesnut Acres
Arlesey
Evergreen – Tilsworth
Little Acres – Pepperstock
Paradise Farm – Clophill
Statutory school
age
Out of School
Post 16 (est) + Elective
Home Education
428 70 129
Figure 56 Number of Gypsy Roma Traveller children in Central Bedfordshire
In Central Bedfordshire in 2009-10 the attendance rates for Traveller children compared
with that of all children were:
Upper Schools
All children
Travellers (White
Irish Traveller)
Travellers
(Gypsy Roma)
92.7 53.6 78.8
Middle Schools
All children
Travellers (White
Irish Traveller)
Travellers
(Gypsy Roma)
94.4 58.2 73.7
Lower Schools
All children
Travellers (White
Irish Traveller)
Travellers
(Gypsy Roma)
94.8 74.8 79.7
65

All children
All schools
Travellers (White
Irish Traveller)
Travellers
(Gypsy Roma)
94.1 66.1 77.4
Figure 57
The attendance of White Irish Traveller children is 28% lower than the average attendance,
while the attendance of Gypsy Roma children is nearly 17% lower than the average
attendance.
The percentage of Travellers of Irish Heritage and Roma Gypsy children in the UK
achieving 5 A* - C at GCSEs is a lot less than the National Average of 54.9% and the
percentage of children in these minority groups achieving 5 A* - C including English and
Maths is even lower. Less than 10% of Roma Gypsy children achieve 5 A* - C including
Maths and English. The percentage for Travellers of Irish Heritage achieving any passes in
30% lower than the national average and Roma/Gypsy achieve 30% lower than the
national average.
% achieving 5
A* - C
% achieving 5 A* - C
including English &
Maths
% achieving
any passes
Traveller of Irish
Heritage
22.5 20.7 69.4
Gypsy/Roma 14.7 9.1 77.6
All Pupils 54.9 42.5 96.9
Figure 58 – DSCF 2007
% achieving 5
A* - C
% achieving 5 A* – C
including English &
Maths
% achieving
any passes
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Traveller of Irish
Heritage
22.9 22.2 22.9 19.0 60.4 76.2
Gypsy/Roma 7.9 20.0 6.3 11.3 74.6 80.0
All Pupils 49.9 60.0 38.4 46.7 96.3 97.5
Figure 59 - DSCF 2007
When broken down into gender the percentage of Roma Gypsy girls achieving 5 A*-C’s at
GCSE is higher than for Roma Gypsy boys. However, for Travellers of Irish Heritage the
trend is the opposite; boys achieve slightly better than girls when it comes to achieving 5
A*-C (both including and excluding English & Maths) but girl Travellers of White Irish
Heritage achieve more passes over all than boys (76.2 & 60.4% respectively).
66

Lone Parents
The risk of poverty for children in lone-parent families is a lot higher than for children in two
parent families. 50% of children in lone parent households are living below the poverty line
compared to 23% of children from two parent families (DWP 2006). Due to the high rates of
worklessness among the population of lone parents in the UK, it is the country with the
second highest child poverty rates in the EU (Barnados 2007).
11% of lone parent families survive on a gross weekly income or £100 a week or less; with
41% living on gross weekly incomes of £200 a week or less.
34% of Lone Parent Households are living in Poverty according to the Households Below
Income. Lone Parents are more likely than other adults of their age to be living on social
housing, have a child under 5 years old, have low qualifications and be claiming sickness
and disability benefits (Barnados 2007).
The highest levels of lone parenthood in Central Bedfordshire are in Houghton Regis (784
households), Dunstable Downs (622 households) and Leighton Linslade Central (568
households). However when this is calculated as a percentage of households in the Ward
Northfields has the highest (11.79%), followed by Houghton Regis (11.72%) and Dunstable
Downs (10.35%).
Number of Lone Parents
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Cranfield
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Icknield
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton Linslade Central
Marston
Maulden and Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill and Blunham
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe and Shillington
South East Bedfordshire
South West Bedfordshire
Southcott
Stotfold and Arlesey
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Figure 60
67

Percentage of Lone Parent Households
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Cranfield
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Icknield
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton Linslade Central
Marston
Maulden and Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill and Blunham
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe and Shillington
South East Bedfordshire
South West Bedfordshire
Southcott
Stotfold and Arlesey
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Figure 61
68

Figure 62
Divorce Rate
The table below shows the percentage of marriages that end in divorce in England and
Wales for different years. The divorce rate peaks between 25 – 34 years old and decreases
in the following years. Overall divorce rate has decreased in most age groups from 2002 –
2006.
69

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-59
2006
Male 22.5 26.9 25.7 23.5 21.1 17.3 9.8
Female 25.1 28.0 24.4 22.7 19.6 14.9 7.4
2005
Male 24.9 28.3 27.2 24.8 22.4 18.2 10.0
Female 27.9 28.8 26.2 23.9 20.6 15.4 7.5
2004
Male 25.9 30.3 30.0 27.2 23.6 18.6 10.4
Female 29.1 31.7 28.9 25.7 21.5 15.8 7.8
2003
Male 25.8 30.3 30.0 27.0 23.4 17.9 10.0
Female 29.6 31.4 29.1 25.5 21.0 15.0 7.3
2002
Male 24.5 29.1 29.2 25.9 21.5 16.7 9.2
Female 28.3 30.3 28.3 24.0 19.1 13.8 6.8
Figure 63
One or more children aged under 16
All divorces
Year of
divorce
No. of
couples
No. of
children
aged 16 or
over
No. of
children
aged under
16
No. of
couples
No. of
children
aged 16 or
over
No. of
children
aged
under 16
2009 56,695 19,068 99,543 113,949 54,202 99,543
2008 60,794 19,840 106,753 121,708 57,062 106,753
2007 65,830 20,896 116,819 128,131 59,987 116,819
Figure 64 - England and Wales - HMRC
Within households, child poverty can also be associated with a change in family
circumstances, such as a relationship breakdown (Families and children 2001: living
standards and the children. DWP 2003). Families who face barriers to support and services
that they need to cope with these transitions can fall into poverty.
Figures for family breakdown in Central Bedfordshire have not been identified.
Attendance rates
Central Bedfordshire has seen a slight fall in attendance between 2008/09 and 2009/10.
The following tables show the percentages of children attending schools.
70

2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010
Upper 92.8 92.7
Middle 94.4 94.4
Lower 94.9 94.8
LA Overall 94.12 94.08
Figure 65
The attendance decreases as the age of children increases once the child reaches year 5
as is shown below:
Year 1 94.2
Year 2 94.9
Year 3 95.0
Year 4 95.0
Year 5 94.9
Year 6 94.6
Year 7 94.1
Year 8 93.9
Year 9 93.4
Year 10 92.5
Year 11 92.2
Figure 66
The specific categories of absenteeism are accounted for as follows:
Lower Middle Upper
Illness 3.62 3.93 4.43
Medical 0.26 0.37 0.48
Religious 0.02 0.01 0.01
Study 0.00 0.00 0.07
Traveller 0.04 0.10 0.05
Holiday (Auth) 0.33 0.24 0.12
Holiday (Unauth) 0.15 0.13 0.13
Extended Holiday 0.00 0.01 0.00
71

Exclusion 0.01 0.06 0.15
Other Authorised 0.35 0.36 0.54
Late (Unauth) 0.04 0.03 0.26
Unauthorised 0.26 0.36 0.96
No reason given 0.03 0.03 0.11
Figure 67
The above tables show that Lower and Middle schools still authorise a significant amount of
absences for family holidays during term time. “Other authorised circumstances” still
account for a significant proportion of absences, especially in Upper schools.
6.6%
6.4%
Central Bedfordshire
6.2%
6.0%
Prospering Smaller
Towns
5.8%
East
5.6%
5.4%
England
5.2%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Figure 68 - School absence as a proportion of total pupil half days
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Central Bedfordshire 5.8 - 5.8 5.9
Prospering Smaller
Towns 6.0 5.7 5.8 5.7
East 6.4 6.1 6.1 5.9
England 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.0
Figure 69 - School absence as a proportion of total pupil half days (%)
72

Absence is likely to affect educational attainment, which has been shown to be strongly
associated with child poverty. Children from poor families are also more likely to record
unauthorised absence from school than children from higher income groups. The shaded
sections of the bars on the graph below show the proportion of unauthorised absences.
Although there is the same percentage of absences in Central Bedfordshire as in the East
of England, there are less unauthorised absences.
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Central
Bedfordshire
Prospering Smaller
Towns
East
England
Figure 70 - School absence as a proportion of total pupil half days 2009-10
2009-10
Central Bedfordshire 13.5
Prospering Smaller Towns 13.0
East 15.5
England 17.2
Figure 71 - Proportion of school absence that is unauthorised (%)
73

In Central Bedfordshire in 2009 – 2010 the attendance rate (%) for boys and girls are as
follows:
Upper
Boys
Girls
93.1 92.2
Middle
Boys
Girls
94.3 94.4
Lower
Boys
Girls
94.8 94.8
All Schools
Boys
Girls
94.2 94.0
Figure 72
In gender terms no real difference in attendance is seen until Upper School when girl’s
attendance drops one percent lower than the attendance of boys.
In Central Bedfordshire in 2009-2010 the attendance rates for children with SEN compared
to those without SEN were:
Upper
Without SEN SA SA + Statement
93.5 90.4 86.1 91.3
Middle
Without SEN SA SA + Statement
94.9 93.0 91.3 92.2
Lower
Without SEN SA SA + Statement
95.3 93.2 92.3 91.9
All Schools
Without SEN SA SA + Statement
94.2 92.3 90.4 91.8
Figure 73
74

Children with SEN have attendance rates significantly lower than children without SEN. The
attendance differential is most marked for children at School Action Plus, particularly at the
Upper phase.
Exclusion rates
In 2009-2010 1,512 students from Central Bedfordshire were excluded for a fixed term and
77 were permanently excluded. 168 (11%) of the 1,512 fixed term exclusions were Lower
school children; 371 (25%) were Middle school children; 878 (58%) were from Upper
schools and 95 (6%) were from Special schools. 10 (13%) of the 77 permanent exclusions
were from Upper schools; 16 (21%) were from Middle schools and 51 (66%) were from
Upper schools. The exclusions are broken down into year groups below. In some
categories students opted not to specify their ethnicity/gender etc.
Lower
Reception 1
Year 1 2
Year 2 2
Year 3 0
Year 4 1
Middle
Year 5 4
Year 6 6
Year 7 5
Year 8 5
Upper
Year 9 18
Year 10 22
Year 11 11
Permanent Exclusions 2009-2010 – Figure 74
Lower
75

Reception 23
Year 1 18
Year 2 42
Year 3 45
Year 4 40
Middle
Year 5 45
Year 6 65
Year 7 108
Year 8 153
Upper
Year 9 248
Year 10 382
Year 11 234
Year 12 13
Year 13 1
Special
Year 6 7
Year 7 3
Year 8 22
Year 9 23
Year 10 29
Year 11 11
Fixed Term Exclusions 2009-2010 - Figure 75
More males get excluded, both fixed term and permanent, in Central Bedfordshire, than
females. The number of males being excluded on a fixed term basis is over double the
number of females, in every school tier. The majority of permanent exclusions happen at
Upper school.
Lower
76

Male 134
Female 34
Middle
Male 309
Female 58
Upper
Male 601
Female 276
Special
Male 78
Female 17
Fixed Term Exclusions in Central Bedfordshire – Figure 76
Lower
Male 4
Female 2
Middle
Male 20
Female 0
Upper
Male 34
Female 17
Special
Male 0
Female 0
Permanent Exclusions in Central Bedfordshire - Figure 77
77

The majority of these exclusions were from Upper schools and most children were White
British. However this may be due to the high proportion of White British children in Central
Bedfordshire. The breakdown of the exclusions by ethnicity can be seen below.
Lower
White British 6
Middle
White British 20
Upper
White British 37
White Non-
British
5
Black 1
Asian 1
Mixed 2
Other 1
Permanent Exclusions in Central Bedfordshire – Figure 78
Lower
White British 156
White Non-British 6
Mixed 5
Black 1
Middle
White British 297
White Non-British 32
Mixed 16
Other 2
Black 21
78

Upper
Asian 10
White British 720
White Non-British 38
Mixed 50
Other 5
Special
White British 66
White Non-British 5
Mixed 8
Black 3
Some students preferred not to record their ethnicity
Fixed Term Exclusions in Central Bedfordshire – Figure 79
79

Place
Housing & Homelessness
IMD Barriers to Housing and Services Score Top 10 LSOAs
Barriers to housing and service scores
50.00
45.00 43.02 42.57 41.83
40.00
36.39 36.26
34.85 34.77 34.70 33.99
35.00
31.25
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Maulden & Houghton Conquest
South West Bedfordshire
Toddington/SWB
Northill & Blunham
Woburn & Harlington
Figure 80
Barton
Northill & Blunham
Cranfield
Silsoe & Shillington
Southcott
The above graph shows the Wards which are in the Top 10 most affected by barriers to
Housing and Services. The Ward most affected in Maulden & Houghton Conquest.
A child’s life chances can be affected by housing and other aspects of the local
environment in which they grow up, especially with regard to their long term health. The
health of a child is also linked to Poverty. Nationally 1 in 7 children in the UK are growing
up in homelessness or poor housing. (Child poverty and housing, Shelter 2008).
National research has shown that:
Children who live in poverty are almost twice as likely to also live in poor
accommodation (Natsen research for Shelter, 2006)
Children living in overcrowded housing are a three times more likely to suffer respiratory
problems such as breathing difficulties, asthma and bronchitis than children in noncrowded
housing (Against the Odds, Shelter, 2004)
80

Children living in poor housing are nearly twice as likely as other children to leave
school without any GCSEs (Against the Odds, Shelter, 2004)
Homeless children miss an average of 55 school days as a result of disruption caused
by moves into and between temporary accommodation (Temporary Accommodation
Survey, Shelter, 2004)
Quality
The graph below shows the percentage of local authority dwellings that fall below the
‘decent home standard’ April 2007 – April 2010. Central Bedfordshire is far below both the
East of England average and England average itself. Only 0.6% of local authority owned
houses in Central Bedfordshire are below the ‘decent home standard’.
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Central Bedfordshire
Prospering Smaller
Towns
East
England
Figure 81 - Substandard Local Authority Housing
Unfit housing has been shown to relate strongly with child poverty and growing up in substandard
conditions is likely to affect children’s life outcomes in both the short and long
term. Local authority housing is more often occupied by low-income families, and the
prevalence of sub-standard housing in the local authority dwelling stock is likely to put
these families at increased risk of child poverty.
81

Rents
As the average annual earnings in Central Bedfordshire are higher than in neighbouring
areas, the rent as a percentage of income is lower than in other neighbouring areas.
Central
Bedfordshire
Luton
Bedford
Average annual earnings
(£)
Average annual private rent
(£)
37,516 26,670 35,235
8,164 7,748 7,800
Rent as a % of income 21.8 29.1 22.1
Figure 82 - Private rents as a percentage of income (Statistics provided by Housing Policy and Strategy – based on
numerous sources 2010)
Central
Bedfordshire
Luton
Bedford
Lower quartile annual
income
19,626 16,590 19,698
Average social rent 4,190 3,585 4,078
Rent as a % of income 21.3 21.6 20.7
Figure 83 - Social housing rents as a percentage of income (for lower quartile earners) income (Statistics provided by
Housing Policy and Strategy – based on numerous sources 2010)
Home ownership
The majority of people in Central Bedfordshire own their own home; this ranges from 68%
in Northfields (Dunstable) to 93% in Icknield (Dunstable). Northfields is also the Ward with
the highest percentage of Council rented properties (24%).
82

100
% ow ned
90
80
70
60
% rented
from
Council
% other
social
rented
% privately
rented or
rent free
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Cranfield
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Icknield
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton Linslade Central
Marston
Maulden & Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill & Blunham
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe & Shillington
South East Bedfordshire
South West Bedfordshire
Southcott
Stotfold & Arlesey
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Figure 84
Household ownership in the Dunstable -
Houghton Regis Area
2.6 7.1 % owned
11.4
% rented from
Council
% other social
rented
8.6
3
Household ownership in the Rural Mid
Beds Area
% owned
9.7
% rented from
Council
% other social
rented
78.9
% privately
rented or rent
free
78.6
% privately rented
or rent free
83

7.5
Household ownership in the Leighton
Linslade Area % owned
4.1 8.4
% rented from
Council
% other social
rented
Household ownership in the Sandy -
Biggleswade Area % owned
10.7
4.7
9.7
% rented from
Council
% other social
rented
80
% privately
rented or rent
free
75
% privately
rented or rent
free
Figure 85, 86, 87 & 88
Overcrowding
Research undertaken by the housing charity Shelter, has indicated that in England 955,000
children live in overcrowded accommodation. (Shelter 2007)
Overcrowding by Ward
8
7
%
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Cranfield
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Icknield
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton Linslade Central
Marston
Maulden and Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill and Blunham
Figure 89
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe and Shillington
South East Bedfordshire
South West Bedfordshire
Southcott
Stotfold and Arlesey
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Central Bedfordshire
The wards with the highest levels of overcrowding are Houghton Regis, Cranfield and
Leighton Linslade. The wards with the lowest levels of overcrowding are Langford &
Henlow Village, followed by Southcott, then Silsoe & Shillington.
84

Transport
Transport infrastructure and accessibility to local services for families, and to employment
opportunities for parents, are significant in all areas. Even though the impact of poor
transport systems can be greater for those in rural areas, there can also be an impact in
smaller urban areas.
By way of transport in Central Bedfordshire there are; Walking networks, Strategic cycling
networks, Bus network and priority lanes, Voluntary & community transport including dial a
ride, Hospital patient service, Taxi services, Safer Routes to Schools scheme, Local
pedestrian crossings, Two major train lines, Local strategic routes such as A505, A5120,
A507 and Trunk Roads such as A1, A421, A5.
‘Making Connections’, a 2003 report by the Social Exclusion Unit, explained how poor
transport can add to the social exclusion of those living in deprived neighbourhoods. This
report also identified that improving access to opportunities that impact people’s life
chances will contribute to social inclusion, welfare to work and economic regeneration of
the area. It would also reduce inequalities in health and improve participation and
attendance in education. A similar study assessed the social and monetary value public
transport initiatives have in the deprived areas of England. The study concluded that by
improving public transport, especially in terms of bus services, it would enable people to
take up work opportunities, access healthcare and other trips that were not previously
possible. (Car dependency scorecard, Campaign for Better Transport, September 2010).
A major barrier for people, especially young people, in rural areas is lack of transport. The
situation where without a car a person cannot travel to work and without working they
cannot afford a car can arise creating a barrier to work. Central Bedfordshire Wheels to
Work scheme provides a way around this situation, it offers transport solutions for a short
period until a long term solution can be found. This scheme is a good way to encourage
better access to employment and it provides local people with travel planning advice,
motorcycle training, loan of a motorcycle, and ongoing support to get to work or college
until they can provide their own transport.
Significant improvements have been made so far in Central Bedfordshire’s public transport
systems; however there are still some areas that have barriers to mobility and in particular
barriers for people with disabilities.
There are numerous policies which come from the Disability Discrimination Act (1995)
which supports travel options for those with disabilities. These schemes include; the Blue
Badge Scheme, providing parking for those who have difficulties with public transport,
Buses and Coaches, which are all required to be accessible to disabled people and
wheelchair users.
85

The Journey Purpose Strategy: Access to Health, Food Shopping, Local Services, Leisure
& Tourism reports that socio economic group D/E found it more difficult to get to their
closest food shop than respondents in more affluent groups.
Car ownership
Car ownership varies depending on both household affluence and whether families reside
in urban or rural areas – urban areas tend to offer a greater number of public transport
alternatives to personal vehicles. Access to transport is important in terms of both parents’
access to employment opportunities and children’s access to educational, social and
cultural activities. For these reasons access to cars reflects whether children are living in
poor families and is a factor in the opportunities families with children have to escape
poverty.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
2 or more cars
1 car
No cars
10%
0%
Central Bedfordshire
Prospering Smaller
Towns
East
England and Wales
Figure 90 - 2001 Census data showing car ownership in families with dependent children.
Central Bedfordshire has a higher percentage of families with 2 or more cars than
Prospering Smaller Towns, the East average and nearly 20% more than England and
Wales average. Under 7% of families in Central Bedfordshire own no car, this rises to
16.7% in England and Wales.
Transport to work
It has been identified that there is an issue with the level of commuting from Central
Bedfordshire. 55% of residents in the former Mid Bedfordshire area commuted out of the
area with 1 in 10 commuting to Bedford. The majority of residents in South Bedfordshire
commute out of the area, with 1 in 7 commuting to Luton.
86

Crime IDACI Crime and Disorder
One of the indicators within the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2007 specifically relates to
crime deprivation. This indicator records the rate of recorded crime in four crime types –
burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence. In this indicator there are 3 LSOAs in Central
Bedfordshire (two in the ward of Houghton Regis and one in the ward of Dunstable Downs)
that are in the top 10% most deprived areas in terms of crime and disorder in England.
LSOAs with the highest Crime and Disorder Score
Crime and Disorder Score
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
500
400
300
200
100
0
Rank in East of England
Parkside
Parkside
Dunstable Central
Parkside
Dunstable Central
Biggleswade Ivel
Toddington
Tithe Farm
Northfields
Streatley
Figure 91
Home office figures from 2007 suggest that exposure to crime is much higher in areas of
higher deprivation than elsewhere. In that year adults who experienced crime was 29% in
deprived areas against 20% elsewhere. (Crime in England and Wales 2006-07, Home
Office, 2007). Indicators show that children and young people who have been exposed to
crime are more likely to suffer from behavioural or emotional problems (Child victims:
crime, impact and criminal justice, Morgan and Zedner, 1992).
Nationally research has shown that there are a number of links between crime and child
poverty including:
Children living in families with parents in prison are vulnerable to financial instability,
poverty, debt and potential housing disruption following the imprisonment of a family
member (Poverty and disadvantage amongst prisoners’ families Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2007)
Children within families who do not hold British nationality are at risk of being profoundly
impoverished with associated disadvantages in terms of housing and health risks
87

(Poverty and disadvantage amongst prisoners’ families Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
2007)
Children growing up in poverty are more likely to be victims of crime (Child Poverty
Review, HM Treasury, July 2004)
Poverty can lead to an increased risk of being a perpetrator of crime and anti-social
behaviour
Young offenders stand a disproportionate chance of suffering other problems including
educational underachievement, mental health problems, teenage pregnancy and poor
employment prospects – and when these young people have children they are more
likely to live in poverty (Child Poverty Review, HM Treasury, July 2004)
Figure 92 below shows that the frequency of recorded crime increases with the age of the
victim. Overall crime against children has decreased between 2008 and 2009. The biggest
decrease was in the 16-17 age group, with small increases for 10-11 and 18-19 year olds.
The most frequently experienced type of crime was violence against the person, accounting
for 42% of crimes against children in 2009.
Figure 92
Youth offending
It has been shown that offending behaviour amongst young people is often related to
experiences of low income, poor social welfare, lack of family support, low levels of
educational attainment, disengagement and disaffection, health issues and insufficient
88

community provision. As well as reflecting poverty during teenage years, being a young
offender increases the likelihood that poverty will be sustained into adulthood.
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2009-
10
Central Bedfordshire - - - - - - 255
East 8,205 9,464 10,455 11,027 10,590 8,753 7,237
England and Wales 88,109 95,534 107,040 110,052 100,003 79,785 61,387
Figure 93 - showing the number of 10-17 year olds receiving their first reprimand, warning or conviction
In 2009 – 10, 255 young people aged 10 – 17 received their first reprimand, warning or
conviction in Central Bedfordshire, equivalent to 1010 young people per 100,000 10 – 17
year olds in the population. This ‘young offending rate’, based on numbers per 100,000, in
Central Bedfordshire is 280 below that for the East of England, and 160 lower than that for
England and Wales.
Parental Substance/Alcohol Misuse
Between 780,000 and 1.3 million children in the UK are affected by a parent’s alcohol
abuse (Alcohol and Harm Strategy for England, 2004)
Between 250,000 and 350,000 dependent children have parents who misuse drugs
(Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 2003)
In 2008-2009 Bedfordshire’s (Central Bedfordshire, Bedford Borough and Luton)
problem drug using population was estimated to be 1,675 (with 1,004 (60%) in
treatment)
1% of babies are born to women with drug problems (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs,
2003) Babies born with drug withdrawal symptoms are difficult to care for and this can
impact on healthy attachment
With parental alcohol misuse there is an increased risk of children having behavioural,
emotional and social problems as well as an increased likelihood of young people
engaging in frequent, heavy binge drinking and drinking on their own (Chalder et al. 2006)
Children living with parental alcohol misuse are more likely to experience parental
conflict, about a 1/3 of all domestic violence incidents are linked to alcohol misuse
(Turning Point, 2006)
Parental substance misuse can increase the likelihood of child taking on a caring role
either for the parent or a sibling/s
Childcare social workers estimate that between 50-90% of parents on their caseload
have mental health problems, alcohol or substance misuse (ODPM 2004)
89

The Monitoring Unit for Substance in the East collate figures regarding the ‘parental status’,
‘children with’ and ‘pregnant’ data. Between 1 st April 2010 and 30 th September 2010 in
Bedfordshire, as a whole, there are; 48 cases where children are living with adult alcohol
clients, 32 cases with adult drug clients, 73 cases where children live with adult alcohol
clients part of the time, 58 cases with adult drug clients and no recorded pregnancies within
adult alcohol and adult drug female clients during this period.
Health
As stated earlier Poverty can affect a child’s health even before they are born, and living in
higher areas of deprivation will certainly impact on life expectancy. As people who live in
Poverty go on to have children of their own, the intergenerational poverty cycle is
continued.
Hirsh and Spencer argue that throughout life poverty can directly impact on health
outcomes as shown below. (Unhealthy lives, Hirsh and Spencer (Briefing for the End Child
Poverty campaign), 2008).
Figure 94 - Poverty-health cycle (Based on model used by Hirsch and Spencer in: Unhealthy lives, Briefing for
End Child Poverty campaign, 2008)
90

General Health & Health Inequalities
Although, generally, health in Central Bedfordshire is better than the England average,
there are inequalities within Central Bedfordshire by gender, location, deprivation and
ethnicity. For example, people living in the most deprived wards in Central Bedfordshire are
more likely to suffer poor health and live on average up to 6.2 years less, than those from
more affluent areas, as shown by the data on life expectancy.
Those coming from deprived areas in Central Bedfordshire, as well as populations from
other vulnerable groups, are more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, endure
worklessness, experience poor performance on a wide range of well-being indicators and
ultimately suffer poor health outcomes.
The nature of health inequalities are such that those experienced in childhood are likely to
lead to and reflect health inequalities experienced as an adult.
Evidence from various research shows the links between poverty and health problems
including:
Babies born into poverty are more likely to; be born premature, have low birth weight,
die in their first year of life (Child Poverty Review 2004)
Children with low birth weight tend to have a lower IQ (Families & Children Study FACS
2005)
Workless families babies are using bottles for much longer than their peers in working
families which leads to tooth decay (The Infant Feeding Survey 2005)
Children born to teenage parents are 63% more likely to live in poverty and are twice as
likely to become teenage parents themselves, thus creating further intergenerational
cycles of deprivation (Conception Statistics 2008)
Teenage mothers are 20% more likely to have no qualifications than mothers aged 24
and over (JSNA)
Infant mortality is 60% higher for babies born of teenage mothers, there are higher rates
of post-natal depression and poor mental health for 3 years after a teenage birth,
teenage mothers are three times more likely to smoke throughout their pregnancy and
50% less likely to breastfeed (JSNA)
By the age of 11 levels of obesity are 10% higher in deprived areas with more child
poverty than in the least deprived areas (National Child Measurement Programme
2006/07)
Children who live in families where the parents have never worked are more likely to
suffer from mental health disorders. The figures are 21% against 5,2% of the general
population (Children and Young People Today 2007)
Lower income households are more likely to smoke and have problems with alcohol
abuse (Ending Child Poverty: Everybody’s Business 2008)
91

100%
Self assessed Health Ratings
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Bad
Fair
Good
30%
20%
10%
0%
Central Bedfordshire
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Cranfield
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Ickneild
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton-Linsdale
Marston
Maulden & Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill & Blunham
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe & Shillington
South East Beds
South West Beds
Southcott
Stotfold & Arlesley
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Figure 95
Self assessed health ratings were collected in the Central Bedfordshire Place Survey 2008.
They indicate that perceived bad health is highest in; Northfields where 13% rated
themselves as having bad health, Houghton Regis, where 8% rated themselves as having
bad health and South West Bedfordshire, where 7% rated themselves in bad health. The
survey also indicated that perceived good health is most prevalent in Flitwick West, where
89% rated their health as good and Shefford, where 87% rated their health as good.
79% of people questioned in Central Bedfordshire considered themselves to be in good
health compared to 76% of people in the whole of England.
Pregnancy and Birth
In 2009/10, 84.2% of pregnant women in Central Bedfordshire accessed their antenatal
booking appointment within 12 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy.
Women are likely to start antenatal care later and have fewer antenatal visits if they are
young or unsupported, from ethnic minorities, refugees, unemployed, in temporary
accommodation or live in deprived areas.
92

A low birth weight is classed as one less than 2,500 grams (5lbs 8oz) and is calculated as a
percentage of all births, both live and still. Low birth weight not only leads to an increased
risk of infant mortality and poor infant health, but is also a risk factor for poor adult health. In
2007/08 proportion of babies with low birth weight, averaged across Central Bedfordshire,
was 6.3%. In the 20% most deprived areas this rose to over 7%.
Low birth weight is an indicator which provides an indirect measure of child poverty due to
the fact that children born underweight are more likely to be born into poor households.
Low birth weights increase the risk of infant mortality and have both short and long term
implications.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Central Bedfordshire 5.6 7.1 7.0 6.3 6.4 6.7 6.8 6.0
Prospering Smaller Towns 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.3
East 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.9 6.6
England and Wales 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.2
Figure 96 - Low birth weight as a proportion of live births (%)
Increasing rates of breastfeeding will not only help secure the best start in life for more
newborn infants in Central Bedfordshire, it will also play a significant role in reducing health
inequalities. Breastfeeding data is collected at several points; initiation, 10 days, and 6 to 8
weeks. Young women in low-income areas with lower educational levels are least likely to
initiate and continue breastfeeding. Many young mothers do not access support from
antenatal classes, peer support programmes, friends and family and so are not getting the
advice and information they need.
In 2009/10 the percentage of mothers breastfeeding at initiation in the 20% most deprived
Central Bedfordshire wards was 60.9%, rising to 84.6% in the 20% least deprived wards.
At 10 days the figures were 43.0% and 60.9% and at 6 to 8 weeks the difference between
most and least deprived was still apparent, with 36.6% of poorest mother’s breastfeeding,
against 51.3% of mothers from the most affluent areas.
Childhood Immunisations and Vaccinations
In Central Bedfordshire the uptake of immunisation is broadly similar across areas with
differing deprivation levels. However, there are some at risk families who need more
encouragement and the Healthy Child Programme is aiming to target these families which
include refugees, the homeless, travelling families, very young mothers, those not
registered with a GP and those who are new to an area.
93

Childhood Dental Health
The dental health of children in Central Bedfordshire appears to be relatively good – the
percentage of children in Bedfordshire (no disaggregated data is available specifically for
Central Bedfordshire) with no decay experience is 75.9%, higher than the national average
of 69.1%.
However, these figures mask oral health inequalities. Anecdotally children from poorer
backgrounds experience disproportionately high levels of dental disease. Currently local
data is not available to demonstrate this.
Nationally, there has been a rapid increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity in
recent years. Obesity in children is a primary predictor of obesity in adulthood which can
decrease life expectancy by up to 9 years.
Childhood Obesity
Research has shown that obese children are more likely to be from the lowest income
groups than from the top income groups. Therefore tackling child poverty is likely to reduce
childhood obesity, which is a condition that impacts upon health outcomes throughout a
person’s life.
20%
18%
16%
14%
Central Bedfordshire
12%
10%
8%
East
6%
4%
2%
England
0%
Reception Year 6
Figure 97 - percentage of pupils classified as obese, 2009-10
94

In Central Bedfordshire 8.7% of children in Reception year are obese compared to 11.6%
in the East of England and 10.2% in England. These figures rise to 14.3%, 16.8% and
18.7% in year 6 children.
Children and Smoking
Smoking remains the single largest cause of preventable morbidity and premature death in
England. Tobacco also plays a role in perpetuating poverty, deprivation and health
inequalities.
In 2009/10 12.5% of Central Bedfordshire mothers were still smokers at the time when they
gave birth. This figure rose to 23.6% of women from the 20% most deprived wards, and
was significantly less, at 9.4% in the least deprived areas.
Nationally some 80% of people start smoking as teenagers and despite a lack of specific
data it can be presumed that this will be the same for smokers that live within Central
Bedfordshire. Generally, smoking has declined in the last few decades but this is not the
case for young smokers.
One in seven 15 year olds is a regular smoker, with girls being more likely to smoke than
boys. Those young people who do experiment run the risk of addiction and of becoming
long-term smokers. The earlier young people become regular smokers, the greater their
risk of developing lung cancer or heart disease if they continue smoking into adulthood.
Children and young people who live with adult smokers are almost three times more likely
to start smoking than those who live in a smoke free home, and those with an older sibling
who smokes are themselves five times more likely to smoke. Therefore reducing smoking
amongst adults is essential to stopping young people starting.
19.3% of newborns were recorded as living with smokers in Central Bedfordshire in
2009/10. In the 20% most deprived wards the figure was almost 25%, compared to just
over 12% in the least deprived.
Life Expectancy
Life expectancy is heavily impacted by poverty and can vary enormously within a relatively
small area. Life expectancy at birth varies significantly according to social class;
professional men are expected to live to about 80 years and unskilled men to around 72
years. For women these figures are 85 and 78 years (www.statistics.gov.uk).
95

There is a difference of over 6 years in Life Expectancy within Central Bedfordshire from
76.2 years in parts of Houghton Regis to 82.4 in Watling in Dunstable just a few miles
away. In Central Bedfordshire the average life expectancy for Males is 79.1 years and for
females is 82.4 years. The national life expectancy for men is 77.9 years and for women is
82 years.
Ward
Life Expectancy
at Birth (years)
Southcott 82.4
Watling 82.4
Westoning & Tingrith 82.0
Aspley Guise 81.9
Harlington 81.6
Langford & Henlow Village 81.6
Shillington, Stondon & Henlow
Camp
81.5
Ampthill 81.4
Maulden & Clophill 81.4
Barton-Le-Clay 81.2
Northill & Blunham 81.2
Houghton, Haynes, Southill & Old
Warden
81.1
Potton & Wensley 81.0
Flitwick West 80.9
Planets 80.9
Eaton Bray 80.6
Biggleswade Holme 80.3
Chiltern 80.2
Cranfield 80.2
Shefford, Campton & Gravenhurst 80.0
Grovebury 79.9
Kensworth & Totternhoe 79.8
Sandy Pinnacle 79.7
Stotfold 79.5
Icknield 79.3
Woburn 79.2
96

Flitwick East 78.9
Toddington 78.8
Biggleswade Ivel 78.6
Heath & Reach 78.5
All Saints 78.3
Clifton & Meppershall 78.1
Arlesey 77.9
Marston 77.9
Sandy Ivel 77.9
Linslade 77.8
Northfields 77.8
Silsoe 77.8
Caddington, Hyde & Slip End 77.7
Manshead 77.7
Flitton, Greenfield & Pulloxhill 77.6
Parkside 77.5
Plantation 77.4
Streatley 77.3
Biggleswade Stratton 77.2
Stanbridge 77.1
Tithe Farm 76.6
Dunstable Central 76.5
Houghton Hall 76.2
Figure 98
The below graph from Central Bedfordshire’s Health Profile compiled by the Association of
Public Health Observation breaks down the life expectancy into deprived quintiles. Quintile
1 is the least deprived quintile followed by 2, 3 and 4, with quintile 5 being the most
deprived. It shows that female life expectancy is always higher than male life expectancy
and that the more deprived a person is the shorted their life expectancy is.
97

Figure 99- Association of Public Health Observations 2010
84
83
82
Central Bedfordshire
81
80
79
East
78
77
76
England and Wales
75
Male
Female
Figure 100 - Life expectancy at birth 2007/09
98

Teenage Pregnancy
The links between teenage pregnancy, deprivation and poverty are inextricable with each
of the teenage pregnancy hotspot wards falling within the 20% most deprived in the Central
Bedfordshire area. The majority of teenage parents and their children live in deprived areas
and often exhibit multiple risk factors for poverty, experiencing poor health, social and
economic outcomes and inter-generational patterns of deprivation (Hosie et al. 2001).
Poverty, like teenage pregnancy, follows these intergenerational cycles with children born
into poverty at increased risk of teenage pregnancy, especially for young women living in
workless households when aged 11-15 (Ermisch et al. 2001).
Central Bedfordshire’s under 18 conception rate is 33.0 per 1,000 females which is below
the England average of 40.2. However it is slightly above Prospering Smaller Towns and
the East of England (31.3 and 31.9 respectively).
45
40
35
30
25
Central Bedfordshire
Prospering Smaller
Towns
20
15
East
10
5
England
0
2001-03 2004-06 2005-07 2006-08 2007-09
Figure 101 - showing the rates of under 18 conception per 1,000 females aged 15-17
Research has shown that areas with high rates of child poverty tend to have lower
proportions of conceptions resulting in abortion. This is likely to be at least partly due to
uneven access to health information and services.
In Central Bedfordshire 58% of under 18 conceptions end in abortion, whereas 50% in both
the East of England and England as a whole.
99

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Central
Bedfordshire
Prospering Smaller
Towns
East
England
Figure 102 - showing the under 18 (15-17 years) conceptions per 1,000 females (the shaded section shows the
percentage resulting in abortion)
The teenage pregnancy 'Hotspot' wards in Central Bedfordshire with a rate among the
highest 20% in England have a 2006-2008 under-18 conception rate equal or higher than
53.3 per 1000 females aged 15-17. The 2006-2008 hotspot wards in Central Bedfordshire
are shown in table 1. These rates compare to a Central Bedfordshire rate of 32.5 per 1000,
a Regional rate of 31.3 per 1000 and an England rate of 38.2 per 1000. (Office for National
Statistics, 2011)
Central Bedfordshire under 18 conception ‘Hot Spot’ Wards 2005-2007 & 2006-2008 (rates are expressed as per
1000 females aged 15-17 & presented as three year aggregates)
Ward
U18 conception
rate
2005-2007
Conception
number
2005-2007
U18
conception
rate
Conception
number
2006-2008
Houghton Hall 79.9 31 74.0 29
Manshead 78.2 23 81.1 24
Tithe Farm 74 25 74.4 25
Parkside 66.7 20 74.0 21
Stanbridge 60.8 9 78.9 12
Figure 103 – Source: ONS 2010
Teenage parent families, by their nature, have at least one parent under the age of 18 with
responsibility for a dependent child who is likely to be under 5 years. These families are at
increased risk of the biggest causes of poverty; worklessness and low pay, whilst under 5s
make up 44 % of all children in poverty. (DWP, 2008) As a result, children of teenage
100

mothers have a 63% increased risk of being born into poverty compared to babies born to
mothers in their twenties. (Mayhew & Bradshaw 2005)
Children of teenage mothers have a 63% increased risk of being born into poverty
compared to babies born to mothers in their 20s (Mayhew E and Bradshaw J 2005)
Teenage mothers are 20% more likely to have no qualifications at age 30 than mothers
giving birth aged 24 (Census, 2001)
It is estimated that 70% of teenage mothers aged 16-19 are not in education, training or
employment (NEET) (DSCF & DH 2007).
70% of mothers aged 16-19 claim Income Support (DWP data)
At age 30, teenage mothers are 22% more likely to be living in poverty than mothers
giving birth aged 24 or over, and are much less likely to be employed or living with a
partner ((Ermisch et al 2001)
Teenage mothers are more likely to partner with men who are poorly qualified and more
likely to experience unemployment (Census, 2001)
Infant Mortality
Infant mortality is highest for lower socio-economic groups in society, and therefore an
indicator of poverty in households with children. High infant mortality is due, for example, to
greater risks of accidents suffered by children from poorer groups, unsafe housing and
poorer nutrition. Infant mortality is quite rare in the UK meaning that care should be taken
when interpreting local authority trends, as relatively small numbers of deaths mean rates
can vary quite considerably from year to year.
6
5
Central Bedfordshire
4
3
Prospering Smaller
Towns
2
East
1
England and Wales
0
2000-02 2001-03 2002-04 2003-05 2004-06 2005-07 2006-08 2007-09
Figure 104 – Infant Mortality
101

The rates of Infant Mortality and Neonatal death in Central Bedfordshire are below that of
East of England and England. However the rates of Stillbirth are higher than the East of
England average but still lower than England, as can be seen below.
6.0
5.0
Rate per 1000
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Central
Bedfordshire
East of
England
England
0.0
Stillbirth
Neonatal death Infant mortality
Figure 105 – Stillbirth, neonatal death and perinatal death rates for Central Bedfordshire, East of England and England
2006-2008
Mental Health
National research indicates that there is link between disadvantage and depression and
mental disorders (Socio economic inequalities in depression: a meta-analysis; Lorant,
Deliege and Eaton: 2003). However there is limited local data available regarding this.
Living in persistent poverty whilst struggling to feed and clothe their children and struggling
with debt can understandably have a detrimental effect on a parent’s health and emotional
well-being. Poor mental health is common among parents experiencing poverty; parents
can experience depression, anxiety, lack of confidence and feelings of worklessness.
Depression affects an estimated 11 in 16 families. These mental health problems are
exacerbated by the pressure of living on low income (Barnados).
A report from the ONS suggests that approximately 10% of children aged 5-16 suffer from
a diagnosable mental health disorder. This means that in Central Bedfordshire 3540
children (5-16 years old) suffer from mental health problems. (Office of National Statistics
Mental Health of Children and Young People in Great Britain, 2004-2005).
The recently launched New Horizons, (cross governmental programme to improve mental
health and mental health services,) highlighted unidentified and untreated mental health
problems in childhood and adolescence as potentially resulting in immense social and
102

financial costs. Half of lifetime mental illness is already present by the age of 14 (including
dementia). Disorders in childhood are associated with depression and anxiety in adult
years, which can create a vicious circle: children of mothers with poor mental health are at
a much higher risk themselves of emotional and conduct disorders (Central Bedfordshire
Children and Young People JSNA 2010).
Maternal Mental Health
There is no national data available on the incidence of maternal mental health conditions
against which comparisons can be made. However using the epidemiology and assuming
an annual birth rate, it is possible to estimate the number of expected cases and referrals to
mental health.
The expected number of woman a year presenting with perinatal mental health illness in
Bedfordshire can be broken down as follows, with calculations based on an annual birth
rate of 5,000 deliveries.
% of
deliveries
No. of
women
Major postnatal depression (using research
diagnostic)
10 500
Moderate to severe depressive illness 3-5 150-250
Referrals to psychiatry – new episodes of postnatal
mental health illness
Referrals to psychiatry – total pregnancy and child
birth related mental health problems
2 100
3.5 175
Admission for puerperal psychosis 0.2 10
Figure 106
This means that approx 1,035 women a year are suffering from mental health disorders
linked with giving birth. Given that this covers all of Bedfordshire approx 621 of these
women are likely to be based in Central Bedfordshire.
103

Recommendations
Following completion of the Family Poverty Needs Assessment, it was clear that there are
priorities within each of the four building blocks: Financial Support, Parental Employment
and Skills, Life Chances and Place.
It was therefore agreed that the Child Poverty Strategy would adopt 4 main priorities with
some immediate actions and some medium term actions to be identified.
These are:
Getting Families working
Maximise opportunities for families in poverty to access employment which will have the
outcome of more families working and thus reducing levels of family and child poverty.
Continued development of the ‘economic powerhouse’ – a vision and strategy to attract
investment and deliver strong local employment growth
Develop employability and job readiness skills, based on both academic work and work
based training
Ensure adequate Childcare and the appropriate Childcare Tax Credit, is available to
enable parents to take up working and training opportunities
Accessing income whilst seeking work
Ensure families in poverty are accessing all available financial assistance with the outcome
that non-working families move from worklessness into work in the meantime accessing
appropriate benefits.
Promote the take-up of free school meals
Provide easily accessible high quality welfare advice and information services
Early Intervention to raise aspirations
To improve life chances of children and families by intervening early to prevent poor
outcomes and raising educational achievements and aspirations with the outcome that
children from poor households gain better qualifications to ensure their access to the labour
market so that the cycle of intergenerational poverty is broken.
Ensure high quality early years intervention and prevention services are in place
Support Parents and Families through the Parenting and Family Support Strategy
Develop a culture for learning based on high aspirations for all
104

Improve Health and Well-being for Children and Families in Poverty
Work with colleagues from all sectors and agencies to improve the environmental factors
which exacerbate the effects of poverty, harnessing the resources of the third sector and
services across the council in order to achieve priorities, with the outcome that poor
families develop healthier lifestyles to prolong life expectancy and live in an improved
environment.
Reduce the number and rate of teenage pregnancies
Embed the think family approach within all homelessness prevention activity, and
broader interventions to sustain families in permanent settled accommodation
Promote a multi-agency approach to improved ante, peri & post natal care, along with
improved levels of breastfeeding support and information on healthy eating
105

Appendices
Ward info
Old Wards prior to 2009
All Saints
Ampthill
Arlesey
Aspley Guise
Barton-Le-Clay
Biggleswade Holme
Biggleswade Ivel
Biggleswade Stratton
Caddington, Hyde & Slip End
Chiltern
Clifton & Meppershall
Cranfield
Dunstable Central
Eaton Bray
Flitton, Greenfield & Pulloxhill
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Harlington
Heath & Reach
Houghton Hall
Houghton, Haynes, Southill & Old Warden
Icknield
Kensworth & Totternhoe
Langford & Henlow Village
Linslade
Manshead
Marston
Maulden & Clophill
Northfields
Northill & Blunham
Parkside
Planets
Plantation
Potton & Wensley
Sandy Ivel
Sandy Pinnacle
Shefford, Campton & Gravenhurst
Shillington, Stondon & Henlow Camp
Silsoe
Southcott
Stanbridge
Stotfold
Streatley
Tithe Farm
Toddington
Watling
Westoning & Tingrith
Woburn
New Wards 2009
Ampthill
Barton
Biggleswade
Cranfield
Dunstable Downs
Flitwick East
Flitwick West
Grovebury
Houghton Regis
Icknield
Langford & Henlow Village
Leighton Linslade Central
Marston
106

Maulden & Houghton Conquest
Northfields
Northill & Blunham
Plantation
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe & Shillington
South East Beds
South West Beds
Southcott
Stotfold & Arlesey
Toddington
Watling
Woburn & Harlington
Newer wards May 2011
Ampthill
Arlesey
Aspley & Woburn
Barton-Le-Clay
Biggleswade North
Biggleswade South
Caddington
Cranfield & Marston Moretaine
Dunstable – Central
Dunstable – Icknield
Dunstable – Manshead
Dunstable – Northfields
Dunstable – Watling
Eaton Bray
Flitwick
Heath & Reach
Houghton Conquest & Haynes
Houghton Hall
Leighton Buzzard North
Leighton Buzzard South
Linslade
Northill
Parkside
Potton
Sandy
Shefford
Silsoe & Shillington
Stotfold & Langford
Tithe Farm
Toddington
Westoning, Flitton & Greenfield
107

Source List
Households Below Average Income 2008/09
Child Poverty Review, HM Treasury, July 2004
Families with Children in Britain: Findings from 2005 Families & Children Study (FACS) Department
for Work & Pensions. Research Report. 424, 2007
The Infant Feeding Survey NHS 2005
Conception Statistics, ONS 2008
National Child Measurement Programme: 2006/07 school year. The Information Centre for Health &
Social Care, 2008
Children and Young People Today, Evidence to support the development of the Children’s plan,
Department for Children, Schools and Families 2007
Ibid & Ending child poverty: everybody’s business, 3.14 HM Treasury, March 2008
Households Below Average Income, Great Britain figures, Department for Work and Pensions, 2006
It doesn’t happen here. The reality of Child Poverty in the UK. Barnardos 2006
www.barnados.org.uk/childpoverty.htm
Better safe than sorry, Audit Commission 2007
Crime in England and Wales 2006-07, Home Office 2007
Inequality in Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort, 2003
National Statistics First Release (2007) National Curriculum Assessment, GCSE & Equivalent
Attainment & Post-16 Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England, 2006/07. DCSWF 2007
Central Bedfordshire Council School Statistics
Ending child poverty: everybody’s business. HM Treasury 2008
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, Save the Children Briefing Report 2007
The Poverty Premium, Save the Children and the Family Welfare Association 2007
Child Poverty Review, HM Treasury, 2004
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment – Central Bedfordshire Council 2010
Free school Meals, Child Poverty Action Group
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
NOMIS
Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills, Leith Review for HM Treasury, 2006
Response to HM Treasury on the “Long-term opportunities and challenges to the UK: Analysis for the
2007 Comprehension Spending Review”, Disability Benefits Consortium, 2007)
The cost of childhood disability, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998
Prevalence of childhood disability and the circumstances of disabled children in the UK, Warwick
University 2010
Child Poverty and housing, Shelter 2008
Natsen research, Shelter 2006
Against the Odds, Shelter, 2004
Temporary Accommodation Survey, Shelter 2004
‘Making Connections’ Social Exclusion Unit 2003
Car dependency scorecard, Campaign for Better Transport 2010
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Crime in England and Wales 2006-07, Home Office 2007
Child victims: crime, impact and criminal justice. Morgan and Zedner 1992
Poverty and disadvantage amongst prisoners’ families. Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2007
Child Poverty Review, HM Treasury July 2004
Alcohol and Harm Strategy for England 2004
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2003
ODPM 2004
Briefing for the End Child Poverty campaign 2008
Child Poverty Review 2004
Children and Young People Today 2007
Fair society, healthy lives – Strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010; Marmot 2010
Association of Public Health Observation 2010
Department of Work and Pensions 2008
108

Mayhew & Bradshaw 2005
Census 2001
DSCF & DH 2007
Ermisch et al. 2001
Socio economic inequalities in depression: a meta-analysis; Lorant, Deliege and Eaton 2003
Barnados
Central Bedfordshire Council’s Children and Young People JSNA 2010
Central Bedfordshire Council’s Local Economic Assessment 2011
109

Glossary
LSOA’s – Lower Super Output Areas are a geography designed for the collection and
publication of small area statistics. They were used initially on the Neighbourhood Statistics
Service (NeSS) but they now have wider application.
Prospering Small Towns – The ‘Prospering Smaller Towns’ geography that is used as a
comparison on many of the indicators is not the same as statistical neighbours. It is a
classification used by ONS to group areas into clusters based on similar characteristics.
IDACI – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index is a measure of deprivation that
measures the proportion of 16 year olds in an area living in low income households.
IMD – Index of Multiple Deprivation measures the deprivation based on numerous
indicators grouped into 7 domains.
110

Contact us…
by telephone: 0300 300 8000
by email: customer.services@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk
on the web: www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk
Write to Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House,
Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire SG17 5TQ
111