Strategic Grants Funding “We decided to embark on the Vital Signs research project in order to publish a report on significant social and economic trends to tell the story of how our community is faring in key quality-of-life areas. As the largest local independent charitable grant maker, we will use this critical knowledge to set strategic priorities, inform community grant- making, guide community engagement, and start conversations with local Community Foundation for Calderdale (CFFC) are providing up to 3 years funding for projects which work to improve outcomes for communities affected by three key issues identified via Vital Signs as those most key to improve the lives of people in Calderdale. The three areas are: Homelessness Community Cohesion Poverty and Deprivation
Transcript
Strategic Grants Funding
“We decided to embark on the Vital Signs research project in order to publish a report on significant social and economic trends to tell the story of how our community is faring in key quality-of-life areas. As the largest local independent charitable grant maker, we will use this critical knowledge to set strategic priorities, inform community grant-making, guide community engagement, and start conversations with local leaders, corporate partners and philanthropists.”
Steve Duncan, CEO
Community Foundation for Calderdale (CFFC) are providing up to 3 years funding for projects which work to improve outcomes for communities affected by three key issues identified via Vital Signs as those most key to improve the lives of people in Calderdale.
The three areas are:
Homelessness Community Cohesion Poverty and Deprivation
Community Consultation....................................................................................................................................12
2) Community Cohesion............................................................................................................................................13
Cohesion and Diversity..........................................................................................................................................14
Turnout for Local Elections....................................................................................................................................15
Community Consultation........................................................................................................................................18
3) Poverty and Deprivation........................................................................................................................................19
The Index of Multiple Deprivations (IMD)............................................................................................................19
IMD Average score by District..........................................................................................................................20
IMD Average score by Ward.............................................................................................................................20
Data for each IMD domain is presented below in order to ascertain where these inequalities exist within Calderdale................................................................................................................................................22
Income deprivation.................................................................................................................................................22
Average Total Income Change.........................................................................................................................22
IMD Income Profile at District Level.................................................................................................................23
IMD Income Profile at Ward Level....................................................................................................................23
Contributing factors to child poverty.................................................................................................................25
Census Deprivation Score.....................................................................................................................................26
Community Voice....................................................................................................................................................28
Introduction CFFC are going to be providing up to three years funding for projects which work to improve outcomes for communities affected by the three key issues identified via Vital Signs as those most key to improve the lives of people in Calderdale.
The three areas are: Homelessness Community Cohesion Poverty and Deprivation
This document provides details of the findings of the Vital Signs work and the evidence for the three priority areas. The objective is to encourage the development of project ideas suitable for CFFC to commission for up to three years. We are looking for projects which will be able to show that they will make a real lasting positive impact in the priority areas.
The process of appraisal and assessment will involve a tender document being written and publicised and tenders invited. There will be a three stage process involving a written proposal along the lines described below, proposal assessment and appraisal and a presentation to the Strategic Grants Panel.
Three years funding will be available of up to £20,000 per year, dependent on achievement of outcomes assessed on an annual basis.
There are three tender areas one for each of the themes. Applicants can apply to do all three areas, but must submit a separate proposal for each.
CFFC is encouraging Partnership projects, so in describing the projects proposals it is advantageous to show how your project will be based on partnership working.
Tendering process
EligibilityInterested parties need to be working for the benefit of Calderdale residents and be one of the following:
Registered charity working in Calderdale Charitable Incorporated Organisation Community Interest Company (CIC) who do not, and cannot, pay dividends Any other legally registered form of not-for-profit, social enterprise organisation
Interested parties would need to be able to provide: Constitution or set of rules/governing documents Safeguarding policies (vulnerable adults/children) if appropriate Copy of audited/inspected accounts Bank statements Committee members contact list Organisational business/development plan
3
Contents of tender proposalProcess of applicationThere will be a three stage process a) The first stage being a maximum 3 sides of A4 (plus budget) Expression of Interest, as described below.b) The Expression of Interest will be reviewed by the Strategic Grants panel.c) A number of these will be invited to complete a full; online application form by the deadline (see below)d) The online application will be scored and applicants invited to present their project to the Strategic Grants Panel.e) The panel will decide which projects will be funded.
Expression of Interest
1. Project Description Proposals must describe what the proposed project is, providing details of how the issues described will be tackled and how the problems with the lowest “scores” will be improved upon.how it will work and be delivered and managed, and using no more than one side of A4 (minimum type size 11pt)
2. Evidence Base and Track Record Proposals must provide evidence that the suggested project will have an impact, referring to similar successful schemes backed up with evidenced monitoring. The proposal must also detail the track record of the organisation applying (and partner organisations if appropriate) using no more than one page of A4 (minimum type size 11pt)
3. Vital Signs Priorities Proposals must show how they will work to tackle and improve one or more of the Vital Signs areas, and making an impact by working towards one or more of the outcomes shown below using no more than one side of A4 (minimum type size 11pt)
a) Stronger Communities:
Impact: Maximise people`s ability to strengthen community cohesion and build social capacity
Outcomes: Improve community cohesion Improved community facilities Improve the community working together Support vulnerable and disadvantaged people Strengthen organisations
b) Housing and Homelessness
Impact:
4
Provide people with opportunities to achieve greater social justice to reduce isolation, exclusion and disadvantage and access local services. Improve people`s life skills, employability and enterprise
Outcomes: Reduce isolation Promote human rights and equality Support vulnerable and disadvantaged people Improved community facilities Increase in beneficiary training, education, accreditation and employment Increase enterprise Improve economic wellbeing Increase employability Increase lifelong learning and skills
c) Tackling Disadvantage & Exclusion
Impact:Provide people with opportunities to achieve greater social justice to reduce isolation, exclusion and disadvantage and access local services
Outcomes: Reduce isolation Promote human rights and equality Support vulnerable and disadvantaged people Improved community facilities
Proposals must show how progress towards the outcomes will be measured.
Our indicator set is shown in the Appendices at the end of this document.
4. Costings Proposals must show a full budget breakdown of how the funding will be spent for the three years of the project.
NB: Only the first year funding is guaranteed, years 2 and 3 will be dependent on performance.
5. Timescales. a) Strategic Grants Launched and Expressions of Interest invited: 27 th June: deadline for the receipt of Expression of Interest is 9am, 11th JulyWe will also require copies of supporting documentation by this time and date, i.e.
• Constitution or set of rules/governing documents• Safeguarding policies (vulnerable adults/children) if appropriate• Copy of audited/inspected accounts• Bank statements• Committee members contact list• Organisational business/development plan
b) The Expression of Interest will be reviewed by the Strategic Grants panel by 18 th July
5
c) Chosen EOis Invited to complete a full; online application form by the deadline 9am 9 th
Septemberd) The online application will be scored and applicants invited to present their project to the Strategic Grants Panel 12th or 13th September 2016e) The panel will decide which projects will be funded on 13th September 2016f) Contracts will then be negotiated and grants awarded (subject to any conditions that may be applied).
Expressions of Interest as word documents must be sent electronically to Elsa Ward [email protected] supporting documentation (accounts, constitutions etc) must also be sent electronically to [email protected]
NB Applicants should be aware that the presentations to the CFFC Strategic Grants Committee will be a requirement for all proposals that go to full application.These presentations will take place on either 12 th or 13th September 2016, depending on which theme your application is addressing. These are fixed dates so applicants are advised to ensure that they are free on either of those days at the start of this process, because you will not be informed as to which day you are needed until the afternoon of Friday 9th September.
For any questions, concerns or queries about this document, the process etc please contact Elsa Ward, on 01422 438739, email [email protected]
1) Homelessness The excerpt below is from the CFFC Vital Signs Report and is the focus on Homelessness.
The key issues for housing and homelessness are:
Affordability Overcrowding Informal homelessness and sofa surfing Lack of emergency accommodation
CFFC would like to hear from Voluntary and Community Sector Organisations and Social Enterprises who are experienced skilled and equipped to meet the challenge of these issues.
CFFC is looking to invest a total of £60k over three years (£20k per year) in a project that is targeted at tackling homelessness and supporting homeless people in Calderdale and which also impacts on Poverty and improves cohesion.
We are interested in ways to tackle the lack of availability of emergency housing for the most vulnerable people who present with difficult challenging issues.
Talking PointThere are multiple concerns about housing for many people in Calderdale.
In 8 out of 17 wards more people than the national average are in rented accommodation. Home ownership is around 50% in Town, Ovenden and Park wards but as high as 80% in Northowram and Shelf wards. The national average is 68%.
Rising house prices mean that the average house in Calderdale now costs nearly six times the average Calderdale wage making it difficult for many to consider home ownership. It has been estimated that there is also an annual shortfall of 641 affordable homes.
Provision of central heating provides one measure of the quality of the local housing stock and in Calderdale 5.3% of houses do not have central heating which is double the national figure.
Lack of affordability can lead to overcrowding and 8 out of 17 wards have more overcrowded houses than the national average of 6.3%. The situation is particularly serious in Park where over 17% of houses have less rooms than they require and are deemed overcrowded.
All the above problems can lead to people becoming homeless and 3rd sector organisations in Calderdale have reported a steep 45% rise in homeless people in the last two years.
Last year just 3 organisations helped 280 homeless people. 7
Household central heating :none E Affordability Score B Unfit Stock Total D Overall D
Housing affordability The Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) Survey report suggested 641 affordable homes are needed each year In Calderdale, the greatest need being for 1 and 2 bedroom properties (40% and 37% respectively).
Number of bedrooms requiredRequirements of households in need 1 2 3 4 5 or
more% Split 40 37 15 6 1Annual Requirements for new affordable home 641 dwellings (derived)
257 258 97 39
Over the past 10 years (2004 to 2014) house prices in Calderdale have increased by 36.43%, which is the second highest in the West Yorkshire region, but below the national average of 45%.
The average house price in Calderdale stands at £142,952, 5.7 times higher than the typical household income in the area of £25,000.
8
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
20122013
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Affordability for Calderdale
Average total incomeAxis Title
(Source: Place Analytics)
(Source:SHMA)
Source: Place Analytics / Calderdale SHMA 2011
Housing TenureFigures show there are 8 out of 17 wards in Calderdale that have lower than national average owner occupied housing tenure. Town has the lowest proportion with only 51.57% compared to Northowram and Shelf with 80.55%
Source: Place Analytics
9
Housing Quality
The proportion of houses in Calderdale that lack central heating is 5.3%, which is almost double the national average of 2.7%.
Source: Community Insight
When looking at the indicator for no central heating it is clear that all wards in Calderdale as of the census 2011 showed above national average levels of no central heating. With Park, Sowerby Bridge, Todmorden, Brighouse and Elland all scoring at least double the national average.
(Source: Place Analytics/ONS 2011)
10
Overcrowding The graph below displays the proportion of households that have either one or two fewer rooms than they require. The ages of the household members and their relationships to each other are used to derive the number of rooms/bedrooms they require, based on a standard formula.
8 out of 17 wards are above the national average for overcrowded housing (6.34%); with Park being the highest at 17.32%
Unfortunately, homelessness is once again on the increase nationally and the signs are that trends in Calderdale reflect this national picture. Homelessness acceptances via the local authority in the area have risen by 29.6% between 2011/12 and 2014. With the recent changes to the housing benefit system, this figure has the potential to rise sharply and homelessness is being reported as a significant concern by the third sector in Calderdale.
Homelessness presentations and acceptances 2008-2015 Source: CMBC, 2014
Third Sector provision for Homelessness in Calderdale
With regards to third sector organisation provision there are increasing numbers of people presenting themselves who are sofa surfing, staying with friends and family or sleeping in vehicles. From a statutory point of view this isn’t always recognised as homelessness.
11
This figure totals 281 people supported by three third sector organisations, there are many more organisations in the area supporting people who are homeless, suggesting a significant hidden homelessness problem in Calderdale
Vital Issues
Vital Issue Homelessness increase between 2011/12 and 2014/15, and it is likely to become a significant concern for Calderdale due to the changes in the benefit system.
Vital Issue Calderdale has an increasing lack of affordable housing, resulting in a large proportion of the population in long-term tenured accommodation of lower quality – twice as many homes in Calderdale lack central heating compared with the national average number.
Community Consultation
Comments included “Need more lower rent housing for younger people and those who maybe have lost their homes with redundancy etc. more schemes for older people who want to downsize and rent when they retire/grow older” - Anonymous
“It is more sofa surfing than street sleeping hence the issue tends to be hidden” - Anonymous
12
Number of people supported by SmartMove Calderdale, BASH and St Augustine’s during 2014, who presented as Homeless.
2) Community CohesionThe excerpt below is from the CFFC Vital Signs Report and is the focus on Community Cohesion.
The key issues for Community Cohesion are:
Cohesion: belonging to immediate neighbourhood Cohesion: Not treating each other with respect Cohesion: Different backgrounds get on well Turn Out for Elections
CFFC would like to hear from Voluntary and Community Sector Organisations and Social Enterprises who are experienced skilled and equipped to meet the challenge of these issues.
Cohesion: belonging to immediate neighbourhood CCohesion: Not treating each other with respect CCohesion: Different backgrounds get on well DTurn Out for Elections C
Overall C
CFFC is looking to invest a total of £60k over three years (£20k per year) in a project that is targeted at tackling community cohesion in Calderdale.
We are interested in ways to tackle integration. In Calderdale only 66% of people in feel that people from different backgrounds get on well together. This is 10% worse than the national average and therefore significantly affects the overall assessment of community cohesion. This could also have impacts on belonging to immediate neighbourhood and especially on Not treating each other with respect.
Another area of concern is the turn out for elections which can impact on every aspect of the community. The turnout for elections in Calderdale is around the national average however less than average feel like they can influence a decision.
Talking point Measures of a strong community include a stable and productive local economy, good housing and health and safety but perhaps harder to measure is the community cohesion which binds the community together. Factors that influence cohesion are; how well people get on with each other, how content they are with where they live, how they influence local decisions and how they help others.
The data shows that in Calderdale 78% of people are satisfied with their local area as a place to live (in line with the national average of 79%) and 62% feel they belong to their local neighbourhood. Encouragingly a substantial majority (85%) of people over 65 are satisfied with their home and their neighbourhood.
Slightly less people than the national average feel they can influence local decisions but 15% of residents have actually been involved in local decision making which is slightly above the national average. The turnout for elections in Calderdale is around the national average.
13
Of concern is the finding that only 66% of people in Calderdale feel that people from different backgrounds get on well together. This is 10% worse than the national average and therefore significantly affects the overall assessment of community cohesion.
The numbers of charities per head of population in Calderdale is slightly less than the national average, but over a quarter of residents have given unpaid help in the last year. This is an encouraging finding and suggests that there is a significant pool of goodwill from which community organisations and charities can draw.
The larger number of people employed in manufacturing and the terrace housing which is widespread in Calderdale leads to 40% of residents being classified according to the Office of National Statistics as living in an area of ‘hard-pressed living’. There are many subdivisions under this heading and it does not necessarily correlate with poverty or disadvantage.
Cohesion and Diversity People reporting they get on well with those from different backgrounds scores 10% lower in Calderdale than the national average.
However 62% report feeling they belong to their local neighbourhood, 4% higher than the national average.
Belonging is defined as feeling connected and loyal to a place and to the other people in that place, and is a shared commitment to a community brought together by ties of common interest.
The Community Foundation find that the third sector provides many opportunities to strengthen community cohesion and people’s sense of belonging. Calderdale has 2.2 per 1000 population active charities, marginally below the national average.
The graph on the following page displays the proportion of residents who have lived in the UK for less than 2 years across Calderdale in 2011. It can be seen that Park ward has the highest proportion of these residents at 2.94%, with Greetland and Stainland having the lowest proportion at 0.17%. Park has a 1.34% higher proportion of these residents than the national average figure.
14
Turnout for Local ElectionsCalderdale also scores slightly above the England average for ‘not treating each other with respect’. Calderdale scored 33.7 and the England average 31.2. 2.5% higher than the average
Source Place Analytics -Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.2.0
Volunteering The Big Lottery Fund ‘Well-being Evaluation’ funded by the Cabinet Office found that volunteering activities which supported health improvements, people with disabilities and sport or exercise were deemed key aspects of promoting and assisting individual well-being. The chart below illustrate the key motivations for volunteering reported to Sector Support Calderdale.
The table below indicates the number of potential volunteers who registered with the Volunteer Centre in Calderdale, the number of new groups who decided to use the service to recruit 15
38%
16% 14%9%
4%8% 8%
3%
Key motivation for vol-unteering in Calderdale
Key motivation for volunteering
%
(Source: Sector Support Calderdale)
volunteers, and the number of new volunteering opportunities offered. The majority of these opportunities would be multiple, e.g. Community Transport might need 40 new drivers but this would be listed as one opportunity.
(Source: Sector Support Calderdale)
These data show that the number of registered volunteers more than doubled in the five years from 2004, but that the number significantly decreased in the five years following this - this pattern was also mirrored in the number of new opportunities registered. Interestingly the need for volunteers has continued to increase over the last 10 years.
The variance in the numbers of volunteers can be caused by a number of factors including: differing methods of records and differing levels of staffing and resources. Interestingly so far in 2015 numbers are rising again, from Jan – Aug 1065 registered vols.
Neighbourhood satisfaction and local participationRural residents
Rural areas, sparsely populated, above average employment in agriculture, higher number owning multiple cars, an older married population, a high provision of unpaid care and an above average number of people living in communal establishments.
Cosmopolitans
Residing in densely populated urban areas, high ethnic integration, high numbers of single young adults without children including students, high public transport use, above average qualification levels
Ethnicity central
Concentrated in Inner London and other large cities, high ethnic diversity, high proportion of rented accommodation, high proportion of people living in flats, low car ownership.
Multicultural metropolitans
Concentrated in larger urban conurbations in the transitional areas between urban centres and suburbia, high proportion of BME groups, high proportion of families.
Urbanites Predominantly in urban areas with high concentrations in southern England. More likely to live in either flats or terraces that are privately rented.
Suburbanites Located on the outskirts, in areas with high owner occupation, high numbers of detached houses, low unemployment, high qualifications and high car ownership.
Constrained city dwellers
Higher proportion of older people, households are more likely to live in flats and to rent their accommodation, and there is a higher prevalence of overcrowding, higher proportion of people in poor health, lower qualification levels and high unemployment
Hard-pressed living
Mostly on the fringe of the UK's urban areas, particularly in Wales and the North of England. High levels of people in terraced accommodation, high unemployment, low ethnic diversity, high levels of people employed in manufacturing
Figures reveal that there are 23.6% more households in Calderdale classed as ‘hard-pressed living’, 12% more ‘constrained city dwellers’, and 16.4% less ‘suburbanites’ compared with national average figures. However, there are 6.5% more ‘urbanites’ than nationally. It is worth
16
Year Number of volunteers registered
Number of new groups registered
Number of new opportunities registered
2004 502 16 422009 1360 32 982014 833 40 77
noting the term ‘hard pressed’ does not mean hard pressed in the conventional sense for everyone captured within this category. This is a broad label largely used by the government and other organisations for planning purposes.
Influencing Decisions
The graph below illustrates the turnouts for local elections in Calderdale 2015 against the regional and national averages. At a regional level, Calderdale had a higher turnout by 1.89%, but had a slightly lower turnout than the national average by 0.6%.
To break it down into more detail, the bar chart below shows the turnout for local elections at ward level across Calderdale in 2015. It is shown that Calder has the highest percentage at 76.29, in comparison to Ovenden at 49.6%.
Vital issues
17
Calderdale Yorkshire and Humberside England Great Britain
65.19
63.3
65.8 66.1
Turnout for local elections %
Area
Source: Calderdale Council & House of Commons Research papers
Turnout for local elections- Ward level Source: Calderdale Council 2015
Need to continue to support for people who are able to volunteer in Calderdale.
There is a need to improve relationships between people from different backgrounds.
Community Consultation
Comments included
“Need funding, not enough help, support or finances for mental health and learning disabilities. Also not much support from outside agencies”
“Routes for contributing to the community are probably not as obvious to the public”
“There are a good number of grassroots community-developed opportunities for people to get involved that are entirely inclusive, but rely on blood, sweat, tears of the volunteers who instigate them. There is little backing at a council or larger organisational level”.
18
3) Poverty and Deprivation
The excerpt below is from the CFFC Vital Signs Report and is the focus on poverty and deprivation.
The key issues for poverty and deprivation are:
IMD Average Rank Child Poverty IMD Inequality
CFFC would like to hear from Voluntary and Community Sector Organisations and Social Enterprises who are experienced skilled and equipped to meet the challenge of these issues.
CFFC is looking to invest a total of £60k over three years (£20k per year) in a project that is targeted at tackling the issues described below
Talking Point
This is a complex set of data drawing on many different indicators. Overall it shows that Calderdale has higher deprivation than the national average but is better than its West Yorkshire neighbours.
Of concern are the serious inequalities within the borough which the data highlights. Some wards such as Park and Ovenden being much more deprived than the national average and others such as Northowram and Shelf being much less deprived. The same level of inequality persists within wards with Brighouse showing one of the highest levels of internal inequality nationally.
Further markers examine some of the factors that underlie the inequality such as low income, reliance on benefits, child poverty and environmental factors. Together they build a consistent picture of Calderdale slightly more deprived than the national average but with the same wards recurring for all indicators as more deprived or less deprived than others.
Of particular concern are the data on child poverty which shows that within Calderdale 10,050 children and young people are growing up in poverty which is the second highest proportion across Yorkshire and Humberside region. Fuel poverty, which can particularly affect pensioner households, is also an issue within Calderdale with an estimated 19% of people needing to spend more than 10% of their income on fuel.
The Index of Multiple Deprivations (IMD)Deprivation covers a broad range of issues and refers to unmet needs caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just financial. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is used by national and local government to tackle deprivation and target funding to the most deprived areas.
The Index comprises seven separate weighted indicators:19
IMD Average Rank DChild Poverty DIMD Inequality DOverall D
Education Employment Crime Health Housing Income Living Environment
These separate scores combine to provide an overall measure of deprivation, with the higher the score meaning higher levels of deprivation. However, the IMD is not a direct or meaningful measure of deprivation, but is used to rank areas in England. Thus, an area with a score of 50 is not twice as deprived as an area with a score of 25, and it is more useful to gather information about an area using direct measures (as used in this report) alongside the IMD score.
Latest data show that Calderdale has the best (ie: lowest) IMD score across West Yorkshire, ranking 105 out of 352 nationally – this has remained fairly constant since 2007 when Calderdale was ranked 107th. Despite this, the average IMD score for Calderdale is slightly worse (ie: higher) than the national average of 21.54:
IMD Average score by District
When these scores are broken down at ward level, data highlight that Park has the highest average IMD score in Calderdale. Conversely, Northowram and Shelf is the ward with the lowest deprivation levels, the table and graph below illustrate these stark inequalities within Calderdale:
IMD Average score by Ward
20
(Source: Place Analytics)
Latest figures show that there are a significantly higher proportion of people in Calderdale living in the most deprived 20% of areas in England, compared with the national average number.
Number of people in Calderdale living in most deprived 20% of areas in England.
Number of people in Calderdale living in the least deprived 20% of areas in England
27,648 2,511Source Communities and Local Government.
Overall scores have also been produced for each of the IMD domains at ward level – the graph below shows that Park and Ovenden are the wards with the highest deprivation scores on each of the domains and overall, but that Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward has the highest inequality score, and Park has the lowest – it is important to note that low inequality does not necessarily mean low disadvantage, it simply means there are less differences in deprivation within an area (e.g. Park has consistently low deprivation across the ward).
IMD Inequality ScoreThe IMD (inequality score) is calculated to highlight disparities within a wider area (e.g. borough) and looks at the difference between the most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) and least deprived LSOAs in England. LSOAs typically have between 1000 and 3000 people living in them, with an average population of 1500. Looking at this in relatively small areas allows the identification of pockets of deprivation. The IMD (inequality-score) for a LSOA is then compared against the national average of 100 and a ranking is provided for the 32,482 LSOAs in England. The table below shows that Calderdale has an IMD (inequality score) of 110.74.
(Source: Place Analytics)
Looking at individual ward scores for inequality, data show that 15 out of 17 wards are above national average indicating that significant differences in deprivation exist within wards. The ward with the least differences in deprivation, and therefore the lowest inequality, is found in Park with a score of 82.42, which is significantly below the national average.
In contrast, Brighouse has a score of 275.11 which represents one of the highest inequality levels nationally, and therefore a high level of deprivation disparity within a ward.
This could be due to social housing, wages low, diverse populations, terraced housing etc, and these mirrors Calderdale trends.
21
(Source: Place Analytics)
Inequality score at Ward level
(Source: Place Analytics)
Data for each IMD domain is presented below in order to ascertain where these inequalities exist within Calderdale.
Income deprivationThe Income domain of the IMD is based on the following indicators:
Adults and children in Income Support households Adults and children in income based Job Seekers Allowance households Adults and children in Working Families Tax Credit households whose income is below
60% of the median before cost of housing Adults and children in Disabled Person’s Tax Credit households whose income is below
60% of the median before housing costs National Asylum Support Service supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of
subsistence only and accommodation support.
The chart below displays the mean average total income for Calderdale residents between the years 2000-2013 – it shows an increase in average total income in Calderdale of 42%, from £17,900 to £25,400 per annum (total income figures are based on taxable income including all employees, pension recipients and self-employed people.
Average Total Income Change
22
(Source: Place Analytics)
Data shows that the average income in Calderdale is in line with other regions across West Yorkshire (with the exception of Bradford which has lower income) but below the national average.
IMD Income Profile at District Level
(Source: Place Analytics)
When this is broken down at ward level, Park has the highest level of income deprivation in Calderdale, and more than double the national average of 0.15. At the other end of the scale Northowram and Shelf ward, is less than half of the national average score for income deprivation (see below):
IMD Income Profile at Ward Level
23
(Source: Place Analytics : Official Labour Market Statistics)
Child PovertyAnother way that the income deprivation domain of the IMD and benefit claimant numbers are used, is to provide an indication of child poverty levels - this is the number of children (those under the age of 16 years) in each area who live in families experiencing income deprivation. A score is calculated which represents a proportion of a given area, for example a figure of 0.15 suggests 15% of children are in poverty within that area. The graph below shows that Calderdale has the second highest proportion of children living in poverty across Yorkshire and Humberside in 2015.
(Source: Child Public Health Profile 2015)
The line chart below shows the year on year change in the proportion of children in out of work households, illustrating only a slight decline over a recent 6 year period (2006-2012).
10,050 children and young people are growing up in poverty.
Number of children living in Calderdale in relative poverty Children 0-19 – 41% living in 30% most disadvantaged SOAs. Children 0-4 – 44% living in 30% most disadvantaged SOAs. New Births – 45% were to families living in 30% most disadvantaged SOAs
Nationally there are 20.9% of children judged to be in poverty. Calderdale’s figure at 21% is comparable with the England average.
When analysing the IMD child poverty scores (2010) at ward level in Calderdale, the lowest levels of child poverty appear to be found in Northowram and Shelf (20.31) and the highest in Park (64.26), revealing a stark contrast in wards across Calderdale.24
(From: Community Insight)
Contributing factors to child povertyWhilst there are many reasons for child poverty the Calderdale Child Poverty Needs Assessment 2011, found teenage parents and their children are at increased risk of poverty. Children of teenage mothers have a 63% increased risk of being born into poverty compared to babies born to mothers in their twenties.In Calderdale, there were 184 conceptions in under-18 year old females in 2009, and this had risen by 18 since 2008.
While there have been significant reductions in under-18 conception rates since 1998, progress has slowed and rates are still above national average. Teenage conception rates (2006-08) are highest in Elland, Mixenden and Sowerby Bridge.
Relative PovertyRelative poverty refers to a standard which is defined in terms of the society in which an individual lives and which differs over time. An income-related example would be living on less than X% of average UK income.There are 51,635 children and young people aged 0-19 living in Calderdale.20,995 of these children and young people are living in relative poverty
Children 0-19 – 41% living in 30% most disadvantaged SOAs. Children 0-4 – 44% living in 30% most disadvantaged SOAs. New Births – 45% were to families living in 30% most disadvantaged SOAs.
The information below shows the level of child wellbeing across Calderdale as measured using the Child Wellbeing Index (CWI). The CWI is a small area index measuring child wellbeing – how children are doing in a number of different aspects of their life. The index covers the major domains of a child’s life that have an impact on child well-being and that are available for neighbourhoods in England. The CWI is made up of seven domains:
Number of people in Calderdale living in the most deprived 20% of areas of England by Child Wellbeing Index domainChild Wellbeing Index Children in Need
Source: Communities and Local Government (Child Wellbeing Index 2009)
(Source Community Insight)
Environment deprivation The Environment domain of the IMD includes two sub domains - the first covers the indoor living environment in social and private housing in poor condition, e.g. houses without central heating. The second sub domain covers the outdoor living environment and includes air quality and road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists.
25
The IMD environment score for Calderdale in 2010 is displayed below highlighting that Calderdale has the second best (ie: lowest) score in West Yorkshire. However, it is worse than (ie: above) the national average score of 18.97 by a margin of 14.67.
Below is a table highlighting a specific indicator within this theme- children being killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents. It can be seen that Calderdale has a significant difference at 30.6% compared to the national average of 12%. The figure below highlights a criterion of the IMD environment score. The figure highlights that the rate of children killed or seriously injured in road traffic accident is 11.5% higher than the national average.
Census Deprivation Score It is important to look at other methods of ascertaining deprivation in order to get the most accurate picture of an area. Another way that deprivation is calculated is by using the Census Deprivation Score. This looks at four domains and classifies households on the following characteristics:
Employment (any member of a household not a full-time student is either unemployed or long-term sick)
Education (no person in the household has at least level 2 education, and no person aged 16-18 is a full-time student)
Health and disability (any person in the household has general health ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ or has a long term health problem)
Housing (Household's accommodation is ether overcrowded, with an occupancy rating -1 or less, or is in a shared dwelling, or has no central heating).
Shown in both the chart and table below, the Census Deprivation Score is higher than the national average in each West Yorkshire district. However, Calderdale is the second least deprived district, with a score of 105.8 – both these results are in line with IMD scores for Calderdale.
26
(Source: Public Health Profile 2015)
(Source: Place Analytics)
Fuel PovertyThe table below shows the extent of fuel poverty in in the local area. Fuel poverty is said to occur when in order to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth a household needs to spend more than 10% of its income on total fuel use.
Referring to the Census in 2011, 32,400 residents in Calderdale are over 65 years old. Out of these residents, approximately half of them would have had to spend in excess of 10% of their household incomes to heat their homes to a sufficient level for their needs. The chart below highlights the percentage of individuals in 2011living in Fuel poverty. This illustrates Calderdale at 19%, being higher than the sub region of West Yorkshire and 4% higher than England average.
Proportion of people experiencing Fuel Poverty
Source: Census 2011.
27
(Source: Calderdale Observatory)
Winter Deaths Ratio of excess winter deaths (observed winter deaths minus expected deaths based on non-winter deaths) to average non-winter deaths
Public Health Profile 2015 (1.08.10-31.07.13)
Vital Issues
There are significant inequalities within Calderdale.
Around 10,000 and young people in Calderdale are growing up in poverty.
Some wards have particularly high levels of environment deprivation.
Community Voice
Comments included “Food bank usage seems to be going up.”
“The level of inequality locally exemplifies a significant variance across the region. Not dissimilar to other regions there are wide gaps between the relatively affluent and the very needy and 28
socially excluded. This is demonstrated by the need for Foodbanks, Social Cafes, second hand clothes and chattels and shelters.”
“There are areas of Halifax that are reputedly amongst the most deprived in the country and we work extensively with families from those areas. The children from this area are largely falling behind their peers in terms of school readiness (i.e. social skills, speech and language, independence and confidence) and are therefore arriving at full time school for the first time, already behind their peers and continuing to be so all through their school life. Life expectancy is also lower in these areas by as much as 7-10 years. Calderdale also has some communities that are rurally isolated with poor public transport links and access to universal services.”
29
Appendix 1 - Indicator set
Impact Outcome Indicator setHousing and homelessness
Provide people with opportunities to achieve greater social justice to reduce isolation, exclusion and disadvantage and access local services• Reduce isolation• Promote human
rights and equality
• Support vulnerable and disadvantaged people
• Improved community facilities
• Improve people’s capacity to access accommodation or sustain stable housing
• Prevent homelessness or repeat homelessness
Indicators• Number of people who showed an increase in confidence as a result
of the project• Number of people with improved housing circumstances• Number of people better able to access accommodation• Number of people with improved capacity to sustain accommodation• Number of people with improved capacity to budget• Number of people accessing support services as a result of the project• Number of people accessing support services for the first time as a
result of the project• Number of people accessing advice/guidance services• Number of people accessing advice/guidance services for the first
time• Number of people achieving independent living/no longer requiring
support as a result of the project
Tackling disadvantage and exclusion
Provide people with opportunities to achieve greater social justice to reduce isolation, exclusion and disadvantage and access local services• Reduce isolation• Promote human
rights and equality
• Support vulnerable and disadvantaged people
• Improved community facilities
• Number of people accessing support services as a result of the project• Number of people accessing support services for the first time as a
result of the project• Number of people attending regular social activities as part of the
project• No. of people who participated in community activities as part of
project• Number of people who participated in community activities for the
first time as part of the project• Number of people accessing support services following discrimination
or unfair treatment• Number of new people accessing support services following
discrimination or unfair treatment• Number of people accessing support as a result of the project• Number of people accessing support for the first time as a result of the
project• Number of people accessing advice and/or guidance services as a
result of the project• Number of people accessing advice and/or guidance services for the
30
Improve people`s life skills, employability and enterprise:•Increase in beneficiary training, education, accreditation and employment•Increase enterprise•Improve economic wellbeing•Increase employability•Increase lifelong learning and skills
first time as a result of the project• Number of people achieving independent living/no longer requiring
support as a result of the project• Number of people who participated in community activities as part of
the project• Number of people who participated in community activities for the
first time as part of the project• Number of people accessing support services as a result of the project• Number of people accessing support services for the first time as a
result of the project• Number of people accessing advice/guidance services• Number of people accessing advice/guidance services for the first time• Number of people achieving independent living/no longer requiring
support as a result of the project• Number of people who have used the new/improved community
facilities• Number of people who reported that the community facilities were
improved as a result of the project
• Number of people who attended training as part of the project• Number of people who attended training for the first time as part of
the project• Number of people who gained accreditation as a result of the project• Number of people who gained accreditation for the first time as a
result of the project• Number of people who started on the path to employability as a
result of the project• Number of people who gained sustainable employment as a result of
the project• Number of people coming off work related benefits• Number of people who gain new skills as part of the project• Number of people who gain new skills for the first time as part of the
project• Number of people becoming self-employed as a result of the project• Number of social enterprises set up as a result of the project• Number of new businesses started as a result of the project• Number of social entrepreneurs created from the project• Number of people on the pathway to becoming self employed as a
result of the project• Number of people who started on the path to employability as a
result of the project• Number of people who gained sustainable employment as a result of
the project• Number of people becoming self-employed as a result of the project• Number of people coming off work related benefits• Number of new employment opportunities as a result of the project• Number of work placement/experience opportunities available as a
result of the projectStronger communities
Maximise people`s ability to strengthen community cohesion and build social capacity• Improve
Indicators Number of people who participated in community activities as part of
the project Number of people who participated in community activities for the
first time as part of the project Number of hours of community activity provided as part of the
31
community cohesion
• Improved community facilities
• Improve the community working together
• Support vulnerable and disadvantaged people
• Strengthen organisations
project Number of people who have used the new/improved community
facilities Number of people who reported that the community facilities were
improved as a result of the project Number of people who participated in community activities as part of
the project Number of people who participated in community activities for the
first time as part of the project Number of people engaged in regular volunteering as part of the
project Number of new volunteers as a result of the project Number of people accessing support services as a result of the project Number of people accessing support services for the first time as a
result of the project Number of people accessing advice/guidance services Number of people accessing advice/guidance services for the first
time Number of people achieving independent living/no longer requiring
support as a result of the project Number of new partnerships established as a result of the project Number of existing partnerships strengthened as a result of the
project Number of employees/volunteers offered training and development Number of hours spent on employee/volunteer training and skills Number of hours spent on strategic development within organisations
• Number of people accessing support services following discrimination or unfair treatment
• Number of new people accessing support services following discrimination or unfair treatment
