Politicians have recognised that poverty persists as a root cause of many social problems in Britain. The Government’s drive to reduce social exclusion comes from an acknowledgement that the number of children growing up in poverty, suffering from poor educational attainment and, in the long term, lower life expectancy, is unacceptable. In its “Opportunity for All” report in September 1999 the Government committed to reducing child poverty by 25% by 2004, by half by 2009, and to eliminate it completely within twenty years.

From these commitments flowed a number of area-based initiatives (Education, Sport and Health Action Zones, Employment Zones, New Deal for Communities, Creative Partnerships, Neighbourhood Renewal Funds, etc.), which directed investment into those wards with the worst deprivation.

But the need for local authorities to take a wider view of the problems of social exclusion is evident from the fact that only about 30% of those living in poverty live in the most deprived 10% of wards. Interventions designed to improve social inclusion need also to be targeted at the other 70% of those living in poverty. Much deprivation is hidden in wards that, on average, score well in the deprivation indices, but have extremes of wealth and poverty that can be difficult to prove statistically at a sub-ward level. That is why this social inclusion strategy takes a wider look at the issues faced by Darlington’s wider communities of interest and identity.

Some headline national statistics from the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit give food for thought. It is surely not a coincidence that

• 80% of rough sleepers have drug problems (Rough Sleepers Unit, estimate)
• Young people who run away from home are twice as likely to have been excluded from school (The Children’s Society, Still Running, 1999)
• Most prisoners (56%) are unemployed before sentencing (NACRO, unpublished research)
• Half of all prisoners have poor reading skills, 80% have poor writing skills and just over two thirds have poor numeracy skills (ibid)

There is an ongoing debate about the scale of the problem nationally. However, it can be argued that less than 1% of the population is affected by the most extreme forms of deprivation. For example, becoming pregnant under the age of 16, sleeping rough, being excluded from school. Around one in ten people could be described as living with significant problems. For example, in 1997, 9% of 16-18 year olds were not in learning or work (SEU, Bridging the Gap, 1999), 10% of men aged 18-24 are alcohol independent (SEU PAT 12 report on Young People, 2000). Most commentators agree that around one in three of the population are in some way at risk – around one in three men have a criminal record by the age of thirty (Home Office, Statistical Bulletin, 5/7/95) and in 1994/95 a third of children were growing up in what the government then described as “low income households” (SEU, Bringing Britain Together, 1998).

Hovering in the background are other statistics which can’t be ignored. In 1996 there were four times as many new drug addicts reported to the Home Office as in 1986 (Home Office (Corkery), Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, UK, 1996). Various Home Office sources show that regardless of age, sex, qualifications and place of residence, people from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be poor and to be unemployed.

Government believes that it cannot tackle the problem of social exclusion by itself. It needs to forge partnerships with key partners in local areas to develop solutions to a very diverse set of problems. The Government’s Social Exclusion Unit has emphasised that work on tackling social exclusion should focus on

• Providing a clear lead on social inclusion as a cross-cutting issue at a local level
• Working in a joined-up way
• Avoiding duplication
• Long term outcomes rather than shorter term outputs
• Removing the perverse effects of policies which may give incentives for individuals to become excluded in order to access particular opportunities
• Developing a bottom-up approach