Greenwich: Greenwich Fairness Our future Commission together April 2017 Contents

4 Foreword

7 Executive summary

15 Introduction

18 Background

21 Education

35 Employment

46 Health

53 Housing

67 Financial Inclusion

73 Conclusion

75 Appendices Foreword It has been an honour and a pleasure to work on this Commission. I would like to thank the Commissioners for their valued time and input. Chair, Greenwich Particular thanks are due to Bakita Kasadha and Anya Martin for excellent work in supporting Fairness Commission the Commission.

Lord Kerslake I would also like to thank the local people and organisations that contributed evidence and recommendations to the Commission. Without you, this work would not have been possible.

Lord Kerslake

This report is ultimately about how Greenwich I am delighted to can continue its path towards greater growth present the report of and prosperity, while ensuring that no-one gets left behind. Across each of the themes of the Greenwich Fairness education, employment, health, housing and Commission. financial inclusion, we have sought to identify the challenges and the opportunities for the most disadvantaged residents. Recognising the Around a year ago, I was asked to lead a time and funding pressures faced by public Commission to investigate inequality in the and third sector bodies, we also tried as much borough, scrutinise the Council’s anti-poverty as possible to spread the responsibility of the work, and present a series of recommendations recommendations, and focus on cost-effective to improve outcomes for the most methods that make use of existing powers disadvantaged Greenwich residents. Since then and capacity. Where existing powers are not we have researched and extensively consulted enough, we have also made recommendations local people and organisations to produce for national government to consider. These this report. recommendations require a collaborative, “whole system” approach, involving all relevant Greenwich has seen some enormous economic partners and focused on the long-term. growth in recent years and is very much a borough “on the up”. It is also a very socially We recognise that the Council has a conscious borough, with anti-poverty work limited budget, and that it is not possible at the forefront of the Council’s agenda. to immediately implement all of the Throughout the consultation period we heard recommendations. We have asked the Council a lot of great things about the services on offer, to assess and prioritise them according to their and generally found that residents recognise own knowledge and experience, and respond both the scale of the inequality challenge and with an action plan detailing how they the Council’s positive work against it. will proceed.

4 Greenwich: Our future together Foreword Foreword Greenwich: Our future together 5 Foreword Section 1 Leader, Royal Executive summary Borough of Greenwich Cllr Denise Hyland

a critical friend over the past few months, The Greenwich Fairness Commission, named interest to this group, as it is formed of local The Royal Borough of exploring the challenges and most crucially Greenwich: Our Future Together, has been public, private and third sector representatives. Greenwich is a culturally identifying an evidence based strategy to tackle tasked to deliver an evidenced-based strategy poverty and inequality in the Borough. to tackle inequality and poverty within the The Commissioners were chosen because rich and diverse borough Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG), focusing of their expertise in one or more of the of 270,000 residents. I would like to thank all fifteen Commissioners on education, employment, financial inclusion, themes identified above and concentrated for dedicating their time to getting to know health and housing. their resources in the areas that they are most this Borough, for sharing their expertise and practised in. As the Commissioners have been As a local authority, we have always worked to identifying tangible solutions to make the Royal Against the above themes, the Commission has chosen for the knowledge and expertise they ensure that the prosperity that comes from our Borough of Greenwich a fairer place for all. put forward a set of recommendations which have built throughout their careers, the position greatest assets is shared by all. it believes will provide a solutions-focused taken by the Commission is not necessarily the The Royal Borough of Greenwich welcomes approach to tackling poverty and inequality the view of the organisations the Commissioners We have a multi-pronged approach to tackling these recommendations and looks forward to Borough. The recommendations are listed in currently work for. poverty and we have implemented a range of working together with partners and colleagues section 1.1. initiatives to help break the poverty cycle. We to develop an action plan to improve the future The Commission has operated with a recognise however that there are still pockets of Royal Greenwich. Inequalities are underpinned by a lack of borough-wide focus and through this, it has of social and economic challenges that persist in fairness. Working towards tackling these identified that resources particularly need to this Borough. Cllr Denise Hyland inequalities requires the partnership of all be channelled to the east of the Borough, to change agents and systems leaders at a local, address inequalities concerning area It is paramount to us that we challenge regional and national level. For this reason, and ethnicity. areas where stubborn poverty persists. The the recommendations identify various leads Council has the ambition to see mixed and including the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Greenwich: Our Future Together was the balanced communities in the Royal Borough of locally based community/advocacy groups and 24th Fairness Commission to be established in Greenwich, with fairness at their very core. central government (as well as change agents the UK. There are many cross-cutting themes within the public, voluntary and private sector). between this and previous commissions. Similar In October 2015, we decided to set-up a The Commission welcomes the relaunch of challenges and recommendations have been Fairness Commission to maximise every the Greenwich Partnership and believes that identified, which should be joined up as regional opportunity to improve the quality of life for many of the recommendations will be of great and national responses. our residents. The Commission has acted as

6 Greenwich: Our future together Foreword Executive summary Greenwich: Our future together 7 These recommendations are for the 1.1 Education recommendations Recommendation 4*: National government Recommendation 10: The Royal Borough Council to consider in the light of their own should investigate ways of introducing auto- should continue to support secondary school evaluation, current programmes, and changing Recommendation 1: Given the excellent registration for pupils entitled to Free School effectiveness through developing Peer Review circumstances. They will need to be prioritised provision and outcomes for children at early Meals, in order to ensure that resources are and support networking; and in the longer term, and set against an agreed budget. It is not the years stage, the Royal Borough of reaching all eligible children. increase the volume of high quality choices by role of the Greenwich Commission to second Greenwich should: supporting the set-up of new schools. guess the priorities of the Council. The Council Recommendation 5*: Given the perception has agreed to respond with an action plan. 1. Focus on increasing Children’s Centre take- that the impact of higher proportions of Recommendation 11: The Royal Borough up in the East and South areas; and pupils with Special Educational Needs and should continue closely monitoring off-rolling to In this Executive Summary, the Disability on overall school performance is not ensure that it is not being incorrectly used, and recommendations are categorised as either 2. In the long term, expand the availability of fully included in school evaluations, the Royal work to get exclusion levels below strategic solutions or as recommendations excellent nursery places Borough of Greenwich should initiate a dialogue national averages. to be actioned in the short-term. Those with Ofsted about how to ensure this. recommendations that the Commission Recommendation 2: The Royal Borough Recommendation 12*: The Royal Borough believes should be actioned immediately should promote opportunities for children to Recommendation 6: Schools should, with the should work with other boroughs to identify have been asterisked. experience tertiary education and workplace support of the Progression Partnership, make best practice for those retaking GCSEs. It should settings that raise aspiration and inform future greater use of peer mentoring as a tool to encourage, through the Progression Partnership, career choices, perhaps through a share the success of high-attaining pupils with more work across schools and colleges in the The Commission would like to partnership of Futureversity and Bromley low-attaining ones. Schools should also take year 11/12 transition to assist young people in express its thanks to the individuals Children’s University. advantage of the best practice from other attaining English and maths GCSEs. and organisations who contributed schools through school-to-school Recommendation 3*: The newly established improvement strategies. Recommendation 13*: Further education at its meetings (listed in the Greenwich Partnership should create a providers should increase efforts to raise appendices), especially to all the sub-group as a “Progression Partnership” Recommendation 7: Addressing awareness of the provision of good further residents and Councillors who consisting of educational providers and relevant underperformance at secondary level must education and apprenticeship provision community groups to: continue to be a top priority for the Borough. in Greenwich. attended the public workshop. The Council should work with schools to draw • Provide careers advice, guidance and up a programme of action, drawing from the Recommendation 14: The Progression information for schools for children who best available evidence of what works. Partnership should establish a joined-up lack aspiration or knowledge of further and programme of support for young people higher educational opportunities Recommendation 8: Royal Borough of progressing through secondary, to further Greenwich Children’s Services should work education, and on to higher education. • Promote engagement with parents, informally with schools to further balance the use of and otherwise, to raise awareness and resources throughout a student’s time at Recommendation 15*: In order to maximise aspirations of education options for children secondary school, and schools should establish the potential of the Apprenticeship Levy, the at early years stage, onwards and a collective approach to improving Key Royal Borough should co-ordinate employers • Work together with the newly established Stage 3 outcomes through school-to-school to create a borough-wide Apprenticeship Careers and Enterprise Company to deliver improvement strategies. Levy strategy. This strategy should focus on the careers advice and support throughout creation of a ‘local offer’ to support local young children’s education Recommendation 9: Community groups and people into apprenticeships. voluntary organisations in the Progression Partnership should develop a plan to address parental support and engagement at secondary level, and the Royal Borough should use its reach and resources to assist in this.

8 Greenwich: Our future together Executive summary Executive summary Greenwich: Our future together 9 1.2 Employment • How residents in low paid, insecure work can Recommendation 9: The Greenwich Recommendation 4*: The Good Food in be supported to find higher quality work Partnership should include a business Greenwich Food Poverty Sub-group recommendations investment strand to: should monitor levels of food poverty • How benefit sanctions can be applied annually and develop responses to the Recommendation 1: Royal Borough of more fairly, to reduce the appeal and • Act as business champions, for future information monitored. Greenwich stakeholders should develop formal overturn figures. investment in the Borough and strategic links to increase interaction • Re-establishing a weekly Jobcentre Plus Recommendation 5*: Royal Borough of between educational institutions and • Identify investment opportunities presence at Greenwich Local Labour and Greenwich should share best practice on employers/businesses through: Business employment office • Develop a ‘Businesses in the Borough’ uptake of Healthy Start Vouchers with other strategy, including a Social Enterprise action local authorities. • Maximising existing links into the educational plan, to set out Greenwich’s shared ambitions institutions’ network (e.g. ask governors to Recommendation 4*: Royal Borough of for social enterprise in the Borough Recommendation 6*: Royal Borough of arrange internships/work experience in Greenwich should roll out its London Living Greenwich should partner with Feeding Britain their fields) Wage (LLW) initiative and target a further 100 • Identify economic areas to join up and to develop a checklist by which to regulate Greenwich based businesses, to become LLW establish ‘protection zones’ for local • Maximising existing community engagement cooking facilities in Greenwich’s private employers by the end of financial year 2017/18. businesses and start-ups, by: of youth services (including Participation accommodation. Once created, this checklist should be incorporated into RBG’s Landlord People, The Point, Charlton Athletic Recommendation 5: Royal Borough of • Improving business support to grow start- Accreditation Scheme. Community Trust etc.) Greenwich should join the Living Wage Friendly ups and creating a clear Royal Borough of Funder Scheme. Greenwich offer to businesses • A sponsorship scheme aligning organisations Recommendation 7*: Royal Borough of based in the borough with local residents • Explore local procurement from public sector Greenwich should partner with local Children’s Recommendation 6*: The Government should Centres and identify which actions to tackle • Setting aside space for a multipurpose hub change its minimum wage policy, so that the • Create incubation hubs for start-ups and food poverty can be delivered via them. National Living Wage is paid to everyone 18 small and medium sized entreprises Recommendation 2*: years of age and over. Greenwich Association of Recommendation 8*: Royal Borough of Disabled People, Royal Borough of Greenwich Greenwich should establish a forum that allows Recommendation 7: South-East Chamber of 1.3 Health recommendations and local employers should explore how for cross-section engagement around health, Commerce and Greenwich Local Labour and residents with disabilities and learning difficulties Recommendation 1: to include health service providers, community Business should partner and establish a baseline The findings of the Royal can be supported into the job market, through and advocacy groups (as well as statutory and of in-work training offered by local employers Borough’s bespoke public health project on the following: business sectors). A joint health forum should and encourage local employers to increase the mental health should be incorporated into Oxleas NHS Trust and Greenwich Clinical be established to: • Local work experience opportunities amount of in-job training provided. Commissioning Group’s ongoing work to • Increase interaction between mental • Ongoing support once they have Recommendation 8*: Royal Borough of improve Children Adolescent Mental Health health, physical health and the 3rd sector entered employment Greenwich should continue its Greenwich engagement plans. All organisations should organisations at a strategic level Local Labour Programme (GLLP) and expand embed the findings into their Children Recommendation 3*: The evidence has brought eligibility to residents who are long-term (5 Adolescent Mental Health engagement plans. • Aid with a holistic approach to tackling health to light that a wider conversation between the years+) unemployed. GLLP has incredible issues, that is identifying the health promoting Recommendation 2: More ambitions for Royal Borough of Greenwich and Greenwich success with participants who join the scheme, potential of organisations within and outside children and young people’s mental health based Jobcentre Plus needs to take place, to especially with long-term unemployed residents. of the health sector itself should be embedded within the South East discuss: This best practice scheme should be shared as widely as possible with other local authorities. London Sustainability and Transform Plan. • Identify opportunities for more efficient sign- • How residents, identified as economically posting and referrals between organisations Recommendation 3: Implement a targeted inactive and wanting a job, can be identified weight management programme (especially for and supported into the labour market hard to reach groups and children).

10 Greenwich: Our future together Executive summary Executive summary Greenwich: Our future together 11 • Identify potential asset givers and sustain pre- Recommendation 5: The Royal Borough of Recommendation 11: Developers, both private 1.6 Financial inclusion existing assets to strengthen community led Greenwich should lobby government to lift and social, should ensure the needs of local projects and the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap communities are central in new developments, recommendations so that the Royal Borough can expand its own and continue to encourage ‘mixed communities’. • Identify which local challenges can be Recommendation 1: Create a Council ‘one- development programme. The Borough should, The London Mayor’s “Good Practice Guide to partnered with local businesses and London stop shop’, for residents with long-standing in the meanwhile, expand on its previous Estate Regeneration” should be followed. multiple debts. successes and actively seek out partnerships Recommendation 12*: The Royal Borough 1.4 Housing recommendations with housing associations and developers. Recommendation 2*: The Royal Borough should introduce additional licensing for all should revert Council Tax support to 100% for Recommendation 1: Recommendation 6*: Royal Borough of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs). It The Royal Borough the Borough’s most vulnerable residents (those Greenwich should review Meridian Home Start should also consider using ‘Article 4 Directions’ of Greenwich should further promote residents in receipt of disability living allowance and identify what is preventing development to limit the number of HMOs in a certain area, developments that address outlined in the and personal independence payment). recent housing white paper (adequate sheltered with a view to kickstarting progress. It should if this is identified as necessary and beneficial. accommodation, for instance, could help free up identify where there is learning to be gained Recommendation 3*: In the first year of Recommendation 13*: Building on the family homes). from other London boroughs. leaving care, a young care leaver should receive learning from the Private Rented Sector a full Council Tax exemption, with an annual Recommendation 2: Recommendation 7*: Through its strategic Housing Enforcement Programme as well as The Royal Borough of incremental increase (up until the age of 25 asset review, the Royal Borough of Greenwich the experience of other boroughs, the Royal Greenwich should continue to undertake years old, where they would be expected to should identify and publish a list of available Borough should consider introducing selective regular assessments of need for specific groups start paying the full amount). (such as Gypsies and Traveller communities), land, and where necessary identify challenges to licensing on areas or types of properties which have above average incidence of poor despite the removal of the legal requirement to its release. Recommendation 4: National Government conditions, either through utilising the 20% do so. It should maintain robust assessment data should undertake a fundamental review of Recommendation 8: National government maximum allowance, or by applying to the to ensure it can meet the future needs of the application of benefit sanctions. It should must re-examine welfare changes in light of the Secretary of State for further powers. these communities. identify the following: impact on homelessness and the rising cost of Recommendation 14: The Borough should Recommendation 3*: The Royal Borough Discretionary Housing Payments, and establish • Whether benefit sanctions disproportionately develop a wider strategy on private sector of Greenwich should ensure it is thoroughly a system that limits the need for emergency impact those who are most vulnerable in standards, for instance including support for prepared for the introduction of the relief to a minimum. In particular, the shared society (e.g. young people, service users tenants and landlords to know their legal Homelessness Reduction Act in anticipation accommodation rate of Housing Benefit with learning disabilities or mental rights and responsibilities, perhaps through that applications may initially rise significantly. It should be reviewed in the context of risks to health conditions) should consider partnering with other boroughs vulnerable young people. partnership working with housing rights or to consult with local authorities in Wales (which advice groups. • Trend in number of benefit delays (including previously introduced similar legislation) as they Recommendation 9*: The Royal Borough the causes) should undertake works as identified necessary Recommendation 15*: The Council should will have useful learning. • The speed at which money is refunded after by the housing stock condition survey. press the Ministry of Justice to ensure that a successful appeal Recommendation 4*: If judged cost-effective, there is an accessible local hearing centre, the Royal Borough of Greenwich should Recommendation 10: The Royal Borough for instance by holding hearings in Woolwich Recommendation 5: consider expanding the downsizing incentive should ensure that residents receive clear Crown Court. Royal Borough of to those downsizing by one bedroom, through and frequent communications regarding Greenwich and Greenwich Jobcentre Plus mutual exchanges, or potentially including three- maintenance works. should partner to review the application of way swaps or partnering with other boroughs. benefit sanctions at a local level.

12 Greenwich: Our future together Executive summary Executive summary Greenwich: Our future together 13 Recommendation 6*: Greenwich Foodbank Recommendation 3: The Royal Borough of Section 2 employees should receive financial awareness Greenwich should review current contracts training so that they are able to provide first and establish which Council contracts could be level advice and, where appropriate, signpost delivered by local businesses, in line with the Introduction Foodbank service users to specialists. Social Value Act.

Recommendation 7: Royal Borough of Recommendation 4: The Royal Borough Greenwich should continue to provide of Greenwich should create a Compliance on-going support for residents with Nil Monitoring function, to monitor and review the Recourse to Public Funds, whilst investigating outcomes of the above recommendations. best practice within NRPF-specific services to maximise savings. Recommendation 5: To enable more local businesses to deliver Council contracts, the Recommendation 8: The Local Government Royal Borough of Greenwich should review Association should conduct a review on Nil its trading history and risk aversion criteria. Recourse to Public Funds specific services, as The Council must remain risk averse, but the well as the nation-wide impact on vigilance should be in proportion to the size of local government. the contract. 2.1 What is a Fairness 2.2 Terms of reference Commission? In October 2015, the Royal Borough of 1.7 What would fairer policy Greenwich decided to create a Fairness In recent years, many local and regional Commission, named “Greenwich: Our Future look like? authorities have set up Fairness Commissions. Together” with a focus on the themes of These are panels of experts in various fields, As well as fairness for individuals and families, housing, health, education and employment. called Commissioners, who have been asked practices need to consider fairness in contracts to look at inequality in the local area and and bids. A key aspect of conducting a fair bid The purpose of the Commission was to present recommendations on how to reduce it. or proposal call includes the actual submission support RBG to achieve its mission of closing Commissioners generally come from a variety process and may present further opportunities the gaps in outcomes for its residents, and of organisations from the public, private and to widen or increase local involvement in increasing opportunities for all to have an voluntary sectors. the process. improved quality of life. It was asked to evaluate the Borough’s current anti-poverty approach, Fairness Commissions seek the views of local Recommendation 1: The Royal Borough identify opportunities for partnership working, people and organisations, gather submissions should establish a uniform and accessible and present recommendations at both the local in the form of reports or data, and use tendering process, including uniform Pre and national levels. These recommendations will these to make informed, locally-relevant Purchasing Questionnaires (PPQs), so that small be used to inform future Royal Greenwich Anti- recommendations. The recommendations may organisations have adequate time to respond. poverty Strategies. be for the local authority, central or regional government (such as the Greater London Recommendation 2: Council contracts “Greenwich: Our Future Together” is Authority), other public bodies, or local charities should stipulate that organisations, delivering independent of the Council, in order to ensure and businesses. commissioned services, should have proper scrutiny and impartiality. Lord Kerslake implemented healthier workplace charters was requested to lead the Commission and and pay the London Living Wage (LLW). LLW personally select the Commissioners (see should be provided to employees working section 2.4 for full list). The Commission was within the Greater London area. tasked to use an array of means to contact stakeholders and residents, and ensure that meetings were accessible to targeted groups.

14 Greenwich: Our future together Executive summary Introduction Greenwich: Our future together 15 Four key themes were identified by RBG 2.4 Members of the Commission Baroness Doreen Lawrence OBE is a Life In order to gather input from local service as particular areas of concern. These were Peer in the House of Lords, a renowned justice providing organisations (such as schools, education, employment, housing, and health. Lord Bob Kerslake (Chair) is a cross-bench and civil rights campaigner and founder of the charities, and housing associations), the Commissioners were chosen with expertise peer in the House of Lords and Chair Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust. Commission held five roundtable events in each of these areas and meetings were of Peabody, King’s College Hospital NHS between October and December 2016, each organised thematically to identify the key issues Foundation Trust, the Centre for Public Scrutiny Sam Parrett OBE is Principal and Chief covering a different key theme. The roundtables within each theme. Additionally, during the (CfPS), London CIV, Be First, and President of Executive of London South East Colleges. had 10-20 attendees, each a local stakeholder process of the Commission a fifth theme was the Local Government Association. or senior representative of a relevant identified as particularly crucial to residents’ Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald is the organisation. lives and opportunities: financial inclusion. There Lord Victor Adebowale CBE is a cross-bench Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Cabinet is inevitably some degree of overlap between peer in the House of Lords and Chief Executive Member for Culture, Creative industry and The Commission held a young person’s these themes, which highlights the interlinking of the social care enterprise Turning Point. Community Wellbeing. consultation in order to invite the views of local and correlation between causes and impact of young people, attended a disabled people’s poverty. There are some social issues that were Richard Brooks is an independent strategy and consultation event hosted by the Greenwich not explored as part of the work. However, policy advisor, and former Director of Strategy 2.5 Overview of methodology Association of Disabled People, and hosted a grouping the themes in this way allowed the at Ofsted. and timescales local business leaders’ roundtable to invite the Commission to quickly identify key stakeholders participation and engagement of businesses. and issues within the limited timescale of Gilles Cabon is Chief Executive Officer of the The report was researched and written over the report. Greenwich Inclusion Project. a six-month period, from September 2016 to A public workshop was also held in February March 2017. 2017 to invite the views of local residents. Professor Yvonne Doyle is Regional Director Attendees were sorted into groups to cover 2.3 Defining ‘Fairness’ for London at Public Health England. Following the selection and invitation of the key themes and discussions were led by Commissioners over summer 2016, the panel Commissioners. Similarly to the roundtables, Dr Carole Easton OBE ‘Fairness’ for the purpose of this Commission is Chief Executive at first met at the end of September to decide discussions were structured to first identify the means reducing poverty, improving life quality Young Women’s Trust and Trustee at the structure and priorities of the Commission. various social issues in each theme, and then and increasing opportunities for disadvantaged Depaul UK. A public event was held shortly afterwards propose a series of recommendations based residents in Greenwich. at Woolwich Town Hall to formally open the on this. Peter Estlin is a Senior Advisor to Barclays plc, Commission as well as launch the call an Alderman, and Sheriff of the City of London. Across the five key fields, this encompasses for evidence. Throughout this period Commissioners and equality of opportunity as well as improved supporting officers contacted various local Cathy Francis is Regional Director of Patients outcomes. As examples, fairness in education The call for evidence was forwarded to a organisations and stakeholders, councillors, and and Information (South) at NHS England. means improved opportunities for access, range of local groups and stakeholders who had officers at the the Council for information and as well as improved attainment. In health, it previously had contact with the Council or who feedback, in addition to the desk-based research Dr Cathy Garner is a former Partnerships means improved access to services, as well worked in the fields of the key themes. This ran and analysis work conducted as a basis for Director at the Work Foundation in London. as improved uptake. In housing, employment until January 31 2017 and over 20 organisations the report. or financial inclusion, it means not only access Naomi Goldberg is Chief Executive of submitted evidence, some of whom submitted to homes, jobs or financial support, but also Greenwich Action for Voluntary Services. more than one document. The evidence was that these are adequate to support a decent of various formats, including reports, letters, standard of living. Deborah Hargreaves is Chair of the London testimonies, feedback, data, and case studies Child Poverty Alliance and former journalist and from other boroughs. In addition to this, editor at the Financial Times. many organisations spoke with Commissioners and officers to discuss key issues Stephen Howlett is Chief Executive of Peabody and recommendations. and voluntary Chair of the Court and Pro Chancellor of the University of Greenwich.

16 Greenwich: Our future together Introduction Introduction Greenwich: Our future together 17 Section 3 • 66% of people felt safe in their local area (in Of all London boroughs, Greenwich is the comparison, Outer London was 59%) most improved (in terms of its relative ranking between 2010 and 2015). Background • Over 70% thought that people from different ethnic backgrounds got on well together Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) are small (comparative data unavailable) geographical areas within a borough. Data from LSOAs can be used to compare how different In a wider survey by the Office for National parts of the borough/area fare in comparison to Statistics, however, Greenwich was ranked as others. Comparing the different areas identifies the least happy London Borough, although whether wealth or poverty is a typical borough the happiest borough scored 7.67 out of 10 picture or confined to particular pockets in (Greenwich scored 7.09 out of 10), meaning a borough. The 2015 IMD showed that 23% the difference between the happiest and of Greenwich LSOAs were among the 20% saddest borough is only 0.59. The Greenwich most deprived in England (compared to 43% in sample size was 320 people. 2010) and 20% were in the most deprived 40% (compared to 77% in 2010). The Borough has been committed to improving 3.1 Royal Borough of Greenwich Over 152 different languages are spoken by overall quality of life and tackling social and Only 2% of Greenwich LSOAs were in the Royal Greenwich’s young people. economic inequality, through a multi-pronged least deprived 20% of England, and only 10% Over the past 20 years, the Royal Borough anti-poverty approach. This has included were in the least deprived 40%. This shows a of Greenwich has seen great transformation, Residents born outside of the UK account for implementing a range of emergency support marked improvement over the last 5 years, as which has accelerated the Borough’s progress 31% of the overall population. This includes a schemes and dedicated family programmes, previously no Greenwich LSOAs were in the with physical and economic development. This non-UK born European population, accounting to help break the poverty cycle. The Royal least deprived areas of England. There has also has been due to significant inward investment, for 8.9% of the overall population. There are Borough of Greenwich however, recognises been a decrease in the number of LSOAs in new strategic transport links, as well as the also strong African communities based in the that challenges still remain. There are pockets of the most deprived areas. The Census reclamation of large areas of previously disused Borough, particularly Nigerian born (accounting poverty especially in the east of the borough. Household Deprivation Dimensions classifies and contaminated land for new housing for 48.2% of the African-born population). Recognising these stubborn challenges, in households in England and Wales by four and businesses. October 2015, the Council decided to set-up a dimensions of deprivation: Regeneration has improved the overall look and Fairness Commission with the aim of providing As well as infrastructure changes, the Borough feel of many parts of the Borough. According to an objective, evidence-based strategy identifying 1. Employment: any member of a household has also seen a population change. The Royal the 2016 Residents’ Survey (conducted by The how the Council, partners, charities and not a full-time student is either unemployed Borough of Greenwich is a culturally rich Campaign Company, on behalf of the Council): grassroots organisations can tackle inequality or long-term sick and poverty. borough of 270,000 residents. It is incredibly 2. Education: no person in the household has • 84% of residents were satisfied or very diverse in terms of culture, ethnicity and age. at least level 2 education (see highest level of 1 satisfied with their local area (in comparison, Greenwich is a relatively young Borough , qualification), and no person aged 16-18 is a Outer London was 75%) 3.2 Case for change with approximately 64,676 children and young fulltime student people under the age of 18 years accounting • 61% of residents thought that RBG kept In the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation 3. Health and disability: any person in the for 24% of the total population. Children and residents well informed about its services and (IMD) Greenwich was listed as the 50th household has general health ‘bad or very young people from Black, Asian and Minority benefits (in comparison, Outer London most deprived local authority area, out of the bad’ or has a long term health problem and Ethnic (BAME) groups account for over half of was 52%) 152 English councils. This is a fall of 31 places all children living in the area (this compares with from the previous count. Greenwich has seen 4. Housing: Household’s accommodation is 22% in the country as a whole). an improvement in deprivation rankings in either overcrowded, with an occupancy all domains since the 2010 indices, with the rating -1 or less, or is in a shared dwelling, 1 2014 mid-year population estimates, Office of exception of the employment scale. or has no central heating national Statistics

18 Greenwich: Our future together Background Background Greenwich: Our future together 19 The most recent census shows that 62.8% of opportunities is unfair and disproportionate). Section 4 Greenwich households were deprived in 1 or The impact of poverty is grave. It has a cyclic more dimensions (60.6% in London); 8.1% in 3 impact on health, education and employment or 4 dimensions (7.2% in London). Greenwich outcomes and lessens overall quality of life. The Education was ranked 25th in England and Wales for risk of effects of poverty are compounded by households with 4 deprivation dimensions. gender, ethnicity, disability and geography, which is underpinned by a lack of fairness and at times discrimination. Household income estimates (2015) PayCheck mean household income

4.1 Early Years Foundation Stage disadvantaged 2-year-olds. 3The hours can be used in Ofsted-approved providers, including (EYFS) nurseries and schools, and with registered childminders. From September 2017, the Education is critical to life chances. Skills and allowance will be increased to 30 hours a week qualifications are causally related to a wide for 3- and 4-year-olds for families who meet the to range of life outcomes. They affect not only to eligibility criteria. to employment and earnings, but also health, happiness, and many other forms of well-being. to Good quality early years education can make Ward key a significant difference to life chances. A child’s The benefits of educational attainment are 1 Abbey Wood 10 Kidbrooke with Hornfair brain is most receptive to learning between also transferred across generations. Parental 2 Blackheath Westcombe 11 Middle Park & Sutcliffe birth and five years, and the intake of new 3 Charlton 12 Peninsula education levels predict many child outcomes.2 4 Coldharbour & New Eltham 13 Plumstead information in these years is critical to later Education is also an area that government can 5 Eltham North 14 Shooters Hill learning capacity. Early years learning lays the 6 Eltham South 15 Thamesmead Moorings relatively easily influence through policy, most foundation for education later on, and children 7 Eltham West 16 Woolwich Common obviously because much of it is publicly funded. 8 Glyndon 17 Woolwich Riverside who are disadvantaged at this stage are likely to 9 Greenwich West However, in recent years the landscape has fall further behind as they progress through life.4 become much more complex, and in some ways fragmented, as control over schools has increasingly moved away from local authorities. Despite the improvements in the borough, pockets of poverty still persist, suggesting All 3 and 4-year-olds in England are currently that increased opportunities created by the entitled to a state-funded early education place borough’s overall economic improvement of 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. are not being accessed by all, especially the 3 Including children in care or who have been adopted, who Across 2013-14 this was extended to certain have Special Educational Needs, or whose parents are in receipt most vulnerable. The Commission has focused of certain benefits. Full list at Department for Education’s on improving life quality and increasing Statistical First Release Provision for children under five years of age in England: January 2015 opportunities for disadvantaged residents in 2 Institute for Fiscal Studies and University of Warwick, Parental Background and Child Outcomes: How Much Does Money 4 Edward Melhuish’s The Impact of Early Childhood Education Greenwich (particularly where access to those Matter and What Else Matters? and Care on Improved Wellbeing

20 Greenwich: Our future together Background Education Greenwich: Our future together 21 As of August 2016, there were 674 registered accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable The submission reports that there is not a families supports this.9 In Greenwich’s specific childcare providers in Greenwich, of which 396 who set to benefit from it the most. The most Children’s Centre (CC) in each ward and that case, however, it appears to contradict are childminders, 151 are childcare premises, recent data published by the Department for at least one has a “virtual” Centre with “poor the observation that some of the most and 127 are home childminders. Education (January 2016) indicates that children quality accessible provision”. The Commission economically disadvantaged communities (such in Greenwich were less likely than average to is not able to assess this independently, but as Black Africans), are reported as being very Ofsted’s inspection reports for Greenwich’s benefit from funded early years places, at just contacted Early Help services for comment aspirational and academically successful. There registered providers have broadly average levels 54%.7 This places Greenwich behind both the and received information that take-up of CC is also a risk that this viewpoint could serve of ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ ratings. For nursery London average (57%) and the national average services for 2 to 4-year-olds is high (typically to reinforce lower progression levels amongst schools in particular, 100% are judged good or (68%). However, more recent data submitted around 80%) and has overwhelmingly positive disadvantaged children, if they are not expected outstanding (compared to London and national by Council officers shows a significant feedback from parents through the 2016 to aspire to higher levels of education. This averages of 98%). improvement, with the figure reaching 78% in Children’s Centre Survey. Vulnerable groups in does not necessarily negate the point, but it is September 2016. This is above both London particular have high take-up and RBG reports worth also considering the importance of high In 2016, Greenwich ranked first nationally at and national levels.8 Officers indicated that a very positive outcomes for these. Take-up is expectations from professionals as well as pupils Early Years Foundation Stage for pupils reaching reason for Greenwich’s previous low level of however lower for 2-year-olds in certain areas and parents. a “good level of development” at the end of take-up was changes to national policy in 2014 (South and East, at 54 and 56% respectively). 5 reception (ages 0-5). which extended entitlement to a wider range RBG has targeted the “Central A” area (which Currently, Greenwich has a programme called of children. Greenwich did not at the time have is particularly deprived) previously and raised Futureversity which provides free courses and activities to 11 to 25 year olds in order to raise Table 0: Percentage of pupils achieving a ‘good sufficient childcare places, but these have uptake for 2-year-olds to 69%, indicating aspirations. Representatives from the University level of development’ at Early Years Foundation since increased. successful practices. of Greenwich said, however, that “access [to Stage (EYFS) A submission to the Commission by two Recommendation 1: Given the excellent university] starts from birth” and suggested o councillors, the Joint Chairs of the Children provision and outcomes for children at early that they have a responsibility to implement ntion and Young People Scrutiny panel, highlights the years stage, RBG should: a “bigger, more comprehensive plan” through in concern that take-up levels are lower in some co-operation with schools and colleges. They 10 wards than others. RBG data shows that take- 1. Focus on increasing Children’s Centre take- referred to the Bromley Children’s University up ranges from 68% to 85% (above London up in the East and South areas and project, which organises learning activities for averages). The Joint Chairs’ submission adds that children in the college and in the workplace, 2. In the long term, expand the availability of during research into childcare availability, the based on the observation that “children can Greenwich tion onon excellent nursery places. councillors were told that there were sufficient only aspire to what they know exists”.11 These Source: RBG/National Statistics SFR50/2016 childcare places in Greenwich for all eligible programmes, or others, could be expanded to children. However, this conclusion was based on With the extension of funded Early Years cover younger children. a calculation of the number of childminders in childcare to 30 hours a week this year, it is even Vulnerable children at EYFS outperform the borough, not the number of nursery places. more crucial that the Royal Borough prioritises Recommendation 2: The Royal Borough their peers nationally and the gap between Parents reported a preference for the latter, and the above. should promote opportunities for children to disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children given the high quality of nurseries in Greenwich, experience tertiary education and workplace 6 Additionally, local educational professionals said is narrower than national averages. this is not surprising. settings that raise aspiration and inform anecdotally that children from disadvantaged future career choices, perhaps through a The good quality of Early Years provision in backgrounds do not aspire to further and partnership of Futureversity and Bromley Greenwich is therefore quite clear. However, higher education in the same way less Children’s University. it is important to ensure that this provision is disadvantaged children do, and that children from wealthier families tend to see further and 7 SFR23/2016 Table 5LA (www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ higher education as the default option. education-provision-children-under-5-years-of-age- 9 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Poorer children’s educational 5 SFR50/2016 Table 1(www.gov.uk/government/statistics/early- january-2016) attainment: how important are attitudes and behaviour? years-foundation-stage-profile-results-2015-to-2016) The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s study 8 Note that these figures date from January 2016 as more 10 London South East Colleges, Children’s University 6 SFR50/2016 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ recent data has not been released, so a comparison with into the educational aspirations of poor early-years-foundation-stage-profile-results-2015-to-2016) Greenwich’s September figure is only a guideline. 11 www.childrensuniversity.co.uk (accessed 16/03/2017)

22 Greenwich: Our future together Education Education Greenwich: Our future together 23 Recommendation 3: The newly established Nationally, disadvantaged children perform Being registered for FSM secures extra funding Table 1: Percentage achieving the expected level Greenwich Partnership should create a sub- significantly worse than children from better- for the school through the Pupil Premium, in reading, writing and mathematics at Key Stage group as a “Progression Partnership” consisting off backgrounds. Pupils are recorded as which can be spent on enhancing the education 2 in 2016, by disadvantage. of education providers and relevant community disadvantaged if they are registered as eligible of disadvantaged children. For both the child groups to: for Free School Meals (FSM) in the last six and the school, it is important for eligible years, have been looked after by the Council children to be registered. • Provide careers advice, guidance and for 1 day or more, or have been adopted from information for schools for children who care. Pupils are eligible for Free School Meals The NAHT recently lobbied the government lack aspiration or knowledge of further and (FSM) if they or their parents are in receipt of to introduce automatic registration for entitled higher educational opportunities certain income-related benefits. Registration is pupils. The data on benefits, and therefore FSM not automatic so parents must apply for FSM. eligibility, is already held by public bodies so Greenwich onon ngn • Promote engagement with parents, informally children should not be losing out on meals or intge other and otherwise, to raise awareness and In Greenwich, 29.2% of children in Greenwich funding for their schools. There are potential aspirations of education options for children Source: National Statistics SFR 62/2016 live in poverty.13 Despite this, only 18.3% data protection concerns, but it is possible to at early years stage, onwards and of pupils were registered for FSM in 2016. consider alternative ways of sharing the data, for • Work together with the newly established This means that around a third of children in instance by anonymising it. Greenwich primary pupils outperform London Careers and Enterprise Company to deliver poverty in Greenwich are not registered for and England averages across all ethnic groups, careers advice and support throughout FSM. Parents are encouraged to register by the Recommendation 4: National government with the exception of White British (who children’s education. local authority, as FSM pupils are awarded extra should investigate ways of introducing auto- perform above national average, but below funding from the central government. However, registration for pupils entitled to FSM, in order London average). Most notably, Black pupils the National Association of Head Teachers to ensure that resources are reaching all (who underperform nationally) perform 4.2 Primary education (NAHT) has recently highlighted that eligible children. significantly better in Greenwich than elsewhere: parents may not register their children for Pupils attend primary education between the reasons including: Turning back to attainment, while disadvantaged ages 5-11. The end of primary education is children in Greenwich do perform significantly Table 2: Percentage achieving expected standard assessed by Key Stage 2 (KS2) examinations. • poor literacy or English language skills worse (52% reach the expected standards) in reading, writing and mathematics at Key Stage Attainment is measured by satisfactory levels than those from less disadvantaged backgrounds 2 in 2016, by ethnicity (numbers on the x-axis of reading, writing and mathematics. Primary • living in a chaotic home environment (72%) at the end of primary level, both groups pupils in Greenwich outperform the national indicate number of pupils in Greenwich) • not wanting to “admit” to being on benefits outperform regional and national averages and and London averages significantly. In Key Stage the gap is significantly narrower in Greenwich 1 (ages 5-7), Greenwich pupils are ranked joint • lack of awareness. than it is nationally (broadly similar to the rest 1st in England for reading and mathematics and of London). While this is positive, it still means joint 2nd overall (including an average of scores In 2014, universal free school meals were an unacceptably high number of pupils are not 12 in reading, writing, mathematics and science). introduced for reception, year 1 and year reaching the expected standard. 2. While this did reduce the proportion of At the end of Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11), 64% children in poverty who were not eligible, it of Greenwich pupils achieve the expected also had the effect that some families stopped hite ie in c hinee standard in reading, writing and mathematics. informing the schools of their circumstances Greenwich onon ngn This compares to 59% in London and 53% and did not register when their children nationally. This puts Greenwich at joint 6th reached year 3.14 Source: National Statistics SFR 62/2016 nationally, and also joint 2nd nationally for percentage of pupils achieving a ‘higher standard’ in these three measures. 13 Ofsted, “Royal Borough of Greenwich: inspection of However, the ethnicity indicators provided at services for children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers” (August 2016) a national level are broad and do encompass quite significant variation. For instance, while 14 BBC News, “Free school means plan will help more pupils, 12 KS1 local authority tables, SFR42/2016. heads say” (November 2016)

24 Greenwich: Our future together Education Education Greenwich: Our future together 25 Black primary pupils overall perform well, this that a broadly average number of pupils with a Recommendation 5: Given the perception In 2016 the government also introduced a is largely because of Black African (especially statement or Education, Health and Care Plan. that the impact of higher proportions of SEN new measure of attainment at secondary level Nigerian) performance being well above Greenwich does have slightly more pupils with pupils on overall school performance is not called Attainment 8, following concerns that average. Black Caribbean pupils have markedly moderate needs than most of the country. fully included in school evaluations, RBG should schools were directing attention to pupils on poorer performance than Black African pupils initiate a dialogue with Ofsted about how to the C/D borderline in order to boost their (although they still perform above the national Greenwich retains an unusually high proportion ensure this. ranking. The new measure takes eight subjects, average for Black Caribbean pupils).15 of SEN pupils in its own schools, having assigns a point score, and then compares this opted to ensure as many as possible attend Despite this factor, Greenwich pupils with SEN to the scores of other pupils who achieved the Both boys and girls in Greenwich outperform mainstreamed schools within the borough. perform relatively well. At the primary level, same level in primary school tests. This should regional and national averages for their own Greenwich Association of Disabled People SEN pupils in Greenwich outperform both the give a better indication of whether schools are gender, and once again, the gap between boys (GAD) highlighted, in its submission to the London and England averages quite significantly. helping all pupils advance. This report refers to and girls is slightly narrower in Greenwich than Commission, the importance of ensuring GCSE results, however, for the reasons indicated in the rest of the country. that education is inclusive, citing research by above. the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) Table 4: Percentage of pupils achieving expected about the negative impact of segregated standards at the end of primary education in While Greenwich is one of the best performing 16 Table 3: Percentage achieving expected standard schooling. However, while integration into 2016, by SEN provision local authority areas at both early years and at the end of Key Stage 2 in 2016, by gender. mainstream schooling appears to benefit the primary level, performance is not as strong pupil (assuming sufficient resourcing),17 it does Greenwich London England at secondary level and remains a priority for impact on the school’s performance averages. No identified 73% 68% 62% improvement. Greenwich secondary pupils SEN Ofsted’s School Inspection Handbook does performed below the London averages in 2016, SEN support 30% 24% 16% 18 advise inspectors to take account of this. SEN with 10% 9% 7% although slightly above national average. However, council officers raised some concerns statement or about the application of this in practice. They EHC plan However, it is worth observing that All pupils 64% 59% 54% highlighted that they were proud of the decision disadvantaged pupils in Greenwich do perform o Gir to include SEN pupils in mainstream schooling, Source: National Statistics SFR62/2016 significantly above the national average Greenwich onon ngn but described difficulties contextualising the (although still lower than disadvantaged additional challenges this presents to Ofsted London pupils).20 Source: National Statistics SFR62/2016 inspectors, without blaming SEN pupils. The 4.3 Secondary education Commission has not received data to support or disprove this, but given its importance, we Pupils with special educational needs (SEN) are From the age of 11 to 16, pupils attend suggest it merits further dialogue with Ofsted. broadly categorised into two types of support. secondary school, and finish with Key Stage 4 Those with more moderate needs are entitled (KS4) examinations, or GCSEs. Attaining at least to SEN support. Those with more severe needs A*-C in English and mathematics at this stage receive an education, health and care (EHC) is important for two reasons. Firstly, it serves plan, formerly known as a statement. as a gateway into further and higher education, including A-levels and apprenticeships. Secondly, Of the 45,327 Greenwich school pupils in it is the minimum requirement for many 2016, 7,276 (16.1%) had special educational employers, especially for jobs with prospects needs. This is broken down into 1,204 (2.7%) of training and advancement. Adults who having a statement or EHC plan, and 6,072 lack these qualifications are far more likely to 16 The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE), FAQs (13.4%) receiving SEN support. This means experience problems with employment, income, 17 Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, Why does CSIE and other issues throughout their lives.19 say that special schools have no place in the 21st century? and Department for Education, Inclusion: does it matter where 15 This comes from data on 2016 performance submitted by pupils are taught? RBG. This data is based on a different measurement system to 19 Unionlearn, What maths and English skills count in 20 Disadvantaged pupils are those in receipt of Pupil Premium, the 2015 data above so percentages are not included. 18 Ofsted, School inspection handbook (2016) the workplace? those who have been adopted, and those who are looked after.

26 Greenwich: Our future together Education Education Greenwich: Our future together 27 Table 5: Percentage achieving A*-C in English & Table 6: Percentage achieving A*-C in English This explanation is frequently referenced in Table 7: Percentage achieving A*-C in English & mathematics at the end of secondary school in & mathematics at the end of secondary school studies on the matter.23 mathematics at the end of secondary school in 2016, by disadvantage in 2016, by ethnicity (numbers on x-axis are 2016, by gender number of pupils) Raising aspiration amongst underperforming communities has thus been a key aim of the Council in recent years. Officers highlighted a number of projects designed to engage with and raise the aspirations of disadvantaged White British parents and families. The Commission panel’s clear view is that these cultural perceptions need to be robustly intge onintge ui addressed, drawing on all of the available Gir o ui Greenwich onon ngn hite ie in c hinee evidence of what works elsewhere. Greenwich onon ngn Source: National Statistics SFR03/2017 Source: National Statistics SFR03/2017 Greenwich onon ngn Recommendation 6: Schools should, with the support of the Progression Partnership, make Source: National Statistics SFR03/2017 The poorer performance of Greenwich at greater use of peer mentoring as a tool to In terms of SEN, data for Greenwich was not secondary level is largely to do with the share the success of high-attaining pupils with poor performance of White pupils from available in the last national statistical release However, the data maintained at a national level low-attaining ones. Schools should also take 24 disadvantaged backgrounds: only 54.7% of (National Statistics SFR 03/2017). As such the includes quite broad categories of ethnicity advantage of the best practice from other White pupils in Greenwich achieved an A*-C in below details uses data released in the which masks often quite significant variations schools through school-to-school English and mathematics in 2016. Mixed pupils previous year. in performance. For instance, while Black pupils improvement strategies. performed slightly below average. Black and perform well, this is actually largely due to Asian pupils, however, perform notably better the outstanding performance of Nigerian and Recommendation 7: Addressing Table 8: Percentage achieving A*-C in English in Greenwich.21 Ghanaian pupils (78.9% and 68.8% of whom underperformance at secondary level must & mathematics at end of secondary school in achieve A*-C in English and maths respectively). continue to be a top priority for the Borough. 2016, by SEN Although other Black pupil groups, including The Council should work with schools to draw up a programme of action, drawing from the Greenwich London England Black Caribbean (57.5%) and Somali (54.4%), No identified 64.7% (67%) 68.6% 64.6% (70%) perform slightly below average, this is still above best available evidence of what works. SEN the national average for these groups.22 SEN support 31.6% (28%) 29.5% 23.5% (29%) In terms of gender, girls tend to outperform SEN with 14.3% (15%) 9.9% 8.8% (10.5%) boys at secondary level. In Greenwich 59.1% statement or According to consultation with community and EHC plan school representatives, these differences are of boys in 2016 got A*-C in English and maths, generally attributed to aspiration and cultural compared to 62.6% of girls. This compares to Source: National Statistics SFR 01/2016. The data in brackets is 63% and 69.9% across the rest of London. The more recent provisional data received from the Royal Borough values surrounding education. Black African of Greenwich in 2017. communities were frequently described as gender difference in Greenwich is therefore being more aspirational and placing a strong narrower than the rest of the country. value on education as essential to future life While achievement for pupils with no chances. White British, Black Caribbean and identified SEN or on SEN support is similar other underperforming groups were referred to to national and London averages, statemented as having lower aspirations and expectations of or children on an EHC plan continued to educational attainment.

21 It is worth noting that Mixed and Asian are relatively small cohorts of only a couple hundred pupils, so some variation year- 24 The notes indicate that the data on SEN pupils has been on-year would be expected. Mixed pupils performed slightly 23 London Borough of Lambeth, Raising the Achievement of suppressed due to confidentiality issues; it is not better than average in 2015, for instance. 22 Royal Borough of Greenwich. White Working Class Pupils (2014) clear why.

28 Greenwich: Our future together Education Education Greenwich: Our future together 29 perform significantly better at secondary level in • Direction of resources. Language skill by the • Parental and community engagement: • Fixed term exclusions. Attendees at our Greenwich than in the rest of the country, time a child starts school has a significant Stakeholders told us that parental and public consultation raised the concern that including London.25 impact on their attainment and progression community engagement and involvement despite low levels of permanent exclusion, at later stages. Intervention becomes in children’s education was a key factor in Greenwich has relatively high levels of This was reflected in the disabled people’s increasingly complex and expensive as attainment. However, support drops off from fixed-term exclusion. The rate has declined consultation, where young attendees agreed children age and fall further behind, so it is Early Years and by secondary many parents in recent years from 7.5 per 1000 pupils as a whole that schools provided them an relatively simpler and more cost-effective to and communities have little involvement. in 2010/11 to 4.6 in 2013/1428, although adequate level of support. However, they intervene when the children are very young. Discussions with local community groups remains above London and national described a drop-off of support after leaving As such, there has been a national tendency made it clear that there was a desire to fill averages. This is likely to be impacting lower- school, and described difficulties beginning at to focus on early years.26 Additionally, the this gap. performing pupils and preventing them the further education level and into adulthood. pressure on schools to improve exam from advancing their grades. The Council is attainment means that pupils at GCSE stage Recommendation 9: Community groups and aware of this and is currently working with In summary, Greenwich pupils at secondary receive additional support and attention. The voluntary organisations in the Progression head teachers and governors to address level perform slightly worse than would be result is that pupils between these stages see Partnership should develop a plan to this, through reviewing behaviour policies expected in GCSEs (especially in mathematics) fewer resources and support, which has the address parental support and engagement and reviewing on-site provision. This also given the fact that London secondary schools knock on effect of attainment levels dropping at secondary level and the Royal Borough fits into the wider debate about ‘off-rolling’, tend to outperform other areas of the country. as pupils enter secondary. The Council has of Greenwich should use its reach and or removing pupils from the school roll. This is despite a significant advantage at early acknowledged this following tracking work resources to assist in this. This is sometimes used to have poor years and primary levels. It is worth noting, it undertook and pointed to Ofsted’s 2015 performers educated elsewhere so that they however, that by the new “Attainment 8” report “Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years”.27 This • Intake: Officers at the Royal Borough of are not included in GCSE results. A recent measurement system, which measures a report observed that nationally, schools tend Greenwich also undertook a project which investigation by Education Guardian suggests student’s average grade across eight subjects to focus on the more critical Key Stage 4 tracked pupils from primary level into the that the practice is widespread, particularly (with English and mathematics double- (GCSE period) to the detriment of beginning of secondary. They indicated amongst academies.29 Ofsted has recently weighted), Greenwich pupils perform one grade younger pupils. that the highest performing primary pupils instructed its inspectors to crack down on better than the national average. Furthermore, tended to move to secondary schools in schools that are “gaming the system” so there disadvantaged pupils, SEN pupils, and pupils Recommendation 8: RBG Children’s other boroughs, while increasingly pupils is reason to be optimistic that the practice from nationally underperforming ethnic Services should work with schools to further from boroughs with poorer primary will be reduced. However, we recommend minorities all perform significantly better balance the use of resources throughout a provision move into Greenwich secondaries. RBG plays close attention to this field than average. student’s time secondary school, and schools This indicates that pupils may be starting as well.30 should establish a collective approach to at a lower standard. Only about 70% of Overall, this indicates strong provision for pupils improving KS3 through school-to-school Greenwich primary pupils remain in the Recommendation 11: RBG should continue who may need additional support but there improvement strategies. Borough so a large section of the cohort closely monitoring off-rolling to ensure that it remains a need to build on success at earlier are new to the Greenwich system. There is is not being incorrectly used, and work to get levels and raise overall standards. also a concern about lack of places, as there exclusion levels below national averages. are three free schools that have received When discussing the reason for a drop-off permission to set up but have not been able between primary and secondary levels, local to do so due to land availability. stakeholders highlighted several issues:

Recommendation 10: RBG should continue to support secondary school effectiveness

through developing Peer Review and support 28 Most recent data received from RBG schools. networking; and in the longer term, increase 29 The Guardian (21 January 2014) ‘The strange case of the 26 Department for Education and Department of Health, the volume of high quality choices by disappearing GCSE pupils’ Supporting Families in the Foundation Years supporting the set-up of new schools. 25 It is worth noting that the sample size is quite small (only 98 30 TES (2017) ‘New Ofsted crackdown on schools ‘gaming pupils in Greenwich had statements or EHC plans in 2014-15). 27 Ofsted, Key stage 3: the wasted years? (2015) the system’’

30 Greenwich: Our future together Education Education Greenwich: Our future together 31 4.4 Further and Higher Education 14.5% of pupils that did not get GCSEs in 2012 While this may be the case, there is differing Performance for A-levels however is slightly getting them by 2015. performance across boroughs, which indicates poorer, with the average of a student’s best Pupils choosing to go onto further education that there is scope for improving the pass rate three grades being C in Greenwich, versus C+ have several options. For those that pass their in Greenwich. Hounslow, for instance, sees in London and England. A lower proportion of However, this follows almost a decade of steady GCSEs in English and mathematics, some 35.6% of retaking pupils passing their maths Greenwich students also achieve top grades, improvement, up from 8.3% in 2005. may take vocational courses, and others may and English GCSEs between 16-19. It is most which could be attributed to some of the continue on the academic route into Level 3 important to ensure higher standards of English highest achievers leaving for grammar school qualifi cations like A-levels. and maths attainment at end of year 11, but sixth forms outside of the borough. Table 9: Percentage attaining Level 2 there is room to progress here. Since 2015, pupils who do not achieve A*-C in qualifi cations in English and maths at age 19, A key factor is the availability of courses in English and mathematics are required to retake who had not achieved this at 16 (all London Recommendation 12: The Royal Borough of the area. Greenwich Community College, the those qualifi cations at the further education boroughs, with Greenwich in red) Greenwich should work with other boroughs major Further Education provider, was failing to identify best practice for those retaking until relatively recently. It merged with Bromley stage (16-19). Furthermore, the leaving age for compulsory education has recently been GCSEs. It should encourage, through the and Bexley Colleges in August 2016. The new extended from 16 to 18. Progression Partnership, more work across college, London South East Colleges, has 368 schools and colleges in the year 11/12 transition students aged 16-19 in the Greenwich campus In Greenwich, 94% of pupils in Greenwich to assist young people in attaining English and (most learners – 3608 – are adult learners). remain in education after fi nishing school, the maths GCSEs. Since its last grading by Ofsted in 2016, the same as nationally. Pupils in Greenwich are far Greenwich campus has improved and is more likely to go onto a school sixth form than Attendees at Commission roundtables working towards the ‘good’ grade held by the the national average (where further education repeatedly referred to low aspirations amongst other two out-of-borough campuses. institutions are more common), although pupils and their families as a key obstacle to this is broadly similar to the London average. Source: National Statistics SFR 12/16 improving attainment. It is therefore important Evidence of this progression can be seen in Approximately two thirds of Greenwich that the Borough, local organisations and the achievement rate of Functional English and residents who are educated in the borough education professionals set an example by mathematics for 16-18-year-olds. In 2014/15, The picture is also likely to change again in the remain in Greenwich for year 12 (the fi rst year having high expectations – even where a pupil just 44.4% achieved Functional English, which next data release, following the quite drastic of further education). There has been a slight has struggled in the past. rose to 55% in 2015/16. For mathematics, the changes to the school leaving age and further reduction in this since 2014, from 68% to 64%. fi gures were 51.2% in 2014/15 and 60.4% in encouragement of retaking. Those who achieve their GCSEs may go 2015/16. In its submission to the Commission, In terms of attainment, as mentioned in onto study Level 3 or advanced qualifi cations, London South East Colleges highlights raising While the positive infl uence of having GCSEs the previous section, 39.2% of Greenwich including A-levels, applied general or technical awareness of the improved provision in on later employment and earnings is clear, secondary pupils do not get A*-C in English and pathways (vocational qualifi cations), and Greenwich, in order to decrease the number of there is signifi cant debate about whether it is mathematics GCSE. occupational or professional pathways talented leavers, as a key challenge in the future. benefi cial to expect pupils to retake repeatedly. (apprenticeships or training courses through Council offi cers and Further Education While it is widely acknowledged that GCSEs in employers). Recommendation 13: Further education representatives highlighted to the Commission English and mathematics have a strong positive providers should increase efforts to raise that repeated GCSE retakes tend to have impact on later life chances, there is a debate The provision of vocational qualifi cations awareness of the provision of good further a low success rate, and suggested that this around whether compulsory re-takes are the in Greenwich is strong. The average grade education and apprenticeship provision could negatively impact the pupils’ confi dence correct answer. Very few pupils who do not get achieved in Greenwich is Distinction, whereas in Greenwich. and exacerbate their dislike of education by these qualifi cations at 16 go on to get them in for both London and England the average is compelling them to retake a subject that they post-16 education. Nationally, the overall rate Distinction Minus (except for Applied General This may have a cumulative effect of have already failed in. They pointed to central of pupils who did not pass these two GCSEs at courses, for which the England average is encouraging high-performing students to government policy not taking account of the 31 16 but achieved them by 19 was 22.3% in 2015 also Distinction). remain in-borough and further raise standards, fact that some pupils are not able to reach the (up from 16.9% in 2014). Greenwich was the in addition to making learning more accessible required level, no matter how many times they poorest performing London borough, with just to those living in Greenwich, and enabling 31 National Statistics SFR 05/2017

32 Greenwich: Our future together Education Education Greenwich: Our future together 33 more children preparing for work to access the Section 5 wide and expanding range of jobs locally. This will also encourage community and economic development and is critical to improving Employment social mobility.

Beyond further education, Greenwich students are more likely than the national average (+8%) to go onto higher education, although this is slightly (-2%) lower than the London average. At the Commission’s education roundtable, representatives of schools, colleges and universities highlighted that there was limited joint working to ensure that participation was extended, especially to disadvantaged groups.

Recommendation 14: The Progression Partnership should establish a joined-up 5.1 Regional and local context • RBG’s economically inactive rate was 20.6% programme of support for young people (London, 21.7%) progressing through secondary, to further Employment outcomes have long been • The Council is the biggest employer in the education, and on to higher education. associated with lifting people out of poverty. borough and However, a lack of employment opportunities Lastly, in April 2017 the government will (including access) and inequalities in • RBG had a higher Claimant Count introduce the Apprenticeship Levy. It is a levy of employment outcomes, limits the opportunity unemployment rate than the London average 0.5% of an employer’s paybill, for all employers to escape poverty. This section focuses on (ranked 8th highest out of the 33 paying over £3 million in salaries annually. employment inequalities in Greenwich and London boroughs) Nationally only around 2% of employers are what steps can be taken to tackle these. large enough to pay this. Control of the funding will be given to employers through the The snapshot of the figures below show that 5.2 Overall Greenwich government’s Digital Apprenticeship Service. employment inequalities in the borough are employment not evenly distributed, but are concentrated Recommendation 15: In order to maximise in specific geographical areas and to specific Royal Greenwich’s employment rate is the potential of the Apprenticeship Levy, RBG groups in the population. 72.5% (London 73.2%; England 73.9%). This should co-ordinate employers to create a increase has been a trend over the past borough-wide Apprenticeship Levy strategy. This While on average Greenwich figures may decade. Between December 2005 and 2015 strategy should focus on the creation of a ‘local not appear to raise major concerns, as seen the employment rate in RBG grew by 4.6 offer’ to support local young people throughout this section, there are major percentage points from 67.5% to 72.1%. into apprenticeships. intra-Greenwich issues that reflect substantial pockets of inequality. At the time of writing this report:

• RBG’s employment rate was 72.5% (London, 73.2%)

• RBG’s unemployment rate was 6.8% (London, 6.0%)

34 Greenwich: Our future together Education Employment Greenwich: Our future together 35 Table 10: Employment Rate Trends Oct 2005/06 – Oct 2015/16 geography. The northeast of the borough, Five (29%) of RBG wards have Claimant which has the highest claimant counts, also Count unemployment rates either the same has a higher percentage of Black, Asian and or below the London average of 1.3 including: Minority Ethnic (BAME) residents. The most Coldharbour & New Eltham (1.3); Greenwich recent monthly figures show that the claimant West (1.2); Eltham North & Eltham South (1.1); count has fallen in Woolwich Common, Blackheath & Westcombe (1.0). Glyndon, Woolwich Riverside, Abbey Wood and Plumstead. However, these remain above the average for RBG showing a geographic concentration of higher unemployment. Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct et et et et et et et et et et et G onon ngn Table 11: RBG Wards With Highest Claimant Count Rates – December 2016

Number of Claimant Count Number of Claimant Count Between 2014 and 2015 the largest growth Association reported that there were 12,500 Claimants Rate Gap with RBG Claimants Rate RBG Ward Dec 2016 Dec 2016 average of 1.6 Dec 2015 Dec 2015 Up / Down occurred among businesses specialising in workless households with dependent children Abbey Wood 185 1.7 0.1 224 2.1 following sectors: in Greenwich. As a percentage, workless Glyndon 257 1.9 0.2 376 2.8 households with dependent children made up • Professional, scientific and technical activities 18.3% of all households, which was above the Middle Park & 143 1.6 0.0 206 2.3 Sutcliffe (+325 new businesses or +22%) 32 London rate of 13.9%. Plumstead 222 1.8 0.2 298 2.4 • Administrative and support service activities Woolwich 288 2.4 0.8 403 3.3 Over the past five to ten years, there has been (+175 new businesses or +35%) Common a marked shift in the distribution of poverty Woolwich 283 1.9 0.2 382 2.5 • Information and communication (+85 new from Inner to Outer London. There is some Riverside businesses or +8%) evidence that this trend is gathering pace, as six boroughs with the biggest increase in With the exception of the Middle Park & There is a higher concentration of Black • Construction (+80 new businesses or unemployment (since the recession) were in Sutcliffe ward, the wards with the highest Africans in the North and East than in other +10%) and Outer London. Claimant Counts also have much higher parts of the borough. This statistic is particularly • Human health and social work activities (+70 proportion of BAME groups. This highlights that troubling as Black Africans (in Greenwich) new businesses or +16%) The number of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) the east of the Borough needs to be the focus achieve higher educational outcomes than Black claimants fell by 10% between April 2015 of our actions to address fairness. Africans regionally and nationally. This inequality and April 2016, from 4081 to 3,673. The rate 5.3 Unemployment highlights that barriers to employment decreased over this period from 4.7% to 2.0% Runnymede is the UK’s leading independent outcomes are not solely influenced by of the working age population. For London as a race equality think tank. In its research, Of the 6 Index of Multiple Deprivation educational attainment. whole, the number fell by 16.4% from 114,700 Runnymede stated that there has been an measures, Greenwich’s ranking on the to 95,886, over the same period. increase in employment inequality between Unemployment inequality (by ethnicity) is also employment scale is unchanged (51st), the last censuses. Mixed, Bangladeshi and Black reflected in Claimant Count statistics. Moreover, despite an increased number of residents in Greenwich remains in the highest 25% of African groups were identified as experiencing at the business roundtable, the Somali employment. Greenwich has slightly higher rates boroughs for the proportion of working age the largest overall employment inequality in community was identified as facing particular of unemployment than the London average residents claiming out of work benefits and the Greenwich. Additionally, Greenwich has one challenges in access to employment (as well (6.8% compared to 6%). proportion of residents lacking qualifications of the highest levels of employment inequality as education). No statistics relating to access at age 19. Of the borough’s working age Workless households with dependent children for Black Africans of all the London boroughs; and support of the Somali community were do and will continue to face additional the inequality has risen from -3.1 to -3.7, over available from the Greenwich based Jobcentre pressures on income. The Local Government a 10 year period, which is particularly stark Plus (JCP). Greenwich Jobcentre Plus (JCP) did 32 Impact of Welfare Reform (2014), LGA considering this group’s educational attainment. stress the need to establish a closer working

36 Greenwich: Our future together Employment Employment Greenwich: Our future together 37 relationship between Greenwich JCP and the opportunities which will exist. Across London, the proportion of the working Council, to improve employment outcomes age population who are economically inactive for all. Recommendation 1: Royal Borough of has fallen steadily since 2010, from 26% to Greenwich stakeholders should develop formal 22.1%. After a rise in 2013, the number of Age is also a contributing factor in regards to and strategic links to increase interaction economically inactive people in the Borough has employment inequality. Greenwich still has a between educational institutions and fallen (see table below). slightly higher proportion of 16 to18 year-olds employers/businesses through: Not in Employment, Education or Training, than the London average, 12% of claimants • Maximising existing links into the educational Table 12: Economically Inactive (total) institutions’ network (e.g. ask governors to were under 25 years-old in RBG (London 11%; 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 England 11%). 23% were aged 25 to 34 years in arrange internships/work experience in Greenwich 43,800 40,900 38,900 49,100 45,100 39,000 37,900 RBG (London 22%; England 23%). their fields) Proportion 26.1% 23.2% 22.3% 27.7% 25.2% 21.3% 20.6% London 26% 25.6% 24.7% 23.8% 23.3% 22.1% 21.7% • Maximising existing community engagement Unemployment among young people is subject of youth services (including Participation to seasonal fluctuations where the trend may 34 People, The Point, Charlton Athletic Rather than the percentage of economic grown. This shows a positive growth in roles rise temporarily before it goes down again. Community Trust etc.) inactive residents being the primary focus, less associated with in-work poverty, but still Over the past year, the trend of long-term the reason for the economic inactivity should a higher percentage than the rest of London. unemployed young people (claiming JSA) • Sponsorship scheme aligning organisations be the main focus. Greenwich has a higher This is more likely to be due to new residents reduced by -25% (-35 claimants). based in the borough with local residents. percentage of economically inactive residents moving into the borough, than to improvements with long-term illnesses compared to the for existing generations. The Fairness Commission held a roundtable • Set aside space for a multipurpose hub London average (RBG, 22.7%; London, 17.3%). with representatives from Greenwich Young In the financial year 2015/16, 14.2% of People’s Council, Children in Care Council 5.4 Economically inactive Workless poverty has been under scrutiny for Greenwich residents (19, 400) were in and Young Commissioners (aged between 13 many years, but the face of poverty is changing. Elementary Occupations, compared to 9.3% and 19 years old). During the roundtable, the Economically inactive people are people Nationally, there has been a shift from workless in London. There are signs that this figure will representatives explained that they needed classed as unemployed and not seeking to in-work poverty. At least 26% of the jobs reduce in the financial year 2016/17, as the greater understanding of what employers work. As noted in the Young Women’s available in RBG are sectors ‘strongly associated’ most recent figures (Oct 15 – Sept 16) show a expected from job applicants and prospective Trust submitted evidence, it is important to with in-work poverty. decrease to 8.8% (12,000). employees to maximise employment differentiate between the circumstances of opportunities. They also noted that wider those categorised as economically inactive. The largest employment sectors for RBG The provisional Annual Survey of Hours and networks (including with peers ahead of Those who are economically inactive receive residents working across London are: Earnings (ASHE) 2016 figures list RBG’s full- them in education, or newly entering work) limited employment support, due to the time weekly earnings as £574.4 (-£9.40 on the would assist in their short-term and long-term benefits they receive. However, of those who • Public admin, education & health (45%) previous year). Over the same period, weekly employment aims. Recent research has shown are economically inactive in Greenwich, 28.3% wage London have increased by £11.10, • Hotel & restaurants (21%) that the likelihood of someone not being in (10,700) want a job. to £670.80. education, employment or training decreases by • Banking, finance & insurance (14%) 5 times, if they have 4 or more interactions Recommendation 2: Greenwich Association of ASHE 2016 figures show Greenwich’s median 33 • Construction (9%) and with employers . Disabled People, Royal Borough of Greenwich annual full-time earnings is currently £30,153, and local employers should explore how • Transport & communications (8%) which is a fall of £344 on the previous year. Investing in young people outside school residents with disabilities and learning difficulties Over the same period, London’s median annual to compliment good academic attainment can be supported into the job market, through After a rise between April 2014 and December full-time earnings rose from 35,303 to 36,302 was seen as a priority, alongside giving the following: 2015, the proportion of the borough’s working (+£99). them a greater sense of the type of future population in Elementary Occupations has • Local work experience opportunities fallen whilst the proportion in the category of “managers, directors and senior officials” has 34 ONS annual population survey 33 Destiny should not be determined by demography, • Ongoing support once they have BITC (2015) entered employment

38 Greenwich: Our future together Employment Employment Greenwich: Our future together 39 The number of part-time jobs in the borough 5.5 London Living Wage This would ease the burden of higher living increased by 11% between 2010 and 2014 costs in some areas, especially for young people (full-time jobs increased by 5% over the same Payment of the London Living Wage is higher in living independently. period). The latest figures show that 38% of RGB than Outer London boroughs. The Council employee jobs are part-time (compared to becoming a London Living Wage employer and Outer London boroughs receive lower wages 25.5% in London as a whole). proactively targeting businesses has contributed than inner London boroughs and this difference greatly to this. In 2015, Royal Greenwich was disproportionately affects women, as women The Commission’s employment roundtable one of 12 London local authorities accredited are more likely to be in insecure and part- highlighted particular weaknesses in identifying as a Living Wage employer, paying the London time work. As with the regional and national economically inactive residents who want Living Wage to those directly employed as percentages, men continue to receive higher to work, and providing the right support to well as those contracted by the Council. Royal wages both in part-time and full-time work. them. In addition, it raised issue of how to Greenwich successfully targeted over 100 support residents in low-paid, insecure work businesses to sign up to the London Living Table 13: Earnings by residence – gross weekly pay to move into more reliable and well-paid Wage. The 2016 Beyond the Foodbank report work, in an environment where reducing the recommended that (to improve the take up 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Claimant Count is seen as the primary goal of of the Living Wage) local authorities should Greenwich £ Greenwich £ London £ London £ Britain £ Britain £ employment support services. become Living Wage Friendly by supporting Full-time workers 601.0 597.1 621.1 632.4 529.6 541 applicant charities to pay the Living Wage to any Male Full-time workers 663.1 639.1 668.9 678.9 570.4 581.2 grant-funded staff posts (LB Islington and the Female Full-time workers 551.3 574.3 574.9 585 471.6 481.1 Recommendation 3: The evidence has brought City of London are both London Living Wage to light that a wider conversation between the Friendly Funders). Royal Borough of Greenwich and Greenwich The fall in male full-time workers is reflected in • The percentage of disabled employees rose based Jobcentre Plus needs to take place, earnings by workplace as well as residence (in slightly from 2.8% to 2.9% Recommendation 4: Royal Borough of hourly pay and gross weekly), which does not to discuss: • The percentage of ethnic minority employees Greenwich should roll out its London Living match the rise in wages for males on a regional Wage (LLW) initiative and target a further 100 increased from 21.3% to 22.4% • How residents, identified as economically or national level. At present, the cause of the fall Greenwich based businesses, to become LLW inactive and wanting a job, can be identified is unknown. • The percentage of the top 5% of earners employers by the end of financial year 2017/18. and supported into the labour market. from ethnic minorities rose from 12.5% to The Local Government Association’s 2014 14.4% and • How residents in low paid, insecure work can Recommendation 5: RBG to join the Living figures showed that 21% of children in the be supported to find higher quality work Wage Friendly Funder Scheme. borough live in working families receiving tax • The percentage of employees aged under 25 credits (above the family element). The outer increased from 5% to 5.4% • How benefit sanctions can be applied As noted in Elevation Networks’ report, young London percentage was also 21%. more fairly, to reduce the appeal and people in particular are still disproportionately Qualifications impact on employability overturn figures. affected by low pay and employment outcomes, • Re-establishing a weekly Jobcentre Plus especially for those seeking entry-level roles. As Representation in the workplace: Greenwich continues to be the worst presence at Greenwich Local Labour and this age group is not entitled to the National Council employment 2015/16 performing London borough for the Business employment office Living Wage (NLW), the risk of in-work poverty proportion of 19-year-olds lacking qualifications. is higher. Aspirations for fairer employment outcomes As noted in the education section of this should be reflected in the Council’s staff report, in 2014/15, 58% of Greenwich 19-year- Recommendation 6: The Government should population as the representative of the local olds had a level 3 qualification. By comparison, change its minimum wage policy, so that the community and the largest employer. The RBG’s the London average for 2014/15 was 65%. National Living Wage is paid to everyone 18 Headline Equality Measures (2015/16) shows: This places a barrier to higher paid work and years of age and over. career progression.

40 Greenwich: Our future together Employment Employment Greenwich: Our future together 41 Career progression can also be achieved Greenwich Local Labour Project This best practice scheme should be shared as The largest business sector, consisting of through on the job training and upskilling (GLLP) widely as possible with other local authorities. nearly 2,000 businesses, is the Professional, opportunities. Businesses are expected to invest Scientific and Technical sector (followed by the in employee training. However, the Institute For GLLP is an employment scheme that sits within There is a case for a much wider extension Information and Communication sector). Both Public Policy Research found that UK workers GLLaB. It takes a multi-agency and targeted of this scheme, however the considerable have seen the largest growth over the last year. in low-wage jobs receive less training than approach to supporting residents affected by amount of resources to deliver such a other European countries. A lack of appropriate the welfare reforms and has had considerable wraparound support scheme must be taken Table 13: Annual Business Growth in RBG from training can result in numerous consequences, success in helping people into employment. into consideration. 2010 to 2016 including lower productivity, higher staff Seventy six percent of GLLP participants have turnover, and lower staff morale. secured onward employment. In comparison, Business Sector Number % the DWP’s work programme job outcome 5.6 Business in the borough Professional, scientific & technical 1,980 19% Recommendation 7: South-East Chamber of performance is 26.0%. Information & communication 1,380 13% Commerce and Greenwich Local Labour and When examining the challenges and Construction 1,115 11% Business should partner and establish a baseline opportunities in employment and its inequalities, Business administration & support 1,010 10% services of in-work training offered by local employers HILL scheme it is essential to be able to understand the Retail 935 9% nature of the business base from which local and encourage local employers to increase the Health 840 8% The Highways Improvement Local Labour employment may be generated. There has been amount of in-job training provided. Arts, entertainment & recreation 725 7% scheme (HILL) is a two-and-a-half-year significant growth in small businesses in the Barriers to training and reasons for not programme, which targets and trains local Borough, however, this has not fully translated providing training should also be considered. unemployed people aged 18 to 24 to gain into jobs, with the borough remaining below Business growth in RBG has consistently been qualifications and certificates and valuable the London average. Evidence suggests that outperforming growth in London and England experience, supporting them in their search businesses are looking for a clearer strategic over the past 7 years as shown by Table 14. RBG employment support for employment in the construction industry. vision for the borough by the borough, which Between 2010 and 2016, RBG businesses have Twenty-five percent of these have secured would likely bring fresh investment and growth been increasing at an average rate of +8% The Council has dedicated services and onward employment. to the Borough. (London +3%; England +6%). employment schemes to support residents into the job market. GLLaB (Greenwich Local Business growth Labour and Business) leads on the delivery Vulnerable adults of employment, training and job brokerage Table 14: Business Annual % Growth in RBG, Of the businesses in the borough, 93.4% are London & England from 2010 to 2016 support within the Council. It has a remit to GLLaB have supported 52 vulnerable adults micro business (<9 employees). RBG has a provide universal employment-related support into employment during the 12 months business base of 10,525 businesses, which is an Business Growth RBG London England services to all unemployed borough residents, between 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, increase of 1,090 businesses (+12%) between 2010 / 2011 +1% -1% 0% who have recourse to public services. GLLaB through a number of GLLaB programmes, 2015 and 2016. 2011 / 2012 +10% +3% +7% targets those with particular barriers to the including Work Programme Shaw Trust, Work 2012 / 2013 +3% +1% +3% labour market: long-term unemployed, young Programme Peopleplus, HILLS, GLLP, Growth 2013 / 2014 +9% +4% +7% adults, lone parents and those with disability Borough Programme and Apprenticeship 2014 / 2015 +11% +7% +10% 2015 / 2016 +12% +4% +6% or health-related conditions and specifically recruitment programme. affected by the welfare reforms. Recommendation 8: Royal Borough of During the financial year 2015/16, GLLaB Greenwich should continue its Greenwich supported 1,103 service users into employment Local Labour Programme (GLLP) and expand (+5% on the previous year). The Council’s eligibility to residents who are long-term (5 holistic and targeted employment schemes are years+) unemployed. GLLP has incredible noted as being particularly successful. success with participants who join the scheme, especially with long-term unemployed residents.

42 Greenwich: Our future together Employment Employment Greenwich: Our future together 43 Council Services and Recommendation 9: The Greenwich borough; Royal Greenwich must begin partnership working between the Council and Business Support Partnership should include a business exploring ways to capitalise on this through DWP; ongoing support for residents on low investment strand, to: strategic planning. incomes. In this section, recommendations focus The Council’s strategy for tackling poverty on the London Living Wage, a strategic vision has been closely aligned with its strategy for • Act as business champions, for future Additionally, through this, the Borough has the for Business in the Borough and increased promoting growth. One of the priority themes investment in the Borough opportunity to upskill residents and reduce the interactions between young people number of young people who are NEET and and businesses. of this strategy is ‘jobs and skills’. At the business • Identify investment opportunities roundtable, attendees recognised the growth in also provide an opportunity for greater links to businesses and also viewed the Council as a ‘fair’ • Develop a ‘Businesses in the Borough’ be made between businesses and schools. local authority when supporting businesses in strategy, including a Social Enterprise action Growth is positively associated with poverty the Borough. plan, to set out Greenwich’s shared ambitions for social enterprise in the Borough and reduction, where it is driven by employment. Businesses present identified the With the rise of in-work poverty, organisations • Identify economic areas to join up and following challenges: focussing on getting people back into work establish ‘protection zones’ for local need to be conscious of the quality of jobs they businesses and start-ups by • Limited understanding of employment are training for and supporting people into. contracts and practices for young people as • Improving business support to grow start- For inclusive growth, skills and employment development opportunities, which were in ups and creating a clear RBG offer must address the unfairness in the availability turn perceived as exploitation. to businesses of skills training, promotion of participation to employment schemes, as well as job quality, • Incidents of poor attitudes and lack of • Exploring local procurement from public security and progression. Inclusive growth in aspiration in pockets of young people and sector and entrepreneurship requires supportive inclusive job seekers referred to business. Amongst • Creating incubation hubs for start-ups and financial and regulatory institutions, at a these pockets, there was a lack of soft skills small and medium sized enterprises local level. and a general understanding of workplace practices. This may be a result of a changing The pockets of business innovation and business landscape requiring different jobs The Commission heard from businesses that growth identified, need to be underpinned and skills for which limited or no career there needs to be greater joining up and by a well-communicated vision for business in planning assistance is provided. publicity of different active economic areas the borough. Similarly, growth in employment within Greenwich (e.g. Town Centres, digital should be encouraged under an inclusive • Lack of clear communication regarding the Peninsula, Woolwich Creative District etc.) RBG offer for businesses. growth strategy, bearing in mind the national to ensure that local business activity and pre- shift from workless to in-work poverty and rise • Economic activity will move increasingly to existing opportunities are capitalised on. in erratic and insecure work. outer London, as the arrival of Crossrail in This, in turn, will attract further business to 2018 provides the opportunity to increase the Borough. Evidence suggests that businesses are two-way movement between Greenwich looking for a clearer strategic vision for the and central London. The RBG should begin The Royal Borough of Greenwich has the borough – by the borough. This would likely planning for investment packages that it ability to be a borough for both residential and bring fresh investment and growth as well would seek to receive from larger companies employment activity, and should aspire to be as maximise regeneration and . This would moving to the borough. so. Long-term, Royal Greenwich should create then enable action to address some of the a plan that will prepare them for discussions more specific inequalities in employment in around strategic investments as and when larger the borough. The priorities which need to be companies base themselves in the borough. addressed are employment inequalities amongst With an increase in regeneration, it is likely ethnicities; number of residents categorised that larger companies will be attracted to the as Economically Inactive who want a job;

44 Greenwich: Our future together Employment Employment Greenwich: Our future together 45 Section 6 Greenwich has seen some notable successes There are also geographical inequalities in the in recent years in public health. For instance, Borough. Oxleas NHS reported that there is a since 1998 the rates of teenage pregnancy disproportionate number of patients referred Health have fallen by half, from previously quite high from the North and East of the borough rates.35 There has also been a sustained effort diagnosed with serious and enduring mental to reduce smoking leading to a fall of over a health problems. It is notable that there is fi fth.36 The Commission heard about a number also a high concentration of BAME groups in of successful community-based initiatives these areas. Oxleas Mental Health NHS Trust to improve local health outcomes, such as report that life expectancy is 10 years lower for Well London and GoodGym. However these residents with severe mental health conditions. successes do not diminish the scale of the task that the Borough still faces. A 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (carried out for NHS Digital by NatCen Social Due to the particular health challenges in Research and the Department of Health Greenwich, our recommendations are centred Sciences, University of Leicester) found that: on referral routes to mental health services, ‘Two thirds (66.4%) of people in receipt of safeguarding provisions for residents with Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) 6.1 Health in Greenwich • Good physical health – with a focus on mental health conditions and methods to had thought about taking their life, approaching tackling obesity – making the borough a place alleviate food poverty and obesity in half had made a suicide attempt (43.2%), and a A person’s health outcomes can be adversely that provides an environment, services and the borough. third reported self-harming (33.5%), indicating affected by their socioeconomic circumstances, support to enable people to choose good, that this is a population in great need of which consequently prevents them reaching healthy food and to be physically active as support. People in receipt of other benefi ts also their full potential and raises serious questions part of their daily lives 6.2 Mental health had higher rates of suicidal thoughts, suicide about social justice. attempts and self-harm than those who did not • Good mental health – ensuring a strong Information shared by Oxleas NHS Trust shows receive these benefi ts.’ focus on environments and services that Greenwich has higher rates of people with that, in addition to reduced life expectancy support the development and maintenance limiting long-term illness and larger inequalities among those with established mental Greenwich JCP were unable to provide statistics of good mental health throughout the life- in life expectancy than the London average. illness, there are health access inequalities in on the number of residents with mental health course, from conception to older age and There are also huge within-Borough inequalities. Greenwich. This is particularly evident when conditions accessing Greenwich based JCPs. Life expectancy is 5.7 years lower for men • A healthy workforce; a workforce that examined in terms of the person’s ethnic and 5.3 years lower for women in the most promotes good health – using the background, as referral patterns are not The RBG’s Benefi ts Safeguarding Alert is an deprived areas of Greenwich than in the least workplace across all our organisations in proportionate to the ethnic composition of existing Safeguarding Procedure, which gives deprived areas. the borough to promote and support the general population of the borough. There guidance to health professionals to signal to good health and wellbeing of employees. is a higher number of referrals to mental the Council a service user’s mental health The Borough continues to face signifi cant Developing all of our employees as agents health services among the White British conditions, learning disabilities or conditions challenges in relation to health, linked to of good health and wellbeing amongst the group which do not translate into clinical affecting cognition. This approach could be high levels of deprivation amongst signifi cant wider Greenwich population diagnoses. Conversely, patients from Black, adopted by the Greenwich based JCPs. proportions of the population (especially in Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are the north east). underrepresented in referrals, but are more likely to be accepted as in need of clinical care, The Commission welcomes the Health and once referred. Wellbeing Board priorities identifi ed for 2015- 18. The Greenwich Joint Strategic Needs 35 Greenwich JSNA 2013/14 “Closing the Gap”. Public Health Assessment identifi ed the following as the and Well-being, Royal Borough of Greenwich. ‘most signifi cant factors affecting the health and 36 Greenwich JSNA 2014. Royal Borough of Greenwich. wellbeing of the people of Greenwich:

46 Greenwich: Our future together Health Health Greenwich: Our future together 47 Children and young people’s Table 15: referrals to Child and Adolescent Table 16 shows the estimated numbers of 5 Table 17: Excess weight in adults, 2013-2015 Children’s Services38 to 16-year-olds in Greenwich with a clinically mental health Greenwich Region England diagnosed mental disorder (Profile of children Breakdown of 39 63.8% 58.8% 64.8% Greenwich has high levels of deprivation, Caseload by % of and young people in Royal Greenwich 2015) with 55% of children living in low income Ethnicity % Total Population Difference Source: Public Health England households. Local prevalence estimates based White British 56% 43% 13% Table 16: Estimated numbers of 5 to 16-year- on deprivation (Campion & Fitch 2012) suggest White 6% 7% -1% (Other + Irish) olds in Greenwich with a diagnosed mental that RBG has a higher proportion of children Children and young people’s weight Black 12% 27% -15% disorder, 2015 and young people with mental health conditions Asian 2% 9% -7% Table 18 shows two patterns. Child obesity than the national average. The borough has the Mixed 10% 10% 0% Estimated number has fallen between 2013/14 and 2014/15 for 8th highest estimated prevalence of child and Other 2% 3% -1% % increase in of 5 to 16-year-olds Total population with MH conditions Not Known 10% 0% 10% reception age, and by an insignificant amount adolescent mental disorder in London out of population from previous (14.5% of Not Stated 2% 0% 2% for males in Year 6. This figure will need to be 33 boroughs. Year aged 5-16 year the population) 2014 40, 400 2.5% 5,858 tracked to see if this becomes a falling trend. There are also gender differences in Children 2015 41, 550 2.8% 6,025 Tackling obesity needs to continue to be a The reason for the underrepresentation is 2016 42, 750 2.8% 6,199 and Young People’s Mental Health (CAMHS) priority for the Borough. unclear. Most of the CAMHS referrals come 2017 44, 000 2.8% 6,380 caseload: boys are overrepresented between from GPs. However, CAMHS referrals via 2018 45, 400 3.1% 6,583 the ages of 5 and 14-years-old, whilst girls are schools has been shown to be an effective overrepresented between the ages of 15 and way of increasing the proportion of referrals Table 18: Percentage of children who are 37 Recommendation 2: More ambitions for 40 19- years old . children from BAME backgrounds. The new overweight or very overweight by gender children and young people’s mental health CAMHS service model which provides a core Children from Black Asian and Minority Ethnic should be embedded within the South East Period Reception Year 6 offer to all schools is increasing the number Male Female Male Female groups are underrepresented in Children and London Sustainability and Transform Plan. of children from BAME communities 2012-13 28.0% 25.2% 39.8% 38.5% Young People’s Mental Health (CAMHS), as receiving support. 2013-14 29.8% 27.3% 39.8% 41.0% shown in Table 15. Although less likely to be The Commission lends its collective voice and 2014-15 27.6% 24.9% 39.5% 40.2% weight to mental health campaigns that are referred, BAME children are more likely to be RBG’s Public Health department currently running or planned in the RBG and stresses the ‘accepted’ as needing the service. has a GP who is undertaking research into importance of access to mental health services In addition, there are important differences in the under-representation of BAME children in and primary intervention via schools. child obesity between ethnic groups as shown CAMHS. The findings will be used to inform in Table 19. Children from Black backgrounds service delivery, workforce development and are particularly affected even at the reception communication with primary care and other year stage, and this has implications for the practitioners, children and families. 6.3 Obesity messaging to their families in ways that are There are higher obesity rates in Greenwich Recommendation 1: The findings of the Royal culturally acceptable but effective. than regionally. Obesity increases the risk of Borough’s bespoke public health project on long-term conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, mental health should be incorporated into liver disease, cancer and high blood pressure. Oxleas NHS Trust and Greenwich Clinical Excess weight is also strongly associated with Commissioning Group’s ongoing work to poorer mental health. improve Children Adolescent Mental Health engagement plans. All organisations should embed the findings into their Children Adolescent Mental Health engagement plans. 39 Transformation Plan for Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing (2015 – 2018), NHS Greenwich Clinical Commissioning Group And Royal Borough 37 Oxleas CAMHS Commissioner report Q2 38 Oxleas NHS Trust 2016 of Greenwich 40 National Child Measurement Programme 2012-15

48 Greenwich: Our future together Health Health Greenwich: Our future together 49 Table 19: Percentage of children who are The major reasons cited for using food • Provide a universal free school meals service pilots around the UK to demonstrate how overweight or very overweight by ethnicity41 banks are benefit delays, benefit changes for all primary school children hunger and its underlying causes can be and low incomes. effectively addressed. Ethnic Group Reception Year 6 • Offer free school breakfast to pupils eligible Asian 23.6% 41.2% Recommendation 4: The Good Food in for FSM and provide universal free school Residents in food poverty require access Black 34.2% 44.5% Greenwich Food Poverty Sub-group breakfast in schools with greater than 35% to suitable cooking facilities and support in Chinese 23.1% 30.8% FSM eligibility Mixed 25.3% 43.4% should monitor levels of food poverty overcoming underlying causes of food poverty. Not stated 27.6% 35.5% annually and develop responses to the • Take the strategic lead to audit and foster Additional support may also be needed to White 23.5% 36.1% information monitored. provision of breakfast clubs and holiday support families with budgeting and Any other ethnic group 19.6% 35.5% food schemes ‘smart shopping’. The Royal Borough of Greenwich is, however, recognised as achieving greatly in the Healthy • Work with schools to establish or enhance Recommendation 6: Royal Borough of Recommendation 3: Implement a targeted Start Scheme. Healthy Start is a scheme to a referral policy for identifying pupils at risk Greenwich should partner with Feeding Britain weight management programme (especially for help expectant mothers, new parents and their of hunger and provide training for frontline to develop a checklist by which to regulate hard to reach groups and children). children to eat healthily. employees to ensure appropriate referrals cooking facilities in Greenwich’s private • Work with partners from children services accommodation. Once created, this checklist The Beyond the Food Bank: London Food Food poverty and youth organisation in the public, private should be incorporated into RBG’s Landlord Poverty Profile 2016 report assesses London and third sectors to offer food as a part Accreditation Scheme. boroughs’ leadership in addressing food poverty In Greenwich, low income households spend of school holiday enrichment activities at a in the capital. The Royal Borough of Greenwich Some residents may also need to be supported less on food than those with higher incomes range of venue and is listed second. The average uptake of Healthy to develop their cooking skills. but the food costs are a higher proportion of Start vouchers in London is 70%, while RBG’s is • Promote free school meals, breakfast clubs their overall household expenditure (15.7% 77% (the Government target is 80%)43. and holiday meal schemes to parents, Recommendation 7: Royal Borough of compared to 11.1%)42. Greenwich Foodbank including offering school meal taster days Greenwich should partner with local Children’s has seen an increase in the number of vouchers RBG is one of only four London boroughs to to parents Centres and identify which actions to tackle issued between 2012 and 2015, with a slight fall report funding food provisions, as part of its food poverty can be delivered via them. in 2015/16: local free childcare entitlement. RBG is also Recommendation 5: Royal Borough of In March 2017, RBG became the first borough one of only four London boroughs with a food Greenwich should share best practice on to have all of its Children’s Centres awarded Table 20: Number of Greenwich Foodbank poverty action plan (or equivalent). uptake of Healthy Start Vouchers with other with the UNICEF Baby Friendly accreditation, users and percent change from previous year local authorities. The Beyond the Food Bank: London Food demonstrating that Children Centres in the N vouchers N children Poverty Profile 2016 notes the impressive Borough are already committed to providing (% change N adults (% (% change Total N (% The Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust has from change from from change from action against food poverty in the borough, as signed up to the Sugar Smart scheme, making health support to those accessing their services. previous previous previous previous well as areas for improvement. RBG is noted Year year) year) year) year) Greenwich the third borough to sign up to as taking ‘moderate’ action to ensure children’s 2012- 415 560 581 1141 the scheme. The scheme aims to reduce the 2013 access to food 365 days a year. The report lists amount of sugar consumed. Lewisham and 2013- 2513 (506%) 3175 (467%) 2114 (264%) 5289 (364%) the ways in which access can be increased: 2014 Greenwich NHS Trust has pledged to ensure it meets targets relating to the availability of 2014- 2741 (9.1%) 3673 2806 6479 • Ensure all eligible children are registered for 2015 (15.7%) (32.7%) (22.5%) healthy food and drink served to patients, free school meals (FSM) and monitor the 2015- 2732 (-0.3%) 3545 (-3.5%) 2888 (2.9%) 6433 (-0.7%) visitors, and staff. 2016 number of entitled children not claiming the benefit Feeding Britain is a national charity, established by members of the All Party Parliamentary

41 National Child Measurement Programme 2012-15 Group on Hunger, ‘working towards a hunger 43 The Beyond the Food Bank: London Food Poverty Profile free UK’. Feeding Britain is supporting 12 local 42 2016 RBG Food Poverty Needs Assessment 2016

50 Greenwich: Our future together Health Health Greenwich: Our future together 51 The Health & Wellbeing Strategy of the RBG • Identify opportunities for more efficient sign- Section 7 also identifies the importance of a coordinated posting and referrals between organisations approach to health, articulated as follows: • Identify potential asset givers and sustain pre- Housing existing assets to strengthen community led ‘Overseeing the effectiveness projects and of the health and care system • Identify which local challenges can be in Greenwich – overseeing and partnered with local businesses and London monitoring the effectiveness of The Commission found that there are some programmes to improve all Joint significant assets in the borough, particularly Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) new housing developers and larger employers, priorities, and the changes to which could be better encouraged to promote the health and care system in healthy lifestyles. During the health roundtable, Commissioners heard that many of the the borough’ organisations and individuals in attendance had not met each other previously (or at least not half.44 Furthermore, London rents have risen in a forum where they could communicate and 7.1 The national and The Commissioners support this approach and by around 22% since 2011, in a period where co-operate on issues affecting populations they during the Commission this emerged as a need London context wages have stagnated.45 among organisations who engaged. both work with). As identified in other themes, there is also considerable potential to further London as a whole faces extreme challenges Welfare changes in recent years have also identify and coordinate community assets, such housing its population adequately and affordably. The final health recommendation is made had a disproportionate impact on poorer as volunteer time, especially as peer to peer With rapid population growth, low-cost and in response to participants at the health London residents. These include around £7bn work has been identified as one of the most readily available mortgages fuelling demand, and roundtable commenting that they have limited of cuts to Housing Benefit nationally, the effective ways to address obesity. Consequently, housebuilding consistently under the required opportunities to network with organisations introduction of Universal Credit, the Local identifying and pooling the resources of ‘asset levels for the past few decades, London has that are both directly and indirectly linked Housing Allowance reductions, the Benefit givers’ in the interests of improving the health experienced a rapid increase in the cost of to health. Cap (which affects Housing Benefit first), and of the borough population can be an important housing. Median house prices in London have the Under Occupancy Charge (also known as Recommendation 8: Royal Borough of complement to the endeavours of the RBG. gone from £83,000 in 1995 to over £500,000 the “Bedroom Tax”). Due to the higher cost of Greenwich should establish a forum that allows The outcome could create practical today. In 1995, they were 4.3 times the average living, 49% of all households affected by the caps for cross-section engagement around health, partnered solutions. salary, and today they are over 12 times. Young live in London. Some of this impact for working to include health service providers, community people, first time buyers, and those on lower families was alleviated by the introduction of and advocacy groups (as well as statutory and The Commission also heard about factors wages are priced out of homeownership. the National Living Wage and the increase in business sectors). A joint health forum should concerning the environmental drivers of health. the tax allowance, although the former remains be established to: For instance, the Living Streets initiative and Rents have also skyrocketed in recent years. A considerably below the London Living Wage, the Sustainable Community Standard highlight widely used affordability benchmark is that rent discussed in the employment section. • Increase interaction between mental the opportunities to consider public health should cost no more than a third of income. health, physical health and the 3rd sector outcomes as part of wider strategies, such Average rents for one-bedroom flats exceed organisations at a strategic level as planning. a third of the average salary in virtually all London boroughs. In fact, even a bedroom in a • Aid with a holistic approach to tackling health shared house exceeds this criterium in almost issues, that is identifying the health promoting potential of organisations within and outside 44 BBC, ‘Sky-high’ rental hotspots across England revealed (2016) of the health sector itself 45 ONS, IPHRP Oct 2016. Note that this price index is experimental.

52 Greenwich: Our future together Health Housing Greenwich: Our future together 53 Homelessness has risen dramatically across 7.2 Housing availability Table 22: Change in household tenure in Gypsy and Traveller communities reside in England since 2010, but this is most evident in Greenwich, 2001-2011 two sites in Greenwich: one authorised and London. Homelessness charity Crisis report a one unauthorised. Previously, local authorities Tenure profile national 55% increase in rough sleeping since were required to undertake assessments of 2010, but in London this was 106%. Greenwich has a much higher proportion of housing need for Gypsies and Travellers, but social housing than London and England as a this responsibility was removed by the central People at risk of homelessness can apply to whole, and has a significantly lower proportion government in 2016. Greenwich performed its the local authority for support. If they are of residents owning their homes outright. most recent assessment of need in 2016 and determined to be eligible, homeless, and in concluded that no additional pitches “priority need”, then they are entitled to were required. Table 21: Tenure breakdown in Greenwich, statutory homelessness support. Recent years have seen a significant increase in the number of London and England (approximations) Recommendation 1: The Royal Borough people applying for support. In England, 275,000 Owner Occuie rite ente of Greenwich should further promote Greenwich48 London49 England50 people approached their local authority for Social housing 34.2% 23.1% 17.4% ntereite ente developments that address the needs of homelessness support in the last year, although Private rented 19.7% 26.8% 19% Other oci ente Otherent ree particular groups, in line with government only 57,750 were accepted as “statutory Own outright 19.2% 22% 33.2% policy outlined in the recent housing white Source: Profile of Poverty in Greenwich (May 2015), RBG homelessness” (entitling them to assistance). Buying with 26.9% 27.9% 30.4% paper (adequate sheltered accommodation, London accounts for 33% of the total (19,180), mortgage for instance, could help free up family homes). and acceptances have risen 85% in London over It is virtually impossible to measure the actual 46 Recommendation 2: The Royal Borough of the past 5 years. Currently the most common There is evidence of a changing picture in the availability of homes relative to households. Greenwich should continue to undertake reason given for homelessness is the loss of a balance of household tenure in the borough. Many homes are unoccupied or under- regular assessments of need for specific groups private Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST); in For example, the number of homes that were occupied, all or a part of the time, and (such as Gypsy and Traveller communities), London this accounts for approximately 40% of privately rented nearly doubled between the many “households” live together in shared despite the removal of the legal requirement to homelessness acceptances, up from just 10% in censuses in 2001 and 2011, whilst the number homes – either by choice or necessity. Demand 47 do so. It should maintain robust assessment data 2009/10. of Council homes reduced by over 4,000. for housing of various types has to be inferred to ensure it can meet the future needs of from proxies such as price, waiting lists for social Several new changes to housing law are also these communities. housing, and homelessness statistics. There are expected within the coming year, which change currently 16,000 people on the waiting list for the landscape considerably. The Homelessness social housing, despite relatively strict eligibility Reduction Act will add additional duties for Homelessness conditions, and high availability in the borough. councils to help a broader range of people 56 This indicates a particular need for more sub- According to London’s Poverty Profile’s most days before they become homeless. In order to market rented accommodation, which can be recent release, housing metrics are generally fund the Right to Buy for housing association afforded on local incomes. positive in Greenwich, with 3.3 homelessness tenants, councils also face the mandatory acceptances per 1,000 households compared sale of their “higher value” council properties Several people consulted by the Commission to 5 nationally. The numbers of households in when they become vacant, further reducing expressed concerns over shortages of housing temporary accommodation are also low, with the availability of social housing as well as local for particular social groups. At the Commission’s just 3.6 in every thousand compared to an authorities’ rental income. disabled people’s consultation, one attendee average of 13.6 in London.51 expressed concerns over the lack of supported housing for those between the ages of 25 and However, much like the rest of London, 55 in Greenwich, limiting the support available applications to the Council for homelessness 46 Department for Communities and Local Government, to those with disabilities or other specific needs. Statistical Release, Statutory homelessness, January to March support have been rising rapidly in the last 2016, and homelessness prevention and relief 2015/16: 48 ONS, Housing tenure of households A wider national shortage of sheltered housing few years. England 49 ONS, Housing tenure of households and other housing appropriate to elderly 47 Crisis, The homelessness monitor: England 2016 50 English Housing Survey, Table FA1221 (S108) people also means fewer large houses are freed up for families. 51 Trust for London, London’s Poverty Profile: Greenwich

54 Greenwich: Our future together Housing Table 23: Homelessness decisions52, 2009-2016 A Poverty Profile submitted to the Commission personalised plan, and that an officer from the Table 24: Greenwich wards by percentage expressed concern over the impact of welfare homelessness charity Thames Reach is based of households that are overcrowded Greenwich London average changes on homelessness: within the housing team to assist those that the (2011 census) 2009-10 352 702 Council does not have a statutory duty 2010-11 383 767 Woolwich Common 19% to assist. 2011-12 558 813 “There is strong evidence of an increase in Glyndon 18% 2012-13 597 907 homelessness and the risk of homelessness Plumstead 18% The Commission welcomes the fact that RBG 2013-14 322 978 in the borough as a result of changes to the Thamesmead Moorings 16% 2014-15 487 970 benefit system. To date, no Greenwich residents has begun preparation for the introduction of Woolwich Riverside 15% 2015-16 623 969 have been made homeless directly as a result the Homelessness Reduction Act, and has been Abbey Wood 13% of benefit changes but the indirect impact informed that RBG has made good progress Charlton 10% Source: DCLG, Homelessness summary local authority level, table 784 of the reforms has been seen in a significant on this. Eltham West 9% increase in private sector tenants approaching Greenwich West 9% the Council for assistance due to the threat of Recommendation 3: The Royal Borough of Kidbrooke with Hornfair 9% eviction or as a result of being evicted. Between Approximately 68% of homelessness Greenwich should ensure it is thoroughly Peninsula 9% 2012/13 and 2013/14 the number of private Middle Park and Sutcliffe 8% applications were accepted in Greenwich in the prepared for the introduction of the sector tenants who approached the Council Shooters Hill 8% Homelessness Reduction Act in anticipation last year, relatively high compared to the rest of for assistance increased from 58 to 435. There Coldharbour and New Eltham 6% London (60%). Despite this, Greenwich remains was a further slight increase in 2014/15 to that applications may initially rise significantly. It Eltham South 6% some way below the London average for both 455. Over the same period, the number of should consider partnering with other boroughs Blackheath Westcombe 5% applications and acceptances, which it credits to households accepted as homeless rose from to consult with local authorities in Wales (which Eltham North 4% strong preventative services. 290 to 365 and the number living in temporary previously introduced similar legislation) as they accommodation provided by the Council Source: London’s Poverty Profile, Overcrowded households will have useful learning. increased from 211 to 397.” across London As of 2014, ‘exclusion from family and friends’ and ‘parental exclusions’ remain the most Profile of Poverty in Greenwich (2015), RBG If duties are undertaken properly it may be common reason for approaching RBG for possible, through this Act, to reduce need for In the borough 13.9% of social rented homelessness support. Typically, these exclusions temporary accommodation.54 households are overcrowded, compared The proportions of Black, Asian and Minority happen when a young adult has a child of their to 17.6% of private rented households. Ethnic (BAME) households accepted as own and the house becomes too overcrowded Households with a Household Reference homeless has fluctuated in recent years, but to support them. However in recent years, Overcrowding and under-occupation Person (HRP) of Black ethnicity are the most there has been an overall proportional increase, much like the rest of London, there has been a likely to be overcrowded. London has a very high incidence of rapid increase in homelessness appeals because and BAME residents continue to be over- overcrowding relative to the rest of the country, of eviction from a private sector AST. RBG represented amongst homelessness applicants At the same time, 50.8% of the Borough’s with over 200,000 families living in overcrowded highlights the two most common reasons being and acceptances. households were under-occupied. The vast conditions according to the last census.55 This that the landlord wishes to sell the property, majority (79%) of these households had Rough sleeping is estimated to be very low in equates to about 11% on average, compared to or that they wish to let to professional people a White British HRP. Owned and shared Greenwich, with only one person identified just 4.7% across England and Wales. Greenwich rather than residents who are reliant on ownership properties account for most under- in the year prior to the last Homelessness also averages around 11%, although it varies increasingly restricted Housing Benefit. occupied households, with 71.5% having one or Review.53 Attendees at a Commission from 4% in Eltham North to 19% in Woolwich more spare bedrooms.56 roundtable again cited strong preventative Common. This equates to just over 11,000 services and told us that RBG has excellent households across the Borough. RBG operates an Under Occupation Incentive Housing Benefit and homeless units, the latter Scheme called “Small is Beautiful”. Council being one of the best resourced in London. In tenants who downsize through the register particular, they praised the fact that vulnerable 54 Andy Gale, The Homelessness Reduction Bill: Everything are given a payment of £350 per bedroom people who approach services receive a you need to know (2016)

55 London Assembly, Planning and Housing Committee, Crowded houses: Overcrowding in London’s social rented Trends in Overcrowding Analysis 52 ‘Homelessness decisions’ reflects the number of people 56 , Royal Borough of housing that have applied to the local authority for support due to 53 Royal Borough of Greenwich Homelessness Review and (2011) Greenwich (2015) homelessness. Strategy 2014-2019

Housing Greenwich: Our future together 57 released plus costs for removal and disturbance. In both instances it is the best performing Two key options have been proposed: to support families who would struggle in It applies only to tenants who downsize by borough in London. Given this, it is difficult to the private rented market, but who are not two or more bedrooms, or who are affected suggest how best to build on this. 1. ‘Headroom trading’: allow local authorities eligible for social housing, covering a key gap by the Under Occupancy Charge (also known to ‘borrow’ unused headroom from other in the market. An update to the Overview as the “Bedroom Tax”) and downsize by one In 2012, local authorities were given control local authorities. This way, overall borrowing and Scrutiny Committee in November 2016 bedroom. Households who downsize via mutual of their own housing budgets, through what is remains within the cap, but local authorities indicates that six sites have been identified exchange, however, are not considered. called the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). such as Greenwich could make greater use of and MHS is aiming to develop 500 homes by The new system also gave them a borrowing their borrowing potential; or 2021.60 However, as of early 2017, MHS has One attendee at the Commission’s public allowance. The cap on each council’s borrowing not yet developed any new homes and it is not 2. Raise or remove the cap entirely. This consultation told us of his difficulties getting was based on an old subsidy system, designed clear when the first will be started on site. is the option supported by the vast a larger property, as his daughter was not to prevent local authorities from borrowing too majority of local authorities as well as the counted as eligible despite staying for three much. However, councils are already prevented Recommendation 6: RBG should review Greater London Authority and it is the nights a week. This resulted in him having to from doing so by prudential borrowing rules, MHS and identify what is preventing most straightforward way of increasing share a room with her, which is increasingly which limit them to borrowing what’ they development with a view to kickstarting development potential.59 challenging as she grows older. He suggested can afford based on income. The impact of progress. It should identify where there is that there was insufficient incentive to the cap was varied and somewhat arbitrary: learning to be gained from other London downsize. There is also a challenge in the limited some councils have no headroom left despite Recommendation 5: The Council should lobby boroughs. availability of empty smaller properties for having sufficient rental income to support national government to lift the borrowing cap under-occupying tenants to move into, especially further borrowing, while others have plenty of so that RBG may expand its own development In terms of land availability, in addition to as households are not offered support to headroom which they are not using.58 programme. RBG should, in the meanwhile, the land identified for MHS, the Council has exchange with overcrowded families. expand on its previous successes and actively identified land for direct development use While London boroughs in general have made seek out partnerships with housing associations through the Local Authority New Build scheme. Recommendation 4: If judged cost-effective, the more use of their allowance than district and developers. It is also reviewing garage sites for consideration Royal Borough of Greenwich should consider authorities, Greenwich stands out as one of as affordable housing, and is currently expanding the downsizing incentive to those the few local authorities to have used its entire In 2010, RBG’s Cabinet agreed to set up a conducting a strategic asset review for future downsizing by one bedroom, through mutual borrowing allowance. The Borough’s expected Housing Delivery Vehicle, named Meridian development use. exchanges, or potentially including three-way rental income is sufficient to support greater Home Start (MHS). In 2014 this was converted swaps or partnering with other boroughs. borrowing for housebuilding and regeneration. into an independent Community Benefit Recommendation 7: Through its strategic asset Society. This has the advantage of circumventing review, RBG should identify and publish a list the HRA borrowing cap and allowing MHS of available land, and where necessary identify Housebuilding to enter into agreements with funders while challenges to its release. still having access to Right to Buy receipts. An expanded programme of construction Properties built through MHS are also exempt of genuinely affordable housing is the only from the Right to Buy, preserving limited practicable long-term solution to housing affordable stock for future tenants, and may shortages, especially for those with the least be of a wider range of tenures than traditional ability to cope with rising costs. This is a national council stock. problem and by no means a simple task. Greenwich is already the 2nd highest ranked MHS currently manages 29 properties which local authority in England for affordable housing were transferred from RBG. They are let for provision, and 4th for social rented provision.57 periods of 5 years to local households with incomes of less than £50,000. This allows RBG

57 Department for Communities and Local Government, OpenDataCommunities, Additional affordable dwellings by 58 Chartered Institute of Housing, Why is it important to 59 Greater London Authority, HRA reform in London – 60 RBG Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Meridian Home local authority district, England 1991-92 to 2015-16 change local authority borrowing rules? (2014) background report (2013) Start – Update (24 November 2016)

58 Greenwich: Our future together Housing Housing Greenwich: Our future together 59 7.3 Housing affordability someone on the median salary (about £1,800 Welfare and Council Tax million.69 In the previous year, Greenwich used a month after tax) would struggle to rent an its full allowance, overspending the government Housing costs average one-bedroom flat. Valuation Office As mentioned in the introduction and section grant by about £1.2 million.70 Agency statistics imply that lower quartile rents on homelessness, welfare changes have been a As Greenwich has a high proportion of social have seen the biggest increase.63 particular challenge for London and the Royal Another particular area of concern raised by housing, by definition, on average there are Borough of Greenwich has reported an indirect the Council is the Housing Benefit entitlement more residents living in affordable homes. The result is that the average single person impact of this on its homelessness figures. of care leavers. Typically, under 35s are only However, the cost of housing in the private in Greenwich is estimated to spend 44% of eligible for the shared accommodation rate of sector is a serious issue. their income on rent, compared to 35% just There were 26,272 Housing Benefit claimants Housing Benefit (enough to cover one room in five years ago.64 This is significantly above the in Greenwich as of August 2016. The average a shared house). In recognition that care leavers The average property price in Greenwich is recommended maximum of one third. weekly award is £113.56.67 Local housing are often particularly vulnerable and may not £350,000, almost five times higher than the professionals consulted by the Commission cope as well in shared accommodation, they are 1995 average of £74,000. The average gross Additionally, private renters face high upfront informed us that government benefits sanctions entitled to the full rate up until the age of 22. salary in the Borough is £28,84061, so the ratio costs for deposits and fees if using an agency. had been used in a “scattergun way”, resulting in However, at 22 their Housing Benefit reverts of house prices to earnings is over 12. A single The average upfront cost for renting through some people who were close to securing their to the lower rate. The Council reported a person would now need an income of £80,000 a letting agency in London is over £2,000, financial situation losing their support and falling particular issue of care leavers reaching 22 and 65 to afford a mortgage on a typical property.62 according to housing charity Shelter. While back into difficulties. then being forced to leave a tenancy they had data on average letting fees in Greenwich are successfully sustained until that point, putting Rents in the private sector are also lower not available, renters in neighbouring Bromley Evidence submitted by the local Citizens them at risk of homelessness. than average for London, although still very pay an average of £431 in fees for a typical two- Advice Bureau indicated that Housing Benefit expensive relative to the rest of England. adult tenancy66, which provides an indication was one of the most commonly raised issues Recommendation 8: National government of typical costs in Greenwich. For renters on a among clients, with 379 requests for advice. must re-examine welfare changes in light of the lower income this presents a particular difficulty, Other housing issues were raised 852 times, impact on homelessness and the rising cost of Table 25: Median monthly private sector rents as moving and “shopping around” for a better including 218 queries about private rented Discretionary Housing Payments, and establish for Royal Borough of Greenwich, compared to deal is expensive. The government has indicated accommodation, 110 about homelessness, and a system that limits the need for emergency London and England, 2016 68 that it will ban letting fees to tenants which 104 about Local Authority housing issues. As relief to a minimum. In particular, the shared

Greenwich London England alleviates this risk, although it remains unclear mentioned previously, attendees praised the accommodation rate of Housing Benefit Studio £813 £950 £570 when this will be implemented. The deposit and work of the Council’s Housing Benefit team. should be reviewed in the context of risks to One bedroom £1100 £1275 £575 cost of rent also remains prohibitively expensive vulnerable young people. Two bedrooms £1300 £1500 £625 relative to typical local incomes. Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) Three £1521 £1800 £715 are payments made to people experiencing bedrooms hardship with their housing costs, for instance Four or more £2000 £2593 £1275 bedrooms due to the Under Occupancy Charge or the benefits cap. They are paid for through Source: Valuation Office Agency: private rental market statistics a central government grant, which the local authority may top-up (to a maximum of 2.5x 63 The VOA’s private rental market statistics are based on a the government’s grant) if they consider it While lower than the London average, sample which varies year by year, so it recommends not making statistical comparisons over time. necessary. Greenwich was allocated just over average private rents in Greenwich are clearly 64 Note that the median monthly private sector rent as a £840,000 in 2016/17, giving it a permitted unaffordable for someone on the minimum percentage of median gross monthly salary (2015): 50.96% spending allowance of slightly over £2.1 wage (around £1,100 a month after tax). Even (ONS Housing Summary Measures). However comparing the average of the two is only an indicator as people on lower salaries will generally be seeking properties on the lower end of the market, as much as possible.

61 Office for National Statistics, Annual Survey of Hours and 65 BBC News, Autumn Statement 2016: Letting agent fees will 67 DWP Stat-Xplore 69 Department for Work and Pensions, Housing Benefit Earnings: 2016 provisional results be banned Circular HBS1/2016 68 Feedback from Greenwich Citizens Advice Bureaux (from 62 National Housing Federation, Housing Counts 66 Letting Fees UK, London Borough of Bromley Emma Knight, Chief Executive) 70 From conversation with Councillors.

60 Greenwich: Our future together Housing Housing Greenwich: Our future together 61 7.4 Housing conditions Recommendation 9: RBG should undertake Furthermore, they criticised new developments works as identified necessary by the housing with train stations on site, and felt that they The UK has a high proportion of homes in a stock condition survey. supported ‘gated communities’ of commuters state of disrepair.71 Shelter estimates that almost from central London who did not engage with one in five people live in homes which do not As the Council addresses the maintenance issue or bring benefits to the local community. meet its Living Home Standard because of poor in its properties, it is important that works are conditions. Renters are twice as likely as owners clearly communicated to residents and that Recommendation 11: Developers, both are to live in homes in poor condition.72 these communications are regular. One Council private and social, should ensure the needs tenant informed the Commission that they of local communities are central in new Social housing had not received updates on proposed works developments, and continue to encourage and suggested that a greater use of email could “mixed communities”. The London Mayor’s In Greenwich, maintenance in social housing has reduce costs (although it is equally important “Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration” been a recurring issue in local consultations. This that those without digital access or skills receive should be followed. includes those maintained by the Council and regular communication). Additionally several those maintained by housing associations in the tenants informed us of difficulties contacting area. Where possible, casework was directed to officers when they needed to request repairs, the appropriate organisation. In terms of wider and found that they did not always receive issues, residents expressed concerns over poor responses to their emails. building standards, the use of subcontractors for repairs and a skills shortage amongst staff Recommendation 10: RBG should ensure leading to poor quality works and repeat issues. that residents receive clear and frequent Attendees at one event did agree however that communications regarding maintenance works. estate caretakers were generally very good and kept up high standards of work. Regeneration Royal Borough of Greenwich representatives Proper management of estate regeneration also highlighted challenges in maintaining ageing came up as an issue. The Commission spoke to Council properties given the 1% social rent cut, several former residents of the Ferrier Estate, which resulted in a £33m budget reduction which was demolished and replaced with over 4 years. The Borough recently undertook Kidbrooke Village. The former estate was poorly a housing stock condition survey to determine designed, in poor repair, and known for serious future improvements, as part of the drive problems with crime. However, residents felt towards the “Greenwich Homes Standard” that they had a strong community which was programme. This aims to further build on lost when tenants were moved away for the its success on the national Decent Homes regeneration. While they accepted the need Standard programme, having achieved 98% for regeneration in the case of poor design by 2010. and repair, they highlighted the importance of

preserving communities where possible, for instance by including community facilities in the first phases of building rather than later phases. The Commission spoke with developer 71 The Guardian, Britain’s damp, leaky homes among Europe’s representatives who accepted this point and most costly to heat (2013) highlighted a greater recognition of the value of The Living Home Standard 72 Shelter, (2016) preserving communities in new developments.

62 Greenwich: Our future together Housing Housing Greenwich: Our future together 63 Case study Private rented sector Greenwich does appear in joint seventh position in London for most housing Private sector tenants also often experience enforcement prosecutions (with 9 between The Thamesmead poor conditions, although this is difficult to 2011-14), this is significantly behind measure as it often goes unreported. The South Newham’s 359 prosecutions and indicates East London housing partnership did a survey that enforcement remains relatively limited.73 Regeneration in 2014 which indicated that ‘severe’ problems Newham currently operates both additional with damp and mould were widespread and licensing (all HMOs, not just those required poor security was also not uncommon. to be licensed by national law) and selective licensing (applying to all rented properties). Greenwich has recently finished consultation on Table 26: ‘Severe problems’ reported in private Thamesmead is a large area which sits high value new jobs, complemented by a new the introduction of additional licensing (to cover rented sector housing in Greenwich across two boroughs, Greenwich and the leisure, cultural and commercial offer for the all HMOs) in December 2016, although has neighbouring London Borough of Bexley. town and for London. 74 Greenwich Existence of severe problems not yet considered selective licensing. HMOs It was originally developed by the Greater % make up 23% of privately rented properties With the first planning permissions granted London Council (GLC) in the 1960s as a new 13 Damp or mould in Greenwich so the wider additional licensing town, largely consisting of social housing for in 2016, work on new homes is set to begin 1 Excess heat presents a key opportunity to ensure good families. Following the abolition of the GLC, shortly. Community works, including those 6 Excess cold/lack of heating standards and sufficient enforcement.75 management of the town was transferred to targeted at young people, and public realm 2 Overcrowding or lack of space several different organisations, ultimately ending improvements are underway. Following 9 Poor security/risk of intrusion Additionally, local authorities have powers 4 Poor sanitation/problems with water supply up with Gallions Housing Association, Tilfen successful talks with the Greater London called ‘Article 4 Directions’. These can be used 1 Hazards likely to cause trips, falls or injury Land, and Trust Thamesmead. The organisations Authority, the DLR is planned to be extended 2 Electrical or fire hazards to require planning permission for changes in struggled to co-ordinate activities and could not into Thamesmead and Crossrail’s Elizabeth Line use which don’t normally require them, such always attract sufficient funding. With historically will be opening in 2018. The development plans Source: “The private rented sector in South East London and as changing a family home into an HMO. If poor transport links to central London and very have been generally supported by residents, Lambeth” (Borough summaries), South East London housing partnership December 2014 PRSHEP identifies areas where HMOs are a few local services available, Thamesmead is a demonstrating the importance of the focus on particularly severe problem, and estimates that relatively deprived area with a high incidence of community infrastructure as a central facet it would be beneficial to do so, the Council anti-social behaviour. of regeneration. The high prevalence of ‘severe’ problems may consider using Article 4 Directions to limit indicates that less severe problems are also the number of HMOs coming onto the market In 2014, the three organisations were bought relatively common. (and accordingly preserve the supply of by Peabody, one of London’s largest and oldest family homes). housing associations. With Thamesmead under RBG established the Private Rented Sector a single and well-resourced control, Peabody Housing Enforcement Programme (PRSHEP) in now aims to regenerate the area in a £1bn 2013 to investigate reported poor conditions. programme. Following consultation with Officers have visited approximately 1,250 residents, Peabody’s main aims over the next properties, conducted 1000 investigations, and 73 London Property Licensing, Tackling rogue landlords: ten years are delivering 3,000 new homes, discovered 460 unlicensed Houses of Multiple analysis of private rented housing prosecutions in refurbishing hundreds of other homes and Occupation. While positive, local housing London (2015) improving and creating new public spaces. professionals highlighted the need for a wider 74 In 2015 the ability to introduce selective licensing was strategy on the private rented sector, as restricted to up to 20% of the local authority area, except with Thamesmead is already home to over 45,000 ministerial permission, making it significantly more challenging to this continues to grow much faster than do so. people, beautiful green spaces, excellent rated other tenures. 75 University of Glasgow and Cobweb Consulting, The private schools and unrivalled space and scale. Long- rented sector in South East London and Lambeth: A study term, Thamesmead provides the opportunity for South East London Housing Partnership and LB Lambeth (2014) for 20,000 new homes and for thousands of Source: www.peabody.org.uk

64 Greenwich: Our future together Housing Housing Greenwich: Our future together 65 Recommendation 12: RBG should introduce travel to Dartford or Bromley County Courts. Section 8 additional licensing for all Houses of Multiple This creates accessibility problems, especially Occupation (HMOs). It should also consider for more vulnerable residents. Furthermore, using ‘Article 4 Directions’ to limit the number residents will not have the opportunity to speak Financial of HMOs in a certain area, if this is identified as to a duty advisor, which the Students’ Union necessary and beneficial. submission indicates has been very important inclusion in informing residents of financial and other Since 2015, local authorities must seek approval support options prior to court cases. from the Secretary of State for any selective licensing scheme which covers over 20% of the Recommendation 15: The Council should press geographical area or affects more than 20% of the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there is an privately rented properties. accessible local hearing centre, for instance by holding hearings in Woolwich Crown Court. Recommendation 13: Building on the learning from the PRSHEP as well as examining the experience of other boroughs, RBG should consider introducing selective licensing on areas or types of properties which have above 8.1 National context 8.2 Financial exclusion: changing average incidence of poor conditions, either profile of service users through utilising the 20% maximum allowance, The think tank, Resolution Foundation, has or by applying to the Secretary of State for projected that the UK will have the biggest The reports submitted to the Commission by further powers. rise in inequality since the 1980s during the national organisations evidenced that the risk of next four years, with a plateau in employment poverty (and impact of financial exclusion) are Department for Communities and Local growth and a squeeze on incomes for the compounded by ethnicity, gender and for those Government (DCLG) representatives informed poorest households as a result of rising inflation. with a disability. The impact within Greenwich the commission that selective licensing cannot The Commission identified financial inclusion as has been referred to in previous sections of work in isolation and must be part of a wider an additional theme to capture key inequality this report. strategy to drive improvement. This reflects the issues that did not fall under the original recommendations of local housing professionals four themes. regarding a wider strategy. Greenwich-based advocacy, community and support organisations reported an increase in During times of austerity, women are more Recommendation 14: the number of families presenting for support RBG should develop likely to face financial exclusion. This is because and an increase in the number of services a wider strategy on private sector standards, they are more likely to be in receipt of public users with erratic and insecure incomes and for instance including support for tenants funds, more likely to be in insecure work and consumer debts. and landlords to know their legal rights and more likely to work within the public sector. responsibilities, perhaps through partnership These gender inequalities are compounded by Greenwich and Bexley Credit Union reported working with housing rights or advice groups. 76 ethnicity, disability and age. that it has seen evidence of growing inequality. Lastly, attendees at our public consultation as Greenwich Foodbank reported an increase in well as a Students’ Union evidence submission the number of families in need. raised concern over the lack of availability of legal advice and support. Woolwich County Court will be closing in the coming year. This creates a risk that there will not be any hearings in Greenwich, and residents may have to 76 A fairer deal for women (2016), Women’s Resource Centre

66 Greenwich: Our future together Housing Financial inclusion Greenwich: Our future together 67 8.2.1 Debt lenders, doorstep lenders and loan sharks, if the Table 28: Children poverty in Greenwich78 care. Attendees of the Commission’s financial credit union had not been an option). inclusion roundtable aired concerns regarding Ward Children in Poverty Locally-based groups expressed growing care leavers’ financial literacy. In 2013, the London Borough of Islington Woolwich Riverside 33% concern over the level of personal debt held Woolwich Common 32% designed a “multiple debt” offer for its residents, Since April 2016, work allowances for care by those accessing their services and support. Abbey Wood 29% Research has shown that anxiety and stress to improve its interaction with residents with Glyndon 29% leavers without children have been withdrawn. is exacerbated by the number (rather than long-standing debt. Thamesmead Moorings 27% This change costs working care leavers claiming size) of debts.77 This is primarily due to having Eltham West 26% Universal Credit up to £72 per month (or £865 Recommendation 1: numerous debtors contacting an individual Create a Council Charlton 25% per year). for different payments, whether they are from ‘one-stop shop’, for residents with long- Middle Park and Sutcliffe 25% Greenwich West 24% different organisations or different services standing multiple debts. Plumstead 22% 8.2.4 General Council within the same organisation. Peninsula 22% Kidbrooke with Hornfair 22% Tax support Greenwich & Bexley Credit Union is a 8.2.2 Child poverty Eltham South 21% responsible lender that provides financial Blackheath Westcombe 17% In April 2013, Council Tax benefit was abolished According to Public Health England’s 2016 management advice, loans and a savings Coldharbour and New Eltham 13% and replaced with locally run Council Tax Health Profile, 25% (13,600) of Greenwich’s account. Members must save regularly for 3 Shooters Hill 12% support schemes. The Royal Borough of children live in low-income families compared Eltham North 6% months before taking out their first loan. To Greenwich’s Local Council Tax Support scheme to 26.8% (14,800) in 2015, which shows a manage debt, those most in need require access was implemented in April 2013 and its scheme steady decrease since 2006 (both numerically to low interest rates, whilst also receiving debt is in line with the previous national Council Tax and as a percentage). The figure is still higher The highest level of child poverty is in the management advice and budgeting advice. Benefit scheme. Pensioners are still protected, than the London average (21.8%) however, and Woolwich wards. Although these wards have but residents of working age are required to across Royal Greenwich’s wards, there are seen overall population growth (and with that, pay at least 15% of their Council Tax liability. Table 27: Average adult savings large variances. an increase in average household incomes) there is still persistent and historical patterns Year Average savings for Adults of poverty, suggesting that circumstances have Six London boroughs still maintain 100 per cent Current £983 not changed for specific families/groups. This support for their poorest residents. At present, 15/16 £964 indicates intergenerational poverty (rather than RBG currently offers the following Council Tax 14/15 £932 seasonal or situational). support to its residents: 13/14 £903 12/13 £870 • 5% (1200) receive between 1-25% support 11/12 £878 10/11 £713 8.2.3 Care leavers • 7% (1547) receive between 26-50% support 09/10 £652 08/09 £610 National findings show that care leavers are • 63% (14588) receive between 07/08 £580 three times more likely to have had a benefit 51-85% support sanction than compared to the general Source: Greenwich and Bexley Credit Union • 25% (5888) receive between 85-100% working age population. 62% of decisions support (pension age only) are overturned.79 Over 60% of GBCU’s members are women Eleven councils have introduced Council Tax and since its creation, in 1998, the Greenwich & The Centre for Social Justice found that 57% exemptions for care leavers, including London Bexley Credit Union estimate that it has saved of young people find it difficult managing Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the first local people at least £66m in interest charges their money and avoiding debt when leaving London authority to do so). If Royal Greenwich alone (where lenders may have chosen payday were to follow this practice, The Children’s

78 End Child Poverty, 2016 Society has calculated that the cost to the Council would be between £32 and 87k for a 77 The Children’s Society 79 The Children’s Society.

68 Greenwich: Our future together Financial inclusion Financial inclusion Greenwich: Our future together 69 full Council Tax exemption for care leavers up In 2017, the UK’s leading bodies representing domestic abuse. Local and central government approaches to supporting residents with Nil to 25-years-old. psychologists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, must ensure that victims of domestic abuse are Recourse to Public Funds. This includes NRPF- and counsellors wrote an open letter calling not overlooked in these reforms. specific services, be it cross-departmental or Since the introduction of localisation of Council for the Government to ‘immediately’ suspend specific responses from adult or Tax support, nationally the overall number of the benefits sanctions system, because of its children’s services.84 claimants has fallen, but Council Tax arrears limited proven impact on getting people back 8.2.6 No recourse to public funds 80 have increased. During the financial inclusion into work and the links sanctions have with (NRPF) Royal Borough of Greenwich has the highest Nil roundtable, local organisations suggested that ‘destitution, disempowerment, and increased Recourse expenditure in the country. There is a 81 Council Tax liability can be a real challenge for rates of mental health problems’. Some residence permits include the condition significant overspend with 2015/16 spend being the most vulnerable residents who are reliant of Nil Recourse to Public Funds (or no approximately £5.1m (including staff costs) on benefits to pay it in any case. The Commission had limited interactions with recourse), meaning that residents are not able against a £973,000 annual budget creating a Greenwich Jobcentre Plus, and was unable to to claim most benefits, tax credits or housing shortfall of £4.19m. Recommendation 2: Revert Council Tax obtain local data. assistance paid by the state82. Residents on support to 100% for the Borough’s most such a permit would not be entitled to the vulnerable residents (including those residents Recommendation 4: National Government Table 29: Number of Nil Recourse cases following benefits: in receipt of disability living allowance and should take a fundamental review of the (families and adults) and spend (£) per year in Greenwich, 2010-2015 personal independence payment). application of benefit sanctions. It should Attendance allowance Income support identify the following: Number of cases Nil Recommendation 3: Council Tax exemption Housing benefit Income-based Year Recourse Families and Adults Spend for children leaving care. In the first year of • Whether benefit sanctions disproportionately Carer’s allowance jobseeker’s 2014/15 346 4,738,632 leaving care, a young care leaver should receive impact those who are most vulnerable in allowance 2013/14 340 4,081,419 Child benefit 2012/13 198 2,185,628 a full Council Tax exemption, with an annual society (e.g. young people, service users Income-related 2011/12 95 1,008,501 incremental increase (up until the age of 25 with learning disabilities or mental Child tax credit employment & 2010/11 101 893,906 years old, where they would be expected to health conditions) Council tax benefit support allowance start paying the full amount). • Trend in number of benefit delays (including Council tax reduction Personal independence In May 2016, the snapshot picture of open cases the causes) and payment Disability living was 189 families and 20 single adults, totalling 8.2.5 Impact of benefit sanctions • The speed at which money is refunded after allowance Severe disablement 209 cases. allowance a successful appeal Discretionary welfare Greenwich Foodbank reported that 6,500 payment made by a Social fund payment Comparably, Greenwich & Bexley Credit people have visited over the past year. Changes Recommendation 5: RBG and Greenwich local authority Union’s new members in 2016 originate from in the welfare system have affected the profile State pension credit Jobcentre Plus should partner to review the 75 different countries – many of whom are of those approaching the foodbank resulting in Domestic rate relief application of benefit sanctions at a local level. Universal credit not UK citizens and have not yet acquired a a decrease in single people and an increase in (Northern Ireland) Working tax credit permanent right to remain in the UK. Nationally, families approaching. The majority of foodbank Recommendation 6: Greenwich Foodbank there is a statistical spike of people with Nil users cited benefit delays, changes and low employees should receive financial awareness Recourse to Public Funds status from both incomes as their reason for using foodbanks. training so that they are able to provide first UK legislation states the duties to support Jamaica and Nigeria. In Royal Greenwich, a level advice and, where appropriate, signpost destitute migrants with Nil Recourse to settled population of Nigerians live in the Over 50% of the people supported by the Foodbank service users to specialists. Public Funds, which fall on local authorities to borough, particularly concentrated in Woolwich Royal Borough of Greenwich to appeal their provide.83 Local authorities provide different and Thamesmead. sanctions have had their sanctions successfully Recent and ongoing changes in the benefit overturned. This raises questions regarding the system pose particular problems for victims of implementation of sanctions. 82 Section 115 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

83 Families – section 17 Children Act 1989 (England & Wales) 81 The Independent (26 February 2017) ‘The DWP must see and Adults with care needs – the Care Act 80 Still too poor to pay, Child Poverty Action Group that a bad job is worse for your health than unemployment’ 2014 (England) 84 NRPF (2011)

70 Greenwich: Our future together Financial inclusion Financial inclusion Greenwich: Our future together 71 The Her Centre (women’s empowerment Section 9 and support charity) also also stated the need to address the issues facing families with Nil Recourse to Public Funds, especially for women Conclusion experiencing domestic abuse.

Recommendation 7: Royal Borough of Greenwich should continue to provide on-going support for residents with Nil Recourse to Public Funds, whilst investigating best practice within NRPF-specific services to maximise savings.

Recommendation 8: The Local Government Association should conduct a review on NRPF- specific services as well as the nation-wide impact on local government. The Commission met over a time-limited six households are expected to lose £60 a week Further work needs to carried out to ensure month period. This report has sought to identify from their Housing Benefit award.86 that the most vulnerable are not trapped in the change agents and key stakeholders that dangerous positions because they have Nil have the links, awareness and resources to Recourse to Public Funds. improve the wellbeing and opportunities for 9.2 Brexit those living and working within the borough. Similarly, the changes which will come from The Royal Borough of Greenwich and partners Brexit are unknown. Leaving the European will also be operating during a period of budget Union is expected to exacerbate existing constraints and systems changes: inequalities rather than cause them.87 The government has guaranteed EU funding levels to 2020 and will underwrite the £5.3bn EU 9.1 Changes in the benefit system regeneration projects which meet UK priorities.

Changes in the benefit system include the Since 2000, RBG has successfully attracted roll out of Universal Credit and the reduction over £10 million from EU funding sources. The of the Benefit Cap. Universal Credit will be Commission welcomes RBG’s commitment rolled-out to all working age claimants in Royal to continue to support growth among Small Greenwich by June 2018. Research has shown a Medium-sized Enterprises through its e-business national increase in rent arrears, since the programme. The Council’s aim is to safeguard roll-out.85 jobs and increase job creation through:

The reduction of the Benefit Cap from £26,000 to £23,000 (in London) is expected to affect 453 of Greenwich’s families. On average,

86 Royal Borough of Greenwich 85 National Federation of ALMOs and Association of Retained Council Housing’s research (2016) 87 Inclusive Growth Commission

72 Greenwich: Our future together Financial inclusion Conclusion Greenwich: Our future together 73 • Emphasising the need to increase exporting, strongly advocated for and that all partners Section 10 which has the potential to increase turnover recognise and commit to contributing to a and feed through into economic growth and cross-sector, borough-wide approach. new jobs Appendices

• Working with the local Chamber of Commerce to undertake a quarterly business confidence survey to include a number of questions around Brexit

• Working with The Employer Board for Construction through a regular agenda item considering the impact Brexit is having on the sector and its current and future workforce, to inform any further lobbying around skills development needs

• Working closely with HR colleagues, Further Education and Skills providers to maximise Appendix A: Change agent: Someone who works to change the number of new apprenticeships starts and improve an organisation or a system arising from the Apprenticeship Levy Glossary introduced in April 2017 in order to continue Children’s Centre: Facilities providing activities to build a strong pipeline of local talent Acceptance (homelessness): Acceptance and support for parents and children between as eligible for homelessness support by the birth and 5 years old • Informing the ongoing work through Chief local authority Executives London Councils Meetings and Claimant Count: The number of people Department for Communities and Local Acceptance (mental health): Acceptance as claiming unemployment benefits while seeking Government Brexit Programme Board; and eligible for mental health support by local work mental health services • Commissioning an Economic DCLG: Department for Communities and Development Strategy Application (homelessness): Application to the Local Government local authority for homelessness support Decent Homes Standard: A national In many respects, the UK is going through Asset givers: Any individual or organisation programme to bring council homes to a a period of change. The impacts of and that can provide resources towards an effort minimum quality standard opportunities available are not fully known. It or cause Decision (homelessness): is crucial that those who are most vulnerable Decision on whether BAME: are advised and supported about the Black and Asian Minority Ethnic or not an application for homelessness support is successful options available to them. The work arising Best practice: The most effective procedures from the Greenwich Fairness Commission’s for dealing with an issue DHP: Discretionary Housing Payment; a recommendations will be a difficult but fund that local authorities can use for one-off CAMHS: Children and Adolescent Mental necessary task. payments for people who cannot afford their Health Services housing costs The Commission recommends that an action CCG: Clinical Commissioning Group; DWP: Department for Work and Pensions plan is developed, as a response to the NHS bodies responsible for planning and Economically inactive: People classed as recommendations listed, to ensure that progress commissioning health care services in their area and targets are reviewed in the future. It is vital unemployed but not seeking work that the Commission’s recommendations are

74 Greenwich: Our future together Conclusion Appendices Greenwich: Our future together 75 Financial inclusion: The ability of disadvantaged Peer Review: Evaluation of an individual or Appendix B: Councillor Averil Lekau, Cabinet Member for or poor members of society to access financial organisation’s work by others working in the Housing & Anti-Poverty services at reasonable prices same field Expression of thanks Louise Mackender De Cari, Assistant Director Food poverty: Situation where a household Procurement: Acquisition of goods, services The Commission would like to thank the of Commissioning and Resources cannot obtain an appropriate amount of and external contracts of an organisation following Councillors and Council officers, for John O’Malley, Assistant Director of healthy food their contributions at its meetings: PRSHEP: Private Rented Sector Housing Community Services GLLaB: Greenwich Local Labour and Business; Enforcement Programme, Greenwich’s Taric Ahmed, Head of Income and Councillor Cherry Parker, Co-Chair of the the Council’s employment advice and programme to ensure good standards in private Maximisation Healthier Communities and Adult Social Care brokerage service rented housing Councillor Don Austen, Chair of Pension Fund Scrutiny Panel GLLP: Greenwich Local Labour Project; an RBG: Royal Borough of Greenwich Investment & Administration Panel Simon Pearce, Director of Health and Adult employment scheme for residents affected by School-to-school improvement: Collaboration Social Care welfare reform John Comber, Chief Executive and partnerships between schools to improve Tracy Russell, Senior Assistant Director Hard to reach: Individuals or communities standards Katie Dawkins, Housing Options, Support Inclusion Learning & Achievement who do not access services and are difficult for and Access Manager Sheltered accommodation: Retirement housing services to contact Jeremy Smalley, Assistant Director for elderly people Jayne Deeley, Strategic Economic of Regeneration HILL: Highways Improvement Local Labour Social enterprise: Businesses that use Initiatives Manager Fiona Stones, scheme; a scheme to employ 18 to 24-year-olds commercial strategies for Katrina Delaney, Director of Central Services Assistant Director of on improving local roads social good Central Services Councillor John Fahy HRA: Housing Revenue Account, a local Stakeholder: Person or organisation that has an Daniel Tahsin, Corporate Strategy and authority’s account for housing expenses interest in, or is involved with, an organisation Sean Foulds, Assistant Director of Finance Projects Officer

HRP: Household Reference Person, the person Statutory homelessness: Entitlement to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member Jerry Telfer, Senior Corporate who selects themselves as the lead member of housing support; one must be eligible for for Health and Social Care Development Officer a family for census purposes public funds, have a local connection, be Councillor Christine Grice, Co-Chair of the Councillor Danny Thorpe, Deputy Leader “unintentionally homeless”, and be in JCP: Jobcentre Plus, the government’s Children’s and Young People Scrutiny Panel “priority need” Steve Whiteman, Director of Public Health employment agency and Corin Hammersley, Training, Policy and Welfare advice service STP: Sustainability and Transformation Plan; Rights Services Manager five-year plans covering NHS spending and Mixed communities: Areas with residents of a improvements, introduced in 2016 Jummy (Olajumoke) Hemsley, Joint range of tenures (homeowners, social renters, Commissioning Team Leader etc) of differing backgrounds Strategy: A plan of action for a long-term aim Rhiannon Hesketh, Research and Nil recourse: No entitlement to welfare or Support networking: Creating networks of Projects Officer other public support (a residency condition on contacts between organisations to co-ordinate certain visas) and co-operate against shared challenges Councillor Denise Hyland, Leader

Off-rolling: Deregistering a pupil from a school Systems leader: Someone who works for the Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Ofsted: The government agency responsible for social good across multiple organisations or Transport, Economy & Smart Cities monitoring school standards systems (for instance, services) Helena Krawczyk, Senior Corporate Peer mentoring: A method of sharing learning Third sector: The voluntary sector Development Officer by pairing more experienced individuals with Florence Kroll, Director of Children’s Services less experienced individuals

76 Greenwich: Our future together Appendices Appendices Greenwich: Our future together 77 The Commission would like to thank the Her Centre Appendix C: following people and organisations for sharing King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust their experiences, expertise and resources: Greenwich Fairness JB Riney Commission Costs Berkeley Group London Child Poverty Action Group The Greenwich Fairness Commission was Bridge Mental Health London Community Land Trust allocated a budget of up to £20,000, in line Business in the Community (BITC) with the average expenditure of other Fairness London South East Colleges Commissions. As indicated below, not all of Cannon Kim Hitch LPF Kids Club this budget was spent. All Commissioners gave Chamber of Commerce their time and resources for free. In addition McDonalds Greenwich Franchises there was the time of the officers who worked Charlton Athletic Community Trust on the project, which was shared between the Citizens UK Metro Royal Borough’s Corporate Services Corelli College Greenwich Metropolitan Police Service and Peabody. Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Department for Local Government & Expenditure was limited by using venues, Communities Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust resources and support provided by the Council or Commissioners’ organisations, for which the Elevation Networks Participation People Commission gives its thanks. Feeding Britain Peabody Trust The primary costs were design and printing GAVS Residents who participated in the February of the report and the costs of advertising and Greenwich and Bexley Credit Union public workshop hosting public events (including the launch, consultations, and the report launch). The total Greenwich Association of Disabled People Resolution Foundation cost at the time of printing was £6,995.26. Greenwich Action for Voluntary Service Royal Borough of Greenwich

Greenwich Citizens Advice Bureau South-east London Commerce

Greenwich Co-operative Development Students’ Union, Greenwich University Agency Sustain: the alliance for better food and Greenwich Foodbank farming

Greenwich Housing Rights Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations

Greenwich Inclusion Project Thames Reach

Greenwich MenCap The Campaign Company

Greenwich Social Isolation Strategy Group The Children’s Society

Greenwich Young Commissioners University of Greenwich

Greenwich Children in Care Council Young Women’s Trust

Greenwich Young People’s Council

Healthwatch Greenwich

78 Greenwich: Our future together Appendices Appendices Greenwich: Our future together 79 Appendix D: Department for Education, Inclusion: does it Greenwich Social Isolation Strategy London South East Colleges, matter where pupils are taught? Group, Response to the Greenwich Children’s University References Fairness Commission Department for Education, Statistical First London South East Colleges, Response to the Allen R., Education Datalab, Repeat After ‘E’: the Release Provision for children under five years Her Centre, Response to the Greenwich Greenwich Fairness Commission treadmill of post-16 GCSE maths and of age in England: (2015) Fairness Commission (2016) Office for National Statistics, Annual Survey of English retakes Department for Work and Pensions, Housing Inclusive Growth Commission, Emerging Hours and Earnings: 2016 provisional results BBC News, Autumn Statement 2016: Letting Benefit Circular HBS1/2016 Findings (2016) Ofsted, Key stage 3: the wasted years? agent fees will be banned (2015) Edward Melhuish, The Impact of Early Childhood Inclusive Growth Commission, Making our Ofsted, School inspection handbook (2016) BBC, ‘Sky-high’ rental hotspots across England Education and Care on Improved Wellbeing economy work for everyone revealed (2016) Oxleas NHS Trust Foundation, Response to Elevation Networks, National Living Wage – EN Institute for Fiscal Studies and University the Greenwich Fairness Commission Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, Why Briefing Paper of Warwick, Parental Background and Child does CSIE say that special schools have no place Outcomes: How Much Does Money Matter and Peabody, Gypsy and Traveller Community Elevation Networks, Police and Crime in the 21st century? What Else Matters? Commissioners Briefing Politico, Inequality, not poverty drove Britain Chartered Institute of Housing, Why is it IPPR, Future proof: Britain in the 2020s to Brexit Elevation Networks, Race to The Top 2 Diversity important to change local authority borrowing In Education Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Brexit vote Public Health England, Greenwich Health rules? (2014) explained: poverty, low skills and lack of Profile 2016 Elevation Networks, Race to the Top Child Poverty Action Group, Still too poor opportunities (2016) Experiences of Black Students in Higher Education to pay RBG Children and Young People Scrutiny JSNA, Health and wellbeing strategy 2015 Chairs, Response to the Greenwich Elevation Networks, UK BME Population Citizens UK and Corelli College, case study to 2018 Fairness Commission Briefing Paper (2016) and testimony LB Islington, Islington’s Multiple Debt RBG Children Services, Greenwich Primary Feeding Britain, Response to the Greenwich Citizens UK and Corelli College, Greenwich Service document 2014 Survey Results Fairness Commission (2017) 2015 YP-MH Charter Letting Fees UK, London Borough of Bromley RBG Children Services, Greenwich Secondary GAD, Response to the Greenwich Fairness Citizens UK, London Citizens Housing Manifesto 2014 Survey Results Commission (2016) London Assembly, Planning and Housing Crisis, The homelessness monitor: England (2016) Committee, Crowded houses: Overcrowding in RBG Children Services, Response to the Gale A., The Homelessness Reduction Bill: London’s social rented housing (2011) Greenwich Fairness Commission Department for Communities and Local Everything you need to know (2016) Government, OpenDataCommunities, Additional London Borough of Lambeth, Raising the RBG, Homelessness Review and Strategy Greater London Authority, HRA reform in affordable dwellings by local authority district, Achievement of White Working Class 2014-2019 London (2013) England (1991-92 to 2015-16) Pupils (2014) RBG, Profile of Poverty in Greenwich(2015) Greenwich & Bexley Credit Union, Department for Communities and Local Response London Community Land Trust, Briefing on to the Greenwich Fairness Commission RBG Public Health, Food Poverty Government, Statistical Release, Statutory London Community Land Trust Needs Assessment homelessness, January to March 2016, and Greenwich CCG, Transformation Plan for London Development Agency, Muslim women homelessness prevention and relief Children and Young People’s Mental Health and RBG Welfare Rights Service, Awarding suffer the greatest economic disadvantages of any 2015/16: England Emotional Wellbeing Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) group in society (2016) Department for Education and Department Greenwich Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Response RBG Welfare Rights Service, Benefits London Property Licensing, Tackling rogue of Health, Supporting Families in the Safeguarding Alert and Form to the Greenwich Fairness Commission landlords: analysis of private rented housing Foundation Years Greenwich MenCap, Response to the prosecutions in London (2015) RBG Welfare Rights Service, Emergency Greenwich Fairness Commission Support Project Evaluation 2016

80 Greenwich: Our future together Appendices Appendices Greenwich: Our future together 81 RBG Welfare Rights Service, Emergency Support Young Women’s Trust, Consultation response to Scheme – Entitlement Criteria Work and Pensions Select Committee (2015)

Resolution Foundation, City Living report Young Women’s Trust, Work it Out (2016)

Resolution Foundation, Data on London Young Women’s Trust, Young, Female and boroughs for low activity groups Forgotten (2016) Resolution Foundation, The referendum, living standards and inequality (2016)

Shelter, The Living Home Standard (2016) Sustain – the alliance for better food and farming, Beyond The Food Bank (2016)

The Children’s Society, Children’s Lives in Greenwich

The Children’s Society, Council Tax exemption for care leavers

The Children’s Society, Financial Peer Mentoring for Vulnerable Young People

The Children’s Society, Separated and unaccompanied migrant children: providing a long- term solution

The Children’s Society, The Future of Family Incomes

The Equality Trust, Inequality and Brexit The Guardian, Britain’s damp, leaky homes among Europe’s most costly to heat (2013)

Trust for London, London’s Poverty Profile: Greenwich

Unionlearn, What maths and English skills count in the workplace?

University of Glasgow and Cobweb Consulting, The private rented sector in South East London and Lambeth: A study for South East London Housing Partnership and LB Lambeth (2014) Report designed by Women’s Resource Centre, A fairer deal for women (2016)

82 Greenwich: Our future together Appendices Report authors and contact

For enquiries relating to the Commission, please contact:

Bakita Kasadha Corporate Development Officer Royal Borough of Greenwich The Town Hall, Wellington Street, London SE18 6PW E: [email protected] T: 020 8921 6967

Anya Martin Policy Assistant to Lord Kerslake Peabody 45 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7JB E: [email protected] T: 020 3828 4297

Submissions and further details of the Commission can be found on the Fairness Commission’s website: www.GreenwichFairness.com