Staying relevant

Charities don't last as long as Children North East (founded 1891) without adapting to the changing needs of children. Last September we started a thorough review of everything we do by asking our staff what they thought we should be doing. Since then we've examined our strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats that face us. We have also considered the external environment, done some future gazing and discussed our finances. We have summarised all the discussion in our Strategic Plan for 2015-2019 which has been agreed by our board of trustees and shared with all our staff this week.

Back in 1891 our mission was 'To hold out a helping hand to poor children in Newcastle and Gateshead', as one of the early trustees put it: to give poor children 'a hand up not a hand out'. The aims of the charity have changed many times since then and we have redefined them again in today's language. Our mission now is for all north east children and young people to grow up healthy and happy and we will promote the rights of children and young people.

Children North East has always been a service organisation and will continue to strengthen and empower children, young people in families, in schools and in the community; but we will also improve what other workers and organisations do through training, demonstrating good practice and influencing their policies and practice. We will work in partnership with other organisations who share our aims and values in order to reach as many north east children and young people as possible.

Listening to children and young people and hearing the things that concern them will be at the heart of everything we do and we will find ways to hear as many of them as possible, not only the ones we currently work with. To make sure that children's rights really do drive everything we do, we will adopt the 7 principles of the Unicef Child Rights Partners approach in all our work.

There are some 'wicked issues' facing children and young people in the north east today, for example child poverty, the silent epidemic of mental ill-health, child sexual exploitation, progression from school into work to name just a few. At the same time public services are retreating from serving some needs, for example the emphasis on 'early intervention' (which actually means helping families in the years before children start school) means there is much less help for families of school age children unless they are being abused - just ask any teacher.

I believe this is the time for organisations like Children North East that are independent of public services to step up to the mark and take the lead in serving the needs of todays children and young people.

Eliminating child poverty

So it falls to the new Conservative government to comply with the Child Poverty Act 2010 and ensure the UK abolishes child poverty by 2020. What a wonderful legacy that would be for the Tories at the time of the next general election.

It was New Labour under Tony Blair that in 1999 decided to eradicate child poverty in the UK by 2020 and to halve it by 2010. In 2007 David Cameron committed his party to achieving this ambition saying, 'ending child poverty is central to improving child well-being.' The 2020 target was enshrined in law in 2010.

Between 1999 and 2010 the number of children living in poverty fell by over 1 million to 2.3 million which was the lowest number since the mid 1980s, but was still 600,000 more than the 2010 target.

In July 2012 the former health secretary Alan Milburn and who is now chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said, 'I don't believe, frankly, that there is a snowball's chance in hell that we will hit the 2020 target.'

According to the Child Poverty Action Group today there are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK, that's 27% but it can be much higher in some wards, for example in that part of Stockton-On-Tees (where the current 'Benefits Street' programmes were filmed) the figure is 55%. In other parts of the north east such as parts of Middlesbrough and Newcastle it is even higher. (See: North East Child Poverty Commission)

If child poverty continues to rise for the next 5 years at the same rate as during the Coalition, we can expect that by 2020 the number of children living in poverty will be close to 4.7 million, that's higher than the starting point back in 1999.

Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends such as swimming lessons, being different and feeling excluded. And it has long lasting effects, children entitled to free school meals (a rule of thumb for measuring poverty) do less well at GCSE than their peers; they leave school with fewer qualifications and earn less over the course of their working life.

Two-thirds of children in poverty are growing up in families where at least one parent is working. So the problem is more about low wages than it is about benefits.

The UK is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in fact we are due to be inspected on our progress to implement the 54 convention articles later this year. Article 27 says: 'Children have the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and mental needs. Governments should help families and guardians who cannot afford to provide this, particularly with regard to food, clothing and housing'. I wonder what the inspectors will say about that.
  

Under the line

One of my work colleagues has been living on £1 a day for all food and drink for 5 days. She is taking part in 'Live Below the Line' a global challenge to show solidarity with people in extreme poverty, raise money to eliminate global poverty and experience what life is like for people on very low incomes.

She had to plan how to spend her £5 very carefully checking what she could and could not afford to buy. She didn't allow herself to use her store cupboard except for salt and spices. Normally she eats a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables, these were immediately unaffordable, instead she bought a bag of diced frozen vegetables. She found that tinned potatoes were a cheap alternative to fresh. She also bought a bag of cheap teabags but milk was too expensive so she drank it black. She has found it an eye opening experience and very boring so is looking forward to return to normal after 5 days.

The Trussell Trust Newcastle West End food bank is now the largest in the country, since 2009 demand has increased 8,000% so it now distributes 4 tons of food every week. Everyone receiving food has been referred by a care professional such as doctors, health visitors, social workers, Citizens Advice Bureau staff, welfare officers, the police and probation officers who issue people in crisis a food bank voucher. Clients bring their voucher to the food bank where it can be exchanged for three days supply of emergency food. Food parcels have been designed by dieticians to provide recipients with nutritionally balanced food.

It is very hard to imagine why people would not prioritise buying food. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Hunger and Food Poverty, chaired by Frank Field found that the answer is simple. If you have limited income you will pay your rent first because otherwise you will be evicted. You will pay for gas and electricity otherwise they will be cut off. If your children are entitled to free school meals you know they will get one meal a day during the school day, families Children North East know will prepare one meal a day at teatime. During the school holidays they prioritise food for the children and the parents live on leftovers or go without.

Decent jobs

On Friday I was interviewed by journalist Tom Esslemont for BBC Radio 4 news about poverty in the north east. The point made by everyone he spoke to was that there are not enough full-time, well-paid, long-term jobs in the north east. Today the front page of The Journal picked up on the same theme. The Trussell Trust (which runs Food Banks) reports that 22% of those seeking help this year were referred because of 'low income' meaning people in jobs and that this is up 6% on the previous year.

To illustrate the point, over the weekend I found out that the retail chain Next recently changed the employment contracts of pretty much all their shop staff to just 13 hours a week apparently to reduce the amount they have to pay for national insurance. Staff who have mortgages, families, childcare costs, financial commitments and could formerly rely on a set number of hours work each week were suddenly and arbitrarily reduced to 13 hour contracts worked over 3 days each week. I am sure Next would say that staff can increase the number of hours they work to suit themselves by exchanging shifts - a system operated online. But the demand for extra hours is so great, shifts are snapped up in seconds.

I heard too that Top Shop only employ staff aged under 18 so that they only have to pay £3.79 an hour Minimum Wage instead of £5.13 for those age 18 to 20 or £6.50 for those age over 21. The Minimum Wage is the minimum employers can legally pay; the Living Wage Foundation recommend the minimum should be £7.85 an hour outside London.

At what point did it become acceptable for any employer to have such limited regard for the legitimate needs of their employees? Mahatma Gandhi listed 'Commerce without morality' amongst his 7 deadly sins:

The seven deadly sins

Mahatma Gandhi

 

Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice, and
Politics without principle.

And in 'The Wealth of Nations' (1776) Adam Smith identified five moral problems created by capitalism: impoverishing the spirit of the workers, creating cities in which anonymity will facilitate price-fixing, expanding the ranks of the rich who lack virtue, inducing government to create monopolies and privileges, and separating ownership and management in ways that lead to what we now call agency problems.

Fortunately not all retailers are behaving like 19th century mill owners; I did also hear about cosmetic shop Lush who do pay their staff the Living Wage rate.

A Christmas Carol

Charles Dickens famous story about Scrooge was published 171 years ago but is perhaps even more relevant today than when it was written.

Scrooge, a committed miser is shown the error of his ways by four ghosts who visit him on Christmas Eve. The final spectre, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come shows Scrooge his own deathbed, funeral and grave. Scrooge is terrified to realise he will die alone and unloved, mourned by no one, and resolves to change his ways. Throughout the story Dickens shows us that redemption comes through the joy of giving, especially charitable giving.

At the start of the story Scrooge is visited by his nephew who remarks. 'I have always thought of Christmas time as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.'

We are one of the richest countries in the world, we are home to some of the wealthiest people who have ever lived. During the second half of the last century we became a much more equal society than in Dickens's time but today income inequality is again greater than it was 100 years ago. No matter how much you have, and how 'fair' you think you should be entitled to everything you have, nevertheless we are all mortal, all on the same journey through life.

The next scene is a visit from two gentlemen who say. 'At this festive season of the year, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts.' Adding 'Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices.' Scrooge replies that the prisons, workhouses, treadmill and Poor Law are good enough for the poor.

Today's equivalents would again be prisons, Universal Credit and Job Seekers Allowance. But also the indignity of food banks, the benefits cap, the unfairness of the bedroom tax and mean-minded immigration regulations.

Scrooge is taken by the Ghost of Christmas Present to visit the homes of many families cheerfully celebrating Christmas. Finally the Ghost reveals, 'from the foldings of its robe, it brought two children, wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable...They were a boy and girl.' Whom the Ghost calls Ignorance and Want and warns against ignorance in particular. When Scrooge asks what can be done to help them the Ghost taunts him with his own words 'Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?'

We do not see the Want in our society, we are no longer confronted by children with no shoes freezing on the winter streets. Instead the media serves up a spectacle of the poor as ignorant and lazy. We make judgements about other people's lives from the comfort of our own homes and convince ourselves that because we are fortunate to have work, family, friends, community it is somehow 'fair' that others do not.

At the end of the story Scrooge gives, not only to Tiny Tim but abundantly to all. He remembers and re-engages with the joy he felt at Christmas time when he was young and he laughs, 'really for a man who had been out or practice for so many years, it was a splendid laugh, a most illustrious laugh. The father of a long line of brilliant laughs!'

In the last two weeks Children North East has witnessed abundant giving from thousands of ordinary people all over our region who have bought and donated toys, gifts, food, clothing, treats and money for cooking and heating. We have been busy distributing them all to children, young people and families in need this Christmas. The Spirit of Christmas is very much alive and well right here in north east England!

I wish you all a very Joyful and Happy Christmas.

Hopebook

Meet Hope a 12 year old girl living in the north east and experiencing poverty. She is a fictional charater developed by young people based on their shared experiences. From today you can become her friend online and learn about her life at www.adayofhope.co.uk 

Hopebook is an exciting development that grew out of collaboration between Children North East and Live Theatre with the creation of 'Hope’s Diary' in 2011. Artistic Director Amy Golding took child poverty data, images and focus group information to a Culture Code Hack held at the Tyneside Cinema in 2012.

The CultureCode Initiative was an opportunity for north east cultural and digital communities to work closely together, increasing their understanding of each other’s work and the mutual benefits of collaboration, by connecting cultural organisations with software developers and creative technologists to see what amazing things would happen.

Hope explores issues of child poverty by placing you within a day in the life of a 12 year old girl called Hope. Hopebook mirrors the way in which Facebook is used. You become friends with Hope who posts about her life and experiences.  The reality behind those posts can be revealed by clicking on an icon.  Interactive games can be played which highlight the obstacles faced by children and young people growing up in poverty. 

We have two aims for Hopebook - to place adult decision makers within the day in the life of a child experiencing poverty and the decisions that they have to face; and to encourage as many young people as possible to share with us their views and experiences. 

Whilst playing Hopebook users are asked a few questions. Including what change they would like to see locally to tackle child poverty. We will use the data from this to inform our work on a children’s manifesto on poverty, that we are coordinating for the APPG Poverty.

This is an exciting development that we think has never been tried before. It has potential to engage large numbers of children and young people nationally in the discussion and debates about child poverty, using a medium that they already engage with, in their millions.  We also believe it has the potential to influence policy makers and decision makers, who increasingly use mediums such as twitter.

Making a manifesto

In February this year 30 young people from the north east, north west and London gathered in parliament to work on a young people's child poverty manifesto. They were representatives from youth councils that  are worried about the impact poverty has on children and young people's lives. They had been invited by the All Party Parliamentary Group of MP's working on child poverty to come up with practical ideas for improvement - a young people's child poverty manifesto. Children North East was selected by the APPG to facilitate this work.

Last weekend the work was concluded during a residential at the Thurston outdoor centre in the Lake District owned and managed by South Tyneside Council. The manifesto will be launched in parliament this autumn so I won't talk about it now. Suffice to say the experience of poor children in school features prominently.

A couple of weeks ago The Children's Society hosted a 'Select Committee' run by young people along with politicians to enquire into poverty and education. Children North East was invited to talk about our 'Poverty Proofing the School Day' project. We believe it is unique in trying to change the way schools pay attention to the needs and experience of students from poor families. We believe that creating a 'level playing field' for all students is an essential prerequisite for better educational outcomes for disadvantaged students of all kinds. The Select Committee will also be reporting in the autumn.

The aim of all this work is simple, with a General Election next May we want all the political parties to commit to policies that will help eradicate child poverty - actually a goal enshrined in law. But for once we want them to take notice of suggestions from those who really understand what  is needed because they live the humiliation of poverty every day, that is the children and young people themselves.

Community Day of Action - 27th November 2013

Children North East have been working on a pilot project over the past six months to support a local neighbourhood to take action on poverty.  Young people living in and around the Benwell Terraces organised a family fun day which took place during the summer holidays.  As well as having fun over 300 residents took part in a discussion and consultation about what they would like to change in their neighbourhood.  They overwhelmingly voted to tackle the environmental problems of litter and rubbish in their streets.

This isn’t just a bit of litter, Neighbourhood Services are aware that there is a real problem in this patch, estimating that the equivalent bulk of one hundred of elephants worth of rubbish has been collected in the last year alone.

Penalty notices were seen as the only way to address the problem.  Children North East have been researching with local residents what lies behind the problems.  We found there was a problem with the three Bs...

Bag Ripping:  people shared with us stories about families walking down the back alleys, one family member kicks over bins; they are followed by another who rips/slashes the bags which fall out, someone else then looks for any materials, clothes or linen in the bags.  These are then taken to newly opened cash for clothes outlets.  Two shops are now open near the Terraces on Condercum Road and Two Ball Lonnen.  Cash is given in exchange for any textiles at 60p per kilo.   This activity then leaves rubbish and litter all over the back alleys in the Terraces.  It seems as though families in particular A2 nationals are reliant upon this type of income as they are not entitled to claim state benefits.  (Note: A2 nationals are able to be self employed and we were aware of large families being supported by one parent selling the Big Issue).

Bulk Refuge Collection & Fly Tipping: Residents told us that they were not able to afford bulk refuge charges to have larger items removed.  Nor did they have access to cars or vans to be able to take them to the tip themselves.  Families in particular struggled with the fortnightly bin collections and had extra bags by their bins.  Some families also shared with us that they were storing rubbish in their garages and spare rooms.  It also became apparent that others were driving into the Terraces to leave bulk items too (fly tipping).

Boredom: Younger children also talked to us about being bored and spending a lot of their time hanging around the streets.  If they got bored then they would do things like kick over bins in the back alleys.  Parents also repeated to us their concerns about the lack of things to do for young people.  They also worried that given the state of the neighbourhood led to a spiral downwards, why bother putting things in the bin when it’s such a mess?

We have also been talking to people about what solutions would help.  Penalty notices will not address these problems!

Residents wanted a portable container to clear away the back log.  As a result Children North East, Your Homes Newcastle, Newcastle City Council and the Arts Development Team worked with local residents on the day of action.   Skips were placed on each street for residents to fill with unwanted household items. Children and young people from Canning Street, Oakfield and Excelsior Academy helped litter picking and cleaning up smaller amounts of rubbish from the streets and green spaces.

The day ended with a celebration event (a party) at the Beacon.  We will create works of art with recycled rubbish and take the opportunity to speak to residents about how to sustain the change.

Living Wage Week

This is a true story - Jon is in his twenties, he works full-time as a parking enforcement officer, a job he has been doing for the last 18 months. Before that he was in the Army where he served in Afghanistan. Jon lives with his partner who graduated from university in the summer and is looking for a job. They rent a small flat, their only income is Jon's wage which is the Minimum Wage for adults over the age of 21, that is £6.31 an hour for a 37 hour week. Jon earns £233.47 a week before tax (a little over £12,000 a year). Jon told me that they can barely afford to pay the rent and buy food. When bills come in they borrow from his Mam or other family members then pay them back week by week. He said it was tempting to take out a 'Pay Day' loan but he knew he could not afford the interest rate, 'in any case,' he said, 'relatives are more understanding about giving you more time to pay.'

The Living Wage has gone up this week by 20p an hour - from £7.45 to £7.65. If Jon's employer paid the Living Wage his earnings would increase by £49.58 a week to £283.05. I asked Jon what difference that would make to him. A grin spread across his face, 'Wow!' he said, 'that would make a huge difference, I wouldn't have to borrow and we might be able to have a night out occassionally.' Lastly Jon told me he and his partner would like to start a family but could not afford to on their present income.

Low paid workers are not asking for a great deal, simply the means to pay for the aspirations that anyone could reasonably expect of life in the UK in 2013.

Poverty and rubbish

Last week Children North East organised a Fun Day in a small neighbourhood in West Newcastle. It is an area of old terraced houses and back lanes in the northern style and one of the most racially mixed parts of the city.

With a small amount of money we provided free ice cream, face painting, animals to handle (snakes and big spiders) and pavement art. Over 270 children, young people and curious adults came along. The ice cream and face painting were huge successes - a lot of children are from economic migrant families many of whom had never tasted ice cream nor experienced having their face painted before. Half way through the afternoon someone offered music and set up their sound system on the street including karaoke creating a street party atmosphere. Everyone had a great time and asked when would it happen again?

The event had another purpose - to ask people what they wanted to change about their area, overwhelmingly they said clear up the rubbish in the back lanes and on the streets. The council estimates the equivalent of 100 elephants bulk of rubbish is left on the streets in this small area every year which looks unsightly and is expensive the clear up.

The reason for our interest in the area comes from our project 2 years ago asking children to take photographs of what poverty looked like where they live. The pictures they took here showed children playing in the rubbish, young people hanging out in derelict rubble-strewn backyards, boarded up shops and cheap takeaways. Those same children and young people helped planned the Fun Day to get some action going that will make a difference.

We asked people where the rubbish comes from, they told us people in need of money knock over the wheelie-bins, haul out the rubbish and take away any clothes they can find which they sell at a nearby 'Cash for Clothes' shop for 60p a kilo. They are driven to these desperate measures through necessity but it leaves mess everywhere. The council has suggested fining people - but how would you catch them and where would they get the money to pay a fine?

By the end of the day we not only had a remit from the community but also  a small group of young people and adults keen to find on a solution. Our next step is to form them into an action team. I'll let you know what ideas they come up.

Cost of child poverty

Today Child Poverty Action Group published estimated costs generated by child poverty rates in every local authority and constituency in the UK. The local authority estimates, produced by Donald Hirsch of Loughborough University, are contained in a new report on how local authorities are trying to tackle child poverty at a time of social security cuts and upheaval.

The report, 'Local Authorities and Child Poverty: Balancing Threats with Opportunities' is launched today at a CPAG conference in Birmingham aimed at assisting local authorities fulfil their obligations under the Child Poverty Act to implement effective local child poverty strategies. The report and the conference have been funded by Barrow Cadbury Trust.

In the North East region the numbers of children officially living in poverty in each local authority and the cost is:

	Children below the relative poverty line	Cost of child poverty in £millions
1.    County Durham	27,230	296
2.    Newcastle upon Tyne	17,622	191
3.    Sunderland	17,185	187
4.    Northumberland	13,453	146
5.    Middlesbrough	12,300	134
6.    Gateshead	11,120	121
7.    Stockton-on-Tees	10,982	119
8.    North Tyneside	9,754	106
9.    South Tyneside	9,496	103
10.  Redcar and Cleveland	8,620	94
11.  Hartlepool	7,005	76
12.  Darlington	5,680	62

The North East is losing £1,635 million every year due to child poverty and a large part of that cost lands on council services. This is not only a waste of money but a waste of our children’s prospects. We need to stop paying for failure and instead invest in our children’s future potential.

School dinners

A government-commissioned school food review has recommended Headteachers insist everyone has school dinners, that means banning packed lunches which the report says are often less healthy than school meals because they frequently include crisps, sugary drinks and sweets or chocolate. Headteachers are also encouraged to ban children from leaving school at lunchtime to buy food such as chips and pizzas from local shops. However the review also says that take up of school meals is only 43% despite huge improvements in quality in recent years.

There is good reason to be concerned about the food our children eat. Newcastle upon Tyne has more obese and overweight 4 year olds than anywhere else in England; and of the 2,300 babies born in Gateshead every year, 230 will be obese by the time they are 4 years old and 480 will be obese by the time they are age 10.

The Local Authority Caterers Association is very concerned about decreasing number of children choosing school dinners. If take-up dips below a certain point it will no longer be financially viable for school caterers to provide meals at all.

In our research to Poverty Proof the School Day we found many children and young people who are entitled to free school meals do not take them up because of the stigma it entails. For example we found a school in which children who had free school meals had to queue in a different line at lunchtime; in another school dinner money envelopes were collected in class on Monday morning, all the free school meal children had no envelopes to be collected. One school had a sophisticated biometric card system but the pupils knew who got free school meals because on school trip days they all got a standard school packed lunch in a brown paper bag. Children told us they preferred to go without dinner or nagged their parents to give them a packed lunch to avoid the shame of being identified as having free school meals.

Schools have taken the healthy food message to heart, vending machines that sold sugary drinks, sweets and crisps have been removed but we spoke to children and young people who told us they were all still widely available in school sold by enterprising young people on the 'black market'. One young person even made a video about it in our video stories project.

Then there is the mystery of the missing free school dinner money. If your school uses a 'credit card' type system for school meals you can top it up at the start of the week and spend against it, the remaining credit is carried forward day by day. Not so for free school meals, the notional amount for a free school meal is £1.90 if you spend less than that then tough, all you get is £1.90 again the next day. But no-one seems to know where all those unspent pennies go? And finally what does £1.90 actually buy in the school canteen - can you get food and a drink or must you go without one because you can't afford it?

Children North East supports moves to improve the health of children and young people especially healthy weights but the reasons why pupils chose not to eat school dinners are complex and need to be understood by listening to what the children have to say about them. It is only then that effective strategies to change behaviour will emerge.

Poverty Proofing the School Day

Last week Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshore said that even outstanding schools are failing poorer children, "These poor, unseen children ... are labelled, buried in lower sets, consigned as often as not to indifferent teaching. They coast through education until – at the earliest opportunity – they sever their ties with it."

In our research with poorer children and young people they told us they feel more disadvantaged in school than anywhere else. They told us about all sorts of ways in which schools unwittingly make it obvious which students are poor and harder for them to fully engage in and benefit from education.

"Look, there’s Hope,

She’s got holes in her shoes,

Pays nothing for dinners

And holds up the queues,

Going home with a face full of sorrow,

But don’t worry Hope,

We’ll get you tomorrow."

For the last year we have been working with children, young people, teachers, parents and Governors in four schools (two primary and two secondary in both urban and rural areas) and the North East Child Poverty Commission with funding from the Voluntary Organisations Network North East (VONNE) Policy and Representation Partnership to develop and pilot an audit for schools to 'Poverty Proof the School Day.'

Groups of children and young people in all four schools explored what poverty is in a UK context - did they know who experiences poverty in their school? And if so how do they know?  They walked and talked the school day from start to finish unpicking all the policies and practices within their schools. They looked at what questions to ask of schools to Poverty Proof their Day. The audit was developed from this process, the real lived experiences of children and young people themselves. The children and young people tested and refined their questions by auditing one another’s schools.

Over the next few weeks we are launching the audit to encourage schools to take it up in the new school year starting September 2013. Schools can register online at: www.povertyproofing.co.uk

Ofsted wants to improve teaching for poorer children and threatens to reinspect schools previously judged outstanding if they are not doing well by their poorest children.

The Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning Toolkit is based on rigorous academic research and recommends the cost effective teaching methods to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils.

Children North East thinks both these approaches are important but believes our 'Poverty Proofing the School Day' audit looks at another vital dimension - the social experience of school life from the point of view of the children and young people who are the 'customers' of the education system.

We want to reduce the stigma and discrimination children and young people experiencing poverty face in schools. We want to 'level the playing field' in school so every pupil gets the same chance to benefit from education no matter what their background. 'Poverty Proofing the School Day' will enable schools to identify and remove barriers to learning and support them to reduce their attainment gap.

“I know I’m different, I don’t have the same things everyone else does,
but that doesn’t mean I’m a bad person.”

We become a Living Wage Employer

Children North East has become one of the few organisations in the north east region to become an accredited Living Wage Employer.

The Living Wage is an hourly rate set independently and updated annually, based on the cost living in the UK, currently it is £7.45 an hour outside London.

The Living Wage campaign started in London and has been running for ten years. In that time it has lifted over 45,000 people out of poverty.

Two-thirds of poor children live in working families, their parents are in low paid jobs. Often this can be several part-time jobs at the same time. The Living Wage can make the difference so that perhaps parents only need to have two instead of three part-time jobs and can spend more time with their children. As one of our cleaners said, 'the Living Wage has given me more freedom and independence.'

We hope other north east employers will follow our example and pay the Living Wage; it would make a huge difference to the lives of children growing up in poor families. You can find out more about the Living Wage campaign here: www.livingwage.org.uk

There are also good business reasons for paying the Living Wage. For example an independent study found that more than 80% of employers believe that the Living Wage had enhanced the quality of the work of their staff, while absenteeism had fallen by approximately 25%.

66% of employers reported a significant impact on retention within their organisation and a reduction in cost of recruitment. One London Borough has claimed that because of that, paying the Living Wage has caused no additional costs.

There are wider economic benefits too. Poorer families tend to spend their money locally which puts more income into local businesses.

Children North East has been drawing attention to the impact that poverty has on the lives of poor children, paying low paid workers the Living Wage is one way in which employers can make a real difference to their lives.

Absolute poverty

Last weekend an 80 year old man told me about growing up in Middlebrough in the 1930s. He was one of 8 children, his father worked but was often unwell. If his father could not work the family had no money, there was no social security to fall back on, they had to go without. Even when he was working there was barely enough money to feed the family. Most weeks they took the father's suit to the pawnbroker in exchange for money to buy food. When the father was paid the first call was to the pawnbroker to redeem the suit ready for the next time. His father only ever had the same one suit. The family depended on their wits and especially their mother's skill and ingenuity to be clothed and fed. This, he said was what real poverty was like. He understood today there are not enough jobs to go round and people struggle but they have the safety net of welfare benefits.

Yesterday a report by Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam reported more than half a million UK people may rely on food banks. It calls the amount of food poverty in the UK a national disgrace.

The report blames benefit cuts, unemployment and the increased cost of living for the growth in hunger and poverty. It attributes some of the rise in food bank reliance to unemployment, increasing levels of underemployment, low and falling income, and rising food and fuel prices. Oxfam says: "Cuts to social safety-nets have gone too far, leading to destitution, hardship and hunger."

The report was backed by the Trussell Trust, the UK's biggest provider of food banks. It said

more than 350,000 people required help from its food banks during 2012, almost triple the number who received food aid the year before. Children North East is finding that the families we work with are increasingly in need of food, we keep small stocks but refer people to the rising number of food banks.

Does anyone want to live in a country where people are reliant on handouts of food? Do we really want to return to the hardships of the past?

Responding to the report the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) said: "Our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities."

It added, "The benefits system supports millions of people who are on low incomes or unemployed so no-one has to struggle to meet their basic needs." The department also defended its new universal credit system, which will be implemented nationally in October, saying it will simplify the benefit system and leave "three million households better off".

Yesterday Jayne Linney of the #STOPIDSLYING campaign announced on Twitter that her petition calling for Ian Duncan-Smith the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to be held to account for his use of statistics had been successful, she got over 100,000 signatures. He has been summoned to apprear in June before the Work and Pensions Committee.

John Lennon once sang:

'I've had enough of reading things

By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth.'

I know who I believe - who do you?

Lifestyle choices, welfare reforms and child poverty

Politicians sometimes get lucky breaks, David Cameron, George Osbourne et al must have been delighted with the outcome of the Mick and Mairead Philpott trial at the exact moment when the Coalition's Welfare Reforms begin to bite. They have capitalised on the story by repeatedly telling us that 'for some' living off benefits is a 'lifestyle choice'. There have been repeats of Anne Widdecombe's visits to the Philpott's home when she commented on the consumer goods they owned; and repeats too of Mick Philpott appearing on the Jeremy Kyle show. The Philpotts have been depicted as the epitome of real life 'Shameless' skivers. Politicians get away with this because, as they say themselves, the public believes a great many people do chose to live off benefits; they believe that benefits are generous and that people can live comfortably and never have to work.

There are no official records but it is thought there are fewer than 12 families of 10 or more children living off benefits in the whole of the UK. Only 2% of all single mothers are teenagers and 59% of all single mothers work at least part-time. The total cost of welfare benefits and state pensions is about £205 billion but at least 60% of it (depending on how you calculate it) is spent on retired people. There have been calls for Ian Duncan-Smith to demonstrate he could live on £53 a week, the real level of out-of-work benefits for a single person; inflation is 2.7%, people with low incomes spend proportionally more on food, heating and transport which are all rising faster than that, so the 1% cap is in fact really a cut. Less than 1% (about £2 billion) of the total welfare budget is lost to fraud, by contrast tax avoidance and evasion is estimated to be about £120 billion.

Politicians have carefully avoided talking about poverty this week, the discussion has been about welfare reform and fairness instead. I wonder if this is a tacit recognition that the public now realise that lots of people are in work but are still poor - over 66% of poor children live in working families. The public is well aware that most 'hard-working families' have not had pay increases for several years; and that food, heating and transport are all much more expensive. If politicians have realised this then perhaps the way is clear for a proper public debate about poverty, jobs and wages unhindered by myths about benefits claimant lifestyles.

Children North East will help to bring children and young people's experiences and views to such a debate. We have recently received a small grant from the Webb Memorial Trust to develop Hopebook – a social media platform about child poverty for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Poverty. The MPs see Hopebook as a vehicle for getting voices of the most dispossessed children in society into the committee’s debates and for involving children and young people across the country in discussing poverty. We will be working on this closely with young people, Newcastle Live Theatre and the digital team who developed Hopebook which won the Culture Code hack in Newcastle last summer. Take a look at this preview of Hopebook: http://adayofhope.co.uk/intro.

Breadline Britain

You may have seen 'Breadline Britian' on ITV last night, or watch it here if you missed it: ITV programme 'Breadline Britain'

The programme discussed a report by the Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) Unit at Bristol University (and others) published yesterday (see: www.poverty.ac.uk). It repeats research originally conducted in 1983 and repeated several times since, most recently in 2012. This is the longest running research into poverty in the UK. It is based on surveys of what the general public think is 'essential' in today's society and compares that to the numbers of people who are not able to afford those things and have to go without.

The UK economy has doubled in the 30 years since 1983 but those at the bottom of society and their children have been increasingly left behind. Things are likely to worsen further with the introduction of more austerity measures next week - increased social housing rent due to the 'bedroom tax'; reduction and  transfer of Council Tax allowances to local authorities which means more people will be required to pay Council Tax; Social Fund also transfered to local authorities who are replacing it with food vouchers; limiting maximum benefit entitlement to £500 a week; abolition of Disabled Living Allowance and so on.

Sadly we at Children North East are not surprised by the findings of this research because they reflect what children and young people told us during our work about child poverty from children’s perspectives in every part of the north east during 2011.

Children and young people said the biggest problems were damp, hard to heat, overcrowded homes; this report has found 9% of all households cannot afford to heat their homes and 10% live in damp homes. The general public regard good accommodation as the most important essential of modern life.

Children and young people told us it was hard to obtain or afford fresh food and many families could not afford to replace broken household appliances. This report has found 4% of all children and 8% of all adults cannot afford to eat properly; and 26% of adults cannot afford to replace or repair broken electrical goods.

The PSE report also found significant numbers of children lack things considered essential to do well in school such as a computer with internet access at home and to be able to afford school trips. Whilst it is appalling that these things happen in what is still a exceptionally wealthy country - the 7th richest in the world - it is not enough to just moan, Children North East is doing what we can to improve things for children and young people. This month we have been piloting our audit tool for schools to assess how well they include poor children and how to improve, we expect to have this ready for dissemination by the summer along with training for teachers about the impact of poverty on children’s lives.

Tax the rich, don't punish the poor - here's why

The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church, the Church of Scotland and the United Reformed Church are not usually known for their radicalism so it's surprising they published a joint report this month titled 'The lies we tell ourselves: ending comfortable myths about poverty'. It is authoritative, eloquent and debunks the nonsense I pointed out in this blog last week. In the light of yesterday's budget it includes this comment:

'The Quantitative Easing programme has increased the personal wealth of the UK’s richest fi fth of families by enough to pay for Jobseeker’s Allowance for over a century.'

Full Fact supports the Labour Party's claim that people with an income over £1m a year can expect an additional tax cut of £100,000 a year from 6th April.

Last Friday Ruth Levitas, Professor of Sociology at Bristol University gave a seminar at Durham University, one of her slides showed how the wealth of the country is distributed between income groups:

 

The data is easier to understand as graphs. This is what the distribution looked like in 1972/1973 when income distribution was at its most equal in the UK during the 20th century.

And this is what it looked like in 2009/2010. Clearly the top 10% have become significantly richer while the poorest 10% have become significantly poorer. In fact every 10% cohort has a lower share of national income than 40 years ago with the exception of the richest 20%. The gap has almost certainly worsened since 2010 under Coalition policies.

Ruth Levitas published the same data in her paper 'The Just’s Umbrella: Austerity and the Big Society in Coalition policy and beyond' University of Bristol, UK, 2012. In the paper she suggests that if it chose to the Government could easily pay off the deficit by taxing the super wealthy instead of cutting welfare benefits or public services.

Ahead of the budget this week the New Statesman agreed:

'Choices regarding tax and welfare changes should be taken together, since they are both financial transfers between citizens and government. Decisions should be made from the perspective of who has the greatest capacity to absorb changes. This means that any reforms should target the top half of the income distribution, who both have the broadest shoulders and have escaped lightly from austerity until now.'

And Grahame Morris MP speaking in Parliament on 19th March in the debate about the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill said:

'The Government are creating two nations. They are seeking to penalise and punish the poor for the mistakes of the rich and powerful, in part of a continuing series of policies that are badged as 'austerity'. Those policies are pushing the poorest in society further into poverty.'

Is the tide turning on public opinion about poverty?

Politicians are not stupid, they echo back to the public what the public is thinking. If the public thinks benefit claimants are scroungers or the poor have only themselves to blame, politicians will say those things. But what if public opinion about poverty is changing, what then? In the last few weeks I have noticed small signs that the tide of public opinion may be changing for example:

The new Archbishop of Canterbury has joined more than 40 Church of England Bishops in an open letter to the Government criticising its Benefits Uprating Bill as an attack on the poorest especially children whom they say we all have a moral responsibility to protect.

Vince Cable MP on BBC Question Time from St. Paul's Cathedral on 21st February, in answer to a question about a single mother with numerous children housed in a very large house, said although the woman in question may have behaved irresponsibly nevertheless what should a decent society do? We cannot allow children to be living on the streets. Michael Heseltine, another panelist agreed, on another question regarding inequality - the huge disparity between rich and poor - the balance of audience and panelists was against further penalising the poor. The mood was the same in Gloucester during the BBC Radio 4 Any Questions debate the following day.

Last Saturday in her regular column in The Times magazine Caitlin Moran wrote movingly about the poor, making serious points about human dignity, living lightly on the earth and a convincing case for giving the poor more money to stimulate the economy.

I have the feeling that the public no longer believe the caricature of 'skivers vs strivers'. Almost everyone is feeling the pinch and most people know someone - a friend, neighbour, relative who has lost their job, or is having to work fewer hours or is under the threat or redundancy, we know they are not 'skivers' but they are in hardship. There is a growing awareness that most people who are poor are actually in work and the so-called 'culture of worklessness' is much more about available jobs and decent wages than personal fecklessness.

I sense too there is growing unease about the bedroom tax and not just from those who may be affected. People seem to be asking can it really be right that in our country people might be forced to move from their established family home, uprooted from everyone they know - neighbours, relatives, friends, schools, GP, local shops - everything that is familiar, for the simple reason they have an empty bedroom?

Here in the North East last week a Housing Company hosted a conference of tenants and others to discuss the bedroom tax. They wanted to point out that for decades we have been building 3 bedroom family homes,  there are very few 2 or even 1 bedroom properties. Where are people supposed to move to? If they are forced to move we could end up with hundreds of vacant 3 and 4 bedroom properties with no-one to fill them. What sort of sense does that make?

Measuring child poverty - what we said to Government

The government has been consulting on ways to measure child poverty (see an earlier blog), the consultation closed today. These are the points that Children North East made in our response to the consultation:

The proposals confuse measures of poverty; the characteristics of some children who may live in poverty; the circumstances in which some children who may be poor, live; and widely held but erroneous beliefs about the reasons why some children are poor. Poverty is very simple to define, it is not having enough income to meet basic needs and take part in the activities that most people believe to be normal in our society.

Children North East has worked with poor and disadvantaged children, young people and their parents in our region for over 120 years. In our view the causes of poverty are structural and the solution is sufficient, sustainable properly paid jobs. However for individual children and young people a common route out of poverty is access to opportunities that open up new possibilities for them. Often, but not exclusively these opportunities come through school.

Income and Material Deprivation

There are four income measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010, all four should be retained. One is 60% of median income which is used by most developed countries. Academics agree it is a bit rough and ready but it measures progress over time and enables comparison between countries.

Two other measures already exist which would complement the four in the Child Poverty Act 2010, these are:

1. The DWP ‘Households Below Average Income’ (HBAI) survey of what people in low income households can actually afford. And
2. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation ‘Minimum Income Standard’ which is based on surveys of what the public think is an acceptable minimum standard of living.

Human beings are social animals; we instinctively compare ourselves to others because we need to know where we stand in the ‘pecking order’. We feel valued if we are at the top and less valued if we are at the bottom. Being stuck at the bottom can make us feel hopeless. In our present ‘consumer society’ we judge one another by what a person owns which of course depends on income – what they can afford to buy. Therefore relative income is fundamental to social standing and wellbeing in the UK today. If what we collectively value were to radically change, for example if service to others were to become generally accepted as the most important thing in our society; then both relative and absolute income would become much less important.

Worklessness

The proposals fail to recognise that well over 66% of poor children live in families where at least one parent works. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently published research conducted by Teesside University in Glasgow and Middlesbrough which found very little evidence of the so-called ‘culture of worklessness’. People want to work if they can, however too many jobs are short-term; when the job ends people go back to claiming benefits. The reality is people go through a cycle of ‘low pay’ followed by ‘no pay’.

‘Worklessness’ has acquired the connotation of people refusing work. We prefer the terms ‘jobless’ or ‘unemployed’ that connote the reality which is that there are too few well paid jobs. This is the real cause of poverty.

If ‘Worklessness’ is about paid work it should be measured by the number of jobs that pay the national Minimum Wage. The proposals do not recognise the importance of unpaid labour – raising children, caring for sick or elderly relatives, cleaning the home and cooking. The private lives of most adults is filled with responsibilities to family and extended family, indeed most people would say these are the most meaningful things in their lives. There are times when our responsibilities to look after others are more important than paid work – for example when a child is sick. Despite the increasing marketisation of child care and social care in fact the State relies on families to look after their own. In our view measures of ‘work’ should include unpaid work in the home with family members as well as paid employment.

Unmanageable Debt

People should not need to fall into unmanageable debt if they have sufficient income to cover their needs. The Living Wage campaign calculates that outside London people need to earn £7.45 an hour in full-time employment to have an acceptable minimum standard of living. The Living Wage is calculated using the Joseph Rowntree Foundation ‘Minimum Income Standard’ (see question 2a above) which is based on surveys of what the public think is an acceptable minimum standard of living.

Debt becomes unmanageable because loan companies charge exorbitant interest rates. The government should:

• measure wages and salaries
• encourage employers to pay the Living Wage
• legislate to prevent loan companies charging exorbitant interest rates
• encourage people to use Credit Unions instead of loan companies

Poor Housing

Most poor children live in rented homes, responsibility for maintenance and repair rests with the landlord, not the family. National Minimum Housing Standards exist, they should be publicised and enforced. The government should measure numbers of rented properties that meet Minimum Housing Standards and the number of enforcements against landlords whose property does not meet the minimum standards.

During the summer of 2011 Children North East invited over 500 children and young people living in disadvantaged communities across the north east to use disposable cameras we supplied them to take photographs of ‘what poverty looks like where they live’. The youngest child was 3 and the oldest 18 years old, they took over 11,000 images. We talked to them about the pictures they took. By far the strongest themes to emerge were poor housing and run-down neighbourhoods that made the children and young people feel ashamed. This is the impact of poor housing and run-down neighbourhoods on the children living in them.

Parental (Employability) Skills

Last year the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published research by Newcastle University which found that parents of children living in poverty have the same aspirations as other families for their children. The experience of Children North East is that 99% of parents want their children to do well in their lives, ideally to do better than they have. As noted above a common route out of poverty for individual children and young people is access to opportunities that open up new possibilities for them. Often, but not exclusively these opportunities come through school. Parents can lack knowledge, networks or contacts of how to help their children make the best of possibilities that are available to them. Inspirational teachers, youth workers, community leaders etc. can often provide the knowledge, networks or contacts that parents do not have.

Adults need the skills necessary to be employed in the jobs that are available locally. There should be enough, properly paid, long term jobs for all. The proposals talk about employability skills. One of the purposes of Children’s Centres was to support parents and encourage them to improve their skills and readiness for work. The government has allowed local authorities to choose whether they continue to support Children’s Centres. Government should reinstate the importance of Children’s Centres and fund them sufficiently to do the task.

Access to quality education

Schools are not just about academic achievement. For poor children they also provide access to possibilities in sports, enterprise, arts, performance, creativity, practical skills, community service etc. that are not available to them anywhere else. However in our work with poor children and young people Children North East has found that many schools unwittingly further disadvantage poor children and young people. Children North East is piloting assessment tools for schools to test how well they engage students from disadvantaged backgrounds in all aspects of school life so that they can understand and change their practices.

Excellent schools do not achieve excellent outcomes for all students especially those from poorer backgrounds; even in failing schools some students excel. All schools must address the gap in attainment between students from the best off and worst off backgrounds.


Our 2011 photography project (see question 12 above) took place during the school summer holiday. None of the children or young people went away on holiday, a few went on free day trips organised by the local Children’s Centre or community project, otherwise they spent all their time in the neighbourhood. The children and young people did not use leisure facilities such as swimming pools either because entrance or the cost of public transport to the venue was too expensive. Those children who lived close enough to the coast or countryside to walk there, did take advantage of those places.

Poor children and young people do not have access to opportunities outside school. Schools should provide opportunities for students to engage in sports, creative activities and performance, exposure to culture, business and travel, community service and other activities that widen horizons, nurture ambition and improve life chances. 

Schools should be measured on attainment between students from the best off and worst off backgrounds. They should focus on minimising this ‘attainment gap’. Good governance and leadership is essential at every level in a school – students (for example school councils and other ‘Student Voice’ activities), teachers, subject and year heads, senior team, headteacher and governors. Parents are very often missed out of the chain of accountability yet the education ‘system’ is ultimately accountable to parents as voters. School governing bodies must include significant representation by parents alongside other stakeholders in the local community including business and students as ‘consumers’ of the school offer.

Children North East welcomes the current Ofsted inspection regime which explicitly examines how schools use the Pupil Premium. We would like the inspection regime to go further and examine how inclusive schools are for all children and young people including those from poor families. We want to see school success defined wider than simply academic achievement. Good quality education is about inspiration that widens horizons and opens up possibilities.

Family Stability

In our 2011 photography project we found children and young people regarded good family relationships, friendships and pets to be overwhelmingly important to their wellbeing. They told us no matter how bad everything else was, as long as they had their family, friends and pets they felt they would be ‘all right’. Clearly children and young people want good relationships to continue, equally if family relationships and friendships are bad they want them to change. Family stability is relevant in so far that the existing family relationships are positive for children and young people.

The experience of Children North East is that 99% of mothers and fathers want their children to do well and ideally do better in life they them. This is true whether parents are living together or separated. Time and again research has found that children’s life chances are improved when their parents or other significant adult family members are actively engaged in their upbringing and education. For 15 years Children North East has championed the importance of fathers, grandfathers and other male carers to children’s life chances. We have campaigned for maternity, health and early years services and schools to do more to engage men as much as women.

Children do best in all respects when both their parents or other significant adult family members are actively engaged in their upbringing and education, this includes fathers. However children and young people are adversely affected by family stress especially between the people responsible for their care and upbringing. Parents who are experiencing stress should be encouraged to seek help. If bad relationships between parents are irreconcilable it is better that they separate rather than perpetuate a stressful situation for their children. However it is very important to children that separated parents both continue to be actively engaged in their upbringing and education.

The government has experimented with measures of wellbeing and happiness. Children North East suggests the government explores ways of measuring happiness of all the members of the family including children and young people.

Parental Health

The impact of caring for a parent or other adult relative on a child or young person is not widely understood, neither is the love and commitment of the child to the adult they are caring for. Children North East thinks counting the number of young carers would make them more visible which in turn would enable their needs to be better understood and ultimately ensure they had appropriate support. However successive governments and public services have tried and failed to identify and count the number of young carers.

Whilst it is true that a sick or disabled parent is less likely to be in work and therefore family income is likely to be reduced, it is not the case that all young carers live in poor families. Despite popular opinion there is no correlation between poverty and a variety of family problems including poor parenting, mental health of parents, domestic violence, alcohol or drug dependency, anti-social behaviour, criminality etc. All can occur alone or in various combinations in rich, poor and middle income families.

Children North East provides intensive interventions to families where parents have mental health conditions, or substantial substance misuse that have an adverse impact on parenting. These conditions are not in themselves either causes or symptoms of poverty. However they can be barriers to employment and therefore access to sufficient income. The purpose of our work with these families is to stabilise the circumstances so that parents can focus on the task of raising their children. This can mean preparing parents to re-enter the job market. However more needs to be done with employers to tackle their prejudices about workers who have a mental illness or who have control of their substance misuse. We suggest the government measures the number of people in work who have mental ill health or misuse substances.

In our view measures of ‘labour’ should include unpaid work in the home with family members as well as paid employment. Parents who are disabled or have other health conditions may not be able to engage in paid work but are frequently engaged in unpaid work at home or for the family.

Other suggestions of things to measure


In our research with children and young people they told us that they understood all the messages about healthy eating but their families could not obtain fresh vegetables, fruit and meat locally because the local shops had closed to be replaced by small supermarkets that only sell processed food (for example Heron, Iceland, Farm Foods etc.). Fresh foodstuffs were available at large supermarkets however families could not afford to travel to them very often (by bus or taxi) if they did not own a car.

Children and young people who claim free school meals can rely on one meal a day Monday to Friday during term time. Many schools also run breakfast clubs during term time supported by businesses such as Greggs or Kelloggs. However families struggle to provide meals during the school holidays.

Children North East knows that good diet is very closely linked to having enough income and that poor diet is significantly correlated with a range of health conditions including obesity. This could be included in measures of child poverty however we are unable to recommend how it would be measured.

In our work to highlight the impact of child poverty we have chosen to bring children and young people’s experiences to attention because they voices are seldom heard in the debate. We recommend the government actively seeks and takes account of children and young people’s lived experience of poverty in all policy matters regarding child poverty.

We have made very clear throughout our response that the definition of poverty is insufficient money to have what most people would regard as a satisfactory standard of living and the cause of poverty is not enough, sustainable properly paid jobs. We think the consultation is trying to understand and find ways of measuring the impact of poverty.

Our experience is that living in poverty means having to have low expectations of life. A group of young people who took part in our photography project also worked with Newcastle Live Theatre to make a short drama about Hope – a fictional 12 year old girl living in poverty, they performed the piece at a Parliamentary Reception last June hosted by Sharon Hodgson MP for Washington. It ends with these lines which summarise Hope’s expectations compared to her dreams.

In the future…

I expect little change

I expect nothing

I expect my little sister not to get better

I expect greater stress

I expect to be wiser

I expect for no one to understand

I expect my Mam won’t get a job

I don’t know what to expect

I expect to get kicked out

I expect to have a hard life

In the Future…

I hope for a better neighbourhood

I hope to have a nice garden

I hope for more money

I hope to have a better house

I hope I don’t have to worry so much

I hope to go to University

I hope to become a history teacher

I hope to feel a sense of pride

I hope to win the Lottery

I hope to go on holiday, anywhere

I hope.