Official Statistics Release

Characteristics of the areas in which children looked after were living

Rural/Urban

49. 
    Over three quarters (83%) of children looked after, for whom placement location was known, were living in urban areas (50,107). Around half of these children lived in a major conurbation area.²¹
    
50. 
    A total of 10,612 children looked after (17%) lived in rural towns and villages.
    
51. 
    There were 4,742 children looked after living in seaside towns. Of this group, 84% were fostered and 10% were living in children’s homes.
    

Deprivation

52. 
    It was possible to identify the deprivation level, through postcodes, of the locations of 60,464 children and young people looked after.
    
53. 
    Of these, children were evenly distributed across all areas from the most deprived (Quartile 1) to the least deprived (Quartile 4).
    
54. 
    Children living in children’s homes are no more likely to be living in areas of high deprivation than those who are fostered.
    

55. 
    Just over one in four (16,280) children looked after were placed in the most deprived areas of the country, while one in five were placed in the least deprived (12,315).
    
56. 
    Children living in independent living or residential accommodation were more than twice as likely to live in the most deprived areas of the country;²³ 48% of children looked after in these placement types were living in the most deprived areas while 5% lived in the least deprived. Nine local authorities placed at least a third of their children in the least deprived areas. These were: Bath and North East Somerset; Blackburn with Darwen; Cheshire East, Leicestershire; North Yorkshire; Reading; Rutland; Warrington and Wokingham.
    
57. 
    Seventeen of the 20 local authorities with the largest proportion of children placed in the most deprived areas were in the London region. Hackney, for example, placed 319 children looked after and 203 (64%) of these were living in the most deprived areas, mostly in other London boroughs. However, over half were within 10 miles of the boundary. The local authorities outside of London who placed the largest proportions of children in the most deprived areas were Liverpool (55%), Sandwell (48%) and Birmingham (44%).
    
58. 
    While children living in children’s homes are not more likely to live in deprived areas overall, they are if the children’s home is situated in a London borough. Of the larger authorities in other regions, over 50% of children living in children’s homes in Manchester, Newcastle and Plymouth were living in the most deprived areas. Some of this is explained by higher levels of deprivation in these areas.
    

59. 
    Local authorities with higher levels of deprivation, such as those in the London region, have an important issue to consider when placing children: keeping the child close to home or placing them in a less deprived area.
    
60. 
    The following map shows, by graded colour, the proportion of children looked after living in children’s homes within each local authority boundary, according to the local level of deprivation. Where an LA is shaded white, relatively few children are living in children’s homes in highly deprived areas; where an LA is shaded brown, a higher proportion of children are living in highly deprived areas.
    

Crime

61. 
    Just over one in four (16,843) children looked after were placed in areas of the country with the highest crime levels, while just over one in five were placed in areas with the lowest crime levels (13,102).^{24 25}
    
62. 
    Children living in children’s homes were no more likely to be living in high crime areas than children in foster care.
    
63. 
    Over half of children and young people living in independent accommodation and residential homes were living in areas with the highest crime levels. Four per cent were living in areas with the lowest crime rates.
    

64. 
    Although children living in children’s homes were not more likely to be living in high crime areas, all the children placed in children’s homes by the following local authorities were living in the highest areas for crime in the country: Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Haringey, Newham, Plymouth, Reading, Slough, Southwark, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and York. Although some of these LAs are among the most deprived in the country, which is closely linked to crime levels, not all are.
    
65. 
    Shire counties and local authorities with relatively low deprivation levels placed more of their children looked after in low crime areas. Five of these local authorities placed more than 50% of their children looked after in areas with the lowest crime levels in the country, these authorities were Cornwall, Devon, Norfolk, North Yorkshire and Shropshire.
    

Children living in placements not inspected by Ofsted

66. 
    There were 6,968 children living in placements that are not inspected by Ofsted. These included those in independent living, those placed with their own parents or persons with parental responsibility, children in refuge, in NHS or health trust, children in residential accommodation such as hostels, adult residential care homes, residential employment and in Young Offenders Institutions.^26,27