52 per cent of the people in the areas where Benefits Street was filmed are in employment.
There are two pervasive myths about welfare in the UK which are routinely retailed by politicians and the media.
The first is the myth of the family where ‘nobody has worked for generations’. The second is the myth of the area where ‘nobody works around here’.
By ‘myths’ I don’t just mean widely believed falsehoods, but statements which embody a mythological mode of thinking which has no relation to facts whatsoever.
The point about these myths is that they refer to things taking place elsewhere involving other people. It is the sense of otherness they convey rather than the factual inaccuracies they involve, which tells us we’re dealing with myths.
So to James Turner Street, the supposed subject of Channel 4’s documentary series Benefits Street, which seems to have given the struggling Iain Duncan Smith a new lease of political life. Press coverage of the series has repeatedly claimed that the great majority of residents on the street are receiving out of work benefits.
For example:
The Express: Benefits Street exposed: The street where 9 out of 10 households are on welfare
The Mail, (this Tuesday): The series … follows the lives of people on James Turner Street – where 90 per cent of residents are on benefits
Today the Mail has toned down its claim: it seems only 75 per cent ‘are said to be on benefits’, which may indicate a tentative recognition on the Mail’s part that its previous claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.
What are the real employment figures for ‘Benefits Street’?
I’ve matched the postcodes for James Turner Street to Census Output Areas, the finest grained geography at which official statistics are normally published, using ONS’s postcode/output area lookup file. These are very small areas indeed, with about 175 households in total. James Turner Street straddles two of these areas. Data on employment and economic activity is available from the 2011 Census via Nomis.
If we want to know what employment looks like on James Turner Street, this is where to start.
In these output areas, 43 per cent and 38 per cent of people aged 16-74 were in employment on Census day 2011. However this includes pensioners and students in the denominator. Focussing just on the non-retired, non-student population, 52 per cent in both areas were in employment. About a third were ‘other inactive’, meaning they were neither working nor seeking work, and 16/15 per cent were unemployed.
If the production company for Benefits Street managed to find an area within these output areas where 90 per cent or 75 per cent of adults were out of work, they would have to have been very selective indeed.
It’s also useful to look at the household level, as many non-working people are living in households where someone else is working, and most benefits are awarded on the basis of household income. Focussing on non-retired and non-student households, 62 per cent and 65 per cent of households had someone in employment.
These figures should not come as a surprise. The areas where ‘nobody works around here’, like the ‘families where nobody’s worked for generations’ belong to mythological thinking.
Moving up a geographical notch to the level of Census Super Output Areas (average 670 households), in only 0.16 per cent of areas are 50 per cent or more of working age non-student households without employment. The great majority of people who are out of work live in areas where the majority of people (other than pensioners or students) are in work. This is true even in very deprived areas, of which James Turner Street is an example.
There is more information on the James Turner Street area available at ONS’s Neighbourhood Statistics site (using the larger Super Output Area geography). This shows that out of work benefit receipt among people of working age is 30 per cent rather than the 90 per cent of myth.
On a range of deprivation indicators, this area is clearly struggling. But among the wealth of largely depressing statistics on the site is a detail we haven’t heard about in the frenzy of hand-wringing about Benefits Street. Educational achievement at GCSE level is well above the average for both England and Birmingham with 71 per cent achieving 5 or more A*- C passes compared to a national average of 59 per cent.
Perhaps that detail might encourage people to junk the mythological thinking surrounding this unfairly maligned area. When it comes to GCSE attainment, the James Turner Street area seems to be bucking the expectations of the media, the government and the general public. That should be something to celebrate.
Click to zoom
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
50 Responses to “James Turner Street exists: Benefits Street doesn’t”
Felix Lanzalaco
OK, so trillions has not worked, but if we are thinking logically this does not automatically lead us to acquire current conservative policy. All it tells us is that trillions has not worked. If you are going to lead on a logical argument from that then do so.
Its back to the finger in the ears “there are more than enough jobs”. We know thats not true. Every employment advisor in the work program will tell you this is not true. Recruitment agencies profit from retriggering working outcomes and programmers are hired to make this happen. the movement of people in and out work has increased as the profits for work outcomes is increasingly fragmented into bits and pieces. A lot of these fragments evolve to take advantage of whatever the current market forces are. i.e. governments current work concessions are. So there is always an ongoing increasing turnover in many market where its more profitable to end contracts then re-negotiate them at a lower rate or in a way that takes advantage of current conditions. Automation has allowed this. Its not like 20 years ago where you could actually say the number of jobs in a job center actually reflected jobs.
Get anybody from industries, inside recruitment or the work programs on here and they will tell you there is not enough jobs to go around and this trend is increasing.
Felix Lanzalaco
yes its a disaster for the poor and its getting increasingly worse. However just saying there are enough jobs when there are not is not exactly a solution now is it ? Well it is, if you want a short term feel good and find somebody to hit around or even starve them type of solution. Its not a real solution though.
Felix Lanzalaco
so what is your point ..you dont appear to have one. Not paying them will only increase their drug dealing and criminality. So the idea is the process of “finding work”. Fine in principle, because its about creating a different attitude. If there was enough work and prosperity to go around we wouldnt even have this problem. The lower members in society are a reflection of whats going on higher up. It always has been…so why are we in this perverse situation of saying its the other way around ? Whats going on right now in politics is stupidity of the highest order. There is no ideas, no actual realistic vision. Why ? thats an issue about ourselves and our own culture. So picking out ghettos and demonizing them. Sure great idea, look through history and see what happens when you do that.
Felix Lanzalaco
Defining genetic problems then going straight from there to eugenics are two different things. Eugenics is actually supremely stupid in its approach on so many levels it would require a book to cover it. Eugenics missed out dozens of in between stages and levels of depth. Also its not all genetic, and for the component that is, much of this is epigenetics. i.e. The top down environment is giving rise to the genetic expression and drift anyway. So its always back to what is the environment.
OK, i see what you are trying to do here. Its problem solve particular cases. I dont have a problem with that but I would rather hand that process over to those with a professional judgement. i.e. Who dont just say there are enough jobs for everybody when there are not. If you cant even get that right I certainly wouldn’t be trusting you with being in charge of anybody’s welfare. Again the problem in britain is not this minority. But sure they can do with some different regulations and policy.
What we are involved in right now is scapegoating to avoid the big issue. Economics in general, at the top and internationally.
LB
Your the one with fingers in the ears over no jobs.
1. There are jobs – adverts are for jobs
2. People are looking for workers – mr 50p is a good example for someone on benefits
3. Look at the level of employment – its up
4. Look at migration. Lots of low skilled migrants are finding work. Take an example of someone on this street, how many could work in Starbucks? Quite a few, if pushed.
========
A lot of these fragments evolve to take advantage of whatever the current market forces
========
And those on benefit street contain lots of examples. of people taking advantage. It’s the same with crony capitalism.
e.g If I ask you for a grand, and you give it to me. Who is the idiot? Yep, its you.
Same with the state. If the state hands over trillions and doesn’t think, is this working, then the state and people like you who think handing over the trillions is a good idea are the idiots. That’s the evidence based off the results.
======
So there is always an ongoing increasing turnover in many market where its more profitable to end contracts then re-negotiate them at a lower rate or in a way that takes advantage of current conditions.
======
Doh!
Look if you import millions of low skilled migrants you are increasing the supply. Now the number of jobs in your world is constant. It’s just another way of stating your there are no jobs. What do you expect? Supply up, constant demand, price or wages fall.
So what’s your education in? Climate science perhaps or some other post modern science where evidence isn’t relevant.