Family Action response to House of Commons select Committee inquiry into Housing Benefit reform

Written evidence submitted by Family Action

The response is divided into the following sections:

1. About Family Action

2. Family Action’s experience of working with families who receive Housing Benefit

3. Community cohesion: summary of Family Action’s concerns

4. Community Cohesions concerns in more detail

5. Case studies of Family Action service users

6. References

1. Family Action’s experience of working with families who receive Housing Benefit

· We are a service provider to families and children throughout England with an emphasis on supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged families, for example those where parents have enduring mental health problems and learning difficulties, and/or where substance misuse or domestic abuse is present. Many of these families experience severe financial hardship, are living in either the social rented or private rented sector, and are reliant on housing benefit as an element of income.

· Our core model of support is home-based family support whereby we work with families with multiple complex needs in their own homes, helping parents to manage their mental health problems, improve their parenting, create household routines and maximise their income through claiming benefits or improving household budgeting. We are often involved in helping people to secure more appropriate accommodation for their families.

· We also engage with families through advice services for example via : WellFamily, our GP based service of combined therapeutic and benefits counselling; and a specialised advice and advocacy support centre related to housing and benefits in Bradford.

· In London alone last year we worked with 11,469 vulnerable children and families. As part of our commitment to early intervention we are proactively involved with the safeguarding of children , monitoring those at-risk and intervening to prevent abuse and neglect.

· On a UK-wide basis we use trust funds to provide grants to those facing financial hardship, for example to help with purchasing goods for the home; and offer extensive grants for education and training for example via the Barclaycard-sponsored Horizons programme

2 Summary of Family Action’s concerns relating to the impact of the housing benefit reforms on community cohesion

· Impact on successful early intervention in families with multiple complex needs As an early intervention service provider we aim to promote child development through working holistically with the whole family including the parents. it is our view that it will be more difficult to work productively with families with multiple complex needs and to bring them structure and stability if the housing benefit caps and decline in the value of housing benefit force them to uproot their homes. Part of work we do to ensure family stability is about helping vulnerable parents, frequently with a range of mental health problems, put down roots and feel safe and supported by getting to know others in their local communities. Their children, who are at greater risk of developing mental health problems and behavioural disorders, are greatly helped by the certainty of attending the same school and being able to form networks of friends over time. If vulnerable families become known to neighbours, teachers, GPs, churches and playgroups, the children will also be better protected.

· Impact on safeguarding: We foresee that as vulnerable families may be forced to move to seek affordable housing more that this could impede the ability of Family Action and similar agencies as well as the statutory services to ensure the tracking and safeguarding of children at risk and abuse. High mobility and the associated failures of professionals to monitor families’ movements and exchange information are a major theme of the Climbie report and a number of serious case reviews

· Impact on combating educational disadvantage and failures in social mobility. Academic research shows that the main determinant of access to schools with the top SATS scores at KS2 is the distance lived from the school. This is also true of the small sample study of North and East London boroughs undertaken by Family Action (see appendix). House and rental prices are generally higher in those areas of housing closest to the schools where families should live in order for their children to stand a chance of admission. While it is true that many of the families we work with would already by excluded from the possibility of attending these schools by their inability to pay higher rents, the housing benefit reforms will almost certainly exacerbate the problem, particularly in inner London. Thus children from the most disadvantaged families will be excluded from the best performing primary schools. Our small sample shows that the problem will not necessarily be solved by poor families moving to the outer London areas.

· Increasing pressure on existing social housing and services in Outer London, and more use of inappropriate accommodation in B&Bs and hostels While we can see that the Government must address the problem of some of the high and unreasonable claims on housing benefit we do not find this type of case to be apparent among our service users. However in our experience housing benefit has been a useful tool to improve access to the private rental sector so ensuring a supply of appropriate housing to some very poor and vulnerable families in the absence of a sufficient social housing supply. We are extremely concerned that as more of the private sector becomes unaffordable to poor and disadvantaged families there will be a rise in pressure on social housing and we will see a return to a situation of these families being placed in inappropriate and temporary accommodation in hostels and bed and breakfasts. We would foresee more pressure on social housing lists and on services such as schools and GPs in the outer London boroughs as a result of these reforms

3. Community Cohesion concerns in more detail

Impact on successful early intervention in families with multiple complex needs

· Relocation can have numerous repercussions on child development. A study in the U.S. found that high rates of residential change were associated with increased behavioural problems during childhood and risk-taking behaviours during adolescence.i

· Studies have linked the correlation between residential moves and lower levels of childhood well-being. The creation of new social networks is a hard task and low levels of childhood well-being can partially be explained by the quality of social friendships, which can be detrimentally affected by numerous home moves and the uprooting of social networks.ii

· Stress among adults resulting from unsustainable housing commitments, payment problems or rent/mortgage arrears, has a significant psychological cost and is strongly related to poor mental health. In a qualitative study, repossession was associated with stress in children, as well as adults, and was found to disrupt their schooling.iii

· Our concern for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged families regarding residential moves is echoed in the findings of Dr Rebecca Tunstall of the London School of Economics. Dr Tunstall’s analysis finds that in contrast to home moves by more affluent families which regularly enhances children’s educational development, "Moves by very disadvantaged families and very frequent moves are less likely to improve housing conditions or school quality, and may exacerbate disadvantage."iv

· Whilst the Government is committed to encouraging the uptake of work, the Equality Impact Assessment of the reform notes that these measures may affect those who are forced to relocate out of inner London and who may then face a long and expensive commute.v Such realities may severely mitigate the benefits of seeking paid employment. An extended commute due to relocation would also disadvantage parents seeking to supervise their children on their daily journey to-and-from school and potentially raise safeguarding issues.

Impact on safeguarding

· Lord Laming in the Climbié Report highlights the connection between housing, mobility and safeguarding children, stating "The problem, however, may well get worse as the supply of affordable housing shrinks in parts of London. Unless greater weight is attached to such agreements, the risk of ‘losing’ vulnerable children somewhere in the system may well increase too."vi

· Research into Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) [1] conducted between 2005-2007 found that in 45% of sample cases the families were highly mobile and living in poor conditions. The report further stated that "Reluctant parental co-operation and multiple moves meant that many children went off the radar of professionals."vii An example of this can be seen in the case of Family Q of Sheffield and Lincolnshire where the family moved 67 times in order to conceal three decades of parental sexual and physical abuse. [2]

· In London, where rents are higher than elsewhere there is a clearer indication of the link between housing issues and safeguarding challenges. A London Safeguarding Children’s Board paper found that of the Serious Case Reviews completed in the capital between 2006-2009, 47% of the sample had rent arrears, had been evicted or were described as on the verge of eviction. This paper concludes by stating "Children disappear from view when there is high mobility (including inter country) and housing problems." viiiA situation where families are forced to repeatedly move in search of affordable housing will exacerbate this and prevent the efficient tracking and safeguarding of vulnerable children and their parents.

· High mobility contributed to the failure to trace and share information between different London Local Authorities in the death of Child ‘C’ in Sutton in 2006. In this case the extended family was known to five different Local Safeguarding Children Boards yet the mobility of the family impeded the sharing of vital information.

· The importance of establishing networks was emphasised in the Ofsted report of August 2010which found that in instances of a failure to share information between schools and health professionals, local authorities were unable to identify children under their authority. As parents have no legal requirement to inform professionals when they move into or out of a borough, it is often through health professionals that children become known to local authorities.ix

· The Ofsted report further stated that "Children and young people who are not receiving education and whose whereabouts are unknown may be particularly at risk of physical, emotional and psychological risk." xOur concern is that forcing families to relocate may increase the difficulties in identifying and safeguarding vulnerable children.

Impact on combating educational disadvantage and failures in social mobility.

· Research by Professor Simon Burgess has found that irrespective of background, all parents choose their child’s school based on academic performance as measured by Key Stage 2 results. This research also found that geographical proximity is routinely used as a determinant of entry to a school.xi

· Family Action’s own research into several schools in boroughs of north-east London has found that high performing KS2 schools are often massively oversubscribed and that rental prices around high achieving schools are higher than average. For example a modest 2 bedroom home on Albion Road, the same road as the high-performing Grasmere Primary in Hackney, London is presently advertised at £350 a week or £50 beyond what is usually paid or £85 beyond the new proposed cap . [3]

· Our research has also shown that relocati n g from central London , as has been recommended by Ministers, will not ease these problems as rents remain high around high-achieving schools whose admission based on proximity is competitive Moving housing beenfit to the 30th percentile of market rates will effectively exclude low income parents from accessing those schools or lead them to face financial hardship due to the shortfall between their housing benefit and their rental rate.

· Additionally, concerns regarding over-subscription to high-achieving schools in outer-London boroughs are already an issue. In areas such as Barking & Dagenham, the furthest distance to the high achieving Henry Green Primary School was 0.58 miles. In Redbridge the situation was more extreme with this academic year ’s furthest successful applicant to Nonsuch Primary residing only 0.6km away. The Equality Impact Assessment’s view that families should be prepared to relocate does not reflect the realities of school admission where even in outer London areas competition for school places remains fierce .

Increasing pressure on existing social housing and more use of inappropriate accommodation in B&Bs and hostels

· The Equality Impact Assessment’ statement notes that there may be a "knock-on" effect in less central boroughs as new residents require access to additional services such as schools and doctors.xii

4. Case studies of Family Action service users

Mrs Z- a client at one of our Building Bridges services offering support to families affected by enduring mental health problems and other complex needs.

Mrs Z lives in a privately rented 3 bedroom property with her older husband, 3 children and ill 21-year old stepson. Currently they pay £435 per week for this property located in north London. Mrs Z describes how her family were forced to move 4 times as they wait for permanent housing. Mrs Z is unable to work as she is the full time carer of her stepson, despite this she is volunteering at her children’s school as a dinner lady.

A family such as this would suffer as a result of the planned HB changes. Multiple moves would place a further strain on the family in which Mrs Z is the principal carer for both her husband, their 3 children and her ill step-son. Additionally forced relocation would impact on the children’s education, the treatment of the step-son and Mrs Z’s voluntary work in the school which she describes as helping with her self-esteem, boost to her energy levels and a way to improve her skills.

Despite their large family, they would be entitled to a maximum £400 for a 4 bedroom property which clearly in the area in which they reside would not provide them with adequate accommodation.

Ms R- came to Family Action as she was concerned about her finances and suffered from anxiety related to her housing concerns.

Ms R is the single parent to 5 children aged between 22 and 3. Her 22 year old son has recently been made redundant. The family currently live in a 4 bedroom house in north London where the rent is £690 per week. Currently the family receive £567 in Housing Benefit, a figure that is lower due to Ms R’s commitment to undertaking part-time paid employment, something that she feels is both good for her and also a good role model for her children.

The family had to relocate from a cramped 3 bedroom property that had damp and was subsequently condemned. The LA were unable to provide the family with accommodation and recommended that they secure a private tenancy. One year after moving to the property the landlord raised the rent by £90 per week to its current high level. Ms R’s take home pay is equivalent to her weekly shortfall in housing benefit.

Ms R describes the move from her previous accommodation as extremely disruptive to the children’s education and is also concerned that relocation from her present home would affect her ability to travel to work.

Under the proposed reforms, Ms R’s son would not be allocated a room in the family home and the maximum LHA the family would receive would be £400, leaving Ms R facing a shortfall of £290 per week.

Ms B- is a single mother using one of our support services for families with parenting issues. In Ms B’s case she suffered from domestic violence as a result of which her young son became subject to a child protection plan.

Ms B is a 25 year old single mother who lives with her 16 year old brother whom she has raised and her own young son. The family currently live in a three bedroom property in outer North London where the rent is £1000 per month. The family are in receipt of £800 in Housing Benefit.

Ms B currently works part-time as a cleaner at her son’s school which is a 5 minute walk away and receives between £80-£90 per week in wages. That money goes towards the £200 per month shortfall the family face in rental payments.

Despite living in outer- London the family are already facing the likelihood of relocation as their tenancy expires in two months and Ms B is worried about the affordability of the rent.

Ms B faces a rental payment shortfall due to her commitment to obtaining paid employment. This means that the family do not receive the maximum Housing Benefit and may be forced to relocate further outside of London threatening both Ms B’s son’s access to education and her paid employment. Ms B is keen to stay in the local area as she has a solid social network that has proved vital to her, in order to do so she is contemplating renting a smaller 2 bedroom property in order for her Housing Benefit to cover her rent.

3 September 2010

5. References

i. Dr Rebecca Tunstall et al. How housing affects children’s education and development though the effects of overcrowding, frequent mobility, and poor health and poor well-being. Housing Analysis and Surveys Expert Panel Papers 15, 2009. pg. 5
https://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/HAS/Paper%2015%20-%20Tunstall.pdf  

ii. Shigehiro Oishi and Ulrich Schimmack Residential Mobility, Well-Being and Mortality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2010. 98 (6), 980-994 

iii. Dr Tunstall et al. pg. 8 

iv. Dr Tunstall et al. pg.5 

v. ibid. pg. 12 

vi. Lord Laming. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry. 2003 

vii. Marion Brandon et al. Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2005-2007. University of East Anglia: June 2009. pg.1 & 3
http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR129(R).pdf  

viii. Joan Prokop, Kathy Bundred & Jo Green. Background Paper on London Serious Case Reviews Completed April 2006-September 2009, London Safeguarding Children Board, February 2010. pg.5
http://www.londonscb.gov.uk/serious_case_reviews/  

ix. Children missing from education. Ofsted, August 2010
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Children-missing-from-education  

x. Ofsted. pg. 1 

xi. Simon Burgess et al. What parents want: School preferences and school choice. Centre for Market and Public Organisation. October 2009. pg. 17 

xii. Equality Impact Assessment- Changes to the Local Housing Allowance arrangements and Housing Benefit size criteria for people with non-resident overnight carers. Department for Work and Pensions. 23rd July 2010. pg. 12. 

Appendix I to Family Action evidence: Impact on safeguarding

Below is a summary of Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) from across the country in which housing difficulties or multiple moves by families have complicated information sharing among agencies. Although the SCRs often do not explain the causes that prompted these multiple moves, these cases do demonstrate the existing difficulties in monitoring mobile families.

The 2009 paper "Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2005-07" gave a intensive study of a sample of 40 SCRs carried out between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2007. It finds that in 45% of cases families were highly mobile and living in poor conditions and cites the example of a child and his siblings who moved eight times in a single year attending seven different schools between 2006 and 2007xii.

The report further states that "Reluctant parental co-operation and multiple moves meant that many children went off the radar of professionals." xii Problems of overcrowding, inadequate accommodation and poor family support in an area coupled with parental domestic violence (which was evident for just over half of parents/carers), maternal depression (present in more than a quarter of families) or parental learning disabilities (present in at least six families) create a "high risk environment for maltreatment or serious or fatal accidents." xii

The London Safeguarding Children Board’s paper on London Serious Case Reviews completed between 2006 and 2009 discusses key issues arising in the London context in comparison to national SCR studies. In the review of London SCR’s it emerges that 33% of families were known to two or more Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB). xii It further finds that 47% of the sample had rent arrears, had been evicted or were described as on the verge of eviction. In its conclusion the report states that "Children disappear from view when there is high mobility (including inter country) and housing problems." xii A situation where families are forced to repeatedly move in search of affordable housing will exacerbate this and prevent the efficient tracking and safeguarding of vulnerable children and their parents.

This view is supported by the August 2010 Ofsted report "Children missing from education." The report is based on inspections between September and December 2009 among 15 local authorities in England in both a rural and urban setting. It highlights the difficulty facing local authorities in safeguarding children and young people without a national database tracking children from birth to adulthood. Families are not required to inform authorities when they move in or around a borough and this means local authorities experience great difficulty in locating children. The report highlights the challenges faced by an increasingly mobile and complex population. In many local authorities they saw their greatest difficulty as "keeping track of children in transient families who stayed in the authority for only a short period of time, often in low-cost private housing." xii

The Ofsted report highlights the importance of shared information, finding that in 5 of the local authorities inspected health professionals were systematically involved in identifying children who were not receiving education. The report states that in these authorities this had had a positive impact on finding children who previously had not been known to children’s services departments. xii The problems posed by a failure to share information is a theme that is reiterated throughout the SCR case studies cited below. Our concern is that increased transience caused by a lack of affordable housing will further exacerbate the problems of sharing knowledge and create difficulties in tracking vulnerable children.

Housing issues in case studies of SCRs

Wirral LSCB October 2009 "Serious Case Review- Executive Summary Subject Child A, died April 2009 aged 4" xii

Child A’s mother had repeated problems finding suitable accommodation in summer 2007. There were concerns over Child A’s mother’s mental health, throughout 2007 the family faced housing difficulties.

In early 2008, Child A’s mother accepted a package of family support measures. However A’s mother began to fail to keep appointments and was difficult to access through home visits. Review states that throughout the summer of 2008 there a number of failed access attempts and appointments establishing contact with A and her mother through home visits.

Intermittent nursery attendance and missed appointments followed until the death of Child A in April 2009.

Recommendations from this review include ensuring all Housing Support staff are familiar with the Child Concern Model (12.3). Also mentioned is that when a service user, who has a child under 16, faces eviction, a referral will be made to the Social Care Children’s Services (12.6). Further mentions that when a potentially challenging case is transferred from one Housing provider to another there should be a case transfer discussion.

Sheffield LSCB in association with Lincolnshire LSCB August 2009 "Serious Case Review in respect of Family Q"xii

During the period 1973-2008 the Q Family moved 67 times between and within Sheffield and Lincolnshire. During the family’s initial residence in Sheffield, 1975-1988, professionals faced difficulty in accessing the family home, during this period there were 4 family house moves. Adults T, M and N were all subject to Child Protection Registration from 1978-1988 when the family relocated to Lincolnshire. In this period there were issues of child presentation, school attendance and indications of bruising to the children.

Between 1988-2002 Adults M and Adult N were pregnant 16 times, at this time suspicions arose that their father, Adult R might be the father of Adult N and M’s children.

The SCR states that during the family’s time in Lincolnshire the Q family had 38 tenancies. Although professionals raised concerns over the numerous moves they failed to analyse the significance of this mobility. The SCR states

"The relevance of the house moves was misjudged in that professionals supported the family to acquire new tenancies rather than assessing the moves as an indicator for the need to protect the children."

When considering the eventual situation which was that Adults M and N suffered 35 years of sexual abuse from their father, the SCR states that the timing of the family’s moves between local authorities could and should have raised questions about the motives for the repeated moves.

.The lack of continued interaction with a GP prevented a holistic overview of the family. The report recognises the repeated moves as a problem facing the professionals involved with Family Q.

"In the case of the Q family some of the lack of continuity of professional relationships and case management was created by the family’s house moves many of which whilst in a confined geographical area crossed agency boundaries and structures. There was a failure to recognise the implications of the house moves for the development and well being of the children and continuity of professionals providing services."

Leeds LSCB 21st July 2009 "Serious Case Review in respect of Child J" xii

The family had initial contact with the SSD when Child J was scalded on leg aged 10 months. The Social Services core assessment was not completed, and following discharge from hospital there was non attendance to out-patients appointments. The health visitor had intermittent contact with family as they moved a few times.

Bournemouth and Poole LSCB December 2008 "Executive Summary Regarding the Serious Case Review in respect of Baby A", died March 2007 aged 22 days

During the course of the SCR it became apparent that Baby A’s mother had been known to Bournemouth Childcare and Family Support as well as Dorset Police Child Protection Unit. Also, the father had been known to Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, a past history of depression is mentioned in relation to the father.

The review mentions that following the discharge from the maternity hospital there was confusion in regard to the family residence, this continued during the family’s home move.

Brighton and Hove LSCB 2nd December 2008 "Serious Case Review Executive Summary in respect of G"

Father A and Mother B both moved to England, settling in Bournemouth before moving to Reading in July 1998 following the birth of their daughter, C.

The family had a history of domestic violence going back numerous years whilst living in Reading; however this information hadn’t been passed to Brighton and Hove Police and Social Care once the family relocated there in 2006.

When the family moved there was a lack of coordination in sharing information and therefore the history of domestic violence was unknown in Brighton and Hove. As a result of this risk assessment processes were notcarried out. When B went missing professionals were not aware of the whole picture.

Surrey LSCB November 2008 "Serious Case Review Executive Summary Child B" died Nov 2005 aged 3 ½xii

The family’s chaotic lifestyle meant that the family had no settled accommodation and moved to numerous addresses in Hampshire. Subsequently moved to Surrey where these issues continued. There were concerns in both Hampshire and Surrey over home conditions; At least 21 referrals to local Social Services (SSD) and Children’s Services in both locations.

The recommendations made from this SCR (5.12) were that any change in accommodation for children whose names are on the Surrey CPR must immediately be made known to the custodian of the CPR so that relevant agencies can be updated immediately.

Sutton LSCB with Wandsworth, Lambeth, Lewisham and Bromley LSCBs Executive Summary July 2008 "Serious Case Review in respect of Child ‘C’, died aged 18 monthsxii

The Father, of Child C, ‘D’ was made the subject of a Care Order in LB of Wandsworth following an admission of a sexual offence. He fathered two children with ‘E’, both of the children were placed on Lambeth’s CPR as at risk from physical harm. Following the breakup of D and E’s relationship the oldest child (A) came to the attention of the Youth Offending Team in Lewisham. Lewisham Children’s Services and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service were also contacted and carried out an initial assessment during which D’s sexual offence did not come to light. E moved to Bromley and A’s case was transferred to Bromley’s Children’s Services. The situation deteriorated and A spent some time living with his father and Child C’s mother in Sutton before becoming a Looked After Child in Lewisham in Nov 2006.

D’s relationship with C’s mother ‘F’ began in 2000. In 2003 a pregnancy was terminated due to severe foetal growth retardation. Both were treated for depression, D was still receiving treatment for this at the time of C’s birth, midway through 2005. D had also lost his job and the couple were experiencing housing difficulties prior to C’s birth.

Information was not properly shared between local authorities. By the time that Bromley contacted Sutton, Child A had been living with his father for 3 months. The information provided to Sutton did not focus on D’s sexual offence and therefore there were no concerns of him living in a house with a 9 month old baby.

D used two names during his adult life and difficulties emerged due to the three family groups moving across boroughs and PCT boundaries.

Information is not routinely passed between local authorities unless children are subject to a child protection plan, onus is thus on Social Workers to seek relevant information.

Leeds LSCB April 2005 "Serious Case Review in Respect of Child G" died aged 3xii

The family moved around various parts of the country and the home situation was never stable.

The review summarises that neither the Schools in Area A nor B where the family resided have a record of detailed pupil information.

The review recommends that duplicate records be forwarded to a new School where there are child protection concerns.

Appendix ii Family Action evdience

Recent research underlines the negative impact that having to live in particular areas of housing already has on the ability of disadvantaged parents such as those assisted by Family Action to access high-performing schools for their children. Professor Simon Burgess and colleagues find that while poorer families tend only to be able to access relatively lower-performing schools with higher proportions of poor children, all families regardless of background do choose schools on the basis of their academic performance, as measured by the percentage of pupils exceeding the expected level at key stage 2. (What Parents Want: School Preferences and School Choice’ by Simon Burgess, Ellen Greaves, Anna Vignoles and Deborah Wilson, CMPOWorking

Paper No. 09/222 (http://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2009/

wp222.pdf). These researchers find however that "the big driver of differential access to higher-performing schools at KS2 is the quality of schools near to where families live."

This is because, the researchers finds, the main factor in determining whether a

child can get into an oversubscribed school is their geographical proximity to that school.

This is borne out by Family Action’s brief investigation into primary school brochures for Islington, Hackney, Haringey and Enfield

If parents want their children to attend a community primary school scoring a high average score at Key stage two and receiving good Ofsted reports then the children face high competition to obtain places. For example for Grasmere school, the primary school with the highest average key stage two score in Hackney, there were 148 applications for 30 places in 2009/10 Community schools like Grasmere across all boroughs we investigated will make decisions to allocate most of the places among the competing children based on distance presently lived from the school or siblings already attending. Thus while parents may express a preference for a primary school, in practice it is essential to live within a mile of the school in order for the child to stand a chance in the competition for places. ( see the table below)

As can be seen from the table below a parent receiving housing benefit as part of income and living in Hackney or Islington who was has aspirations for their child to attend a similarly high performing primary school (Average KS2 score of 29) will still be frustrated by the new caps versus high rents if they move to Enfield or Haringey or Redbridge. Moving to Barking and Dagenham may offer some hope. We can say that while the new housing benefit caps will not of themselves create educational disadvantage they will most certainly drive it home.