The Social Mobility Commission has published its report entitled
'The long shadow of deprivation: Differences in opportunities
across England'
A copy of the report is attached
Findings
Gaps in educational achievement between the most and least
deprived families explain the vast majority of later
differences in earnings between individuals from those
groups. Education accounts for a broadly stable proportion
of the pay gaps across local authorities, which means it is
less significant in areas where pay gaps are large (less
mobile areas) compared with those where they are small
(more mobile areas).
In the most mobile areas, education gaps can explain
virtually all of the pay gap. But in less mobile areas,
other factors drive differences in earnings between sons
from poor and rich families, even with the same education.
This suggests that to ‘level up’
between places, we need to look beyond the
education system to understand why equally achieving sons
have different opportunities in the labour market.
While pinpointing any specific reasons for this is
beyond the scope of our analysis, possible factors include:
family connections and finances helping individuals from
the least deprived backgrounds to find good jobs; how
schools and colleges prepare pupils for local labour
markets; and employers’ adoption
of inclusive recruitment policies. Regional differences in
internal migration flows may also have an influence, along
with the possibility that deprived sons in less equal areas
are less likely to seek better prospects elsewhere than
those in more equal areas.
Suggestions
-
Government should use this new
evidence to inform policy about the scale and size of
its place-based interventions and investment.
Evidence from this research pinpoints localities
where inclusion in expanded programmes might make the
most difference. In the areas of greatest inequality,
educational investment alone is not enough to remove
differences in life outcomes between areas.
-
In the localities with the most
unequal outcomes, we need to do more to understand
why the labour market is not serving disadvantaged
young people. This should include both
drawing on local authority leaders’ knowledge and
data, and research by central
government and independent organisations
to trial ‘what works’ labour market
interventions.
-
Evidence is a critical element
to inform good decision-making. Government should
continue improving the quality of data collection and
linkages necessary to analyse social mobility well.
We should aspire to be global leaders emulating the
best of what the Scandinavian model has to offer.
JRF response
Helen Barnard, Acting Director at the independent Joseph Rowntree
Foundation (JRF) said:
“It’s simply not right that children’s life chances are so
profoundly affected by where they grow up. As a society, we
believe every child should have the opportunity to lead a
prosperous life, free of poverty, no matter what their background
is. But this report shows that in certain areas, children who
grow up in poverty are much more likely to stay trapped in
poverty during their adult lives.
“In the upcoming Budget and Spending Review, the Government has
an opportunity to redesign the systems that are failing children
and young people. As this research highlights, a
one-size-fits-all approach will not solve this problem. Targeting
additional investment to weaker local economies will help to
provide the skills and opportunities people need to thrive.
Boosting targeted social security support would also have an
immediate and significant impact on child poverty.”
