Why is child poverty rising more slowly in Preston?

Child poverty is one of the biggest challenges facing communities across the country. National policy on welfare, employment rights, housing and the wider economy have the greatest influence over whether families struggle to make ends meet. But if national policy is broadly the same everywhere, why do some places appear to be doing better than others?

That was the starting point for the research we carried out looking at Preston.

Because at first glance, the data suggested something interesting. While child poverty has risen across most of England over the past decade, Preston appeared to have been more resilient than many comparable towns and cities. That’s not to say that the picture is rosy – the increase was still significant – but it was generally less steep than elsewhere.

The obvious question was: why?

Rather than jumping to conclusions, we decided to examine it properly. We started by reviewing the national evidence on what drives child poverty. Unsurprisingly, there isn’t a single cause. Family incomes matter, but so do housing costs, welfare policy, access to good jobs and the everyday costs of living. Child poverty is shaped by all these things together, not by any one factor alone.

Next, we compared Preston with sixteen places across England that share similar economic, demographic and health characteristics. We looked at how child poverty had changed over time, alongside factors such as rents, employment, wages, benefit changes and housebuilding.

We also carried out statistical analysis to test which of these factors appeared to have the strongest relationship with child poverty across all of those places.

Finally, we interviewed council officers and political leaders to understand what Preston had actually been doing differently on the ground.

What emerged was a much richer picture than we expected.

Some of the strongest influences on child poverty were things largely outside local government control. National welfare policies such as the two-child limit, housing benefit levels and unemployment all had a clear relationship with child poverty. That is an important reminder that councils cannot solve poverty on their own.

But local action also appeared to matter.

Preston has seen slower rent increases than many comparable places, delivered relatively high levels of affordable housing, promoted the Real Living Wage, worked with major local employers and public institutions to improve access to good jobs, and invested in advice services and cost-of-living support.

The city has also pursued community wealth building for more than a decade. In practice, that has meant trying to use local procurement, employment, housing, regeneration, public land and support for co-operatives and other forms of local ownership to ensure that more of the wealth created in Preston, stays in Preston.

Can we prove that community wealth building caused lower child poverty? No. And no serious piece of research could honestly make that claim.

But the evidence does suggest that Preston’s long-term approach has plausibly contributed to its comparatively stronger performance by acting across several of the drivers of poverty at the same time. Instead of relying on one programme, the city has tried to improve incomes, reduce household costs, strengthen local employment and retain more wealth locally.

That leads to what we think is the most important lesson from the research. Too often, child poverty is treated purely as a welfare issue. Our findings suggest it should also be understood as an economic one.

The recommendations we decided to make are therefore not simply about expanding traditional anti-poverty services, important though those remain. We argue for going further: using housing, transport, regeneration, procurement, employment, public institutions and democratic ownership alongside more immediate support to improve what families have left after paying for life’s essentials. In short, a practical framework for organising the local economic levers that councils already possess around a clear anti-poverty mission.

Preston cannot solve child poverty on its own. But its experience suggests that when local government acts across housing, employment, regeneration and ownership—not just welfare—it can make a meaningful difference. At a time when there is renewed debate about the future of our economy, that is an important lesson.

This article was originally published in BlogPreston.