Birmingham Report — BFF City Pack

Why This City

Birmingham, located in the West Midlands region, faces acute levels of child deprivation. 41.7% of children live in relative low-income families. This is 21.6 percentage points above the England average of 20.1%.¹

Of the city’s 659 Lower Super Output Areas, 302 (45.8%) fall within the most deprived decile nationally for child income deprivation — an extreme concentration of disadvantage. The average IDACI score across the local authority is 0.568, compared to the England average of 0.168.⁷

The city’s youth population (aged 5–19) stands at 250,760, supported by 430 schools and 781 sport facilities identified through OpenStreetMap analysis.

Childhood obesity is a significant concern, with overweight and obese rates of 23.1% at reception (this is broadly in line with the England average of 23.5%.²) and 41.0% at Year 6 (this is 4.8 percentage points above the England average of 36.2%.³).

Physical activity levels among children paint a concerning picture: only 41.0% of children aged 5–15 meet the recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity (this is 6.6 percentage points below the England average of 47.6%.¹⁵); 35.8% are classified as less active, doing fewer than 30 minutes per day (this is 5.6 percentage points above the England average of 30.2%.¹⁶). The city falls in decile 1 nationally for child physical activity, placing it among the areas of greatest need. The deprivation-linked activity gap stands at 14.9%. This is 7.3 percentage points above the England average of 7.6%.¹⁷

Education indicators further illustrate the challenges: an overall school absence rate of 6.9% (this is broadly in line with the England average of 7.1%.⁴), persistent absence at 20.0% (this is broadly in line with the England average of 20.0%.⁵), a suspension rate of 2.9 per 100 pupils (this is 8.4 below the England average of 11.31.¹⁰), KS2 attainment (reading, writing, maths) at 64.7% (this is 2.7 percentage points above the England average of 62.0%.¹³), KS4 Attainment 8 averaging 47.3 (this is 0.5 above the England average of 46.8.¹⁴).

Wider vulnerability indicators reinforce the case for intervention: a NEET rate of 3.2% among 16–17 year olds (this is 1.5 percentage points below the England average of 4.7%.⁶), mental health admissions of 81.2 per 100,000 under-18s (this is 1.0 above the England average of 80.2.⁸), youth justice first-time entrants at 188.6 per 100,000 (this is 50.9 above the England average of 137.7.⁹).

41.7%

Child Poverty Rate

45.8%

LSOAs in Most Deprived Decile

41.0%

Year 6 Overweight/Obese

IDACI Deprivation Map

Provision Gap Analysis

A systematic review of youth football provision across Birmingham’s 69 wards reveals that 67 (97.1%) are either unserved or inadequately served by existing providers. Just 2 wards (2.9%) meet the threshold for comprehensive coverage.

17 wards are classified as open cold spots — areas with no meaningful youth football provision despite high deprivation need. Among the most deprived are Billesley, Birchfield, Bournbrook & Selly Park, Glebe Farm & Tile Cross, Gravelly Hill, and 12 others.

A further 50 wards have some youth football activity but with significant gaps. This includes 41 where providers target a different market segment (premium pricing or narrow age range); 9 with partial pathway coverage (a major provider offers financial assistance but does not cover all four BFF programme channels).

Ward Coverage Distribution

Open (17)

Gap A - Different Market (41)

Gap B - Partial Pathway (9)

Covered (2)

Open — No youth football provider operates in this ward

Gap A — Providers exist but none offer financial assistance or structured pathways

Gap B — Major provider with financial assistance but incomplete pathway (missing 1+ BFF channels)

Covered — Major provider with financial assistance covers 3–4 BFF channels

Ward Provision Map

Priority Wards

The following 10 wards represent the highest-priority areas for BFF intervention in Birmingham, ranked by priority score (combining deprivation, youth population, and provision gaps). Together they contain 42,940 young people and 78 decile-1 LSOAs. The most deprived wards are Small Heath, Ward End, Newtown.

#	Ward	IDACI	Youth Pop	D1 LSOAs	Facilities	Coverage
1	Small Heath	0.842	6,251	10	5	Gap A - Different Market
2	Ward End	0.798	4,114	6	8	Gap A - Different Market
3	Newtown	0.806	3,995	6	11	Gap A - Different Market
4	Handsworth	0.783	3,134	7	5	Gap A - Different Market
5	Tyseley & Hay Mills	0.760	3,426	7	4	Open
6	Glebe Farm & Tile Cross	0.745	6,274	13	9	Open
7	Birchfield	0.766	3,007	5	6	Open
8	Balsall Heath West	0.756	2,949	6	3	Gap A - Different Market
9	Alum Rock	0.835	7,712	13	8	Gap A - Different Market
10	Castle Vale	0.719	2,078	5	7	Gap A - Different Market

#1 Small Heath Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.842 Youth: 6,251 D1 LSOAs: 10 Facilities: 5

Small Heath has a mean IDACI score of 0.842 across 10 LSOAs, with 10 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 6,251 young people aged 5–19, served by 9 schools (5 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 49.5%. Youth football providers operate in Small Heath ward (e.g. Dream Chaser Youth Club) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: Dream Chaser Youth Club

#2 Ward End Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.798 Youth: 4,114 D1 LSOAs: 6 Facilities: 8

Ward End has a mean IDACI score of 0.798 across 6 LSOAs, with 6 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 4,114 young people aged 5–19, served by 4 schools (4 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 48.4%. Youth football providers operate in Ward End ward (e.g. JABS B8 FC) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: JABS B8 FC

#3 Newtown Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.806 Youth: 3,995 D1 LSOAs: 6 Facilities: 11

Newtown has a mean IDACI score of 0.806 across 7 LSOAs, with 6 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 3,995 young people aged 5–19, served by 9 schools (6 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 62.2%. Youth football providers operate in Newtown ward (e.g. Zesh Rehman Foundation) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: Zesh Rehman Foundation

#4 Handsworth Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.783 Youth: 3,134 D1 LSOAs: 7 Facilities: 5

Handsworth has a mean IDACI score of 0.783 across 7 LSOAs, with 7 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 3,134 young people aged 5–19, served by 7 schools (6 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 45.2%. Youth football providers operate in Handsworth ward (e.g. Ace Targets Sports Academy) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: Ace Targets Sports Academy, Oakland Young People's Centre

#5 Tyseley & Hay Mills Open

IDACI: 0.760 Youth: 3,426 D1 LSOAs: 7 Facilities: 4

Tyseley & Hay Mills has a mean IDACI score of 0.760 across 7 LSOAs, with 7 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 3,426 young people aged 5–19, served by 5 schools (4 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 49.0%. No youth football provider operates in Tyseley & Hay Mills ward.

#6 Glebe Farm & Tile Cross Open

IDACI: 0.745 Youth: 6,274 D1 LSOAs: 13 Facilities: 9

Glebe Farm & Tile Cross has a mean IDACI score of 0.745 across 15 LSOAs, with 13 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 6,274 young people aged 5–19, served by 10 schools (6 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 61.3%. No youth football provider operates in Glebe Farm & Tile Cross ward.

#7 Birchfield Open

IDACI: 0.766 Youth: 3,007 D1 LSOAs: 5 Facilities: 6

Birchfield has a mean IDACI score of 0.766 across 6 LSOAs, with 5 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 3,007 young people aged 5–19, served by 4 schools (4 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 46.3%. No youth football provider operates in Birchfield ward.

#8 Balsall Heath West Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.756 Youth: 2,949 D1 LSOAs: 6 Facilities: 3

Balsall Heath West has a mean IDACI score of 0.756 across 7 LSOAs, with 6 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 2,949 young people aged 5–19, served by 3 schools (3 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 56.1%. Youth football providers operate in Balsall Heath West ward (e.g. FDC Academy) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: Birmingham United Foundation, FDC Academy

#9 Alum Rock Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.835 Youth: 7,712 D1 LSOAs: 13 Facilities: 8

Alum Rock has a mean IDACI score of 0.835 across 13 LSOAs, with 13 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 7,712 young people aged 5–19, served by 9 schools (7 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 52.8%. Youth football providers operate in Alum Rock ward (e.g. Alum Rock Football Academy) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: Adderley Park PlayZone, Alum Rock Football Academy, JABS B8 FC, Naseby Youth Centre, OUR Community Foundation

#10 Castle Vale Gap A - Different Market

IDACI: 0.719 Youth: 2,078 D1 LSOAs: 5 Facilities: 7

Castle Vale has a mean IDACI score of 0.719 across 6 LSOAs, with 5 in the most deprived national decile. The ward is home to 2,078 young people aged 5–19, served by 5 schools (4 primary). Average free school meals eligibility is 59.0%. Youth football providers operate in Castle Vale ward (e.g. Castle Vale Youth Development Club) but none qualify as major providers with meaningful financial assistance or pathway coverage.

Providers: Castle Vale JKS FC, Castle Vale Youth Development Club

Provider Ecosystem

The youth provision ecosystem in Birmingham extends beyond football. Our desk research maps 123 football providers alongside youth and community centres with structured sports programmes (including Concord Youth Centre, Birmingham Settlement Sports Centre, Ackers Adventure) and social mobility organisations such as StreetGames, Envision, Ahead Partnership. Together these layers reveal a community landscape where pockets of provision exist but significant gaps remain — particularly in affordable, structured football pathways for low-income families.

This analysis is based on publicly available data and desk research. We recognise that the full picture of community need and provision will emerge from direct engagement — being on the ground, building relationships with local stakeholders, and listening to the families and young people these programmes are designed to serve.

The research identifies 123 youth football providers operating across Birmingham. Of these, 16 are classified as major providers with meaningful scale and programme breadth.

53 providers (43.1%) offer some form of financial assistance, while 70 operate on a purely commercial basis. For families in the most deprived wards, affordability is a primary barrier to participation — provision without financial assistance does not meaningfully serve these communities.

Across BFF’s four programme channels, coverage is uneven: 108 providers offer community training, 66 run club football, 37 deliver holiday camps, 23 operate schools programmes. The schools channel is the most underrepresented, which is significant given that schools programmes are BFF’s primary entry point into communities.

The ecosystem is dominated by 35 community organisations, 29 grassroots clubs, 14 private coaching companies, 12 club community foundations.

Cold-Spot Analysis Map

The Opportunity

Birmingham presents a compelling opportunity for BFF’s expansion. With 67 of 69 wards (97.1%) lacking adequate youth football provision, and acute levels of child deprivation, the conditions strongly align with BFF’s mission.

BFF’s model — delivering financially assisted, pathway-based football programmes through trusted adult relationships — directly addresses the gaps identified in this analysis. While 123 providers operate in the city, 56.9% do not offer financial assistance, leaving the most deprived families without meaningful access. Sport England data shows 35.8% of children in the city are physically less active, reinforcing the demand for accessible, affordable football programmes.

Operational readiness is supported by existing infrastructure: 781 sport facilities and 430 schools provide potential delivery venues. BFF’s schools-first entry strategy can leverage these existing relationships to build community presence before scaling to community training, club football, and holiday camps.

Data Sources

National benchmarks used in this report are drawn from the following published sources. All figures represent England-level statistics unless otherwise stated.

#	Indicator	Source	Period
1	Children in Low Income Families (relative)	DWP	FYE 2024
2	NCMP: Reception overweight incl. obesity	OHID/NHS	2024/25
3	NCMP: Year 6 overweight incl. obesity	OHID/NHS	2024/25
4	Pupil absence in schools in England	DfE	2023/24
5	Persistent absence (10%+ sessions missed)	DfE	2023/24
6	16-17 NEET	DfE	2024
7	Index of Deprivation 2025 — IDACI	MHCLG	2025
8	Hospital admissions for mental health (<18)	OHID	2023/24
9	Youth justice first-time entrants per 100k	YJB/OHID	2024
10	Suspensions per 100 pupils	DfE	2023/24
11	Permanent exclusions per 100 pupils	DfE	2023/24
12	Free school meals eligibility	DfE	Jan 2025
13	KS2: % meeting expected standard (RWM)	DfE	2024/25
14	KS4: Average Attainment 8 score	DfE	2024/25
15	CYP physically active (60+ min/day)	Sport England	2023/24
16	CYP physically less active (<30 min/day)	Sport England	2023/24
17	CYP activity inequality (deprivation gap)	Sport England	2023/24

Additional data: Census 2021 (ONS) for youth population; GIAS (DfE, updated weekly) for school locations; OpenStreetMap for sport facilities; IoD2025 (MHCLG) for LSOA-level deprivation. Report generated 13 July 2026.

Birmingham

Executive Summary