EVALUATION OF THE SINGLE REGENERATION BUDGET CHALLENGE FUND. KEY RESULTS FROM THE RESIDENTS BASELINE SOCIAL SURVEYS.

Transcription

1 EVALUATION OF THE SINGLE REGENERATION BUDGET CHALLENGE FUND. KEY RESULTS FROM THE RESIDENTS BASELINE SOCIAL SURVEYS. Christine Whitehead Lesley Smith London School of Economics Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

2 Acknowledgements This report summarises the findings of the results of the social survey element of DETR s evaluation of the Single Regeneration Challenge Fund. The social survey is an important element of the overall evaluation in that it provides key information about the characteristics of residents in the seven of the 20 case study areas that the evaluation is centred on. The survey questionnaire was developed by Mark Speed and Bobby Duffy from MORI, Mark Kleinman and Christine Whitehead from LSE and Sam Mason, Gillian Smith and Paul McCafferty from DETR. Fieldwork was carried out by MORI interviewers under the overall control of Mark Speed and Bobby Duffy. The tables contained in this report were produced by Neil Frew from MORI. Jane Todorovic from DETR was responsible for the final stages of editing and preparation of this report. The authors are grateful to all of the team members for their input without which this report would not have been possible. 1

3 Contents. Summary Section 1: Introduction and methodology. Introduction Survey design Survey areas Sampling and fieldwork Use of comparator data Scope of the baseline analysis Section 2: Resident profiles Type of households Educational qualifications Employment status Levels of income, benefits and capacity to cope Health Children and education issues Section : Housing circumstances and views on the area Tenure Dwelling type Attitudes to the dwelling Attitudes to the area Safety, security and crime Views on local sports and leisure facilities Scope for area based improvements Involvement with the community Movement into and out of the area Annexes: Annex A: Annex B: Annex C: Annex D: Area Profile Response rates and household profiles Detailed tables Headline results by ethnic group 2

4 List of tables: Table 1: Household attributes by area: headline figures Table 2: Ethnicity Table : No qualifications by economic status of head of household: headline figures Table 4: Qualifications of all household members Table 5: Socioeconomic group of head of household by area Table 6: Employment status of head of household by area Table 7: Household composition by employment status of head of household working age households Table 8: Summary table on head of household employment indicators by area Table 9: Proportion of working age households with no worker Table 10: Reasons why cannot find work: Head of household seeking work Table 11: Headline figures on joint income and sources of income Table 12a: Gross income of head/partner by tenure: SRB areas Table 12b: Income by tenure: England Table 1: Household composition by gross income of respondent and partner Table 14: Household composition by receipt of means tested benefit Table 15: Percentage of benefit income (head of household) by household and dwelling characteristics Table 16: Capacity to live on total income: headline figures Table 17: Summary data on loans Table 18: Health of heads of household and whether got better or worse over previous two years by SRB area Table 19: Respondents views on the area for bringing up children Table 20: Tenure and dwelling attributes Table 21: Tenure by household characteristics Table 22: Dwelling type by household characteristics Table 2: Satisfaction with dwelling and area Table 24: Positive area attributes Table 25: Serious areabased problems Table 26: Whether area got better or worse over the last two years Table 27: Crime and safety by area Table 28: Feeling unsafe after dark in the area by selected household characteristics Table 29: Attitudes to leisure facilities by area Table 0: Most frequently mentioned area based improvements Table 1: Involvement with the area Annex B Table B1: Response rates across the 7 SRB areas Annex C Table C1: Household composition: All households Table C2: Household composition: Heads of household of working age Table C: Household composition: Heads of household of retirement age Table C4: Any CSE/GCSE/O Level by household attributes by area: Heads of household Table C5: Any CSE/GCSE/O Level by household attributes by area: Any member of household

5 Table C6: Economic status of all members of household aged 16 or over Table C7: Percentage of income from benefit: households by area Table C8: Perceptions of health by households and dwelling characteristics Table C9: Child care arrangements by area Table C10: Attitudes to education Table C11: Amount of help parent or spouse/partner gives to children with their homework Table C12: Proportions that strongly agreed with statements on ability to rely on community by area Table C1: Whether closely involved in community or not by area Table C14: Movement into and out of the area Annex D Table D1: Headline data by ethnicity 4

6 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS. 1. Resident surveys were carried out in 7 areas that are undergoing a package of regeneration activity funded through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund (SRB CF). In total,459 interviews were completed between November 1996 and February 1997 and an adjusted response rate of 6 was achieved. Household composition/vulnerable households. 2. The most significant difference between the profile of the SRB areas and national profiles are the proportions of lone parent families; at 1 this is much higher the national average. This rate is particularly high in Chalkhill, Bradford and Nottingham...The proportion of larger households with 5 or more people (11) is also above the national average (7) across the total sample but this varies between areas. Swadlincote (6) and Sunderland (5) are below that national average, whereas Rochdale (18) and Chalkhill (15) have over twice the national average of large households. This is connected with the concentration of ethnic groups in these areas. In all areas except Nottingham (0), Chalkhill (25) and Sunderland (25) the proportion of single person households is significantly below the national average (28). Qualifications and training. 4. Households in SRB areas are comparatively ill qualified; just under half (48) of all members of households lack any form of educational qualifications, and less than a quarter (20) of heads of household have any work related training. This compares to the national figure of 1 of adults of working age not in full time education without any qualifications (GHS, 1995). Two per cent of heads of household in the SRB areas have participated in Government training schemes. Employment status. 5. Employment rates are relatively low, in part because of the structure of the population. Only a third of heads of household are in full time work compared with a national average of Correspondingly, the rates of unemployment (10) and economic inactivity (2) are much higher than the national averages. There is a very high level of economic inactivity amongst lone parents (5) and a high rate of unemployment amongst single men (28). Unemployment is also more prevalent amongst younger heads of household; some 15 of 254 year olds are unemployed. Unemployment amongst Blacks and Asian households is generally above average (17 of Black heads of household and 16 of Asian heads of household) compared to 9 white households, although the pattern is not absolutely consistent and the differences between groups is not large in all of the case study areas of working age respondents were seeking work at the time of the survey and a perceived lack of available jobs was regarded as the major obstacle to finding work, followed by lack of skills and training and child care problems. 5

7 Income and benefit dependency. 8. Overall, income levels are low and benefit dependency rates are high. Only 19 of households have an income over 00 per week compared to 44 nationally. Chalkhill stands out as an area with a particularly large concentration of poverty; 41 have an income of less than 100 per week compared to 19 nationally. Across the 7 survey areas, the proportion of those living in the owneroccupied sector with incomes of 100 or less is well below the national figure. Economic vulnerability. 9. The levels of debt are not particularly high compared to the country as a whole, probably because the opportunities for debt are lower. However, difficulties in keeping up payments are disproportionately high, reflecting the high levels of benefit dependency and low incomes. A far higher proportion of SRB households with debts find it difficult to keep up payments, 20 compared to 8 of the country as a whole. Children. 10. The majority of respondents view school education, and the need to be involved in this, as very important. However, despite these favourable parental attitudes, they are less involved in helping with homework compared to the national average. The percentage of parents who do not help with homework is 14, twice the national average, and those who do help spend less time than the national average, 20 spend five hours or more compared to the national average of Just over half (52) of respondents thought that their area was a good place to bring up children, compared to a national average of 81. Attitudes/involvement with the local area. 12. A high proportion of people are dissatisfied with their local area. More people are dissatisfied with their area than their dwelling, although there is a link between the two. Levels of crime and fear of crime are higher than national averages. 1. Of those who had moved into the area in the last 5 years lack of choice emerged as a key reason, 0 compared to the national figure of 2. This lack of choice was highly correlated with dissatisfaction of all kinds. A high proportion said that they wanted to move out of the area. 14. There appears to be good interaction on an informal basis with friends and neighbours in most of the areas but interest and participation with formal voluntary and community groups is low. This varies between areas, for example Chalkhill residents appear to be more isolated in terms of informal contact, although more residents are involved in tenant and community groups. 6

8 Section 1: Introduction and methodology. Introduction. 1.1 The DETR has commissioned an evaluation of the first two rounds of the Single Regeneration Challenge Fund (SRBCF). The overall objectives of the project are to evaluate the process by which economic, social and physical regeneration is achieved through the SRB CF, and the impact and cost effectiveness of regeneration activities funded through the first two rounds of the SRB bidding round. An Evaluation Framework 1 has been published which provides a detailed outline of the concepts underpinning the evaluation and the methodology. 1.2 The main focus of the study is a detailed evaluation of 20 case studies which were selected to represent the broad range of SRB partnerships in terms of mix of partners, location, type of outputs, scale of activity and the envisaged duration of regeneration effects. 1. The study is longitudinal in design, collecting data pre and post SRB funding. The work programme runs from December 1995 to 200, reflecting the longterm nature of some of the case study partnerships. The evaluation is based on a wide range of data from a variety of sources including: partnerships own monitoring systems other existing data sources such as local authority records, local police records, and national data bases such as NOMIS interviews with partnership members, project officers and Government Office representatives resident surveys in 7 of the case study areas, and a matched control area. 1.4 This paper summarises the research approach adopted for the resident survey element, and outlines the key findings emerging from the initial baseline stage. It highlights and condenses a more detailed analysis carried out by Dr Christine Whitehead (LSE) and MORI. 1 Peter Tyler and John Rhodes; Evaluation of Regeneration Activities Funded under the SRB CF Bidding RoundThe Evaluation Framework (Department of Land Economy, Discussion Paper 8) 7

9 Survey design The resident social survey element is based on a longitudinal design, exploring residents socioeconomic status (including work status and benefit dependency) and views on their home and area before and after the SRB CF activity in their area. This pre and post SRB CF survey design is an important mechanism for measuring change within areas. It will provide data on whether the sociodemographic profiles of residents has changed through SRB CF activity; for example whether residents incomes have been raised through increased skills and job provision. Residents are also important stakeholders in SRB areas and it is thus important to collect data on their perceptions of how areas have changed through SRB activity The initial baseline interviews were carried out between November 1996 and February The final interviews will occur at relevant intervals between 1999 and 2002, reflecting the partnership s different windup dates. However, this crosssectional analysis of the baseline before SRB position is important for two reasons. Firstly, it establishes an initial baseline against which longer term change can be measured. Secondly, it provides a useful snapshot of the socioeconomic characteristics and attitudes of people living in a sample of deprived neighbourhoods. The survey areas Overall, the evaluation is tracking progress in twenty case study areas and from these 7 areas were selected for detailed residents surveys. 2 A list of the SRB areas is outlined below and short penportraits summarising census and key survey attribute data are included at Annex A. For the other areas, key resident data will be collected from existing data sources such as NOMIS, education statistics, crime statistics and local authority housing data. The resident survey areas were chosen to represent different types of area and the broad range of SRBCF objectives. To ensure comparability, the same questionnaire was used across all the areas. Chalkhill: The Chalkhill Estate SRB covers an area of some 6,000 people, mainly living on one local authority estate in the London Borough of Brent. The survey data demonstrates that the Chalkhill estate represents a very deprived SRB CF area compared to the other areas, both in terms of peoplebased characteristics (e.g vulnerable groups, unemployment) and perceptions of the area (see Annex A). Hangleton and Knoll covers two local authority housing estates, the Hangleton housing estate and the Knoll housing estate which are situated in the north of the Borough of Hove. The survey data demonstrates that the Hangleton and Knoll area is not as deprived as the other survey areas, either in terms of population profiles or perceptions of the area (see Annex A). 2 A social survey was also carried out in Bidston (covering the Merseyside Learning Partnership) but this differs from the other areas because the sample was purposively selected to cover families with children aged 1416 and a much smaller response rate was achieved. Results are therefore excluded from this summary analysis. 8

10 Bradford covers the Royds area of Bradford; a complex of housing estates on the south periphery of Bradford. The survey data demonstrates that Bradford is relatively deprived compared to the other survey areas both in terms of resident characteristics and perceptions of the area (see Annex A). Rochdale covers the Canalside area of Rochdale which is situated half a mile south of the town centre. The area covers 215 hectares and has a population of over 11,000. The survey data for Rochdale gives a varied picture in terms of deprived characteristics compared to the other survey areas. Although the resident profile is not particularly vulnerable, there are relatively high levels of dissatisfaction with the area (see Annex A). Swadlincote the Swadlincote Woodlands area is within the District of Derbyshire and includes the communities of Swadlincote, Church Gresley, Castle Gresley, Newhall, Midway and Woodville with a population of around 1,000. Analysis of the survey data shows that the area is relatively affluent compared to the other survey areas and satisfaction with the area is high (see Annex A). Sunderland covers three areas, Sunderland City Centre, HoughtonHetton coalfield communities and the HendenEast Maritime Zone. Analysis of the survey data shows that the area is not particularly deprived compared to the other survey areas or national data (see Annex A). Nottingham covers three priority areas within the City of Nottingham; the Broxtowe estate, the Bestwood Estate, and the Urban Initiative area (covering Radford, Hyson Green and Forest Fields estates). Analysis of the survey data shows that the Nottingham area is relatively deprived in terms of resident characteristics and perceptions of the area. Nottingham has a very high proportion of unemployed/economically inactive residents, with high benefit dependency and low incomes. The majority of respondents (7) stated that they would like to move from the area (see Annex A). Sampling and fieldwork The sample was made up of,459 interviews, conducted in respondents homes between November 1996 and February Details of survey response rates are given in Annex B and detailed information on the methodology is contained in a separate technical report. Overall, an adjusted response rate of 6 was achieved, ranging from 51 in Hangleton and Knoll to 76 in Bradford. Use of comparator data Interviews were also conducted in a nonsrb Challenge Fund area, the St Rapheals estate in Brent. The area was purposively selected as a direct comparator for Chalkhill and in the longer term will be used to provide important comparator data on change in an area which has not received SRB CF funding. As this is a baseline stage, results are broadly similar for the St Rapheals estate and Chalkhill and thus demonstrates that St Mark Speed and Bobby Duffy; SRB CF Residents Survey Technical Report (MORI, 1997) 9

11 Rapheals is an appropriate comparator area. To avoid confusion with the SRB areas, results for St Rapheals have not been included in this summary report The residents questionnaire is designed so that many of the core questions are comparable with national data sets, including the Survey of English Housing (SEH), the General Household Survey (GHS), the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), the British Crime Survey, and the English House Condition Survey (EHCS). A module of questions was also included on the ONS Omnibus survey (from MarchMay 1997) so that a timely set of data would be available at this baseline stage across a range of issues. Overall, the purpose of this bench marking is to compare change over time in the residents survey data with change from data across a range of national surveys. Available benchmark data are presented in this report and these will be updated as more data become available. At this point benchmark data are used at the national level. In the longer term, it will be important to match the SRB residents survey data with both national and more focused data on comparable deprived areas. Scope of the baseline analysis This report has two key sections. Firstly it explores the sociodemographic characteristics of households living in the seven areas across a range of variables, including household size, employment status, income levels, benefit dependency and health status. This section also includes an exploration of the human capital profile of the SRB areas in terms of the educational attainment, training and work experience of residents and involvement with childrens education. Throughout this analysis, it is possible to identify vulnerable groups of residents, including lone parents, elderly households and those on very low incomes. Where sample sizes permit, key data have also been presented separately by ethnic group. Annex C also provides a detailed summary table of key data analysed by ethnic group Section Two investigates satisfaction with the home and perceptions of the area. It explores perceptions of crime and other problems in the area, as well as views on the local environment and local services. It also considers how stable the populations appear to be in terms of duration of living in the area, whether they want to move and likelihood of movement. This will be an important issue to track over time since population migration can be an important barrier to sustainable regeneration The data are presented and analysed at two levels: i. The 7 main SRB areas together. Where possible the data are compared to national data to describe the characteristics and perceptions of the sample as a whole, compared to national samples. ii. Each area separately. Key trends in the data are highlighted, although it is important to stress that it is not appropriate to make comparisons between the areas given the difference in the range of areas and the fact that the SRB objectives and package of interventions differ from one area to another. 10

12 Section 2: Resident Profiles. Type of household Table 1 below provides some headline characteristics about the types of households across the areas. It shows there are important differences between the sociodemographic profiles of residents across the SRB areas compared to national profiles, particularly in relation to the proportions of lone parents. Table 1: Household attributes: Headline Figures: All households 1 Person Household 5+ persons (all ages) Lone parent family (with dep children) Age > 65 (Head of Household) White (Head of Household) Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB areas National * Source: MORI survey; Survey of English Housing 1995/96; *General Household Survey 1995 (figure for GB) 2.2 The proportion of large households, with 5 or more people, in the SRB areas (11) is above the national average (7) across the total sample but this varies between areas. Swadlincote (6) and Sunderland (5) are below that national average, whereas Rochdale (18) and Chalkhill (15) have over twice the national average of large households. 2. The most significant difference between the profile of the SRB areas and national profiles is the proportion of lone parent families with dependant children; at 1 this is substantially higher then the national average (6). There is a large variation between the areas; the proportion of lone parents is particularly high in Chalkhill (26), Bradford (21), and Nottingham (17) but the proportion of lone parent families is below the national average in Swadlincote (5). 2.4 In terms of the proportion of elderly households the total across the sample (2) is lower than the national average (26). Again this varies across areas, Hangleton and Knoll () has significantly above the national average, whilst Sunderland (28) and Swadlincote (26) are closer to the national average. 11

13 2.5 As annex Table C1 shows the majority of households in the SRB areas are either a married couple with no dependants (28 compared to 6 nationally) or married couples with dependant children (26 compared to 2 nationally). In all areas except Nottingham (0), Chalkhill (25) and Sunderland (25) the proportion of single person households is significantly below the national average (28). There are some slight differences with respect to the proportions of single men and women. For example, Chalkhill and Nottingham have slightly higher proportions of single men (both 14 compared to the national average of 12). In terms of single women households, four of the areas (Chalkhill, Bradford, Rochdale and Sunderland) have below the national average of single women households (16). 2.6 As annex Table C2 shows overall, 52 of working age households have dependent children, but this varies between areas from 62 in Rochdale, to 44 in Sunderland and 4 in Swadlincote. 2.7 A potentially vulnerable element of the community are single people of retirement age. As annex Table C shows this group make up a large proportion (54) of those of retirement age in the SRB areas, the highest being in Sunderland (56) and Hangleton and Knoll (50). The vast majority of single retired people are female (70). Compared to the other SRB areas, there are relatively high proportions of elderly single men in Nottingham (2), Chalkhill (17) and Rochdale (17). 2.8 Although the overall proportion of white heads of household in the SRB sample is well below the national average at 85 compared to 95, this reflects the concentration of nonwhite households in of the SRB areas. These areas are Chalkhill, Rochdale and Nottingham. As Table 2 shows in Chalkhill, Black households are the most significant group (4), Rochdale has a higher concentration of Pakistani households (20) and Nottingham has a very mixed ethnic minority population across all groups. This compares to areas such as Sunderland and Swadlincote (99) and Hangleton and Knoll (98) that have predominately white head of households, slightly exceeding the national figure (figures not shown). Table 2: Ethnicity: Heads of household Chalkhill Rochdale Nottingham Main SRB England White Black Caribbean Black African Black other Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese 0.2 Other Source: MORI survey; Survey of English Housing 1995/96 12

14 Educational Qualifications and training. 2.9 Analysis of educational qualifications shows that the proportion of working age heads of household without any formal qualifications is well above the national average (Table ); 42 of the total sample in the SRB areas have no qualifications, compared to 1 nationally. This varies between areas, 5 of working age heads of household in Rochdale, 48 in Bradford, and 42 in Chalkhill have no qualifications, compared to 6 in Sunderland. Table : No Qualifications by Economic Status of Head of Household: Headline Figures All Heads of Household Working Age Heads of Household Working Heads of Household (full & part time) Unemployed Heads of Household Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincot e Sunderland Nottingha m All 7 SRB areas England 1* 17* * 28*** Source:: MORI Survey. * General Household Survey 1995 for all people aged not in fulltime education. Figures for GB ** Regional Trends 2 figures for all people of working age not just head of household *** Regional Trends 1 for all people of working age not just head of household 2.10 Analysis of qualifications across the whole family unit (Table 4) shows that just under half (48) of all households in the SRB areas lack any form of educational qualifications, and this is particularly acute in Rochdale (54) and Bradford (51). 1

15 Table 4: Qualifications of all Household Members No Qualifications Of those with qualifications Any CSE/GCSE/ O Level Head of Household Any member of household Head of Household Any member of household Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB Source: MORI survey 2.11 Annex Table C5 shows that 20 of 1624 year olds and 0 of 254 year olds across all 7 SRB areas lack any formal qualifications that is they do not have a CSE, GCSE or O level equivalent. The majority of heads of households and household members with qualifications are female, for example 66 of female heads of households have at least a CSE/GCSE/ O Level compared to 44 of men. Educational attainment also varies with ethnicity; 61 of white household members have at least CSE, GCSE or O Level qualifications compared to 57 of Asian household members, 50 of Black household members and 45 of other ethnic group members. Training Under a quarter (22) of all heads of household in the SRB areas had undertaken some form of training, most of this through workbased training (20). Just 2 had participated in Government training schemes (figures not shown). Socioeconomic group. 2.1 As Table 5 below shows, analysis of employment classification data reveals that the majority of heads of household in the SRB areas can be classed as skilled or semiskilled manual workers, 46 compared to 41 nationally, and 26 as partly skilled manual workers, compared to 15 nationally. Correspondingly, the proportions of professional/ intermediate groups is well below the national average, 17 compared to 5 nationally. There is some variation between areas, Bradford (12) and Chalkhill (10) have the highest proportion of unskilled workers and Hangleton and Knoll has the highest proportion of professional/intermediate workers at

16 Table 5: Socioeconomic group of Head of Household by area Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham 7 SRB England SEG 1 & 2: Professional/Intermediate SEG & 4: Skilled/semi skilled Partly skilled Unskilled Never worked Source: MORI survey, Regional Trends 2 * base excludes never worked. 15

17 Employment status Overall, the proportions of heads of household in full time work in the SRB areas is, well below the national average of 52. The proportion in parttime work is higher at 8 compared to 5 nationally. Employment rates (both full and parttime) vary across areas, from 52 in Swadlincote, 47 in Hangleton and Knoll and 0 in Nottingham (Table 6) The rates of unemployment (10) and economic inactivity (2) are much higher for the SRB areas as a whole than national averages. Again this varies by area, Nottingham has the highest proportion of unemployed (17) and economically inactive heads of household (1) and rates for Chalkhill are also high (17 unemployment, 29 economically inactive). Rates are lowest in Sunderland (7 unemployment, 20 economically inactive) and Swadlincote (6 unemployed, 14 economically inactive). Table 6: Employment Status of Head of Household by area Full time Part time Unemployed (registered & not registered) Economically inactive (working age) Retired Base Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB England Source: MORI survey; Survey of English Housing 1995/ A more focused analysis of unemployment and economic inactivity in relation to household composition (see Table 7) shows that among working age households, there is a very high level of economic inactivity among lone parent households (5) and a high unemployment rate amongst single male heads of household (28). 16

18 Table 7: Household Composition by Employment Status of Head of Household: Working Age Households Full time work Part time work Unemployed Retired Economically inactive Total Married couple no dependants Married couple dependent children Lone parent Large adult households Family Other Single person Male Female Total Source: MORI survey 2.17 Table 8, overleaf, shows that unemployment is more prevalent amongst younger heads of households; some 15 of 254 year olds are unemployed compared to 11 of 5 54 year olds across the SRB sample Unemployment rates are also higher amongst ethnic groups; 17 of Black heads of household, 16 of Asian heads of household, and 11 of other ethnic groups are unemployed compared to 9 of white heads of household Unemployment is also concentrated in the rented sectors, particularly the private sector. The proportion of unemployed private sector tenants is much higher at 20 than the national average of 11, but it important to stress that results must be treated with caution given that the actual numbers of private renters in the SRB areas are very small. The proportion of unemployed social rented sector tenants (15) is slightly higher than the national average of 12. Across each tenure, the proportions of those in fulltime employment are well below the national average, particularly the private rented sector (26 compared to 50 nationally). 17

19 Table 8: Summary table on Head of Household Employment Indicators by Area Male Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham Full time work * Unemployed ** Female Full time work ** Unemployed ** Age 254 Full time work Unemployed Age 5 54 Full time work Unemployed Unemployment by ethnicity White *** Black 17 (19) 17 16*** Asian (15) 16 10*** Other 16 (11) 11 1*** Unemployment by tenure Social sector SRB England 8** 7** 12*** Private rented sector (1) 7 (1) 2 (5) 17 (8) 28 (12) 19(5) 18 (17) 20(49) 11*** Owner occupation 4 (9) Base Source: MORI survey actual numbers for private rented & owner occupied sectors are given in brackets to demonstrate the very small cell sizes *Social Trends 26; ** General Household Survey 1995 (figs for GB); *** Survey of English Housing 1995/96 5 (12) 2 (9) (8) 5 (5) (51) *** 18

20 2.20 The survey also explored the employment status of all adult (16+) household members (see annex Table C6). Across the SRB areas 44 were working ( in full time work and 11 in parttime work ), 8 were unemployed and 46 economically inactive. Unemployment and economic inactivity rates were highest in Nottingham (15, 55 respectively) and Chalkhill (1, 48). Unemployment was lowest in Hangleton and Knoll (4) and Swadlincote (5). As Table 9 shows, the proportion of households with household members of working age with no worker varies from 56 in Nottingham to 20 in Swadlincote. Table 9: Proportion of households with working age members with no worker. Area No working person in household Chalkhill 47 Hangleton and Knoll 22 Bradford 40 Rochdale 6 Swadlincote 20 Sunderland 29 Nottingham 56 Total SRB sample 6 England Table 10 sets out the reasons why heads of household who were seeking work (17 of working heads of household at the time of the survey) were not able to find employment. Amongst this group no jobs available was the most commonly stated reason why people could not obtain employment (29) followed by lack of suitable skills and training (26) and child care problems (12 on average, rising to 22 in Bradford). Problems with local address were not a problem over all the SRB areas () although problems with address are slightly higher in Chalkhill (8) and Nottingham (6). 19

21 Table 10: Reasons why cannot find work: Heads of household seeking work No jobs available Lack training/skills No child care available Problem with address Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB Base Levels of income, benefit dependency and capacity to cope The survey included a detailed set of questions on different aspects of households finances. This summary analysis focuses on overall levels of household income, benefit dependency and the capacity to cope with everyday expenses. Income. 2.2 Table 11 provides some information on gross income, calculated, where applicable, on a combined income variable for head of household and spouse. The results show that across the SRB sample there are more households with less than 100 per week (7) compared to the national sample (19) and there are far fewer households with more than 00 per week (19 compared to 44 nationally). 20

22 Table 11: Headline Figures on Joint Income and Sources of Income Income < 100 Income 00+ Income Support (Household) Housing Benefit (Household) 90 Benefit (Head of Household) No benefit income (Head of Household) Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB England 19* 44* 19** 19** Source: MORI survey; *Survey of English Housing 1995/96; **Family Resources Survey 1995/ The difference between the SRB sample and the national sample in terms of the proportions of households with incomes below 100 or above 00, to an extent, is associated with tenure differences and in particular the high proportion of SRB residents in the socialrented sector compared to the national average. However, Tables 12a and 12b below show that for each tenure households in the SRB areas are more likely to have incomes below 100 than households nationally and, conversely, are much less likely to have incomes over 00 than households nationally. This difference is most marked in the owner occupied and private rented sector. Table 12a: Gross Income of head/partner by tenure: SRB areas Owneroccupier Social Sector Private Renting Total Income < Base Source: MORI survey 21

23 Table 12b: Income by tenure: England Owneroccupier Social Sector Private Renting Total Income < Source: Survey of English Housing 1995/ Table 1 shows how average incomes vary in relation to household composition for households of working age at least. For households of working age, large adult, single person and lone parent households are most likely to have a low income in the SRB areas. There is less variation in the incomes of different types of household of retirement age, although it should be noted that greater proportions of households of retirement age have incomes below 100 compared to households of working age and very few households of retirement age have incomes over 00. Table 1: Household Composition by Gross Income of Respondent and Partner Working Age Retirement Age < < Married couple no dependants Married couple dependent children Lone parent 44 1 Large adult households Family Other Single person Male Female Source: MORI survey 22

24 Benefit dependency 2.26 Table 14 gives information about the different types of means tested benefit analysed by household type. It is important to note the very high benefit receipt amongst lone parents. Table 14: Household Composition by Receipt of Means Tested Benefit Income Support Family Credit Housing Benefit None of These Married couple no dependants Married couple dependent children Lone parent Large adult households Family Other Single person Male Female Total Source: MORI survey 2.27 Analysis of a derived variable, bringing together the various types of benefit, shows that across the SRB sample 7 of households receive 90 or more of their income from benefit. This varies between areas from 45 in Chalkhill and Bradford to 24 in Hangleton and Knoll (see annex Table C7). As Table 15 shows, households in receipt of high proportions of benefit are concentrated in the social rented sector. Over twothirds (67) of those whose income is made up of 90 or more benefit are in the social rented sector, compared to 25 in the owner occupied and 7 in the private rented. 2

25 Table 15: Percentage of Benefit Income (Head of Household) by Household and Dwelling characteristics 90+ No Benefit Total Gender Male Female Age Ethnicity White Black Asian Other Employment Status Full time Part time Unemployed Retired 2 25 Economically inactive Tenure Owneroccupier Social tenant Private Tenant Source: MORI survey 24

26 Debts and capacity to cope Table 16 provides headline information on debt and attitudes to resources. Given the low incomes and high benefit dependency, it is perhaps surprising that almost two thirds (6) feel able to cope. Again this varies between areas, from 78 able to cope in Sunderland, to only 47 able to cope in Chalkhill. Table 16: Capacity to Live on Total Income: Headline Figures Comfortable /coping Very/fairly difficult to cope No debts Of those with debts debts, not behind Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB England Source: MORI survey, ONS Omnibus Survey 2.29 Table 17 gives more detailed information about the extent and type of loans and the perceived difficulty in keeping up repayments. Across the whole SRB sample, 41 have some type of loan, slightly less than the national average of 46. Slightly higher proportions of the SRB sample have rent arrears (4), utility arrears (4), and loans from money lenders () than the country as a whole. However, a far higher proportion of SRB households with debts are behind with payments, 20 compared to 8 in the country as a whole. 25

27 Table 17:Summary Data on Loans 7 SRB Areas England i Loans Yes No ii Who from Friends and relatives 5 9 Bank 7 22 Credit company Personal loan 9 0 Hire Purchase Money lender etc 2 Social fund 5 4 Rent arrears 4 Mortgage arrears 1 Finance company 10 Utility arrears 4 2 Other 2 2 iii Difficulties in keeping up payments No difficulty Rather difficult Very difficult 16 6 Behind with payments 20 8 Source: MORI survey; Omnibus Survey Health 2.0 Overall, less than half (46) of heads of household across the SRB areas said that they were in good health. The proportions range from 51 in Swadlincote and 49 in Hangleton and Knoll, to 4 in Chalkhill and 42 in Bradford. Across the SRB areas 9 of heads of household said that their health had got better over the previous two years compared to 26 who said it had got worse. 26

28 Table 18: Health of heads of household and whether got better or worse over previous 2 years by SRB area Health Better/worse over previous two years Good Not Good Better Worse Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB As annex Table C8 shows those heads of household that consider themselves to be in poor health tend to be female (25 compared to 21 males) and also in the older age groups, particularly in the 5564 year bracket (6). Asian heads of household (1) tend to be in poorer health than white (2) or Black (18) heads of household. 2.2 Poor health is also concentrated amongst the economically inactive (40) and retired (2) heads of household compared to 8 of these in full time employment. More social rented sector heads of household are in poor health (29 compared to 17 in owner occupation) and more of those in the social rented sector (0) report worse health over the previous two years compared to owneroccupiers or private sector tenants (both 2). 2. The difference in health status is particularly marked in relation to benefits and income. A far greater proportion of those on 90 or more benefit (4) are in poor health compared to 9 on no means tested benefit. Similarly, 28 of heads of household with gross joint incomes of less than 100 class themselves as in poor health compared to 10 with incomes over 00. Child care and education issues 2.4 Overall, 9 of households include children aged 16 years and under, ranging from 0 in Sunderland to 49 in Chalkhill (see annex Table C1). The majority of those who work are helped either by their spouse/partner (4) or relatives (26), especially in Rochdale and Sunderland. Very few with child care responsibilities use day nurseries (4), childminders (5) or a workplace nursery (1) (see annex Table C9) 2.5 Overall, respondents views towards school education are positive: 76 agree that school education is important; 94 agree that parents should be involved in their children s 27

29 education; and 90 agree that it is important that parents are involved with school activities. Views on college/university seem to be more negative, with 48 agreeing that college/university does not prepare you for the real world (see annex Table C 10). 2.6 Despite the favourable attitudes, the proportion of parents who do not help with homework (14) is twice the national average (7), rising to 17 in Nottingham and 18 in Rochdale. Those who do help with homework spend less time than the national average, 20 spend 5 hours or more compared to 9 nationally, although in Chalkhill 8 spend 5 hours or more helping with homework (see annex Table C11). 2.7 As Table 19 overleaf shows just over half (52) of all respondents think that the area where they live is a good place to bring up children compared to 81 nationally. This ranges from a 72 in Swadlincote to 27 in Chalkhill. Correspondingly, 28 think the area bad for bringing up children, compared to 14 nationally. This average is skewed by high proportion of respondents citing the area is bad for children in Nottingham(50), Chalkhill (49) and Bradford (45). 2.8 Of those that said the area was good for bringing up children the positive aspects of the area that they highlighted were schools (29 compared to 54 nationally), neighbours (22 compared to 7 nationally), open spaces (12 compared to 42 nationally) and play facilities (11 compared to 27 nationally). Although responses varied across areas, ratings are systematically lower than the national average except for attitudes to schools in Swadlincote where 57 who thought the area was a good area to bring up children highlighted the schools compared to a national figure of Of those that said the area was bad for bringing up children the negative aspects of the areas include gangs and peer pressure (17), crime (12), drugs (11) and nothing to do (9). On most factors, Nottingham, Bradford and Chalkhill had consistently higher ratings than the national ratings. It is important to stress that national ratings are actually higher across these ratings although twice as many respondents (28) in the SRB areas said that the area was a bad area for bringing up children compared to the national figure (14). 28

30 Table 19: Respondents Views on the Area for Bringing Up Children (All respondents) Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham 7 SRB England Good Bad Better over last 2 years n/a Worse over last 2 years n/a If said area good to bring children up reasons why: Schools Neighbours Open space Play facilities If area bad to bring children up reasons why: Gangs/peer pressure Crime Drugs Nothing to do/no play facilities Sources: MORI survey; Omnibus survey) 29

31 Section : Housing circumstances and views on the area. Tenure.1 As Table 20 shows owner occupation is close to the national average (68) in Swadlincote (69) and Hangleton and Knoll (65) and particularly low in Chalkhill (6) and Nottingham (2). Of those that rent, the majority were local authority tenants (72 of those renting), although housing associations play a significant role in Rochdale (26) and Nottingham (19). Fourteen percent of renters across the SRB areas are private renters. Nationally the proportion of renters across England who rent privately is 1. Only in Nottingham, and to a lesser extent Rochdale and Swadlincote, are the numbers in the private rented sector significant. Table 20: Tenure and Dwelling Attributes Of which Owner Renting Local Housing Private Flat occupied Authority Association rented sector Chalkhill Hangleton & Knoll Bradford Rochdale Swadlincote Sunderland Nottingham SRB England Source: MORI survey; Survey of English Housing 1995/96.2 Analysis by ethnicity shows that white households are more likely to be owner occupiers, whilst Black households are heavily concentrated in the social rented sector, 89 compared to 47 nationally. 9 of Asian households are concentrated in the social rented sector, compared to 15 nationally, and 71 of other ethnic minority groups are concentrated in the social sector, compared to 1 nationally. 0

32 Table 21: Tenure by household characteristics Owneroccupier Social rented sector Private rented sector Total SRB England SRB England SRB England Household composition Married couple no dependant children Married couple with dependant children Lone parent Large adult Single male Single female Ethnicity White Black Asian Other Income < Reliance on benefit None Employment status Full time Part time Unemployed Retired Other econ. inactive In the SRB areas only married couples (with or without dependant children) were more likely to live in the owneroccupied sector than either the social rented or private rented sectors. The proportions of married couples in the owneroccupied sector, however, is lower than for England as a whole. Lone parents, large adult households and single female households in the SRB areas are all more likely to be living in the social rented sector compared to England as a whole..4 Households in full time employment in SRB areas are most likely to be owneroccupiers rather than renters, although compared to England as a whole a much higher proportion 1