Standard of Living
Measurement Framework Series
Briefing paper no. 10
Equality and Human Rights Commission
1
© Equality and Human Rights Commission 2013
First published Summer 2013
ISBN 978 1 84206 480 1
Equality and Human Rights Commission Research
The Equality and Human Rights Commission publishes research carried out for the
Commission by commissioned researchers and by the research team.
The views expressed in this briefing paper do not necessarily represent the views of
the Commission. The Commission is publishing the briefing paper as a contribution
to discussion and debate.
Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission
research reports, or visit our website:
Research Team
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Arndale House
The Arndale Centre
Manchester
M4 3AQ
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0161 829 8100
Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com
You can download a copy of this report as a PDF from our website:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/
If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the
Communications Team to discuss your needs at:
[email protected]
2
Contents
Page
Tables and figures
4
Acknowledgements
7
Summary
8
1.
Introduction
1.1
Data notes
11
11
2.
Domain analysis
2.1
Housing quality and security
2.2
Poverty and security of income
2.3
Access to care
2.4
Quality of the local area
2.5
Being treated with respect by private companies and
public agencies in relation to your standard of living
13
15
27
44
51
Conclusions
3.1
Data implications
66
67
3.
62
References
69
Appendix
71
3
Tables and figures
Page
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Adults living in overcrowded housing by age and disability,
England, 2008-11
16
Adults living in overcrowded housing by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person and religion, England, 2008-11
17
Adults living in overcrowded housing by socio-economic group,
England, 2008-11
18
Adults living in sub-standard housing by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person and socio-economic group, England, 2009-11
20
Children and young people living in overcrowded housing by age
and ethnicity of Household Reference Person, England, 2008-11
22
Adults who were a victim of domestic burglary or vandalism by age
and disability, England, 2010-11
24
Adults who were a victim of domestic burglary or vandalism by age
and disability, Scotland, 2010-11
26
Adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by age, Great Britain, 2011-12
28
Adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person, Great Britain, 2011-12
29
Adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by country, Great Britain, 2011-12
31
Children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by socio-economic group,
Great Britain, 2010-11
32
Children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
33
Children and young people living in absolute income poverty by age
and ethnicity of Household Reference Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
35
Mean deprivation score for pensioners in households above the income
poverty threshold, by age, gender and disability, Great Britain, 2010-11
37
4
Page
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Mean deprivation score for pensioners in households above the income
poverty threshold by ethnicity of Household Reference Person,
Great Britain, 2010-11
38
Children and young people living in relative low income households and
in material deprivation by disability and ethnicity of Household Reference
Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
40
Mean deprivation score for children above the income poverty threshold
by disability and age, Great Britain, 2010-11
41
Share of total household wealth relative to share of total population
by age, Great Britain, 2008-10
42
Share of total household wealth relative to share of total population
by socio-economic group, Great Britain, 2008-10
43
Disabled people not receiving the practical support that meets their needs
by age and gender, Great Britain, 2009-11
45
Disabled people not receiving the practical support that meets their needs
by type of impairment, Great Britain, 2009-11
46
Disabled people not receiving the practical support that meets their needs
by gender and country, Great Britain, 2009-11
47
Parents having problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to meet
their needs by ethnicity, England, 2010
48
Parents having problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to meet
their needs by occupation, England, 2010
49
Parents having problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to meet
their needs by region, England, 2010
50
Parents agreeing that they would work more hours or prefer to go out
to work if good quality childcare could be arranged by occupation,
Wales, 2009
51
Average number of problems in local area by age, ethnicity and sexual
identity, England, 2010-11
53
Average number of problems in local area by socio-economic group,
England, 2010-11
54
Average number of problems in local area by age, Wales, 2010-11
55
5
Page
30
Average number of problems in local area by age, Scotland, 2011
56
31
Average number of problems in local area for households
with a child aged 16 or under by ethnicity of Household Reference Person
and religion, England, 2008-11
57
Adults experiencing transport difficulties for any types of journey,
England, 2008
59
Adults with a disability or longstanding health problem that makes
travelling on foot, by bus or by car difficult by age, England, 2008
61
Disabled people feeling they had been treated unfairly by age
and gender, Great Britain, 2009-11
64
Disabled people feeling they had been treated unfairly by type of
impairment, Great Britain, 2009-11
65
32
33
34
35
Figures
1
2
Percentage of adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent
of contemporary median income by disability within age,
Great Britain, 2011-12
30
Adults experiencing transport difficulties for any types of journey,
by disability within age, England, 2008
60
6
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Independent Social Research (IRS) for carrying out the secondary
analysis of survey data to help populate this domain. We are especially grateful to
Wendy Sykes for leading the project, to Nick Coleman for analysing the data and to
Alison Walker for preparing this briefing paper.
We are also grateful to the following for providing data: Birgit Austin, UK Data
Service, University of Essex; Nic Krzyzanowski, Scottish Household Survey Project
Team; Joanne Starkey and Darren Hatton, Welsh Government; Julie Glenndenning,
Children and Early Years Data Unit, Department for Education; Rachel Murray, HM
Inspectorate of Prisons; Debbie Curtis, Office for National Statistics; Leon Page,
TNS-BMRB; Rachel Councell, Department for Work and Pensions; and Linda Bang,
Department for Communities and Local Government.
7
Summary
This briefing paper looks at the equality indicators for the „Standard of living‟ domain
for adults and children. It presents data, where available, against the measures that
have been developed for each. There are five indicators in this domain:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Housing quality and security
Poverty and security of income
Access to care
Quality of the local area
Being treated with respect by private companies and public agencies in relation
to your standard of living
The indicators for children and young people are similar to those for adults, but with
modifications based on the development needs of children and a focus on vulnerable
children. Many data sources do not cover children, while some cover children only;
not all cover Great Britain and, samples are often too small to provide accurate
figures for Wales or Scotland.
Key findings
Levels of overcrowding in housing varied with respect to most of the protected
characteristics: young people, ethnic minority groups, those with a religion other
than Christian, and those in the lower socio-economic groups were all more
likely than other groups to experience overcrowding. The highest proportions
were evident for Pakistani/Bangladeshi adults (29 per cent) and Muslims (26
per cent) compared to the overall proportion of five per cent for England; there
will be a large overlap of individuals between these two groups. Proportionately
twice as many children as adults live in overcrowded conditions (11 per cent
compared with five per cent).
One quarter of adults (25 per cent) in England live in sub-standard
accommodation. This figure rises to 34 per cent for Pakistani/Bangladeshi
adults, but adults with an Indian background were less likely than White adults
to live in sub-standard housing (20 per cent compared with 25 per cent).
Children aged 0 to 4 years were more likely to live in sub-standard housing than
older children (25 per cent compared with 20 per cent of 5 to 10 year olds and
22 per cent of 11 to 15 year olds).
8
Overall levels of experience of domestic burglary or vandalism were low (five
per cent) and broadly similar between people sharing different protected
characteristics. Younger people and disabled people were more likely to have
experienced domestic burglary or vandalism in the last 12 months than nondisabled people (for example, five per cent of disabled people compared with
four per cent of non-disabled people).
Overall, around one in five of British adults (20 per cent) and one in four (27 per
cent) children were living in low income households, i.e. households with
incomes below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. Children were
defined for this purpose as aged under 16; or aged 16 to 19 and living with a
parent and in full-time education and training. There was considerable variation
by ethnicity and socio-economic group. Half (52 per cent) of adults in
Pakistani/Bangladeshi households were living in low income households
compared with 18 per cent of those in White households. Moreover, 71 per cent
of children and young people in households with a head who had never worked
or was long term unemployed were living in income poverty compared with six
per cent of those in higher managerial/professional group households.
Among pensioners living in households above the income poverty threshold,
disabled pensioners had a mean deprivation score which was more than twice
that of non-disabled pensioners (8 and 3 respectively). This possibly reflects the
extra expenditure associated with disability.
Overall, one in ten disabled people in Britain (10 per cent) said that they were
limited in some areas of life because of a lack of support. This figure was higher
for people aged less than 45, for women, and for Black/Black British people in
comparison with other groups of people.
In terms of finding suitable childcare, regional differences were marked, with a
greater proportion of respondents in London than in most other regions saying
they had problems with finding suitable childcare.
When asked about problems in their local area, White people had a significantly
lower mean score (1.4) than those from all other ethnic backgrounds (for
example 2.3 among the Asian/Asian British group). The difference in scores
between disabled and non-disabled people was small but statistically
significant, while people with a learning disability and those with a mental health
condition had much higher scores (2.6 and 2.4 respectively).
9
Among adults in Great Britain who were disabled, five per cent felt that they had
been treated unfairly on the basis of a health condition, illness, impairment or
disability by at least one official group.
At age 19, 12 per cent of care leavers (i.e. those who were looked after at age
16) were not in suitable accommodation. The rate for young men was twice as
high as that for young women (15 per cent and seven per cent respectively).
„Country‟ was a significant factor in the poverty and deprivation measures for
adults and children. Where differences were found between England, Scotland
and Wales, Scotland tended to have significantly better results than England,
while the opposite was true for Wales.
Data implications
The quality of existing data could be improved by:
Increasing sample sizes for Wales and Scotland to allow meaningful analysis of
groups of people with different shared protected characteristics.
Better coverage of children and young people.
Ensuring all national surveys and administrative data sets include the equality
variables, with the exception of transgender where base sizes will continue to
be small.
The inclusion of booster samples for other smaller groups.
The development of data collection for transgender people.
Better use of the UK Data Service by data providers.
Building equality issues into the deliberations when changes are being made to
data collections.
10
1.
Introduction
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is currently seeking to develop
a Measurement Framework (MF) in order to fulfil its statutory requirements. The MF,
which covers England, Scotland and Wales, consists of a number of domains,
indicators and measures that are based on four major research reports that were
commissioned by the EHRC between 2007 and 2010. These studies focused on
equality (Alkire et al., 2009), good relations (Wigfield and Turner, 2010), children
(Holder et al., 2011) and human rights (Candler et al., 2011).
Each of the domains focuses on a central and valuable capability (things in life that
we can do or be, and that we value, or have reason to value) that formed the basis of
the equality and children‟s frameworks (see Burchardt and Vizard, 2007 for a
discussion of the capability approach to measuring inequalities; Alkire et al., 2009).
This paper presents data relating to indicators for adults and children in the Standard
of living domain, using the adult equality indicators as the organising principle. While
we are presenting the data in this format for the purposes of the briefing papers, it is
important to note that the individual frameworks were developed separately and are
underpinned by different methodologies.
1.1 Data notes
The EHRC is gradually seeking to populate the MF with data broken down by
characteristics protected under the 2010 Equality Act, and for other people who may
be more at risk of their human rights being breached than the general population. It is
doing so through secondary analysis of survey and administrative datasets to provide
the most recent figures available for specific measures. Where possible, data are
being provided separately for Great Britain, England, Scotland and Wales and
differences between the component countries are highlighted, but existing data
sources are not sufficient to populate all the measures that have been identified
across all protected groups and for each country.
In most, but by no means all, cases, some data are available for the following four
characteristics: age, disability, ethnicity and gender. Data are less frequently
available for religion or belief and sexual orientation and no data are available for
gender reassignment. We did not seek to cover the other characteristics noted in the
Act, of pregnancy and maternity and marital and civil partnership status, but socioeconomic group has been included where it is available.
11
The figures in this briefing paper relate to the most recent year of available data
(except in cases where two or more years of data have been pooled to yield larger
base sizes). Since administrative data may be released on differing timescales and
not all surveys are carried out each year nor are the same questions repeated every
year, the dates of the information shown in this briefing paper vary.
The category shown in bold in text tables and Excel tables was used as the reference
group for the purposes of significance testing of differences between groups (see
Appendix 1). Comments in the text on differences between figures indicate a
statistically significant difference at the 95 per cent level.
Previous papers in this series have generally presented data against the framework
indicators by each of the protected characteristics individually. These tables yield a
great deal of useful insight into the variations with respect to different characteristics
but they do not show whether or how these characteristics interact. This paper
incorporates an intersectional approach to show how interactions between the
characteristics relate to the framework indicators. Logistic regression was used to
identify which protected characteristics were independently associated with each of
the framework indicators once all other characteristics were taken into account. For
example, for many indicators, both age and disability showed a relationship when
looking at the cross tabulations. However, disability can be age-related so the logistic
regression helped us identify whether both age and disability were independently
related to the indicator in question or whether, once the effect of one had been taken
into account, there was no independent relationship for the other.
The text comments on the findings from this analysis, where appropriate. Selected
tables and graphs within the main body of the text illustrate the findings, while the
detailed statistical data that have been collected for the measures, along with the
results of the logistic regression, are available in the form of Excel spreadsheets.
Sufficient syntax and other relevant information are being provided in the
Measurement Framework Syntax Handbook and Technical Appendix to enable more
complex analyses to be conducted both by the EHRC and other researchers in the
future, as more recent data become available. In particular, researchers may wish in
the future to carry out further intersectional analysis to develop a much greater
understanding of the inequalities highlighted by our initial assessment. The Technical
Appendix explains the approach we have sought to adopt with regard to standard
errors, sample sizes etc. The Excel spreadsheets, Syntax Handbook and Technical
Appendix are all available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/key-projects/our-measurement-framework
12
2.
Domain analysis
Being able to enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security,
is a necessary condition for individuals to flourish in life. The key features of this
domain for adults include being able to:
enjoy an adequate and secure standard of living including nutrition, clothing,
housing, warmth, social security, social services and utilities, and being cared
for and supported when necessary;
get around inside and outside the home, and to access transport and public
places;
live with independence, dignity and self-respect;
have choice and control over where and how you live;
have control over personal spending;
enjoy your home in peace and security;
access green spaces and the natural world; and
share in the benefits of scientific progress including medical advances and
information and technology.
There are five indicators for adults, each of which has at least one measure with an
identified data source:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Housing quality and security
Poverty and security of income
Access to care
Quality of the local area
Being treated with respect by private companies and public agencies in relation
to your standard of living.
The list of indicators for children differs from that for adults, as modifications based
on the development needs of children and their development stage were made to the
adult indicators. For example, as part of their development needs, children should
13
have adequate indoor space and access to safe outdoor space in which to play while
the adult indicator „live with independence‟ is replaced by „be supported to promote
your future independence‟ reflecting the need for development. The indicators also
have an additional focus on children who are vulnerable or at risk. Thus for children,
the key features of this domain were identified as being able to:
enjoy an adequate and secure standard of living which enhances physical,
mental, spiritual, moral and social development. This includes nutrition, clothing,
toys and entertainment, warmth, utilities, housing, social security, social
services and childcare. Adequate housing must include adequate indoor space,
including quiet space for homework and access to safe outdoor space in which
to play;
get around inside and outside the home, and access transport and public
places;
live with dignity and self-respect;
be supported to promote your future independence;
have choice and control over where and how you live, at a level appropriate to
your stage of development;
enjoy your home in peace and security, within the wider community;
access green spaces, parks and the natural world; and
share in the benefits of scientific progress including medical advances and
information and technology.
There are five children's indicators and data sources have been identified for all but
one of the measures. The first two and the fourth indicator on the list are similar or
identical to those on the list for adults. Deprivation for children and young people is
covered in the briefing paper in the section on poverty and security of income; the
standard of living of children and vulnerable people, which is not comparable to the
final adult indicator, is discussed in the access to care section.
1.
Housing quality and appropriate accommodation for children and young people
that is also secure
14
2.
3.
4.
5.
Income poverty for children and young people
Deprivation for children and young people
Quality of the local area
The standard of living of vulnerable children and young people.
2.1 Housing quality and security
Housing quality and security are a key component of standard of living. The MF has
two measures for this indicator for adults and children, the first providing evidence on
the quality of housing and the second focussing on security.
For both adults and children, the quality of housing is assessed through measures of
overcrowding, sub-standard housing and unadapted accommodation. The measure
of security for adults is based on the percentage of people who were victims of
domestic burglary or vandalism to the home. For children and young people, it is
based on the proportion of care leavers in suitable accommodation.
Housing quality
The housing quality measures for England are taken from the English Housing
Survey (EHS), with the overcrowding and unadapted measures based on interview
information and the assessment of sub-standard housing taken from the follow-up
physical inspection. The interview survey sample forms part of the Integrated
Household Survey (IHS), and the core questions from the IHS provide the protected
characteristics.
Levels of overcrowding are measured using the „bedroom standard‟. Essentially this
is the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable
sharing (given the number, ages and relationships of the household members) and
the number of bedrooms available to the household. A household is defined as
overcrowded if there are fewer bedrooms available than required by the bedroom
standard.
As the EHS shows, the larger the household, the more likely the household is to be
living in overcrowded conditions. Around two-fifths (42 per cent) of households with
six or more people were found to be overcrowded (Department for Communities and
Local Government, 2012). At the other end of the scale, single person households
cannot, by definition, be overcrowded. In turn, household size varies with respect to
certain protected characteristics such as age and ethnicity (Afkhami, 2012).
15
Overall, five per cent of adults in England in 2008-11 experienced overcrowding.
There was no significant gender difference: five per cent of both men and women
lived in overcrowded housing. As Table 1 shows, young people were more likely to
experience overcrowding than those in older age groups; 10 per cent of those aged
16 to 24 did so, compared with less than one per cent of those aged 65 to 74 or 75
and over. Levels of overcrowding also decreased with each successive age group.
Table 1
Adults living in overcrowded housing by age and disability,
England, 2008-11
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-24
10.2
13,598
25-34
7.3**
14,527
35-44
5.1**
17,752
45-54
3.8**
17,226
55-64
1.9**
15,935
65-74
0.7**
11,909
75 or over
0.5**
9,333
Not disabled
Disabled
4.8
3.1**
All
4.6
81,135
18,214
100,280
Source: English Housing Survey. See data table EF1.1a.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures are a three-year average based on data from surveys in 2008-09, 2009-10
and 2010-11.
„Overcrowded housing‟ is defined as having fewer bedrooms than required, based
on the „bedroom standard‟ calculation.
The table also shows that disabled people (three per cent) were significantly less
likely than non-disabled people (five per cent) to live in overcrowded housing.
However, this difference reflects the older age distribution of this group, as logistic
regression analysis showed that disability was no longer significant once the effects
of other characteristics were taken into account.
Table 2 shows that people from all ethnic minority groups were more likely than
White people to experience overcrowding in England in 2008-11. Whereas three per
16
cent of White adults lived in overcrowded housing, nearly a third (29 per cent) of
Pakistani/Bangladeshi adults did so. Three per cent of Christians and four per cent of
those with no religion experienced overcrowding, compared with 26 per cent of
Muslims. The rates of overcrowding for Buddhist, Hindus and Sikhs were also
significantly above the rate for those with no religion.
Table 2
Adults living in overcrowded housing by ethnicity of Household
Reference Person and religion, England, 2008-11
% adults
Unweighted
base
White
3.0
90,340
Mixed
7.5**
558
Indian
11.0**
2,273
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
28.9**
2,193
Black
16.6**
2,398
Chinese/Other
17.8**
2,518
No religion
Christian
Buddhist
Hindu
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Any other
All
3.6
3.4
6.5**
8.2**
1.4*
26.2**
10.7**
4.9
17,635
73,989
337
1,348
471
3,636
615
1,128
4.6
100,280
Source: English Housing Survey. See data table EF1.1a.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures are a three-year average based on data from surveys in 2008-09, 2009-10
and 2010-11.
„Overcrowded housing‟ is defined as having fewer bedrooms than required, based
on the „bedroom standard‟ calculation.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household). Religion is that of each individual adult.
17
Table 3 shows that those in lower socio-economic groups were more likely to
experience overcrowding in England in 2008-11 than those in higher groups. While
only one per cent of those in higher managerial and professional groups lived in
overcrowded housing, six per cent of those in both routine and semi-routine
occupations did so.
Table 3
Adults living in overcrowded housing by socio-economic group,
England, 2008-11
% adults
Unweighted
base
Higher managerial and professional
1.3
11,243
Lower professional and higher technical
2.0**
22,197
Intermediate
3.5**
11,391
Small employers and own account
3.2**
8,055
Lower supervisory and technical
4.4**
8,384
Semi-routine
5.8**
16,288
Routine
6.0**
11,973
All
4.6
100,280
Source: English Housing Survey. See data table EF1.1a.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures are a three-year average based on data from surveys in 2008-09, 2009-10
and 2010-11.
„Overcrowded housing‟ is defined as having fewer bedrooms than required, based
on the „bedroom standard‟ calculation.
Socio-economic group is that of each individual adult.
The logistic regression analysis showed that, after taking into account each of the
other protected characteristics in the model, age, ethnicity, religion and socioeconomic group were independently associated with overcrowding. Intersectional
analysis of the proportion living in overcrowded accommodation by age and ethnicity
(the comparison here being between the White and non-White groups only) indicated
a similar relationship with age for both the White and non-White groups, with older
age groups less likely to live in overcrowded accommodation than those aged 16 to
24. Thus the difference between White and non-White groups is not age driven.
18
Although the figures are not directly comparable (the English figures refer to 2008-11
and the Welsh figures are for 2008), it is interesting to note that the proportion of
people in overcrowded accommodation was lower in Wales (three per cent) than in
England (five per cent) but this difference was reflected across groups of people with
different protected characteristics, so that similar patterns were seen for Wales and
England. For example, eight per cent of 16 to 24 year olds in Wales lived in
overcrowded accommodation compared with one per cent of 55 to 64 year olds while
the equivalent figures for England were 10 per cent and two per cent respectively.
In Scotland, analysis was possible only at the household level and not at the
individual level as in England or Wales. This analysis (from the 2011 Scottish House
Condition Survey) indicates that three per cent of Scottish households were living in
overcrowded accommodation. This was not significantly different from the equivalent
household-level figures for England and Wales (three per cent in 2008-11 and two
per cent in 2008 respectively).
The measure of sub-standard housing was taken from the EHS follow-up physical
inspection using the „decent homes standard‟ (see data table EF1.1b). A higher
proportion of adults (25 per cent) lived in sub-standard accommodation than in
overcrowded households (five per cent) in England in 2008-11. Similar proportions of
men and women, and disabled and non-disabled people, did so. However, as Table
4 shows, there were significant differences by ethnicity and by socio-economic group.
One in three Pakistani/Bangladeshi adults (34 per cent) lived in sub-standard
housing compared with one in four White adults (25 per cent) but Indians adults were
less likely than White adults to live in sub-standard housing (20 per cent). Those in
the lower socio-economic groups were more likely to live in sub-standard housing
than those in higher groups There were also some significant differences by age;
those aged 35 to 44 and 65 to 74 were less likely to live in sub-standard housing than
those aged 16 to 24.
In addition, compared with those of no religion (28 per cent), Buddhists were more
likely to live in sub-standard housing (44 per cent did so) and Christians and Hindus
were less likely to do so.
19
Table 4
Adults living in sub-standard housing by age, ethnicity of Household
Reference Person and socio-economic group, England, 2009-11
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-24
26.4
4,415
25-34
27.5
4,761
35-44
22.4**
5,260
45-54
25.1
4,936
55-64
26.8
4,558
65-74
23.9*
3,450
75 or over
26.4
2,734
White
Mixed
Indian
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
Black
Chinese/Other
25.4
27.7
19.8**
33.9**
23.9
24.3
26,858
202
618
655
888
893
Higher managerial and professional
Lower professional and higher technical
Intermediate
Small employers and own account
Lower supervisory and technical
Semi-routine
Routine
21.8
24.3*
24.8*
27.8**
26.0**
26.4**
27.8**
3,084
6,275
3,227
2,290
2,540
5,216
4,131
4.6
30,114
All
Source: English Housing Survey. See data table EF1.1b.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures are based on two years of data from the Physical Survey (based on physical
inspection by surveyors).
„Sub-standard housing‟ is based on the „decent homes‟ standard, Dwellings posing a
Category 1 hazard are non-decent based on an assessment of 15 hazards.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household). Socio-economic group is that of each individual adult.
20
Each of the devolved administrations in the UK has a national housing quality
standard in place. Each standard differs in a number of ways, reflecting the choices
and priorities of each devolved administration.
The measure of sub-standard accommodation in Wales was based on a physical
inspection as part of the „Living in Wales‟ survey. The „Welsh Housing Quality
Standard‟ (WHQS) uses an assessment of a number of aspects relating to housing
quality rather than the hazard based approach of the English measure. Based on this
more extensive classification of 'good quality dwellings' (based on seven separate
criteria, such as being safe and secure and located in safe and secure
environments), 97 per cent of adults in Wales were living in housing which did not
pass the WHQS (see data table EF1.1b for more details). As in England, those in the
lower socio-economic groups were more likely to live in sub-standard housing. The
Welsh measure additionally showed that living in sub-standard housing was more
common among disabled people, but this may be due to the fact that the Welsh
measure (but not the English one) includes a specific reference to the suitability of
housing for disabled people.
In Scotland, the „Scottish Housing Quality Standard‟ (SHQS) is used. The SHQS is a
set of five broad housing criteria which must all be met if the property is to pass the
SHQS. These criteria in turn consist of 55 elements and nine sub-elements against
which properties need to be measured. Analysis in Scotland was conducted at the
household level, and showed that 58 per cent of households were living in housing
that did not pass the SHQS (see data table EF1.1b for more details). There were no
significant differences in Scotland between groups with protected characteristics.
The third part of the housing quality measure refers to adaptations necessary for
disabled people. All households in the EHS which included someone with an illness
or disability (limiting or non-limiting) whose disability or infirmity makes it necessary to
have adaptations in their home, were asked if the accommodation was suitable for
the people with the illness or disability Overall, 20 per cent of households in England
which needed adaptations did not have them. Small base sizes for both England and
Wales limited the analysis possible, and the very small base size in Scotland
prevented any analysis at all.
The format of the question for Wales was slightly different in that it asked about
adaptations in place and adaptations required. In Wales, 24 per cent of households
with a disabled person did not have all the adaptations required. The Welsh figures
showed that households headed by someone who was in a routine occupation were
significantly more likely than those headed by someone in the higher
21
managerial/professional group to lack suitable adaptations (29 per cent compared
with 20 per cent).
The analysis above does not include those people who are not included in household
surveys, such as homeless people and those living in institutions or in multiple
occupancies. Although a new set of statistics relating to rough sleepers was
introduced in 2010 (DCLG, 2013) they contain no details about the rough sleepers,
only a count of how many there were (2,300 in 2012, see report for methodology and
caveats).
In England in 2008-11, 11 per cent of children (compared with five per cent of adults)
were living in overcrowded housing (Table 5). Older children were less likely than
younger children to do so.
Table 5
0-4
5-10
11-15
16-17
Children and young people living in overcrowded housing by age
and ethnicity of Household Reference Person, England, 2008-11
% children
Unweighted
base
12.3
8,073
10.9**
9,116
11.0*
8,123
9.5**
3,304
White
Mixed
Indian
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
Black
Chinese/Other
7.7
17.3**
12.4**
31.4**
31.1**
26.6**
23,858
249
677
1,366
1,352
1,114
All
11.2
28,616
Source: English Housing Survey. See data table CF1.1a.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures are a three-year average based on data from surveys in 2008-09, 2009-10
and 2010-11. „Overcrowded housing‟ is defined as having fewer bedrooms than
required, based on the „bedroom standard‟ calculation. Ethnicity is that of the
Household Reference Person (the adult heading the household).
22
Since ethnicity was based on the ethnic group of the adult heading the household, it
was not surprising to see from Table 5 that there were similar variations for children
as there were for adults. Children in households headed by someone from an ethnic
minority group were more likely to experience overcrowding than those in households
headed by a White person, with the highest proportions evident for children in
households headed by a Pakistani/Bangladeshi or Black person (both 31 per cent
compared with eight per cent of children in White households).
As was also the case for adults, there was less variation in the measure relating to
sub-standard housing and the smaller base sizes for the children‟s measure meant
that there were very few differences which reached statistical significance. However,
children aged 0 to 4 years were more likely to live in sub-standard housing than
those aged 5 to 15 years (25 per cent compared with 20 per cent of 5 to 10 year olds
and 22 per cent of 11 to 15 year olds).
In Scotland, the findings on overcrowding showed the same pattern by age as was
seen in England. Households with a youngest child aged under five were more likely
to live in overcrowded housing, compared with those with a youngest child aged 11
or over (nine per cent compared with one per cent). There were no significant
differences in Scotland in relation to sub-standard housing.
Sample sizes in Wales were mostly too small for differences in overcrowding or substandard housing to be detected, although, as was the case for England, children in
Wales living in Pakistani/Bangladeshi households were significantly more likely to be
overcrowded than those in households headed by a White person (36 per cent
compared with eight per cent). The differences between the sub-standard housing
measures for England, Scotland and Wales are discussed in the relevant adult
section.
Security
As is the case for other measures in the „Housing quality and security‟ indicator, the
security measure focuses on the home and identifies the percentage of adults who
were victims of domestic burglary or vandalism in the last 12 months. The figures
come from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (formally the British Crime
Survey) and the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey. Other measures of security such
as domestic violence have been covered in the EHRC briefing paper on physical
security (EHRC, 2012).
Data from crime surveys generally present prevalence of household crime (e.g.
domestic burglary) at household level and personal crime (e.g. violence) at individual
23
level. It was agreed that MF data should be presented at individual level since each
member of a household is affected by a burglary or household vandalism. This
means figures presented here differ from those in the relevant survey publications
(see data table EF1.2).
Overall, four per cent of people had experienced domestic burglary or vandalism in
England in the past 12 months in 2010-11. As shown in Table 6, younger people
were significantly more likely to have experienced domestic burglary or vandalism.
Six per cent of those aged 16 to 24 had experienced domestic burglary or vandalism
in the past 12 months compared with three per cent of those aged 65 to 74 and two
per cent of those aged 75 or more.
Table 6
Adults who were a victim of domestic burglary or vandalism by age
and disability, England, 2010-11
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-24
6.1
3,563
25-34
4.8*
5,980
35-44
5.0
7,344
45-54
4.6**
7,184
55-64
4.4**
7,404
65-74
2.6**
5,972
75 or over
2.2**
5,375
No disability/illness
Any disability/illness
4.2
5.3**
30,244
12,503
All
4.5
42,822
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales. See data table EF1.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Table 6 also shows that five per cent of people in England with a disability/long term
illness lived in a household that had experienced domestic burglary or vandalism in
the last 12 months compared with four per cent of people without a disability or long
term illness. In terms of impairment, this difference was most marked for people with
a mental health condition or learning difficulties (eight and nine per cent respectively).
The figure for Black/Black British people (six per cent) was significantly higher than
24
for White people (four per cent), but none of the other differences between the White
group and individual ethnic groups reached statistical significance. Seven per cent of
lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) people had experienced domestic burglary or
vandalism, compared with five per cent of heterosexual or straight people.
The logistic regression analysis showed that, after taking into account each of the
other characteristics protected under the 2010 Equality Act in the model, age and
disability were both found to be independently associated with the likelihood of
experiencing burglary or vandalism, while sexual identity was not. It is possible that
this finding for sexual identity is due to the small sample size of LGB people.
The intersectional analysis reflected the pattern of higher risk among younger people
and people with a disability or long term illness. For example nine per cent of
disabled people aged 16 to 24 lived in a household that had experienced domestic
burglary or vandalism in the last 12 months compared with six per cent of people
aged 16 to 24 without a disability or illness. The comparable figures for people aged
55 to 64 were six per cent and four per cent respectively.
In Wales, three per cent of people had experienced domestic burglary or vandalism
in the past 12 months in 2010-11.
As shown in Table 7 using data from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey, the
patterns for age and disability were similar in Scotland to those for England (although
the data are not directly comparable). Five per cent of 16 to 24 year olds in Scotland
had experienced domestic burglary or vandalism in the past 12 months in 2010-11,
compared with two per cent of those aged 75 or over. Five per cent of people with a
disability or illness in Scotland in 2010-11 lived in a household that had experienced
domestic burglary or vandalism in the last 12 months compared with four per cent of
people without any disability or illness. As in England, having a mental health
condition or learning difficulties were associated with a higher risk.
25
Table 7
Adults who were a victim of domestic burglary or vandalism by age
and disability, Scotland, 2010-11
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-24
4.6
1,084
25-34
4.2
1,675
35-44
5.0
2,126
45-54
4.6
2,224
55-64
4.0
2,337
65-74
2.8*
1,936
75 or over
1.6**
1,624
No disability/illness
Any disability/illness
3.7
4.9**
All
4.0
8,580
4,411
13,010
Source: Scottish Crime and Justice Survey. See data table EF1.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
The coding of crimes differs between the surveys in Scotland and England,
reflecting the different criminal justice systems in which they operate. These
differences should be borne in mind when comparisons are made between
estimates from England and Scotland.
Care leavers in suitable accommodation
The proportion of care leavers in suitable accommodation was selected for children
and young people to cover the security aspect of Indicator 1 for children. This
measure is based on administrative data held at the Children and Early Years Data
Unit, Department for Education. It relates to young people aged 19 who were looked
after at age 16 (see data table CF1.3). At age 19, 12 per cent of care leavers were
not in suitable accommodation. The rate for young men was twice as high as that for
young women (15 per cent and seven per cent respectively) but there was no
consistent variation with ethnicity. No similar reliable data are available for Scotland
or Wales.
Vulnerable children and young adults
Some domains in the MF have an indicator relating to vulnerable children and young
people. The vulnerable group here relates to children and young people in custody
and the measure is the percentage of children and young people in custody who are
26
not normally able to have a shower everyday if he/she wants. However, it should be
noted that CF1.3 also refers to a vulnerable group – care leavers.
In 2011/12 the Children and Young People in Custody Survey found that 29 per cent
of young people aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions in England reported that
they could not have a shower everyday if they wanted. This figure was 33 per cent of
those aged 15 to 16 years compared with 27 per cent of those aged 17 or 18. Among
those who considered themselves to have a disability the figure was 36 per cent. See
data table CF5.1 for more details on the data collection.
2.2 Poverty and security of income
Income and wealth are the most commonly used indicators of living standards and
are readily comparable across people and across time (Alkire et al., 2009). However,
it is also argued that these are indirect measures because they focus on the means
to secure a standard of living rather than the standard of living itself. A deprivation
score is a more direct measure since it focuses on goods and services a person is
unable to afford. The three adult measures for this indicator combine to address
these different requirements. Two of the measures relate to income and wealth, one
focusing on income poverty and the other reflecting inequalities in the distribution of
wealth (including debt). The other measure presents a deprivation score. There are
two poverty and security of income indicators for children, one focussing on poverty
in terms of income and the other on deprivation.
Income poverty
The source for the first two measures is the Family Resources Survey (FRS) from
which the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series is derived. HBAI uses
household disposable incomes, after adjusting for the household size and
composition, as a proxy for material living standards. See data table EF2.1 for more
details (DWP, 2011). The poverty indicator for children expands on the measures for
adults again using the FRS and HBAI. The deprivation indicator also expands on the
adult measures.
A key assumption made in the HBAI is that all individuals in the household (including
children) benefit equally from the combined income of the household. This enables
the total equivalised income of the household to be used as a proxy for the standard
of living of each household member, although, as identified in Alkire et al. (2009), this
tends to obscure gender inequalities.
27
HBAI analysis uses various different measures of income poverty. The measure used
here is the percentage of adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent
of contemporary median income, after housing costs, which may be described as the
percentage of adults at risk of poverty. Contemporary median income refers to the
median income in the survey year being considered. The „after housing costs‟
measure is used because housing costs represent a very significant part of
household expenses especially for those on low incomes and because they vary
considerably throughout Great Britain.
Overall, one in five British adults (20 per cent) were living in households with incomes
below 60 per cent of contemporary median income, after housing costs, in 2010-11
and so were at risk of poverty. This measure of poverty varies with respect to age,
disability, ethnicity and socio-economic group, but not by gender.
As shown in Table 8, younger people, in particular those aged 16 to 24 were more
likely to live in low income households than older people (31 per cent of those in the
youngest age group compared with 13 per cent of 65 to 74 year olds).
Table 8
Adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by age, Great Britain, 2011-12
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-24
30.6
3,494
25-34
21.8**
6,116
35-44
20.4**
7,241
45-54
17.5**
7,296
55-64
17.6**
6,918
65-74
12.6**
5,613
75 or over
15.9**
4,179
All
19.6
40,857
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
EF2.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Contemporary median income refers to the median income in the survey year being
considered. Income data are for after housing costs.
28
The largest variation in results was by ethnicity. Table 9 shows that people living in
households headed by someone from an ethnic minority group were more likely to
live in low income households. This was particularly the case for households headed
by someone of Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin (52 per cent compared with 18
per cent of those living in households headed by someone of White origin). It is likely
that this is because individuals in workless households face very high risks of living in
poverty and employment rates vary by ethnicity, with high rates of worklessness
among individuals of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin (DWP, 2011; EHRC, 2013).
Table 9
Adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person, Great Britain, 2011-12
% adults
Unweighted
base
White
18.2
74,663
Mixed
33.6**
678
Indian
29.1**
1,456
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
52.4**
1,208
Black/Black British
38.7**
1,825
Chinese and Other
36.0**
1,439
All
19.6
40,857
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
EF2.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Contemporary median income refers to the median income in the survey year
being considered. Income data are for after housing costs.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household). Analysis of ethnicity is based on a three-year average (2010/11,
2009/10 and 2008/09) because of small sample sizes.
Figures by socio-economic group showed that among those who had never worked
or were long-term unemployed, 46 per cent lived in low income households
compared with seven per cent of those in higher managerial and professional
households
The proportion of disabled people living in low income households was slightly higher
than that of non-disabled people (23 per cent compared with 19 per cent), but Figure
29
1, which is based on the intersectional analysis, indicates that this difference is much
greater for people aged 25 to 64. For example, among people aged 45 to 54
proportionately twice as many disabled people lived in low income households as
non-disabled people (33 per cent compared with 14 per cent).
Figure 1 Percentage of adults living in households below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by disability within age, Great Britain,
2011-12
Source: Households Below Average Income. See data table EF2.1.
Notes: Income data are for after housing costs.
The logistic regression analysis showed that, after taking into account each of the
other protected characteristics in the model, country was one of the characteristics
which was independently associated with living in low income households. Table 10
shows that in Scotland 17 per cent of people were living in income poverty,
significantly lower than in both England (20 per cent) and Wales (21 per cent). The
figures for England and Wales were not significantly different.
However, the patterns for Scotland and Wales were similar to those for England. In
particular, there were equivalent large variations by ethnicity in Scotland where 49
per cent of people in households headed by someone of Pakistani or Bangladeshi
ethnic origin were living in low income households compared with 17 per cent of
those in White households. Smaller sample sizes meant that it is not possible to
provide figures for different ethnic groups for Wales. Younger people in both Scotland
and Wales were more likely to live in low income households than older people (27
per cent of those aged 16 to 24 in Scotland compared with 12 per cent of those aged
30
75 or over and 33 per cent of those aged 16 to 24 in Wales compared with 11 of
those aged 75 or over).
Table 10 Adults living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by country, Great Britain, 2011-12
% adults
Unweighted
base
England
19.8
31,764
Scotland
16.9**
7,034
Wales
20.8
2,059
All
19.6
40,857
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
EF2.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Contemporary median income refers to the median income in the survey year
being considered. Income data are after housing costs.
For children and young people, the first two measures for the poverty indicator are
the percentage of children and young people living in households below 60 per cent
of contemporary median income, before and after housing costs (the adult measure
was based on „after housing costs‟ only). See data tables CF2.1 and CF2.2. Overall,
17 per cent of children and young people in Britain lived in low income households
(before housing costs), a figure which increases to 27 per cent after housing costs.
This is higher than the comparable after housing cost figure for adults (20 per cent). It
is likely that this difference is due to the relationship between family size and children
in poverty. For example, a 2006 report for the DWP found that families with four or
more children accounted for less than five per cent of all families, but more than 20
per cent of poor children (before housing costs) (Iacovou and Berthoud, 2006).
The overall pattern was very similar for both the before and after housing cost low
income measures and also reflected the differences found for adults. This latter
finding is likely to be partly related to the formation of the measure since, as noted
above, it is household based. These two low income measures for children and
young people vary with respect to age, ethnicity and socio-economic group, but not
to gender or disability.
31
The largest variation was with respect to socio-economic group and ethnicity of the
adult heading the household. As shown in Table 11, nearly three quarters (71 per
cent) of children and young people living in households headed by someone who had
never worked or was long term unemployed lived in low income households (after
housing costs) compared with six per cent of those in households headed by
someone in the higher managerial and professional group.
Table 11 Children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by socio-economic group, Great
Britain, 2010-11
% children
Unweighted
base
Large employer and higher managerial
6.4
2,012
and professional
Lower professional and higher technical
11.0**
2,877
Intermediate
22.7**
832
Small employers and own account
35.7**
1,012
Lower supervisory and technical
16.4**
925
Semi-routine
32.6**
1,234
Routine
35.4**
879
Never worked and long-term unemployed
71.2**
798
Not classified
60.0**
1,748
All
27.3
12,487
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
CF2.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Income data are after housing costs. Contemporary median income refers to the
median income in the survey year being considered.
Socio-economic group is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult
heading the household).
In terms of ethnicity, as was the case for adults, children and young people were
more likely to experience poverty (after housing costs) in households headed by
someone from an ethnic minority. For example, 59 per cent of those in households
headed by someone of Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin compared with 26 per
32
cent of those living in households headed by someone of White origin experienced
poverty (Table 12).
Table 12 Children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
% children
Unweighted
base
White
25.7
18,212
Mixed
43.3**
253
Indian
34.8**
526
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
58.5**
595
Black/Black British
47.6**
782
Chinese and Other
46.9**
508
27.3
All
12,487
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
CF2.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Income data are after housing costs. Contemporary median income refers to the
median income in the survey year being considered.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household). Analysis of ethnicity is based on a three-year average (2010/11,
2009/10 and 2008/09) because of small sample sizes.
Overall, these differences are similar to those seen for adults with the exception of
disability. Disabled adults were more likely than non-disabled adults to experience
poverty, while for children there was no significant different between the figures for
disabled children and non-disabled children (26 per cent and 27 per cent respectively
were living in income poverty). This suggests there may be more of a significant
impact on household income from there being a disabled adult than a disabled child
in the household.
The second two measures for the child poverty indicator are the percentage of
children and young people living in households experiencing persistent income
poverty (i.e. living below the relative poverty line in at least three out of four
consecutive years) and the percentage of children and young people living in
absolute income poverty. The first of these is based on data from the British
33
Household Panel Survey. The second is a further measure from the Households
Below Average Income (HBAI) series which relates the median income (adjusted for
inflation) after housing costs to that for a fixed reference period (defined by DWP as
1998/99). Children and young people are defined as being in absolute income
poverty if they live in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the 1998/99
median. See data tables CF2.3 and CF2.4 for more details on these measures.
Figures are not available for persistent poverty by ethnicity or disability because of
small base sizes.
The persistent poverty measure for children and young people varied with respect to
age and socio-economic group, but not by gender, while the absolute poverty
measure for children and young people varied with respect to age, ethnicity and
socio-economic group, but not by gender or disability. The variation with age showed
a similar pattern for all four poverty measures, with 0 to 4 year olds being significantly
more likely to live in income poverty (across all definitions) than children aged 5 to 10
years (13 per cent of the former group did so in 2005-08, compared with nine per
cent of the latter group).
Table 13 shows that overall, 18 per cent of children and young people were living in
absolute income poverty. One in five children (20 per cent) aged 0 to 4 years were
living in absolute income poverty, significantly higher than the proportions of those
aged 5 to 10 and those aged 11 to 15 (16 per cent of each age group). Children and
young people living in ethnic minority households were far more likely to be living in
absolute poverty (for example, 40 per cent of those in Pakistani/Bangladeshi
households compared with 15 per cent of those in White households).
34
Table 13 Children and young people living in absolute income poverty by age
and ethnicity of Household Reference Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
% children
Unweighted
base
0-4
20.5
3,644
5-10
15.9**
3,967
11-15
16.3**
3,411
16 or over
19.9
1,465
White
14.9
10,701
Mixed
34.3**
160
Indian
30.6**
391
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
39.8**
432
Black/Black British
31.1**
433
Chinese and Other
35.5**
370
All
17.9
12,487
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
CF2.4.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Income data are after housing costs. Absolute income poverty is defined as:
children and young people living in households below 60% of 1998/99 median
(adjusted for inflation) after housing costs.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household). Analysis of ethnicity is based on a three-year average (2010/11,
2009/10 and 2008/09) because of small sample sizes.
The overall proportions of children and young people living in low income households
(after housing costs) were 28 per cent in England, 21 per cent in Scotland and 31 per
cent in Wales (see data table CF2.2). The difference between England and Scotland
was identified as a significant factor in the logistic regression. There were similar
differences for the proportion living in absolute income poverty (18 per cent in
England, 13 per cent in Scotland and 18 per cent in Wales) (see data table CF2.4).
Deprivation
The second measure for this indicator is based on deprivation but focuses on people
in households with incomes above 60 per cent of contemporary median income,
35
after housing costs. This provides a measure which captures aspects of low
standards of living not evident with a household income poverty measure (which, as
noted, focuses on people in households with incomes below 60 per cent of
contemporary median income). Including this group in the analysis is especially
important for women and also for people whose disabilities mean they incur extra
costs not reflected in the low income measure. Deprivation scores are available for
pensioners and children). For pensioners, the score is based on a suite of questions
designed to capture material deprivation. Respondents are asked whether they have
access to 15 goods, services and experiences, and the reasons why they do not
have a good or service. Where a pensioner lacks one of the material deprivation
items for one of the following reasons: they do not have the money for this; it is not a
priority on their current income; their health/disability prevents them; it is too much
trouble or tiring; they have no one to do this with or help them; other, they are
counted as being deprived for that item (see data table EF2.2).
British pensioners living in households above the income poverty threshold in
2010/11 had a mean deprivation score of 6, which, as might be expected, is lower
than the level used to define living in deprivation (a mean score of 20) (Table 14).
However, there was some variation between different groups. Among pensioners
living in households above the income poverty threshold, disabled people had a
mean deprivation score more than twice that of non-disabled people (8 and 3
respectively). There was evidence of a gender difference which was not seen for the
poverty measure, with women having a higher score than men (6 compared with 5)
and of an increase in deprivation with increasing age, from a mean score of 4 among
pensioners aged less than 65 (who by definition are all women) to a score of 6
among those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 or over.
36
Table 14 Mean deprivation score for pensioners in households above the
income poverty threshold by age, gender and disability, Great
Britain, 2010-11
Mean score
Unweighted
base
Under 65
4.1
521
65-74
5.1**
4,918
75 or over
6.1**
3,540
Male
Female
5.2
6.1**
3,997
4,982
Not disabled
Disabled
3.2
7.5**
3,804
5,175
All
5.7
8,979
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
EF2.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Based on sub-set of the total sample: those who live in households above the
income poverty threshold, (60% of contemporary median income, after housing
costs). All those aged under 65 are female, whereas the two older age groups
include both men and women.
Material deprivation – see text.
The variation with respect to ethnicity was similar to that seen for the poverty
measure with pensioner households headed by someone from an ethnic minority
having higher mean deprivation scores than households headed by a White
pensioner (see Table 15).
37
Table 15 Mean deprivation score for pensioners in households above the
income poverty threshold by ethnicity of Household Reference
Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
Mean score
Unweighted
base
White
5.6
11,826
Indian
8.6*
80
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
13.4**
46
Black/Black British
13.8**
97
Chinese/Other
10.6**
79
All
5.7
8,979
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
EF2.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Based on sub-set of the total sample: those who live in households above the
income poverty threshold, (60% of contemporary median income, after housing
costs).
Material deprivation – see text.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household). Analysis of ethnicity is based on a two-year average (2010/11 and
2009/10) because of small sample sizes. Figures for the mixed ethnic group
excluded because of small base size.
Intersectional analysis indicated that for pensioners living in households above the
income poverty threshold, disability was a more important factor in the deprivation
score than age or gender, since the relationship between disability and the
deprivation score held both within age groups and gender while the differences with
age and gender within disability were less consistent. For example, disabled
pensioners aged 75 or over living in households above the income poverty threshold
had a mean deprivation score of seven compared with the score of four among nondisabled pensioners in this age group. However, the increase seen with age overall is
only evident for non-disabled people (from a mean deprivation score of two for those
aged under 65 and three for those aged 65 to 74 to a score of four among those
aged 75 or over) while among disabled people there was no increase in the mean
deprivation score between those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 or over.
38
The mean deprivation scores in 2010/11 among pensioners living in households
above the income poverty threshold in England and Scotland were the same (six)
while for Wales the figure was significantly higher at seven.
The disadvantage of disability in terms of deprivation among pensioners living in
households above the income poverty threshold was repeated for both Scotland and
Wales. In Scotland, the score was eight among disabled pensioners compared with
three for non-disabled pensioners while the equivalent figures for Wales were eight
and four. The samples were too small to identify statistically significant differences
between other groups of people.
For children and young people, the first of the deprivation measures expands the
characterisation of poverty by adding material deprivation to a low income definition
based on less than 70 per cent of median income. Thus the income threshold differs
from that of adults. Material deprivation is here based on a suite of questions
designed to capture the deprivation experienced by families with children.
Respondents are asked whether they have 21 goods and services, including child,
adult and household items. If they do not have them, they are asked whether this is
because they do not want them or because they cannot afford them.
The second of the two measures has an adult counterpart for people of pension age
and, as noted previously, captures aspects of low standards of living not evident
through a household income poverty measure. See data tables CF3.1 and CF3.2 for
more details.
As shown in Table 16, overall, 14 per cent of children and young people in Britain
lived in low income households with material deprivation in 2010-11 (thus a lower
figure than the percentage experiencing income poverty shown in Table 11 of 27 per
cent). This combined measure shows a relationship with disability (not seen for the
income poverty measures). British disabled children and young people were
significantly more likely to live in relative low-income households with material
deprivation than young non-disabled people (18 per cent compared with 14 per cent).
Table 16 also shows that children and young people in households headed by
someone in the Mixed, Pakistani/Bangladeshi, Black/Black British and Chinese and
Other ethnic groups were all significantly more likely than those in households
headed by a White person to live in relative low-income households with material
deprivation. For example, 36 per cent of children and young people in
Pakistani/Bangladeshi households, and 30 per cent of those in Black/Black British
39
households, were living in relative low income households and in material deprivation
compared with 14 per cent of those in White households.
Table 16 Children and young people living in relative low income households
and in material deprivation by disability and ethnicity of Household
Reference Person, Great Britain, 2010-11
% children
Unweighted
base
Not disabled
14.3
11,742
Disabled
17.8**
745
White
Mixed
Indian
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
Black/Black British
Chinese and Other
14.1
22.1**
12.6
35.6**
30.0**
19.1**
18,212
253
526
595
782
508
All
14.5
12,487
Source: Households Below Average Incomes. See data table CF3.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Low income and material deprivation: income of less than 70% of the median,
before housing costs and a score greater than or equal to 25 in index of material
deprivation (see text). Material deprivation – see text.
Ethnicity is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading the
household).
The findings are repeated for the mean deprivation score (11) for households with
children and young people above the income poverty threshold (Table 17). For
example, the mean deprivation score for disabled children and young people was 18
compared with 11 for non-disabled children and young people. So, while the disability
of a child in the household did not show an association with household income
(based on the low income measure), it does relate to the level of deprivation
experienced by the household. Intersectional analysis showed that these findings
were true for all age groups.
40
Table 17 Mean deprivation score for children above the income poverty
threshold by disability and age, Great Britain, 2010-11
Mean score
Unweighted
base
Not disabled
10.6
8,537
Disabled
18.2
552
Not disabled, 0-4
Not disabled, 5-10
Not disabled, 11-15
Not disabled, 16+
Disabled, 0-4
Disabled, 5-10
Disabled, 11-15
Disabled, 16+
11.6
10.8
10.0**
8.8**
18.0**
18.4**
18.6**
17.0*
All
11.0
2,494
2,766
2,303
974
90
193
194
75
989
Source: Households Below Average Income/Family Resources Survey. See data table
CF3.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Material deprivation (see text)
Based on sub-set of the total sample: those who live in households above the
income poverty threshold, (60% of contemporary median income, after housing
costs).
The mean deprivation scores for children and young people living above the income
poverty threshold in England, Scotland and Wales were 11, 10 and 13 respectively.
Share of wealth
The final adult measure for this indicator is described as the „share of total personal
wealth relative to the share of the population‟. The figures come from the Wealth and
Assets survey, a GB-wide household survey which collects data on levels of savings
and debt, saving for retirement and how wealth is distributed among households. For
the purposes of equality analysis, the figures for total wealth of a household have
been attributed to each adult aged 16 or over in that household. „Share of total
wealth‟ is then calculated as the total household wealth for all individuals in each
group of people, as a proportion of the total household wealth for the adult
41
population. „Share of population‟ shows the proportion of the population in each
group (calculated from the weighted bases shown in the table). See data table EF2.3.
Similarly to the other two measures of poverty and security of income, the figures
showed marked differences between groups of people with different protected
characteristics. The largest differences were with age which, as Alkire et al., 2009:
251-52 suggested was likely to be the case, to some extent reflects the accumulation
of wealth or debt at different stages in the lifecycle.
Table 18 shows the share of total wealth of different age groups compared with their
share of the total population in Great Britain in 2008-10.
Table 18 Share of total household wealth relative to share of total population
by age, Great Britain, 2008-10
% share of
% share of
Unweighted
total wealth
total population
base
16-24
13.3
14.8
4,119
25-34
7.8
16.0
4,348
35-44
13.6
18.1
6,254
45-54
20.9
16.8
6,367
55-64
24.0
14.7
6,820
65-74
13.0
10.6
5,627
75 or over
7.4
9.0
4,060
All
100.0
100.0
37,598
Source: Wealth and Assets Survey. See data table EF2.3.
Notes: Significance testing is not shown in this analysis, because percentages are based
on the share of the total, rather than percentage findings.
'Share of total wealth' shows the total household wealth for all individuals in each
group, as a proportion of the total household wealth for the adult population. 'Share
of total population' shows the proportion of the population in each group.
The table shows that the share of total wealth of those aged 25 to 34 was eight per
cent compared with their 16 per cent share of the population. Those aged 16 to 24
and 35 to 44 also had a lower share of total wealth than their share of the total
population. The share of wealth was also comparatively low for those in the oldest
age group (75 or over) at seven per cent compared with a nine per cent share of the
population. Intersectional analysis indicated that this was partly related to the higher
proportion of disabled people among the oldest age group. Among people aged 75 or
42
over, the share of wealth and share of the population were more closely matched
among non-disabled people (both five per cent) than among disabled people (four
per cent of the wealth and five per cent of the population). This reflects the overall
finding of the marked lower share of total wealth relative to their share in the
population among disabled people (18 per cent compared with 24 per cent).
Table 19 shows that the share of wealth of different occupational groups often did not
match their share of the total population. People in large employer and higher
managerial and professional occupations accounted for 11 per cent of the total
population, but 20 per cent of the total wealth in Britain in 2008-10; similarly, people
in lower professional and technical occupations accounted for 23 per cent of the total
population and 31 per cent of the total wealth. At the other end of the scale, people in
routine occupations made up 13 per cent of the total population, but only six per cent
of the total wealth, while those in semi-routine occupations accounted for 17 per cent
of the total population and only 11 per cent of the total wealth.
Table 19 Share of total household wealth relative to share of total population by
socio-economic group, Great Britain, 2008-10
% share of
% share of total Unweighted
total wealth
population
base
Large employer and higher
20.5
11.4
4,501
managerial and professional
Lower professional and higher
31.0
23.3
8,545
technical
Intermediate
12.8
12.0
4,291
Small employers and own account
7.8
7.6
2,938
Lower supervisory and technical
5.8
8.6
2,851
Semi-routine
11.0
17.2
5,637
Routine
6.3
13.0
4,205
Never worked
1.9
3.8
1,143
Not classified
2.9
3.0
860
All
100.0
100.0
37,598
Source: Wealth and Assets Survey. See data table EF2.3.
Notes: Significance testing is not shown in this analysis, because percentages are based on
the share of the total, rather than percentage findings.
'Share of total wealth' shows the total household wealth for all individuals in each group,
as a proportion of the total household wealth for the adult population. 'Share of total
population' shows the proportion of the population in each group.
Socio-economic group is that of each individual adult.
43
Other groups who had a marked lower share of total wealth relative to their share in
the population included Muslims (two per cent compared with three per cent) and
those from a Mixed or Pakistani/Bangladeshi or Black ethnic background (for
example, one per cent compared with three per cent for those with a Black ethnic
background).
The overall GB findings for age, disability and socio-economic group were largely
repeated for England, Scotland and Wales. For example, in all three countries, the
share of total wealth of people in the two combined groups of large employer and
higher managerial and professional occupations and lower professional and technical
occupations exceeds their shares of the total population (18 per cent compared with
10 per cent for Scotland for the large employer group and 16 per cent compared with
8 per cent for the same group in Wales).
2.3 Access to care
Access to appropriate levels of care is a component of four of the sub-domains of
Standard of living: being cared for and supported when necessary; get around inside
and outside the home; live with independence, dignity and self-respect; have choice
and control over how you live. One set of measures focuses on unmet need for care
and support for older and disabled people and another on unmet need for childcare
among parents.
The Life Opportunities Survey (LOS), which compares how disabled and nondisabled adults aged 16 or over participate in society in a number of areas, including
work, education, social participation, transport and use of public services, provides
the source for the first measure. The survey covers Great Britain. The second
measure is taken from the Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents (for England)
and the Scottish Household Survey with the addition of data for Wales from the
Childcare and Early Years Survey Wales.
Lack of practical support for disabled people
The LOS asks respondents if they are limited in certain areas of life such as work or
personal relationships and if so what limits them. The measure is the percentage who
say they are limited in one or more areas, because of poor services, lack of help or
assistance, or lack of special aids or equipment (described here as „lack of support‟).
See data table EF3.1 for more detail.
Overall, one in ten disabled people in Britain (10 per cent) said they were limited in
some areas of life because of a lack of support. As shown in Table 20, this figure was
44
higher for people aged less than 45 than for older people and higher for women than
for men. For example, 17 per cent of disabled people aged 16 to 24 stated they were
limited in some areas of life because of a lack of support compared with eight per
cent of disabled people aged 65 to 74 or 75 or over. Moreover, 12 per cent of women
who were disabled said they were limited in some areas of life because of a lack of
support compared with nine per cent of men who were disabled. Logistic regression
indicated that these relationships remained significant, independent of other
characteristics.
Black/Black British and Chinese and Other disabled people were also significantly
more likely than White disabled people to say they were limited in some areas of life
because of a lack of support. However, logistic regression here showed only the
Black/Black British group to be significantly more likely than the White group to say
they were limited because of a lack of support once other factors, such as age and
gender, were taken into account.
Table 20 Disabled people not receiving the practical support that meets their
needs by age and gender, Great Britain, 2009-11
% disabled adults
Unweighted
base
16 to 24
16.9
422
25 to 34
17.5
503
35 to 44
15.3
1,075
45 to 54
10.9**
1,474
55 to 64
8.6**
1,968
65 to 74
7.6**
2,092
75 or over
8.1**
2,279
Male
Female
8.9
11.7**
4,422
5,391
All
10.4
9,813
Source: Life Opportunities Survey. See data table EF3.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
The LOS also contains detailed data by impairment type. It is not possible to test for
statistical significance using a single reference group because respondents can have
more than one type of impairment (e.g. affecting sight and hearing). Instead, for each
45
impairment type, a comparison has been made between those with the specific
impairment and all other respondents with an impairment.
Table 21 Disabled people not receiving the practical support that meets their
needs by type of impairment, Great Britain, 2009-11
% disabled adults
Unweighted
base
Any impairment type
11.8
7,249
Sight
18.8**
856
Hearing
12.4
860
Speaking
19.6**
322
Mobility
Dexterity
Long-term pain
Breathing
Learning
Intellectual
Behavioural
Memory
Mental health condition
Chronic health conditions
Other
14.0**
14.3**
11.6
14.3*
23.5**
20.5**
27.8**
16.7**
19.2**
13.3**
18.9**
3,027
2,005
4,792
1,031
474
155
264
987
1,096
3,952
285
All disabled people
10.4
9,813
Source: Life Opportunities Survey. See data table EF3.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Significance testing was carried out for each impairment type individually. Because
respondents can have more than one impairment type (i.e. the categories are not
mutually exclusive), it is not possible to have a single reference group. Instead, for
each impairment type, a comparison has been made between those with the
specific impairment and all other respondents with an impairment.
The definitions of „any impairment type‟ and „all disabled people‟ are different,
resulting in different percentage findings.
As shown in Table 21, people with behavioural or learning impairments (alone or in
association with other impairments) were the most likely to say they were limited
because of lack of support (28 per cent and 24 per cent respectively), while those
46
with long-term pain, hearing or chronic health condition impairments were the least
likely (12 per cent, 12 per cent and 13 per cent respectively).
As seen in Table 21, 12 per cent of people with „any impairment type‟ said they were
limited because of lack of support. This is different to the figure for „all disabled
people‟ (10 per cent), because the definitions of the two groups are different. In the
Life Opportunities Survey, a respondent is defined as having an impairment if they
experience either moderate, severe or complete difficulty within at least one area of
physical or mental functioning, and certain activities are limited in any way as a
result. The group of „all disabled people‟ is a larger group, containing any respondent
who is disabled according to the Equality Act definition.
As shown in Table 22, a lower proportion of disabled people in Scotland (seven per
cent) than in England (11 per cent) said they were limited in some areas of life
because of a lack of support. This was because the proportion of women considering
this was significantly lower in Scotland than in England. The overall figure for Wales
was 12 per cent which was not significantly different from the English figure. As in GB
as a whole, those in the youngest age group in Scotland were more likely to state this
than those in the older age groups; 17 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds in Scotland
stated this, compared with two per cent of those aged 75 or over.
Table 22 Disabled people not receiving the practical support that meets their
needs by gender and country, Great Britain, 2009-11
% stating they were treated with respect:
Great Britain
England
Scotland
Wales
Male
Unweighted base
8.9
4,422
8.9
3,805
8.0
368
10.1
249
Female
Unweighted base
11.7
5,391
12.1
4,597
7.0**
484
12.8
310
All
Unweighted base
10.4
9,813
10.7
8,402
7.4**
852
11.6
559
Source: Life Opportunities Survey. See data table EF3.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
47
Access to childcare
The second measure for this indicator relates to childcare. The measures for the
three countries are different as they come from different sources – details can be
found in data table EF3.2. Respondents to the English and Welsh surveys were the
„parent or guardian with main or shared responsibility for childcare decisions‟. The
Scottish data came from the Scottish Household Survey. In all three surveys, where
there was more than one child in the household the respondent was asked about one
randomly selected child.
The English measure was the percentage of „main carers‟ who agreed or agreed
strongly that 'I have problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to fit my needs'.
As shown in Table 23, overall, 22 per cent agreed with this statement.
Table 23 Parents having problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to
meet their needs by ethnicity, England, 2010
% agreeing with
Unweighted
the statement:
base
White
20.8
5,424
Mixed
31.9**
277
Indian
25.2
145
Pakistani/Bangladeshi
20.3
410
Black and Black British
28.4**
309
Chinese and Other
21.5
137
All
21.8
6,709
Source: Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents. See data table EF3.2.
Notes:
Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
The survey covers parents in England with children under 15.
Ethnicity is that of each individual child.
Main carers with a child from a Mixed (32 per cent) or Black/Black British background
(28 per cent) were more likely than those with a White child (21 per cent) to agree
that finding suitable childcare was a problem. Intersectional analysis based on the
age and ethnicity of the child widened the gap between children from a White
background and those from an ethnic minority background. This was particularly the
case for those aged 0 to 4 for whom 34 per cent of main carers of an ethnic minority
48
child said finding suitable childcare was a problem compared with 24 per cent of
main carers of a White child. However, this was one of the few measures where the
Pakistani/Bangladeshi group were not significantly different from the White group.
This could be related to the larger household sizes discussed earlier.
Table 24 shows that compared with those in modern professional occupations (see
below), those in technical and craft occupations, semi-routine and routine manual
and service occupations and middle or junior managers are all less likely to have
problems findings sufficiently flexible childcare. 'Modern professional occupations‟
include occupations such as nurse, social worker, musician, and police officer. These
types of occupation can have atypical working hours which the 2010 survey found to
be associated with having problems finding suitably flexible childcare.
Table 24 Parents having problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to
meet their needs by occupation, England, 2010
% agreeing with
Unweighted
the statement:
base
Modern professional occupations
26.5
733
Clerical and intermediate occupations
22.6
815
Senior managers or administrators
23.8
643
Technical and craft occupations
20.9*
683
Semi-routine manual and service
19.8**
888
occupations
Routine manual and service occupations
19.4**
1,191
Middle or junior managers
20.2*
599
Traditional professional occupations
23.4
496
All
21.8
6,709
Source: Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents. See data table EF3.2.
Notes:
Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
The survey covers parents in England with children under 15.
Analysis is based on the occupation of either the respondent or his/her
spouse/partner, whichever is the highest
Regional differences were also marked, with a greater proportion of respondents in
London than in most other regions saying they had problems with finding suitable
49
childcare. For example, 27 per cent of respondents in London stated this, compared
with 15 per cent in the East Midlands and 18 per cent in the North East (Table 25).
Table 25 Parents having problems finding childcare that is flexible enough to
meet their needs by region, England, 2010
% agreeing with the
Unweighted
statement:
base
27.4
London
967
17.6**
North East
342
21.5*
North West
974
22.2
Yorkshire and the Humber
730
14.8**
East Midlands
581
24.4
West Midlands
740
20.5*
East
677
21.7*
South East
1,051
18.9**
South West
647
All
21.8
6,709
Source: Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents. See data table EF3.2.
Notes:
Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
The survey covers parents in England with children under 15.
The figures for Wales were based on the percentage who agree or agree strongly
that 'If I could arrange good quality childcare which was convenient, reliable and
affordable, I would work more hours/prefer to go out to work'. The alternatives were
used for parents in work and parents not in work. Overall, 27 per cent agreed with
this statement. Small bases mean that very few of the differences with respect to
protected characteristics reach the level of statistical significance. However, as
shown in Table 26, those in more routine occupations in Wales are more likely to
agree with this statement than those in managerial and professional occupations.
Disabled parents in Wales (42 per cent) were also significantly more likely to agree
with the statement than those who were not disabled (25 per cent).
50
Table 26 Parents agreeing that they would work more hours or prefer to go
out to work if good quality childcare could be arranged by
occupation, Wales, 2009
% agreeing with
Unweighted
the statement:
base
Managerial and professional
15.1
252
Intermediate occupations
25.0
73
Small employers and own account workers
17.4
49
Lower supervisory and technical
35.2**
61
Semi-routine and routine
45.7**
140
All
26.8
592
Source: Childcare and Early Years Survey Wales. See data table EF3.2.
Notes:
Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
The survey covers parents in Wales with children under 15.
Analysis is based on the occupation of either the respondent or his/her
spouse/partner, whichever is the highest.
The measure for Scotland is based on questions from the Scottish Household Survey
and shows the percentage of parents who would prefer to change their childcare
arrangements but are unable to do so. Overall, four per cent of parents said this.
Non-White parents (seven per cent) were significantly more likely than White parents
(three per cent) to say that they would prefer to change their childcare arrangements
but are unable to do so. See data table EF3.2 for more details.
2.4 Quality of the local area
This indicator moves beyond the individual‟s personal circumstances and captures
the quality of the local environment in terms of problems in their local area and
accessibility of local facilities. Alkire et al. (2009) included three measures associated
with the quality of the local area: the percentage living in an area with „unsatisfactory‟
or „poor‟ local environmental conditions (England), the average number of problems
cited with local environmental quality (Scotland and Wales); and the percentage able
to reach local facilities in reasonable time/fairly easily without private transport
(England, Wales and Scotland).
51
Problems in local area
The long running set of questions on the Crime Survey for England and Wales
relating to the different types of problem behaviours in the local area (which is
suitable for both England and Wales) is used for this measure. This has also been
used as a children‟s measure.
When asked about nine different problems or problem behaviours in their local area,
such as noisy neighbours or loud parties, vandalism or graffiti, or people being drunk
or rowdy in public places, the overall average score for adults aged 16 or over in
England was 1.5 behaviours which were „very or fairly big‟ problems. (See data table
EF4.1 for more details.) There were significant differences within each of the
protected characteristics.
As shown in Table 27, people from a White ethnic background had a significantly
lower mean score (1.4) than those from all other ethnic backgrounds (for example 2.3
among the Asian/Asian British group). In addition, mean scores decreased with age
from 2.1 among those aged 16 to 24 to 0.7 for those aged 75 or over and LGB
people had a mean score of 2.2 compared with 1.7 for heterosexual people.
Some of these differences may reflect the nature of the problems included in the
question such as „people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour,
ethnic origin or religion‟. The age differential will also partly reflect levels of exposure
since younger people are more likely to be out in places where some of these
behaviours occur (e.g. teenagers hanging around on streets).
The difference in scores between disabled and non-disabled people was small but
statistically significant (1.6 and 1.5 respectively). However, there was much larger
variation with respect to impairment with scores of 2.6 for people with a learning
disability and 2.4 for those with a mental health condition.
52
Table 27 Average number of problems in local area by age, ethnicity and
sexual identity, England, 2010-11
Mean score
Unweighted
base
16 to 24
2.1
3,563
25 to 34
1.9**
5,980
35 to 44
1.6**
7,344
45 to 54
1.5**
7,184
55 to 64
1.4**
7,404
65 to 74
1.1**
5,972
75 or over
0.7**
5,375
White
Mixed
Asian/Asian British
Black/Black British
Chinese/Other
1.4
2.2**
2.3**
2.1**
1.9**
39,145
336
1,633
995
642
Heterosexual or straight
Gay or lesbian, bisexual or other
Don't wish to answer
1.7
2.2**
2.2**
23,873
686
556
All
1.5
42,822
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales. See data table EF4.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Mean score for the number of items coded as a very or fairly big problem in the
area (maximum score is nine).
Sexual identity information is from the self-completion module which is completed
by those aged 16 to 59
Those in higher socio-economic groups were also less likely to experience problems
than those in lower ones (Table 28). The mean score for large employers and those
in higher managerial and professional occupations in England was 1.2, while the
figure for never worked and long-term unemployed was 2.0.
53
Table 28 Average number of problems in local area by socio-economic group,
England, 2010-11
Mean score
Unweighted
base
Large employer and higher managerial
and professional
Lower professional and higher technical
Intermediate
Small employers and own account
Lower supervisory and technical
Semi-routine
Routine
Never worked and long-term unemployed
1.2
4,030
1.4**
1.4**
1.4**
1.6**
1.7**
1.7**
2.0**
10,286
4,877
3,938
4,082
6,718
5,371
1,500
Not classified
2.1**
2,020
All
1.5
42,822
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales. See data table EF4.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Mean score for the number of items coded as a very or fairly big problem in the area
(maximum score is nine).
Socio-economic group is that of each individual respondent.
Figures for Wales (Table 29) show similar variations to England but smaller base
sizes in Wales meant that fewer of the differences were statistically significant. As in
England, those aged 16 to 24 were significantly more likely to experience a greater
number of problems than those aged 45 to 54 and older. Similarly, large employers
and those in higher managerial and professional occupations experienced fewer
problems than those in lower supervisory and technical, semi-routine and routine
occupations.
54
Table 29 Average number of problems in local area by age, Wales, 2010-11
Mean score
16 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 or over
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.8**
1.7**
1.2**
0.8**
All
1.7
Unweighted
base
322
484
632
621
735
605
533
3,932
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales. See data table EF4.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Mean score for the number of items coded as a very or fairly big problem in the
area (maximum score is nine).
There are no directly comparable figures for Scotland. However, an alternative
source, the Scottish Household Survey (which asked how common a number of
specified problems were in the respondent's neighbourhood) showed that in 2011,
younger people were more likely than older people to state that they experienced
problems; all age groups from 35 to 44 and older were less likely to experience
problems than 16 to 24 year olds (Table 30).
It was also the case that in Scotland in 2011, disabled people were significantly more
likely to experience problems than non-disabled people.
55
Table 30 Average number of problems in local area by age, Scotland, 2011
Mean score
16 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 or over
1.3
1.3
1.1*
1.0**
0.9**
0.7**
0.5**
All
1.0
Unweighted
base
1,022
1,741
2,055
2,157
2,240
1,947
1,731
12,893
Source: Scottish Household Survey. See data table EF4.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Mean score for the number of items coded as very or fairly common in the area.
In order to reflect the experience of children in terms of problem behaviours in the
local area, each household was scored according to the numbers of problem
behaviours identified by the adult respondent. The figures are presented for
households with a child aged 16 or under. See data table CF4.3 for more details.
Overall, households in England which included a child aged 16 or under, reported an
average of 1.8 behaviours which were „very or fairly big‟ problems. This figure should
not be compared with the adult figure as the latter is based on individuals not
households. However, the variations with respect to the protected characteristics
were very similar to those seen for adults. There were significant differences within
each of the protected characteristics for households with children aged 16 or under.
In particular, as shown in Table 31, those headed by someone from a White ethnic
background had a significantly lower mean score (1.7) than those headed by
someone from an ethnic minority group (for example, 2.4 among households headed
by someone from the Black/Black British group). Households with children which
were headed by Muslims or Sikhs also had higher problem scores than those headed
by someone of no religion (2.6, 2.4 and 1.8 respectively).
56
Table 31 Average number of problems in local area for households with a
child aged 16 or under by ethnicity of Household Reference Person
and religion, England, 2008-11
Mean score
Unweighted
base
White
1.7
9,675
Mixed
2.2**
123
Asian/Asian British
2.3**
774
Black/Black British
2.4**
461
Chinese/Other
2.1**
247
No religion
Christian
Buddhist
Hindu
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Any other
1.8
1.7
2.2
1.7
1.2
2.6**
2.4*
1.9
All
1.8
2,491
7,718
68
172
30
634
82
54
11,299
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales. See data table CF4.3.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Ethnicity and religion is that of the Household Reference Person (the adult heading
the household).
Small sample sizes meant that figures for Scotland and Wales were only available by
age of youngest child in the household and by socio-economic group with the
addition of ethnicity for Scotland. Where differences reached statistical significance
they were similar to those seen for England. For example, in Wales, households with
children headed by large employers and those in managerial and professional
occupations had a significantly lower mean score (0.9) than those in lower
occupational groups (for whom ranged from 1.6 to 2.5)
Accessibility of local facilities
The proposed measure for accessibility of local facilities was taken from the National
Travel Survey (NTS) on journey times to local facilities (England and Wales) and
from the Scottish Household Survey on access to facilities (Scotland). Following a
57
further review of the measures, the selected NTS question for England was replaced
with another NTS question on transport difficulties related to specific purposes of
journey since the original question asked for an „average‟ time which would not
adequately reflect variations with respect to protected characteristics. A separate
question for Wales was identified in the National Survey for Wales. A further measure
for England was added with reference to disability: the percentage who said they had
any disability or other long standing health problem that makes travelling on foot, by
bus or by car difficult (NTS). The NTS and SHS questions were last asked in 2008.
The NTS question asked if the respondent had any transport difficulties for any out of
seven specified types of journey (for example travelling to the doctor‟s surgery or
visiting friends at their home – see data table EF4.2 for the full list). As shown in
Table 32, in England in 2008, 17 per cent said they did have some difficulties, a
figure which rose to 26 per cent amongst those who stated that they had a limiting
disability. However, it should be noted that the questions used to define disability
included a particular reference to transport problems so part of this difference may be
definitional (see notes for Table 32 for further details on the disability definition).
Table 32 also shows that, as might be expected, there was a relationship with age
although not a clear trend. Those aged 70 or over or retired were significantly more
likely to have difficulties than those in the reference category (20 per cent of those
aged 70 or over compared with 13 per cent of 16 to 19 year olds, and 19 per cent of
retired people compared with 16 per cent of those in professional managerial
occupations). More surprisingly, 19 per cent of those aged 30-39 and 17 per cent of
those aged 40-49 also experienced transport difficulties.
58
Table 32 Adults experiencing transport difficulties for any types of journey,
England, 2008
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-19
13.2
914
20-29
13.6
1,937
30-39
18.6**
2,328
40-49
16.6*
2,682
50-59
14.9
2,268
60-69
16.6*
2,169
70 or over
20.5**
2,227
Not disabled
Disabled
14.3
26.3**
11,661
2,862
All
16.5
14,525
Source: National Travel Survey. See data table EF4.2.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures indicate the proportion who had any „transport difficulties‟ with one or more
of seven types of journey.
In the National Travel Survey, a respondent is defined as disabled if they either:
have any disability or other long standing health problem that makes it difficult for
them to go out on foot, use local buses or get in or out of a car; or if they have any
other disability of long standing health problem that limits their activities in any
other way.
Intersectional analysis showed that the higher proportion of older people with
transport difficulties was not evident for non-disabled people, but disabled people in
all age groups were more likely to have transport difficulties. For example, 28 per
cent of disabled people aged 70 or more said they had some difficulties with
transport compared with 12 per cent of non-disabled people of the same age (Figure
2).
Women were also more likely to experience transport difficulties than men (18 per
cent, compared with 15 per cent).
59
Figure 2 Adults experiencing transport difficulties for any types of journey,
by disability within age, England, 2008
Source: National Travel Survey. See data table EF4.2.
The Welsh data (which are for 2009-10) are based on a different question and so
cannot be compared with England. Overall, two thirds (65 per cent) of people in
Wales said it was 'very difficult' to get to at least one of a number of specified
facilities, such as the shops, their GP or the local hospital, without a car or private
transport. Disabled people were more likely than non-disabled people to say this (72
per cent, compared with 64 per cent). Those aged 16 to 24 were less likely to
experience such difficulties than those in older age groups; 56 per cent did so,
compared with 71 per cent of those aged 65 to 74. These were similar to the findings
for England. See data table EF4.2 for the list of facilities.
The measure for Scotland was based on the percentage of people who said that it
was fairly difficult or very difficult to get to at least one of three listed services
(doctor‟s surgery/hospital outpatients department/dentist). Overall, 18 per cent of
people in Scotland had difficulties with getting to any of the three listed services.
Disabled people (25 per cent) were more likely than non-disabled people (15 per
cent) to say this.
A further assessment of the local area focuses on disabled people (who we have
seen were the group most likely to say they had some transport difficulties in the
previous measure). As shown in Table 33, 13 per cent of adults in England in 2008
said they had a disability or other long standing health problem that made travelling
on foot, by bus or by car difficult (see data table EF4.2).
60
Although much of the variation reflected the prevalence of disability within the
different groups, these figures still represent a need that has to be met. For example,
as many as 40 per cent of those aged 70 or over said they had a disability or long
standing health problem that makes travel difficult. This compared with only one per
cent of those aged 16 to 19 in this group.
Table 33 Adults with a disability or longstanding health problem that makes
travelling on foot, by bus or by car difficult by age, England, 2008
% adults
Unweighted
base
16-19
1.4
913
20-29
2.8*
1,941
30-39
3.7**
2,329
40-49
6.9**
2,683
50-59
11.5**
2,271
60-69
22.3**
2,168
70 or over
40.0**
2,227
All
12.6
14,532
Source: National Travel Survey. See data table EF4.2.
Notes: Reference group shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures indicate the proportion of adults who have a disability or longstanding
health problem that makes travelling on foot, by bus or by car difficult.
Figures by region showed that people in London and in the South East were the least
likely to say they had a disability which makes travelling difficult (10 per cent and nine
per cent respectively compared with 13 to 17 per cent in other regions) which mainly
reflects the lower levels of disabled people in these regions.
Lack of use of public transport
The first measure for children for this indicator examines the percentage of children
and young people who do not use public transport because there isn‟t any where
he/she lives. This information comes from the Tellus survey, which asked a sample
of children and young people in England from school years 6, 8 and 10 about their
views on life, school and the local area. The survey was cancelled in 2010, so the
last results are for 2009 (see data table CF4.1).
61
It should be noted that for this measure, the sub-group differences are likely to be
driven by differences related to area. Analysis by type of area (not shown in the data
table) identified that the percentage of children and young people who do not use
public transport because there isn‟t any where he/she lives is much higher in
'Countryside' areas (13 per cent) than elsewhere. This explains why groups which
are associated with disadvantage elsewhere in this paper are not necessarily
identified in this analysis. For example, children in receipt of free school meals were
less likely to say they do not use public transport because there isn‟t any where they
live than those who were not in receipt of free school meals (four per cent and five
per cent respectively). However, disabled children and young people were more
likely to say this than non-disabled children and young people. This difference was
most marked among the year 10 students, among whom eight per cent of disabled
students said they did not use public transport because there wasn‟t any where they
lived compared with four per cent of non-disabled people. The increase with age in
this difference could reflect the greater awareness of transport issues among the
older age group.
Access to parks
Access to parks has been included as a measure as it is seen as an important part of
children‟s development. The measure is the percentage who say that there are no
play spaces or parks near where they live. The question used for this measure was
optional so it has been asked in certain schools only and may, therefore, not be
completely representative. See data table CF4.2 for more details. There were very
few differences which reached the level of statistical significance which may be a
reflection of the smaller base sizes. However, as with the previous measure, disabled
children and young people were more likely than non-disabled people to say that
there are no play spaces or parks near where they live (seven per cent and four per
cent respectively).
2.5 Being treated with respect by private companies and public
agencies in relation to your standard of living
The first four Standard of living indicators are outcome indicators but Indicator 5 is a
process indicator.1 People come into contact with a wide range of private and public
service providers in pursuit of their standard of living, so the indicator is framed in
1
Inequality of process - reflecting inequalities in treatment through discrimination or
disadvantage by other individuals and groups, or by institutions and systems, including
lack of dignity and respect.
62
relatively broad terms: „Being treated with respect by private companies and public
agencies in relation to your standard of living‟.
There is only one designated measure for this indicator: „the percentage who report
being treated unfairly by financial institutions, utility companies, housing officials or
private landlords, social services, Jobcentre Plus or the Pension Service, or who
have avoided contacting them for fear of being treated unfairly‟.
At the time of the development of indicators, Job Centre Plus/Pension Service
customer surveys and the Citizenship Survey were identified as possible sources but
the customer surveys were not suitable and the Citizenship Survey has been
discontinued. However, the Life Opportunities Survey, launched by the Office for
National Statistics in 2009 provides a source which, although limited to health and
disability, reflects the aim of the designated measure. The question asks whether
respondents felt they had been treated unfairly by others on the basis of different
protected characteristics. Those who said yes on the basis of a health condition,
illness or impairment or disability were asked which of a number of groups (both
official and social) they felt had treated them unfairly. See data table EF5.1 for more
details.
Among adults in Great Britain who were disabled, five per cent felt they had been
treated unfairly on the basis of a health condition, illness, impairment or disability by
at least one of the following groups: health staff (GP, nurse, hospital staff); social
workers; care workers; police officers; bus drivers; rail staff; taxi drivers; retail staff.
As shown in Table 34, five per cent of 16 to 24 year old disabled adults felt that they
had been treated unfairly. This figure rose to 10 per cent of those aged 35 to 44 and
then decreased with age to two per cent of those aged 75 or over. Women were
more likely than men to perceive unfair treatment (five per cent compared with four
per cent). There were few other statistically significant differences (partly due to small
sample sizes).
63
Table 34 Disabled people feeling they had been treated unfairly by age and
gender, Great Britain, 2009-11
% disabled adults
Unweighted
base
16 to 24
4.7
422
25 to 34
8.3*
503
35 to 44
9.6**
1,076
45 to 54
6.8
1,475
55 to 64
4.6
1,971
65 to 74
3.1
2,094
75 or over
2.2**
2,283
Male
Female
4.3
5.5*
4,425
5,399
All
4.9
9,824
Source: Life Opportunities Survey. See data table EF5.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures indicate the proportion that said they were treated unfairly because of a
health condition, illness or impairment, or disability; and said they were treated
unfairly by at least one of eight types of staff or officials.
The overall figures for England, Scotland and Wales were broadly similar (five per
cent for England and six per cent for both Scotland and Wales). In Scotland, eight
per cent of disabled women perceived unfair treatment compared with four per cent
of disabled men. Few other differences were statistically significant.
Table 35 shows that, in terms of impairments, people with behavioural impairments,
mental health conditions, speaking or learning impairments (alone or in association
with other impairments) were the most likely to say they were treated unfairly, while
those with long-term pain, hearing, intellectual or sight impairments were the least
likely to say this.
As seen in Table 35, six per cent of people with „any impairment type‟ felt they were
treated unfairly. This is different to the figure for „all disabled people‟ (five per cent),
because the definitions of the two groups are different. In the Life Opportunities
Survey, a respondent is defined as having an impairment if they experience either
moderate, severe or complete difficulty within at least one area of physical or mental
64
functioning, and certain activities are limited in any way as a result. The group of „all
disabled people‟ is a larger group, containing any respondent who is disabled
according to the Equality Act definition.
Table 35 Disabled people feeling they had been treated unfairly by type of
impairment, Great Britain, 2009-11
% disabled adults
Unweighted
base
Any impairment type
6.4
7,258
Sight
7.8
857
Hearing
7.4
861
Speaking
15.7**
323
Mobility
9.4**
3,033
Dexterity
9.6**
2,010
Long-term pain
7.2**
4,798
Breathing
8.9**
1,033
Learning
14.8**
475
Intellectual
7.6
156
Behavioural
19.3**
265
Memory
14.0**
990
Mental health condition
16.1**
1,100
Chronic health conditions
8.5**
3,956
Other
12.4**
286
All disabled people
4.9
9,824
Source: Life Opportunities Survey. See data table EF3.1.
Notes: Reference groups shown in bold. Significance testing which compares each group
with the related reference group is indicated as follows:
* significant difference at 95% level; ** significant difference at 99% level.
Figures indicate the proportion that said they were treated unfairly because of a
health condition, illness or impairment, or disability; and said they were treated
unfairly by at least one of eight types of staff or officials.
Significance testing was carried out for each impairment type individually.
Because respondents can have more than one impairment type (i.e. the
categories are not mutually exclusive), it is not possible to have a single reference
group. Instead, for each impairment type, a comparison has been made between
those with the specific impairment and all other respondents with an impairment.
The definitions of „any impairment type‟ and „all disabled people‟ are different,
resulting in different percentage findings.
65
3.
Conclusions
In terms of housing quality, poverty and aspects of the local area, ethnic minority
groups (in particular the Pakistani/Bangladeshi group) were generally worse off than
the White group both as individuals and as households. As shown in other research,
but not explored in this paper, it is suggested that the size of households and
whether they are workless may be relevant factors to the extent of overcrowding and
poverty amongst the Pakistani/Bangladeshi group. Households headed by someone
with an Indian background fared better and were significantly less likely than
households headed by a White person to live in sub-standard housing. People with
Black/Black British or Mixed backgrounds were more likely to lack support than White
people in terms of finding suitable childcare and accessing support as a disabled
person. Accessing suitable childcare was one of the few measures where the
Pakistani/Bangladeshi group was not significantly different from the White group.
There were broadly similar relationships for children.
Disability was an important factor in housing security and problems in the local area.
Disabled people were more likely than others to have experienced household
burglary or vandalism in the past 12 months, in particular, those with a learning
difficulty or a mental health condition. Similarly, these two groups had higher mean
scores for the number of problems in the local area. In terms of poverty, disabled
adults were more likely than others to live in a low income household, while those
above the poverty line experienced a higher level of deprivation than others. For
children, only the latter difference is true suggesting that while having a disabled child
in the household did not have a marked effect on household income compared with
having no disabled children, it does affect the level of deprivation experienced by the
household.
Some of the measures in the Standard of living domain relate solely to disabled
people. Around one in ten said they were limited in some areas of life because of
lack of support and one in twenty had experienced unfair treatment. People with
behavioural or learning impairments (alone or in association with other impairments)
were the most likely to say they were limited because of lack of support, and these
were also two of the groups most likely to say they had been treated unfairly which
suggests that people with certain impairments face inequalities in both access to
support and fair treatment.
Intersectional analysis indicated that many of the findings for age and disability were
interrelated. In some cases this meant that differences between disabled and non66
disabled people were larger for specific age groups (for example the proportion living
in income poverty). In other cases it indicated that differences by age were in part
due to the higher proportion of older people who were disabled (for example the
disparity in share of wealth and share of population for people aged 75 or over). In
the case of transport difficulties, it showed that age was only a significant factor for
disabled people. Intersectional analysis for other characteristics did not find such
relationships with the exception of difficulties in accessing suitable childcare where
the disadvantage of ethnicity was increased where the child was 0 to 4 years.
Around one in ten care leavers did not have suitable accommodation at age 19 and
just under one in three young people in young offender institutions could not have a
shower everyday if they wanted one. Poor housing quality and low income also make
children vulnerable. Younger children were more likely than older children or adults to
live in overcrowded housing and a greater proportion of children and young people
than of adults aged 25 or more live in income poverty. This was particularly evident
for households where the head had never worked or was long term unemployed
where nearly three quarters of children and young people were living in income
poverty compared with just under a half of adults.
„Country‟ was a significant factor in the poverty and deprivation measures for adults
and children. Where differences were found, Scotland tended to have significantly
better results than England while the opposite was true for Wales.
3.1 Data implications
There are some data sets where sample sizes are too small for differences by
protected characteristic to be detected even if they were present in the wider
population. This is particularly the case for Scotland and Wales, and for smaller
minority groups. Changes to sources over time also mean that pooling of data across
years to enhance sample sizes is not always possible.
Although the relevant questions on characteristics protected under the 2010 Equality
Act are generally included in the surveys, publicly available datasets sometimes
exclude certain characteristics (most typically sexual identity). This is disappointing,
as this is preventing useful analysis being conducted. While data owners need to be
mindful of the risk of disclosure, there are ways of dealing with this (e.g. by avoiding
the inclusion of area-based variables) rather than by simply excluding the variables
altogether. Many surveys do not include sexual identity at all.
67
In other cases, datasets include only derived variables with aggregated codes. For
example, the National Travel Survey dataset only includes a “White/Non-White”
variable for ethnicity, even though the sample size is large enough to allow more
detailed analysis. Again, this prevents useful analysis being conducted
The quality of existing data could be improved by:
Increasing sample sizes for Wales and Scotland to allow meaningful analysis of
groups of people with different protected characteristics.
Better coverage of children and young people.
Ensuring all national surveys and administrative data sets include the equality
variables, with the exception of transgender where base sizes will continue to
be small.
The inclusion of booster samples for other smaller groups.
The development of data collection for transgender people.
Better use of the UK Data Service by data providers.
Building equality issues into the deliberations when changes are being made to
data collections.
Much of the available data for this domain are sourced from surveys which cover the
household population only. It is important to note that these surveys routinely miss
adults and children in groups that may be particularly vulnerable or at risk from an
equality and human rights perspective, but who fall into the „non-household
population‟. This may include Gypsies and Travellers, those who are homeless, carehome residents, hospital in-patients, people in temporary accommodation and those
detained in police cells, prisons and detention centres.
This paper presents a starting point for a statistical analysis of the 'Standard of living‟
domain. It is hoped that researchers will take forward this work through other types of
analysis such as trends over time. This will enable us to develop a much greater
understanding of this domain in Britain than is currently possible.
68
References
Afkhami, R. (2012) Ethnicity: Introductory User Guide. Economic and Data Service,
January (version 1.5). Available at:
http://www.esds.ac.uk/government/docs/ethnicityintro.pdf
Alkire, S., Bastagli, F., Burchardt, T., Clark, D., Holder, H., Ibrahim, S., Munoz, M.,
Terrazas, P., Tsang, T. and Vizard, P. (2009) Developing the Equality
Measurement Framework: Selecting the Indicators. EHRC Research Report no.
31. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publications/our-research/
(This report focused on adults).
Burchardt, T. and Vizard, P. (2007) Developing a Capability List: Final
Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement.
CASE Paper no. 121. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of
Economics. Available at:
http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/_new/publications/series.asp?prog=CASE
(This paper developed adult capabilities).
Candler, J., Holder, H., Hosali, S., Payne, A.M., Tsang, T. and Vizard, P. (2011) The
Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and
evidence base. EHRC Research Report no. 81. Manchester: Equality and
Human Rights Commission. Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publications/our-research/
Department for Communities and Local Government (2013) Rough Sleeping
Statistics England - Autumn 2012 Experimental Statistics. London: DCLG.
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7
3200/Rough_Sleeping_Statistics_England_-_Autumn_2012.pdf
Department for Work and Pensions (2011) Households Below Average Income: An
Analysis of the Income Distribution 1994/95 - 2010/11. Available at:
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2011/pdf_files/full_hbai12.pdf
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2012) Physical Security. Measurement
Framework Series Briefing Paper no. 4. Manchester: Equality and Human
Rights Commission.
69
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2013) Productive and Valued Activities.
Measurement Framework Series Briefing Paper no. 8. Manchester: Equality
and Human Rights Commission.
Holder, H., Tsang, T. and Vizard, P. (2009) Developing the Children's Measurement
Framework: Selecting the Indicators. EHRC Research Report no. 76.
Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publications/our-research/
(This report focused on children).
Iacovou, M. and Berthoud, R. (2006) The Economic Position of Large Families. DWP
Report no. 358. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
Wigfield, A. and Turner, R. (2010) Good Relations Measurement Framework. EHRC
Research Report no. 60. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publications/our-research/
Other key sources:
Burchardt, T. and Vizard, P. (2009) Developing an Equality Measurement
Framework: A List of Substantive Freedoms for Adults and Children. EHRC
Research Report no. 18. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publications/our-research/
(This report developed child capabilities and revised the adult capabilities list).
Burchardt, T., Tsang, T. and Vizard, P. (2009) Specialist Consultation on the List of
Central and Valuable Capabilities for Children. EHRC Research Report no. 41.
Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available at:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publications/our-research/
(This report revised the child capabilities list).
Equalities Review (2007) Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities
Review. London: Cabinet Office, 2007. Available from:
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalitiesreview/
(This report recommended a common framework for measuring progress
towards equality).
70
Appendix
1.
Categories used in equality characteristics
A large number of different surveys and administrative sources have been used in
the analysis presented in this briefing paper. Where ever possible the characteristics
protected under the 2010 Equality Act have been presented in the categories
identified below to enable comparisons across sources. This means in some cases
these do not match published data relating to the original source. For most of the
data presented in this paper categories were self-defined.
The category shown in bold was used as the reference group for purposes of
significance testing of differences between groups.
Age: 16-24; 25-34; 35-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65-74; 75+
Children: 0-4; 5-10; 11-15. There is separate reporting for 16-17 year olds.
Disability: No disability/illness; any disability/illness.
Ethnicity: White; Mixed; Indian; Pakistani/Bangladeshi; Black or Black British;
Chinese or Other.
Gender: Male; female.
Religion: No religion; Buddhist; Christian; Hindu; Jewish; Muslim; Sikh; Other.
Sexual identity: Heterosexual or straight; gay, lesbian, bisexual or other.
Socio-economic group: Large employer and higher managerial and professional
occupations; lower professional and higher technical occupations; intermediate
occupations; small employers and own account workers; lower supervisory and
technical occupations; semi-routine occupations; routine occupations; never worked.
2.
Sources used for the analysis
Administrative data on care leavers
British Crime Survey/Crime Survey for England and Wales
British Household Panel Survey/Understanding Society
Childcare and Early Years Survey (Wales)
Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents (England)
71
Children and Young People in Custody Survey
English Housing Survey
Family Resources Survey
Integrated Household Survey
Households Below Average Income
Life Opportunities Survey
Living in Wales survey
National Travel Survey
Scottish Crime and Justice Survey
Scottish House Condition Survey
Scottish Household Survey
Tellus Survey
Wealth and Assets Survey
72