Newham Household Panel Survey

UNDERSTANDING NEWHAM 2015Findings from Wave 8 of the Newham Household Panel Surveys

JULY 2016

Understanding Newham 2015: Findings from Wave 8 of the Newham Household Panel Survey

© London Borough of Newham– all rights reserved.

The contents of this report constitute the sole and exclusive property of London Borough of Newham. London Borough of Newham retains all right, title and interest, including without limitation copyright, in or to any trademarks, technologies, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how included or arising out of this report or used in connection with the preparation of this report. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

14-088296-01 | FINAL | Public | This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research, ISO 20252:2012, and with the Ipsos MORI Terms and Conditions which can be found at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/terms. © Ipsos MORI 2016.


Foreword The London Borough of Newham is committed to enabling residents of Newham to build their personal, community and economic resilience. To do this we need to understand residents, their household circumstances and the issues they face. This is only achieved by undertaking high standard evidence based research of which the Newham Household Panel Survey (NHPS) is a great example. We use research of high scientific quality to find out about our residents and Newham is the only Local Authority in the UK to conduct a panel survey. This report features findings from the 8th wave of NHPS; it contains important information on a range of areas; income and poverty levels, economic situation, education and employment, housing, health and wellbeing, cohesion, social networks and support and crime and anti-social behaviour. I am pleased headline findings show positive satisfaction with the Council overall and increasing satisfaction with housing services. Newham residents have higher levels of life satisfaction compared to those in England and London. Compared to the last wave of NHPS residents are now more connected both digitally and socially, with a notable increase in internet access and weekly contact with friends and family. Residents are feeling safer compared to 2013, fear of crime has dropped and more residents feel safe walking in Newham during the day and after dark. The report also highlights that Newham residents are now feeling economically better off, median household income has increased and poverty levels have dropped but both are still worse than the London and National average. Underpayment of the National Minimum Wage is also still a problem with one in five employees working for less than the Minimum wage. These findings inform policy development at Newham and make sure we target the issues resident face and are concerned about. This in turn helps to build a resilient place for people where they choose to live, work and stay. I hope you find this report interesting.

Sir Robin Wales Mayor of Newham


Contents

1 Executive summary ................................................................................................. 7

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Overview and background ..................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Survey objectives .................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.4 Interpretation of the data ........................................................................................................ 17 2.5 Structure of the report ............................................................................................................. 18 2.6 Acknowledgements................................................................................................................. 19

3 Personal resilience ................................................................................................ 20

3.1 Equality, diversity and inclusion ............................................................................................. 22 3.2 Education and qualifications .................................................................................................. 26 3.3 Families and childcare ............................................................................................................ 29 3.4 Internet access ........................................................................................................................ 30 3.5 Affordability of goods and services ........................................................................................ 32 3.6 Health and wellbeing .............................................................................................................. 36

4 Economic resilience .............................................................................................. 57

4.1 Employment and wages .......................................................................................................... 60 4.2 Household income and financial management .................................................................... 69 4.3 Financial resilience ................................................................................................................. 80 4.4 Poverty and deprivation.......................................................................................................... 82

5 Community resilience ........................................................................................... 88

5.1 Community cohesion .............................................................................................................. 91 5.2 Social networks ....................................................................................................................... 95 5.3 Civic participation ................................................................................................................ 100 5.4 Voting..................................................................................................................................... 103 5.5 Housing .................................................................................................................................. 105 5.6 Crime and anti-social behaviour .......................................................................................... 109

6 Newham services ................................................................................................ 119

6.1 Council satisfaction .............................................................................................................. 120 6.2 Satisfaction with key services ............................................................................................... 122

7 Appendix A: Technical note ............................................................................... 126

7.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 126 7.2 Responses at Wave 8 ............................................................................................................ 130 7.3 Panel attrition ........................................................................................................................ 131 7.4 Demographic profile of the Newham Household Panel ...................................................... 132 7.5 Further characteristics of panel attrition .............................................................................. 135


7.6 Weighting ............................................................................................................................... 136 7.7 Longitudinal and cross-sectional samples used in analysis ................................................ 138 7.8 Statistical reliability ............................................................................................................... 138 7.9 Statistical analysis ................................................................................................................. 140 7.10 Values Modes segmentation ................................................................................................ 141 7.11 Derived variables .................................................................................................................. 144 7.12 Reference of external data sources ..................................................................................... 154

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 – Length of time in Newham ................................................................................................ 23 Figure 3.2 – Profile of Newham residents by ethnic profile .................................................................. 23 Figure 3.3 – Internet access in Newham .............................................................................................. 31 Figure 3.4 – Principal online activities .................................................................................................. 32 Figure 3.5 – Amount of exercise taken by Newham residents ............................................................. 39 Figure 3.6 – Prevalence of smoking in Newham .................................................................................. 40 Figure 3.7 – Unhealthy behaviours exhibited by Newham residents .................................................. 43 Figure 3.8 – Change in panellist’s healthy and unhealthy behaviour since 2013 (Wave 7) .............. 46 Figure 3.9 – % Satisfied with aspects of life within Newham ................................................................ 48 Figure 3.10 – An illustrative case study of a resident with a low resilience to stress.......................... 51 Figure 3.11 – An illustrative case study of a resident with a high resilience to stress ........................ 51 Figure 4.1 – Labour market status by gender: 25 to 55 year olds in Newham .................................... 62 Figure 4.2 – An illustrative case study of a resident who does not receive the National Minimum Wage ..................................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 4.3 – Proportion of Newham residents in receipt of means-tested benefit payments ............. 69 Figure 4.4 – Proportion of Newham tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit .......................................... 71 Figure 4.5 – Distribution of household income in Newham .................................................................. 72 Table 4.3 – Residents’ perception of their financial situation over time ............................................. 78 Figure 4.6 – Incidence of saving among Newham residents ............................................................... 81 Figure 4.7 – Child material deprivation ................................................................................................ 87 Figure 5.1 – Resident views on community cohesion over time .......................................................... 92 Figure 5.2 – Proportion of Newham residents’ friends from their ethnic group ................................... 92 Figure 5.3 – Residents’ frequency of contact with friends and family ................................................. 97 Figure 5.4 – Changes in Newham residents’ tenure over time .......................................................... 106 Figure 5.5 – Changes to the rented sector in Newham over time ..................................................... 108 Figure 5.6 – Residents feeling safe during the day over time ............................................................ 111 Figure 5.7 – Residents feeling safe during the day and after dark over time ................................... 112 Figure 5.8 – Occurrence of ASB in Newham over time – chart I ........................................................ 114 Figure 5.9 – Occurrence of ASB in Newham over time – chart II ....................................................... 115 Figure 6.1 – Overall satisfaction with Newham Council .................................................................... 120 Figure 6.2 – Ratings of Newham Council services ............................................................................. 123 Figure 6.3 – Ratings of other services and facilities ........................................................................... 124


List of Tables Table 2.1 ---- Previous waves of Understanding Newham ...................................................................... 18 Table 3.1 ---- Profile of Newham residents by religious affiliation over time ......................................... 24 Table 3.2 ---- First languages spoken by Newham residents ................................................................. 25 Table 3.3 ---- Formal qualifications amongst Newham Residents with London and UK benchmarks .. 29 Table 3.4 ---- Inability of households to afford goods and services that they would like ..................... 33 Table 3.5 ---- Proportion of households that own consumer goods ....................................................... 35 Table 3.6 ---- Proportion of residents falling into BMI category by Wave and by Gender .................... 37 Table 3.7 ---- Fruit and vegetable consumption within Newham ........................................................... 38 Table 3.8 ---- Key drivers of unhealthy behaviour .................................................................................. 45 Table 3.9 ---- Resilience to stress and poverty before housing costs and after housing costs ............. 50 Table 3.10 ---- Key drivers of Brief Resilience .......................................................................................... 52 Table 3.11 ---- Values Modes in Newham ............................................................................................... 53 Table 4.1 ---- Work status of Newham residents over time ..................................................................... 60 Table 4.2 ---- Longitudinal analysis of factors related to change in household income ...................... 74 Table 4.4 ---- Key drivers of perceptions of financial difficulty .............................................................. 79 Table 4.5 ---- Longitudinal analysis of factors linked with transition into poverty ................................. 84 Table 4.6 ---- Longitudinal analysis of factors linked with transition out of poverty .............................. 85 Table 5.1 ---- Value Mode groups ---- friendship group ethnic breakdown .............................................. 94 Table 5.2 ---- Value Mode groups ---- frequency of meeting friends and family ...................................... 94 Table 5.3 ---- The proportion of residents who feel they can seek advice from a neighbour ............... 96 Table 5.4 ---- Key driver analysis: visiting friends and family ................................................................. 99 Table 5.5 ---- Longitudinal key driver analysis: frequency of visiting friends and family .................... 100 Table 5.6 ---- Longitudinal key driver analysis: frequency of attending community events ............... 102 Table 5.7 ---- Breakdown of responses to voting question based on date of interview completion .. 103 Table 5.8 ---- Voting record of Values Modes groups ........................................................................... 105 Table 5.9 ---- Private renting and owner-occupation by age ............................................................... 107 Table 5.10 ---- Satisfaction with accommodation by tenure type (% satisfied) .................................. 109 Table 5.11 ---- Key driver analysis: feeling safe walking alone after dark .......................................... 113 Table 5.12 ---- Perceptions different ASB as a common problem locally (% very/ fairly common) ... 116 Table 6.1 ---- Key drivers of satisfaction with Newham Council .......................................................... 122 Table 7.1 ---- NHPS Wave 8 response summary .................................................................................... 130 Table 7.2 ---- The final fieldwork outcomes for the panel sample ........................................................ 131 Table 7.3 ---- Final fieldwork outcomes of ineligible panel sample cases .......................................... 132 Table 7.4 ---- Profile of former and continuing members of the Newham Household Panel (unweighted) ...................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 7.5 ---- Proportion of Wave 7 respondents interviewed at Wave 8 by demographic profile (unweighted ---- row %s) ....................................................................................................................... 134 Table 7.6 ---- Further characteristics of panel responders at Wave 8 (unweighted ---- row %s) ........... 135 Table 7.7 ---- Computed weights ........................................................................................................... 136 Table 7.8 ---- Predictor variables for longitudinal weights ................................................................... 137 Table 7.9 ---- Statistical reliability for different types of analysis ......................................................... 139 Table 7.10 ---- Estimate precision for effective sample sizes................................................................ 140 Table 7.11 ---- Values Modes questions ................................................................................................ 142 Table 7.12 ---- Values Modes questions ................................................................................................ 143 Table 7.13 ---- Values Modes questions ................................................................................................ 143 Table 7.14 ---- Values Modes questions ................................................................................................ 144 Table 7.15 ---- Threshold used in new income estimates ..................................................................... 152 Table 7.16 ---- OECD Equivalisation Scale ............................................................................................ 153

Understanding Newham 2015: Findings from Wave 8 of the Newham Household Panel Survey 7

1 Executive summary Overview

The Newham Household Panel Survey (NHPS), also known as Understanding Newham, is a longitudinal panel survey – currently in its eighth wave – which is designed to provide Newham Council with insight into the changing needs of Newham residents. It is partly modelled on the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which has now been incorporated into Understanding Society1, to enable the Council to understand how the borough compares nationally.

Understanding Newham Wave 8 was conducted by independent researchers Ipsos MORI, between 17 April and 6 September 2015. The results are based on 1,024 face-to-face interviews conducted in-home among adults aged 16+; 532 from existing panel households and 492 from ‘fresh’ households.

This report focuses on the survey results as they relate to the key areas of personal, community and economic resilience, identified by the Council as central to helping the people of Newham thrive2.

Personal resilience

Newham’s ethnic profile remains largely unchanged since 2011, though the growing numbers of ‘new’ residents from Eastern Europe indicate the borough may become even more diverse in the future. Two-in-five (40%) new residents are from a non-British White background - primarily Polish, Lithuanian and Romanian - compared to a quarter (23%) in 2013.

When it comes to educational levels and skills, though literacy levels in the borough have held firm since 2013, confidence in numeracy has fallen. Six-in-ten residents (61%) report being ‘very confident’ with their numeracy skills; a fall of six percentage points from 2013 (67%). Older residents are

1 Understanding Society is an academic study that captures important information every year about the social and economic circumstances and attitudes of people living in 40,000 UK households. Adults are interviewed every 12 months either face-to-face or over the phone. For more information visit: https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/ 2 Outlined in the Council’s report ‘Resilience: making it happen’, Newham Council (2013): http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council and Democracy/MakingResilienceHappenanupdateondelivery.pdf. This framework builds on previous work: ‘Quid pro quo, not status quo’, Newham Council (2011): http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council and Democracy/Whyweneedawelfarestatethatbuildsresilience.pdf


more likely to report issues with numeracy and literacy, particularly residents from non-British White backgrounds3.

In Newham, 42 per cent of residents have no formal qualifications. This compares to just nine per cent of people living in London and 13 per cent in the UK4, and represents an increase on 2013 levels (when it was 35%). At the same time, just a quarter of Newham residents (25%) have a Higher Education qualification, compared with almost half of Londoners (46%) and over a third of people in the UK (36%).

Use of childcare in Newham has fallen since 2013. Of residents who have children under the age of 16, a quarter (28%) now use some form of childcare; a fall that appears driven more by formal5 rather than informal6 childcare usage. Childcare use is lower in Newham than in the UK and London7.

Internet penetration among Newham households has increased, particularly via mobile phone networks – 86 per cent of Newham households now have access to the internet. However, there are still pockets of the population – namely older residents, disabled residents, those from lower income quartiles, and social tenants - where internet use remains comparatively low.

When it comes to the physical health of Newham residents, whilst overall BMI8 is below national averages9, half of local residents are overweight or obese (49%).

Furthermore, the proportion of Newham residents who meet government guidelines for fruit and vegetable consumption and exercise has fallen. Just one-in-three (34%) now eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day at least five times a week. Levels of physical activity in Newham have also fallen - just a quarter of residents (23%) now do at least 30 minutes of exercise five times a week, compared with over a quarter of residents in 2013 (28%). Smoking and alcohol consumption remains largely static - just 35 per cent of Newham residents drink alcohol and one-in-five residents (19%) smoke.

3 This group is primarily made up of those from Lithuania, Poland and Romania 4 Data for UK and London are taken from Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014) 5 Formal childcare includes using a child minder, sending a child to nursery school or nursery class; special day school or nursery or unit for children with special educational needs; day nursery or crèche; playgroup; breakfast club; after school club, or holiday scheme on or off school/ nursery school site 6 Informal childcare includes using a nanny, a babysitter or a friend or relative for childcare 7 Data for UK and London are taken from Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014) 8 BMI or Body Mass Index gives the ratio of a person’s weight compared with their height. BMI has been calculated using the standard formula: weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared (kg/m2). It has been collected for all respondents who provided this information. 9 Health Survey for England (2014)


Residents with lower incomes are more likely to display multiple unhealthy behaviours: they are less likely to eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly. Gender and ethnicity also appear to influence healthy living.

Over three-quarters (77%) of residents say they are satisfied with their life. This has remained consistent over time, while life satisfaction in London and the UK has fallen10. However, at the same time 21 per cent of Newham residents have low resilience to stress11 – i.e. they are less able to cope with, or ‘bounce back’ from, stressful situations. Social isolation is a key factor affecting resilience to stress, as is being in poverty, with the data suggesting that unmanageable housing costs are the driving factor here. Furthermore, low resilience to stress is particularly visible among older residents and those with a limiting health condition or disability.

Economic resilience

The proportion of Newham residents in work has continued to increase since 2011, with half of residents (48%) in paid employment full- or part- time. Employment among working-age residents (73%) is in line with the national average12.

Unemployment in Newham has also increased marginally – from seven per cent in 2013, to 10 per cent in 2015. There is a gender gap emerging in employment levels, with working-age women significantly more likely to define themselves as unemployed compared to working-age men (13% compared to four per cent). Yet they are no less likely to report being in part-time work, suggesting women in Newham have greater issues accessing work opportunities.

Underemployment is also an issue in Newham, particularly among part-time workers, one-third (33%) of whom would like to work longer hours at their current rate of pay.

Pay and wages in Newham have fallen in real terms, and median pay is three-quarters of the national average. The median gross weekly pay of employees in Newham is £323.08, substantially below the national average of £417.9013. And while hourly pay has increased in the borough (median

10 Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014) 11 Based on a series of questions used to measure whether a person feels they are able to recover from stressful situations. See: The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back, Bruce W. Smith et al (2010) 12 National figures from Labour Market Statistics (August 2015): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/august-2015/statistical-bulletin.html. It should be noted that ONS UK Labour Market Statistics are based on the working population from 16-64. 13 National median pay is taken from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (latest data for 2014): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html


hourly pay is now £8.87 per hour compared to £8.65 in 2013), it too is below national and London levels (£11.61 and £15.81 respectively)14. Notably, the increase in hourly rates does not have had a knock-on effect on monthly pay for employees in Newham, suggesting increased pay rates have been offset by individuals working fewer hours.

Underpayment of the National Minimum Wage is still a problem in Newham, with one-in-five (19%) employees being paid less than £6.5015 per hour – similar to the proportions witnessed in 2013. Underpayment of the minimum wage is highest in the Retail sector, where one-in-three (32%) employees earn below the minimum wage. Underpayment of the London Living Wage (set at £9.1516 per hour) is more pronounced. More than half (53%) of employed Newham residents earn less than the London Living Wage; an increase since 2013 (when it was 48%), reflecting wider trends witnessed across London17.

Household incomes in Newham are increasing. Median net equivalised household income before housing costs in Newham is £18,604 (mean £21,439), which equates to £358 per week. In 2013 it was £15,704. However, this remains well below the national level of £453 per week18. High housing costs only exacerbate this - median net equivalised household income after housing costs falls to £14,466 (mean £17,186) per year, or £278 per week. While this again represents an improvement on 2013 levels (when it was £12,172) it still compares comparatively poorly to a national figure of £386 per week19. Private renters are particularly badly affected by high housing costs – both absolute and relative to their incomes – compared to other tenures. For example, whereas the median net equivalised household income after housing costs is 88% of median income before housing costs for both owner-occupiers and social renters, this falls to 73% among private renters.

Residents’ perceptions of their current financial situation have improved since 2013. Half of Newham residents (49%) say they are ‘living comfortably’ or ‘doing alright’ these days (up from 42% in 2013), while one-in-five (19%) find it difficult.

14 It should be noted that the calculation for gross hourly pay used in Understanding Newham differs from national statistics, since it includes total pay for the last pay period, including overtime pay, and total hours worked, including both paid and unpaid overtime. As such, derived hourly pay for Newham is not directly comparable with national figures. Source: ONS data (2014). 15 The National Minimum Wage was set at £6.50 between October 2014 and October 2015, and is therefore accurate for the period of the fieldwork: https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates 16 The London Living Wage was set at £9.15 between November 2014 and November 2015, and is therefore accurate for the period of the fieldwork. We have used this figure in order to be consistent with Minimum Wage calculations: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation 17 ibid. 18 National data for 2013/14 from the Department of Work and Pensions report on Households Below Average Income: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437246/households-below-average-income-1994-95-to-2013-14.pdf 19 ibid.


More Newham residents are now saving money each month (46%), though a quarter (27%) of residents hold some form of debt20. However, only one-in-ten (eight per cent) have ever asked for debt advice.

Encouragingly, poverty levels in Newham have generally fallen. However, poverty remains far more prevalent in the borough than nationally:

More than one third (35%) of households in Newham have incomes below the relative poverty threshold21 - representing a fall of five percentage points since 2013. Yet poverty remains far more prevalent in Newham than nationally (where 15% of the population live in households in poverty22). The impact high housing costs have on Newham residents is once again demonstrated here - after housing costs are accounted for, almost half of households in Newham (46%) are pushed into poverty23, an increase which far exceeds the national shift (where poverty levels nationally increase from 15% before housing costs, to 21% after).

Absolute poverty24 levels have also fallen. Almost two-in-five households in Newham (37%) are in absolute poverty before housing costs, compared to 44% in 2013. But, again poverty levels still far exceed the national incidence of 17%25.

Almost one in five households (18%) is in fuel poverty26. This represents a decrease of 10 percentage points from 2013. Despite this positive movement, Newham households are still, indicatively speaking at least, almost twice as likely to be in fuel poverty compared with nationally (12%)27.

More than half (51%) of Newham’s children live in households in poverty (rising to two-thirds after housing costs). While this once

20 Respondents were asked if held any of the following forms of debt: Mortgage/rent/service charge, Gas & electricity arrears, Council Tax arrears, Court fines, Child maintenance, Income tax or VAT arrears, TV license , Water, Secured loan, Catalogue , Credit Card, Overdraft, Store Card, Personal loan, Home credit, Payday loan 21 Defined as having a gross equivalised household income before housing costs of less than 60% of the national median income for that year. Calculated for all households (n=744) where we have net equivalised household income data 22 Poverty statistics from DWP Households Below Average Income report for 2013/14: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437246/households-below-average-income-1994-95-to-2013-14.pdf 23 Calculated for all households (n=562) where we have net equivalised household income data and housing cost information 24 Defined as having an income before housing costs of less than 60% of the national median income for 2010/11 adjusted for RPI inflation 25 National statistics from HBAI 26 Defined as spending more than 10% of their income on fuel 27 It should be noted, that Understanding Newham data is not directly comparable to national data, since it looks at household income with actual fuel costs, rather than modelled fuel costs, whereby a household is said to be fuel poor if it needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its income on fuel to maintain an adequate level of warmth. Source: DECC Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report (2015): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/468011/Fuel_Poverty_Report_2015.pdf


again reflects a decrease from 2013 levels (when it was 55 per cent), compared with national figures (where 17% of children live in poverty28) children in Newham are three times more likely to live in poverty.

Community resilience

Despite the changing make-up of the borough’s population, 89 per cent of Newham residents think their local area is cohesive, and this has remained fairly static since 2011, and favourable compared to England (where it is 86%29).

When it comes to mixing with others in the community, over half of residents (57%) say most of their friends are from the same ethnic background as them. This represents a significant decline of seven percentage points from 2013.

In terms of social networks in Newham, over half (57%) of residents feel they could go to someone in their neighbourhood for advice if they needed it (unchanged from 2013). At the same time we see a rise in more frequent contacts (68% report seeing friends and family who do not live with them at least once a week; a nine percentage point increase on 2013 levels). Frequency of contact with friends and family is closely related to levels of personal resilience: Frequency of contact is much lower for older residents and those with a disability and/ or long-term health condition: this suggests that the Council may want to focus attention on these groups.

Volunteering in Newham has increased with one-in-five (22%) residents doing unpaid voluntary work at least once a year compared with 16% in 2013 - the highest level since 2008.

Tenure patterns in Newham have remained broadly stable since 2013, but longer-term trends continue (noting that the data does not necessarily fully correspond to Newham Council and the Greater London Authority’s own sources). According to Understanding Newham, the proportion of home owners in Newham continues on a falling trajectory, with just 28 per cent of Newham households classed as owner-occupied. Conversely, we see a general, longer-term, trend in rising private rented households, which account for 34 per cent of households in 2015.

28 National data for 2013/14 from the Department of Work and Pensions report on Households Below Average Income: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437246/households-below-average-income-1994-95-to-2013-14.pdf 29 Community Life Survey, England 2014 to 2015: Statistical Bulletin (July 2015): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447010/Community_Life_Survey_2014-15_Bulletin.pdf


Findings in relation to crime and feelings of safety are encouraging for 2015, with some improvement on previous waves. However, around one-in-seven (15%) residents say they or a household member were a victim of crime in the past year. Concern about becoming a victim of crime has fallen - four-in-ten residents (39%) are now worried about this, compared to 51 per cent in 2013.

Feelings of safety have also improved. The vast majority of Newham residents say they feel safe walking alone in their local area during the day (92% - a five percentage point increase since 2013) and 57 per cent feel safe walking alone in their local area after dark (a 12 point increase).

However, despite this improvement, perceptions of some types of anti-social behaviour (ASB) being common problems have risen since 2013 (including for drug dealing and taking, drunk and rowdy behaviour, prostitution, graffiti, and abandoned cars). The biggest ASB concerns remain teenagers hanging around on the street (cited by 66% of residents), followed by people being drunk and rowdy in public (50%).

Newham services

Satisfaction with Newham Council has been broadly maintained in 2015 – encouraging given the huge financial pressures facing local government. Seven-in-ten residents (69%) are satisfied with how Newham Council runs things, and the proportion of residents who feel ‘very satisfied’ has increased (from eight per cent in 2013 to 11 per cent in 2015). The proportion of residents dissatisfied has fallen since 2013 (down from 14% to 11%).

The extent to which local public services are rated well – particularly ‘street scene’ services – is a big driver in terms of positive sentiment towards the Council. When it comes to Council services, residents express greatest satisfaction with rubbish collection and schools.

Perceptions of local housing services have improved significantly since 2013, although they are still one of the lowest rated services (45% rate the service as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ in 2015, but 24% still regard them as poor).


2 Introduction 2.1 Overview and background

Newham is one of the youngest and most diverse boroughs in the country. It is also one of the most deprived. It is essential that local services are designed and delivered to be responsive to residents’ changing needs, lifestyles and circumstances, arguably even more so during times of austerity when public sector funding is becoming more scarce.

The Newham Household Panel Survey (NHPS), also known as Understanding Newham, is a longitudinal panel survey that Newham Council has run for 13 years. It provides the Council with a rich level of insight into the changing needs of the local population. Together with the Council’s wider suite of research, it is used to help develop local priorities, determine future commissioning strategies and evaluate services. It aims to understand changes in the resident population and the consequent demands placed on Council services.

Understanding Newham is partly modelled on the design of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which is now incorporated into Understanding Society30. The key difference is that NHPS is repeated every two years, whereas Understanding Society is an annual survey.

This report contains selected findings from Wave 8 of Understanding Newham. This latest wave has been conducted by independent researchers Ipsos MORI on behalf of Newham Council.

2.2 Survey objectives

Across the last seven waves of Understanding Newham, Newham Council has built up an invaluable picture of local residents’ changing circumstances and needs. The findings to this latest wave provide important insights into the latest trends in Newham, and explore changes in opinion, behaviour and the social and economic circumstances of this latest cohort of residents. More specifically, the Wave 8 survey has aimed to explore:

the impact and value of Newham’s policies and services

inequalities in Newham and gaps in provision

30 Understanding Society is an academic study that captures important information every year about the social and economic circumstances and attitudes of people living in 40,000 UK households. Adults are interviewed every 12 months either face-to-face or over the phone. For more information visit: https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/


trends in society to inform the design of policy and services, and improve residents’ quality of life, and

changes in the composition of the population.

The survey has been critical to providing the Council with an updated snapshot of local priorities as they relate to personal, community and economic resilience, and how these are changing over time. These are the three themes of resilience upon which performance targets and accountability at Newham Council is focused, as set out in its performance framework ‘Resilience: making it happen’31. This framework builds on previous 2011 work, ‘Quid pro quo, not status quo’32, which explains the Council’s belief in building resilience in order to help achieve its wider goals of being a borough that people choose to live, work and stay in.

Understanding Newham Wave 7, undertaken during 2013, included a combination of questions from previous waves (to enable tracking over time), and a series of new question areas to reflect the Council’s particular focus on resilience. Wave 8 has sought to broadly mirror this content, with a questionnaire that covers the following themes:

Satisfaction with local services and facilities, including Newham Council.

Literacy and numeracy, education, training and skills, work and earnings.

Standard of living and poverty measures (net income, consumption, material deprivation, expenditure, savings, debt, plans for retirement and financial well-being).

Housing issues such as affordability, ownership, problems and satisfaction.

Family and childcare, social networks and support, technology, and length of stay in the borough.

Crime and fear of crime, victimhood, and anti-social behaviour.

Lifestyle including leisure activities, religious affiliation, civic participation, and various dimensions of life satisfaction.

31 Resilience: making it happen, Newham Council (2013): http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council and Democracy/MakingResilienceHappenanupdateondelivery.pdf 32 Quid pro quo, not status quo, Newham Council (2011): http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council and Democracy/Whyweneedawelfarestatethatbuildsresilience.pdf


Health outcomes and health-related behaviour such as exercise and eating habits.

Beliefs, values, attitudes and expectations about various issues including the local community, the benefits system and economic prospects.

2.3 Methodology

The fieldwork for the Wave 8 survey took place between 17 April and 6 September 2015, with 1,024 interviews conducted face-to-face in-home using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (for adults aged 16+). The survey contained two different questionnaires:

1 An individual questionnaire, asked of a single randomly selected adult (16+) in each household.

2 A household questionnaire, asked of the household reference person or their partner. In 89% of households, this was the same person as the individual selected to answer the individual questionnaire. In those households where this was not the case, a separate household interview was conducted with the household reference person or their partner.

The survey, therefore, provides robust survey estimates for both adult residents in Newham, as well as for households in Newham.

The primary sample frame was the Newham Household Panel Database which consists of those members of the Newham Panel who joined in Wave 6 (when the panel was completely refreshed) and again at Wave 7, and who still remained on the panel at Wave 8. These individuals were initially selected from addresses sampled from the Post Office’s small user Postcode Address File (PAF) at Wave 6 and 7.

Due to panel attrition, we also interviewed households at ‘fresh’ addresses across Newham to ensure that interviews were completed in at least 1,000 households overall. For this fresh sample, we also used the PAF as the sampling frame. This replicated both previous Understanding Newham and Understanding Society methodologies.

We achieved interviews in 316 existing panel households recruited at Wave 6, 216 at Wave 7, and 492 fresh households using a random probability sampling approach. This allows both cross-sectional and longitudinal survey estimates to be computed.

The questionnaires were designed in conjunction with Newham Council and used questions from previous waves of Understanding Newham, as well as


from Understanding Society and other relevant national and local studies. Data were weighted to be representative of age, gender, and Community Forum area in Newham.

See Appendix A for more technical detail about the methodology and weighting conventions.

2.4 Interpretation of the data

The final survey data is based on a sample, rather than the entire population of Newham residents. Therefore, results are subject to sampling tolerances. This report only identifies statistically significant differences. A guide to statistical reliability is found in Appendix A.

In some cases, where indicated, results are based on all valid responses. This omits respondents who have not given an answer from the base size.

Where percentages do not sum to 100 per cent, this may be due to computer rounding, or when questions allow multiple answers. An asterisk (*) denotes any value less than ½ per cent but greater than zero. For some questions, we refer to ‘net’ figures. These represent the balance of opinion on a particular statement, e.g. the proportion agreeing minus the proportion disagreeing.

A number of derived variables have been calculated by combining answers to individual questionnaire answers for the purposes of reporting. For instance, a variable has been computed to compare residents’ hourly pay with the National Minimum Wage, and another to categorise households according to national poverty definitions, drawn from the DWP’s Households Below Average Income series of reports. A list of these derived variables can be found in Appendix A.

Throughout the report the data for Wave 8 has been compared with Wave 7 and to previous waves before that where relevant – details of which can be found in Table 2.1. The methodology and timescales for the survey have been closely mirrored in order to permit reliable tracking of data over time.

The Wave 8 data has also been benchmarked with a range of other sources where possible – national and London - in order to provide useful context. These include Understanding Society, Community Life Survey, English Housing Survey, ONS Labour market statistics/ Labour Force Survey, ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earning, British Social Attitudes Survey, Households Below Average Income, ONS annual fuel poverty statistics report, and the Health Survey for England. Further details about these surveys can be found in Appendix A.


Table 2.1 ---- Previous waves of Understanding Newham

Fieldwork dates Household interviews

Wave 1 June – December 2002 1,052

Wave 2 June – December 2003 1,047

Wave 3 June – December 2004 859

Wave 4 November 2005 – April 2006 857

Wave 5 August 2007 – February 2008 854

Wave 6 April 2011 – June 2011 1,153

Wave 7 April 2013 – August 2013 1,019

Wave 8 April 2015 – September 2015 1,024

2.5 Structure of the report

The remainder of this report has been structured around the key thematic areas of the questionnaire and the Council’s resilience themes as published in ’Quid pro quo, not status quo’33.

Chapter 3: Personal resilience – reports on a number of distinct subsections. The first is ‘Equality, diversity and inclusion’ and this examines length of stay in Newham, ethnicity, first languages of Newham residents, and faith and religion. The second subsection is ‘Education and qualifications’ and this covers proficiency at English and numeracy and qualifications held. The third subsection is ‘Families and childcare’ and this covers childcare arrangements and costs, access to the internet and broadband, and child material poverty. The final subsection is ‘Health and wellbeing’ which examines healthy behaviours (exercise, smoking, drinking and eating habits), BMI, life satisfaction and the psychological health of residents, and the drivers of mental wellbeing. As part of this chapter, we also reflect on the motivations and beliefs of Newham residents to get a sense of the set of values different groups of residents hold, drawing on the Values Modes segmentation, designed by Cultural Dynamics Strategy and Marketing Ltd (further detail is provided in Appendix A).

Chapter 4: Economic resilience – reports on employment, work status and wages, net household income including benefits, household finances including expenditure, household debt and savings and financial

33 http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council and Democracy/Whyweneedawelfarestatethatbuildsresilience.pdf


management. It also covers poverty including fuel poverty, material deprivation and child poverty.

Chapter 5: Community resilience – reports on a number of distinct subsections. The first is ‘Cohesion’ examining the perceptions of community cohesion and what drives these perceptions. The second subsection is ‘Relationships in the community’ and this covers who has left Newham (previous panel members) and who has recently settled into the borough, views on community networks and how diverse they might be, isolation and frequency of meeting friends and family. The third subsection is ‘Community support’ and covers unpaid or voluntary work, caring responsibilities and community involvement such as leisure activities. This is followed by a subsection on ‘Housing’ which looks at tenure, housing conditions, overcrowding and satisfaction with housing. The final subsection is ‘Crime and anti-social behaviour’ and covers perceptions of crime, safety and anti-social behaviour, fears and worries about crime, what drives worry, and victimhood.

Chapter 6: Council satisfaction and satisfaction with services – reports on satisfaction with Newham Council and with a number of local services, some of which are provided by other organisations operating within the borough. It not only covers changes in opinion across the lifecycle of the survey, but also explores whether there have been changes in opinion among cohorts of residents, i.e. longitudinally what is influencing a change of opinion about the Council.

Appendix A: This is the technical report which outlines the survey methodology, response rates and an analysis of panel attrition. It also includes a list of all derived variables referenced in this report, survey benchmarking, and a guide to statistical reliability.

2.6 Acknowledgements

Ipsos MORI would like to thank the 1,024 residents in Newham who took part in the survey. We would also like to thank Dr Jane Kennedy, Sarah Johnson and their colleagues from Newham Council for their contributions to the survey design and report writing.

Report authors: Doug Warren, Victoria Harkness, Luke Daxon, Michael Clemence, Peter Dangerfield and Sarah Tipping.

No single ethnic group makes up

20% of the population

Newham residents are far more likely to belong to a religion

than the London and GB average

39% of Newham residents speak English as a first language; this is lower than national

(92%) and London (73%) averages

*Understanding Society Wave 1 (2009-11)

Newham is behind other parts of the country and London when it

comes to qualification levels and the proportion of residents with no formal

qualifications has risen since 2013.

CHAPTER SUMMARY3 Personal resilience

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS

*Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014)

of Newham residents belong to a religion compared to 59% in London and 49% in

Great Britain*


of residents whose first language is not English

say they are able to speak English well

of Newham residents now have no formal qualifications (35% in 2013)

82%

88%

42%

White British 19% Asian Other 7%

White Other 19% Black Caribbean 4%

Indian 12% Black African 10%

Bangladeshi 12% Black Other 4%

Pakistani 8% Other, including mixed 6%

Newham London* GB*

No formal qualifications 42% 9% 13%

GCSE/O Level/NVQ1 and 2 9% 18% 20%

A-level or equivalent 19% 19% 22%

Degree/Masters/PhD 25% 46% 36%

Other qualification 5% 9% 10%

Of those residents who have children

under the age of 16, one–in-four (28%)

use some form of childcare

of residents are satisfied with their life overall – this has

remained consistent over time, whilst life satisfaction in London

and the UK has fallen*


However, use of childcare in Newham is now below the

average for the UK as a whole (where it is 43%) and for

London (38%*)

*Understanding Society Wave 4 (2012-13)

CHAPTER SUMMARY3 Personal resilience

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

FAMILIES AND CHILDCARE

77%

Average BMI is below national levels*, but

of residents are satisfied with their social life

Newham residents are far less likely to

drink alcohol

of Newham residents are overweight or obese

*Health Survey for England (2014)

49%

70%

of Newham’s residents say they never drink alcohol.

(England - 57%*)

*Health Survey for England (2014)

35%

of residents do at least 30 minutes of exercise five

times a week

23%


This chapter looks at the people of Newham themselves: who are they, what their backgrounds are, their beliefs and experiences. It also investigates the personal resilience of Newham residents. As expressed in ‘Resilience: making it happen’34, personal resilience is a core tenet of Newham Council’s resilience agenda. Personal resilience is described as:

‘‘… having the qualities and traits that allow us to navigate relationships, respond to challenges, learn new skills and find and succeed at work.’’ ‘Resilience: Making Resilience Happen’, Newham Council

Within this chapter, personal resilience is measured using a metric that assesses residents’ resilience to stress – i.e. their ability to ‘bounce back’ or cope. This is used to identify groups who are more or less likely to be able to cope with stress. Life outcomes are then compared between these residents, in order to help define and quantify the benefits of resilience.

3.1 Equality, diversity and inclusion

Newham remains one of the most diverse boroughs in the UK. Whilst its ethnic profile remains largely unchanged since 2011, the growing number of new residents from Eastern Europe indicate that the borough may become even more diverse in the future.

Newham has traditionally had a largely transient population and this appears to be on the increase. Today, one-in-five residents (21%) say they have lived in the borough for less than two years. This is in stark contrast to 2013 when just over one-in-ten (12%) had only lived in the borough for two years.

As a consequence, ‘long-term’ residents35 are no longer the majority in the borough. In 2011 and 2013 half of residents (50% and 51% respectively) had lived in Newham for 10 years or more; now, just 44 per cent of residents have lived in Newham for this period, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

34 http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council and Democracy/MakingResilienceHappenanupdateondelivery.pdf 35 Defined as residents who have lived in the borough 10 years or more


Figure 3.1 ---- Length of time in Newham

32% 27%37%

18% 21%19%

50% 51%44%

2011 (Wave 6) 2013 (Wave 7) 2015 (Wave 8 )

Less than 5 years 5-9 years 10+ years

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015; 2013: (1,019), 13 May -2 September 2013; 2011: (1,153), 18 April - 28 June 2011 Source: Ipsos MORI

Newham’s diversity is demonstrated by the range of ethnic groups represented by its residents. Two-fifths of residents are from Asian ethnic backgrounds (39%), a similar proportion are from White backgrounds (38%), while one-in-five are from Black backgrounds (18%) (as shown in Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 ---- Profile of Newham residents by ethnic profile

19%

19%

12%8%

12%

7%

4%

10%

4% 6%

White British White - OtherIndian Pakistani

Bangladeshi Asian - Other

Black Caribbean Black AfricanBlack - Other Other, including mixed

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015 Source: Ipsos MORI

39%

39%

18%

White Asian Black

The overall ethnic profile of Newham has not changed significantly since 2011, with the proportion of Asian, Black and White residents remaining largely unchanged. However, the ethnic profile of ‘newer’ residents36 suggests that this may shift in the future. Two-in-five (40%) new residents in the borough are from a non-British White background – this group is mainly comprised of people from Polish, Lithuanian and Romanian backgrounds. This is in contrast to 2013 where there was a far more even spread of new residents, with just under a quarter (23%) coming from a non-British White

36 Defined as those who have lived in Newham for up to two years.


background, a fifth (22%) coming from a White British background, fifteen per cent coming from an Indian background and another fifteen per cent from a Black African background.

Religious affiliation is far higher in Newham compared with London overall and to national averages in Great Britain.

Eight-in-ten Newham residents (82%) regard themselves as belonging to a particular religion. By contrast, only six–in-ten Londoners (58%) have a religious affiliation, whilst across Great Britain as a whole this falls to half (50%)37.

Newham has a very diverse profile of religious beliefs which has remained consistent since 2011 (see Table 3.1). Two-in-five residents (39%) say they are Christian, almost one-in-three are Muslim (31%) and one-in-ten (nine per cent) are Hindu. Though the proportion of Christians is similar to the levels found across London and Britain (where it is 39% and 43% respectively)38, the Muslim and Hindu populations are far higher in Newham (respectively, just nine per cent and five per cent of Londoners are Muslim and Hindu; this is three per cent and one per cent respectively across Great Britain)39.

Table 3.1 ---- Profile of Newham residents by religious affiliation over time

2011 (Wave 6)

2013(Wave 7)

2015 (Wave 8)

Christian 37% 37% 39%

Muslim 31% 32% 31%

Hindu 11% 10% 9%

Sikh 1% 2% 1%

Buddhist 1% 1% 1%

Jewish 0.5% 0.5% 1%

Any other religion 1% 1% 0.5%

No Religion 16% 17% 17%

DK/refused 1% 1% *

Source: Understanding Newham Base: 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 1,004; 2015 (Wave 8) 1,000

37 Understanding Society Wave 4 (2013) 38 Understanding Society Wave 4 (2013) 39 Understanding Society Wave 4 (2013)


Stemming from the borough’s diverse ethnic profile, the majority of Newham residents do not speak English as their first language.

As Table 3.2 shows, just two-in-five (39%) residents speak English as a first language; this is far lower than the national average (92%) and the average in London (73%)40. One–in-ten residents (11%) have Bengali as a first language, one-in-twenty (5%) have Gujarati and another one-in-twenty (5%) have Urdu as their first language. This closely matches the profile of languages reported in 2011 and 2013.

Table 3.2 ---- First languages spoken by Newham residents

2011 (Wave 6)

2013(Wave 7)

2015 (Wave 8)

English 38% 40% 39%

Bengali 11% 13% 11%

Urdu 7% 6% 5%

Gujarati 6% 5% 5%

Hindi 3% 2% 3%

Punjabi 3% 3% 2%

Portuguese - - 2%

Somali - - 2%

Polish 2% 2% 2%

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 Base: 1,024

Asian residents are less likely than residents from other ethnic backgrounds to have English as a first language. One-in-seven (14%) Asian residents have English as their mother tongue, compared with three-in-five residents (63%) from a Black background or a Mixed background (62%), and half from a White background (53% - this relatively low proportion is attributable to the high proportion of non-British White residents in the borough).

Those who are ‘harder-pressed’41 in the borough are less likely to have English as their mother tongue. For example, two-in-three residents (67%) living in poverty do not speak English as a first language (compared with 61% of all residents). This finding supports the Council’s investment in

40 Understanding Society Wave 1 (2009-11) 41 i.e. lower income and/ or living in poverty


English-language skills42, given that language skills appear to be strongly related to poverty.

In 2013 the vast majority of residents who did not speak English as their first language were still able speak and read English well. In 2015 this has held firm. Nine-in-ten residents (88%) who do not have English as a first language report that they speak it ‘quite well’ or ‘very well’ (compared with 89% at in 2013). Similarly, 83%, compared with 86% in 2013, say that they have little or no difficulty reading a formal letter written in English.

Those who do not have English as a first language are most likely to struggle with written English. One-in-five of these residents (22%) report that they either cannot write English ‘very well’ or that they can ‘hardly write it at all’, which has increased since 2013 (17%).

3.2 Education and qualifications

Though literacy skills in the borough have held firm since 2013, confidence in numeracy has dipped.

Nine-in-ten residents (91%) report being able to read English either ‘well’ or ‘very well’ (compared with 93% in 2013), with two-thirds of residents (68%) saying they are able to read English ‘very well’. This remains consistent with 2013 (where 71% could read English ‘very well’) and is a considerable increase over the proportion who reported being able to read English ‘very well’ in 2011 (59%).

Residents from non-British White backgrounds43 are twice as likely to have issues reading English: one-in-five report having trouble reading English (19% compared with nine per cent of all residents),

A very similar picture holds true for residents’ English writing skills. Eighty-five per cent report being able to write English ‘well’ or ‘very well’ (compared with 89% in 2013), and the proportion of those saying they can write English ‘very well’ (64%) has remained stable since 2013 (when it was 66%, which represented an increase of 10 percentage points from 2011).

Residents from non-British White backgrounds are also twice as likely to have issues writing English - almost one-in-three have trouble writing in English (31% compared with 15% of all residents).

Using this data, an ‘English proficiency score’ was created to indicate the overall strength of residents’ English language skills44. Seven-in-ten 42 See the Council’s report on Resilience for more details: http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council%20and%20Democracy/MakingResilienceHappenanupdateondelivery.pdf 43 This group is primarily made up of those from Lithuania, Poland and Romania


residents (70%) report having strong English skills, two-in-ten moderate skills (21%) and the remaining residents (eight per cent) have weak or no English language skills.

While literacy levels have remained stable, residents are less confident with numbers than they have been in the past. While the overall proportion who say they feel confident with numbers is consistent with previous waves of the survey (89% compared with 93% in 2013 and 91% in 2011), only six-in-ten residents (61%) now report being ‘very confident’ with their numeracy skills; a fall of six percentage points from 2013 (when it was 67%).

Along with their poorer literacy skills, residents from non-British White backgrounds are also more likely to have issues with numeracy, with one-in-five saying that they are not confident with numbers (22% compared with 11% of all residents).

Older residents are more likely to report having difficulties with literacy and numeracy. One-in-three residents aged 55 or older (34%) have trouble reading a formal letter or document written in English (compared with 17% of all residents). This may be more an issue of confidence rather than competence, however, as older residents are no more likely to say they struggle reading English in general. One-in-four residents aged 65 or older are not confident when they have to deal with numbers either (compared with 11% of all residents).

By looking at English proficiency scores and confidence with numbers together, the gap in skills of a few key groups emerge:

44 English proficiency is an aggregate score of the answers the respondent gave for the questions: A7 How well do you feel you can speak English? A8 How well can you read English? A9 How well can you write English? It is used to assess overall proficiency with the English language


Numeracy and literacy are strongly linked to educational attainment and employment. Residents with no formal qualifications are more likely to have low English proficiency (15% compared with eight per cent of residents overall) and also lack confidence with numbers (19% compared with 11%). In contrast, residents who are in full-time education or in full-time employment are the most likely to be ‘very confident’ with numbers (79% and 71% respectively, compared with 61% of residents overall). Full-time students are likely to have strong English skills (94% compared with 70% of residents overall). However, residents who are looking after the family or home are likely to struggle with both literacy (21%) and numeracy (22%). Residents who are either long-term sick or disabled are also more likely to report a lack of confidence with their numeracy (24%).

Literacy and numeracy are also linked to deprivation. Residents living in households in poverty are more likely to have issues with these skills. Residents in poverty are twice as likely to have weak or no English skills (16% compared with eight per cent who are outside of poverty), and nearly twice as likely to have little or no confidence with numbers (19% compared with 11% outside of poverty). Literacy has been a focus for Newham Council, via the ‘Every child’ programme45, which provides support to children at Key Stage 1 level.

The proportion of Newham residents with no formal qualifications has risen, and on average residents also have a lower levels of qualification compared with London and the UK.

It remains the case that Newham lags behind other parts of the country and London when it comes to qualification levels of its residents. Only nine per cent of people living in London and 13 per cent in the UK have no formal qualifications46. In Newham, 42 per cent of residents have no formal qualifications. Furthermore, this represents a significant rise for the borough since 2013 (when it was 35%). As Table 3.3 shows, there are also now fewer residents with GCSEs or equivalent (nine per cent compared with 14% in 2013) and A-Levels equivalent (25% compared with 19%).

Newham also has far fewer residents with Higher Education qualifications. In Newham a quarter of residents (25%) have a Higher Education qualification compared with almost half of Londoners (46%) and over a third of people in the UK (36%).

45 See the Council’s website for more details: https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/ServiceChild/Every-child-matters.aspx 46 Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014)


Table 3.3 ---- Formal qualifications amongst Newham Residents with London and UK benchmarks

2013 (Wave 7)

2015(Wave 8)

London UK

No formal qualifications

35% 42% 9% 13%

GCSE/O Level/NVQ1 and 2

14% 9% 18% 20%

A-level or equivalent 25% 19% 19% 22%

Degree/Masters/PhD 25% 25% 46% 36%

Other qualification 1% 5% 9% 10%

Don't know - - - -

Source: Understanding Newham, Understanding Society Base: Newham: 2013 (Wave 7), 1,004; 2015 (Wave 8) 1,000.

London: Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014), 2,115. UK: Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014), 15,831.

3.3 Families and childcare

Use of childcare in Newham has fallen since 2013, and is lower than in the UK as a whole and in London.

Of those residents who have children under the age of 16, one–in-four (28%) use some form of childcare. However, use of childcare in Newham is now below the average for the UK as a whole (where it is 43%) and for London (38%), whereas in 2013 it was far closer to the levels across the UK and London47.

As in 2013, the most commonly used form of childcare is a nursery school or nursery class (used by 12% of residents with children under 16). The other sources of childcare used most often are friends and relatives (nine per cent), playgroups (seven per cent) and breakfast clubs, after school clubs or holiday schemes (each six per cent).

Use of childcare is greater among parents with children aged 0-4 (42%) and 5-9 (37%) rather than those with children aged 10-15 (18%). There is little significant difference by other factors such as family composition or income48. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, use of childcare is significantly higher among those of them who are in some form of employment (70% compared with 28% of residents with children overall), and among non- 47 Understanding Society Wave 4 (2012-13) 48 It should be noted that the number of residents with children under 16 makes it hard to compare results between subgroups


British White residents (51%). This shows the importance of childcare to those in work. That its use has declined since 2013 is perhaps all the more significant therefore – there has been a fall of nine percentage points since 2013 when 37% of parents used childcare. This comes despite the fact that there has been an increase in employment levels (discussed further in Chapter 4).

Furthermore, this fall seems to be driven by a fall in the use of formal49 types of childcare (used by 24% of residents with children, compared with 33% in 2013) rather than informal50 types (used by nine per cent now, and also in 2013).

One-in-three of those who use formal childcare paid for it (33%). This compares with one in four (26%) in 2013. The fact that more parents are paying for childcare may be due, at least partly, to a perceived need to top up the free childcare allowance from the government.

3.4 Internet access

Internet penetration amongst Newham households has increased, in particular via mobile phone networks.

More than four-in-five Newham households (86%) have some form of access to the internet, either inside or outside the home. Internet penetration has increased significantly from 2013 (by seven percentage points) and is now close to the figures we see for Great Britain as a whole (87%)51.

As Figure 3.3 shows, broadband connection remains the most prevalent means of accessing the internet (cited by 83% of residents). However, the survey points to the explosion in the use of mobile technology, with one-in-four (27%) now saying that people in their household access the internet using mobile networks - a significant increase since 2013 (when it was just five per cent).

49 Formal childcare includes using a child minder, sending a child to nursery school or nursery class; special day school or nursery or unit for children with special educational needs; day nursery or crèche; playgroup; breakfast club; after school club, or holiday scheme on or off school/ nursery school site 50 Informal childcare includes using a nanny, a babysitter or a friend or relative for childcare. 51 ONS Internet Access Quarterly Update (2014): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_373584.pdf (it should be noted that ONS data looks at access by individuals, while NHPS8 looks at access by households)


Figure 3.3 ---- Internet access in Newham

Broadband connection (including wifi)

Mobile network, for example on a smartphone

Dial-up internet

Any other way

No internet access

ANY internet access

83%

27%

*%

*%

14%

86%

76%

5%

*%

*%

21%

78%

2015

2013

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015; 2013: (1,019), 13 May - 2 September 2013

Q Thinking about both in and outside the home, which ways do the people in your household access the internet? Do they use ...?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Access to the internet falls markedly with age; three-in-five Newham residents aged 65+ (59%) say their household has no internet access at all, compared with only seven per cent of residents aged 16-64. This reflects the wider trends across the population of Great Britain; in 2014/15, only 62 per cent of men aged 65+ had internet access, compared with 98 per cent of men aged 15-24. The difference is of a similar scale for women in the British population (52% of those aged 65+ have internet access, compared with 87% of those aged 15-24)52.

Internet penetration in Newham also differs by tenure and income. A lack of internet access is more common among social tenants (where it is 21%) than either owner-occupiers (13%) or private sector tenants (six per cent). Lack of internet access is also more pronounced among households in the lowest and second lowest incomes quartiles (32% and 23% respectively, compared with 14% of residents overall) and those in receipt of benefits (21% compared with seven per cent of those who are not). Residents with a disability are less likely to have access to the internet in their household (44% have no access compared with only eight per cent of those without a disability or limiting health condition This is especially relevant in Newham because social care has become an online based service.

As illustrated in Figure 3.4, residents most commonly use the internet for sending or receiving emails (73%), followed by visits to social network sites such as Facebook (62%), searches for information about goods and services (56%) and internet banking (53%). These figures suggest that patterns of internet use in Newham are broadly reflective of national

52 ONS Internet Access Quarterly Update (2014):


usage53, with 75% of adults in Great Britain having used the Internet for email, and just over half for online banking.

Figure 3.4 ---- Principal online activities

73%

62%

56%

53%

44%

41%

36%

35%

34%

32%

Q For which of the following activities do you use the internet for personal use? (Top 10)

Base: Newham residents with household internet access (795), 17 April – 08 September 2015. Source: Ipsos MORI

Sending/receiving email

Social networking (e.g. Facebook/Twitter)

Finding info about goods and services

Internet banking

Online newspapers/magazines

Looking for info on education, training, courses

Seeking health-related information

Telephone/webcam calls

Using services to do with travel/accommodation

Looking for a job/job application

3.5 Affordability of goods and services

When it comes to being able to afford goods and services, there appears to have been some improvement since 2013 - fewer residents now believe that luxury items are unaffordable for them.

When asked about a series of things which they and their household must do without because they cannot afford it, Newham residents are most likely to say that they cannot afford a week’s holiday away from home (39%), or to visit relatives abroad (38%).

More basic items are more affordable for residents though. Residents are least likely of all to say they would like, but cannot afford, to keep their home adequately warm (seven per cent) or to regularly afford meals, such as meat or fish (seven per cent) or fruit and vegetables (five per cent).

Encouragingly, fewer residents are finding it hard to afford things than in 2013, as shown in Table 3.4. For example, fewer residents now say they want, but cannot afford, to have regular savings (down 11 percentage points from 2013), replace worn out furniture (down nine percentage points), afford a week’s holiday (down eight percentage points), have a hobby or leisure activity (down eight percentage points) or have a small amount of money to spend on themselves (down eight percentage points).

53 ONS Internet Access Quarterly Update (2014): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_373584.pdf


Table 3.4 ---- Inability of households to afford goods and services that they would like54

2008 2011 2013 2015

Pay for a week’s holiday away from home, not including visits to relatives

40% 42% 47% 39%

Visit relatives abroad regularly 38% 39% 45% 38%

Have household contents insurance 28% 35% 36% 30%

Regular savings (of at least £10 a month) for rainy days or retirement

n/a n/a 39% 28%

Replace worn our furniture 18% 32% 35% 26%

Replace or repair broken electrical goods such as refrigerator or

washing machine n/a n/a 29% 22%

Have enough money to keep your home in a decent state of decoration

23% 27% 28% 21%

A hobby or leisure activity n/a n/a 29% 21%

A small amount of money to spend each week on yourself, not on your

family n/a n/a 28% 20%

Have friends or family for a drink or meal at least once a month

16% 20% 20% 16%

Buy new, rather than second hand, clothes

6% 17% 17% 15%

Two pairs of all-weather shoes for each adult

n/a n/a 15% 14%

Eat vegetarian meals, vegetarian protein alternatives to meat (e.g.

soya, lentils) at least every other day 6% 9% 10% 8%

Keep your home adequately warm 4% 7% 6% 7%

Eat meat, chicken or fish at least every second day

4% 7% 6% 7%

Eat fresh fruit and vegetables at least every second day

2% 6% 6% 5%

Source: Understanding Newham Base: 2008 (Wave 5), 1,485; 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 998; 2015 (Wave 8), 965

Those who find it hardest to afford things are unsurprisingly concentrated among the more deprived groups of Newham residents. For example, social tenants are more likely than residents overall to be unable to afford most items or services, especially household contents insurance (47%

54 % would like to do/ to have this but cannot afford it


compared with 30%) and regular savings (41% compared with 28%). Inability to afford items or services is also almost always greater among residents in the lowest income quartile; for example, they are more likely than those in the highest income quartile to be unable to afford things such as week’s holiday away from home (52% compared with 20%) and eating fruit and vegetables at least every second day (nine per cent compared with one per cent).

Across other groups of local people, Black residents and those with a limiting health condition often find it harder to afford things. For example, 51 per cent of Black residents cannot afford regular visits to relatives overseas, compared with 38 per cent of residents overall. Similarly, 26 per cent of those with a limiting condition cannot afford to buy new rather than second hand clothes, compared with 15 per cent of residents as a whole.

Ownership of consumer goods is widespread. The great majority of households in Newham own a microwave oven (95%), a washing machine (94%) and a colour television (92%). Over four-in-five have a deep freeze or fridge freezer (85%), or a mobile telephone (82%). Three-in-four also have a home computer (77%) or a landline phone (74%). Households are least likely to have a video recorder or DVD player (56%) or a tablet (49%).

Household ownership of goods has changed little since 2013, as shown in Table 3.5. However, fewer households than in 2013 now have a video recorder or DVD (down six percentage points) or a mobile telephone (down eight percentage points). This may be because other forms of communication technology are widely owned, such as smartphones (72%) and tablets (49%), and these are being used more often than more ‘conventional’ mobile phones and DVD players.


Table 3.5 ---- Proportion of households that own consumer goods

2011 2013 2015

Microwave oven 88% 92% 95%

Washing machine 92% 92% 94%

Colour television 92% 92% 92%

Deep freeze or fridge freezer 77% 82% 85%

Mobile telephone (anyone in household)

85% 91% 82%

Home computer/PC (not games console)

68% 76% 77%

Landline telephone 74% 77% 74%

Smartphone n/a n/a 72%

Satellite dish/Sky TV/Cable TV 49% 53% 61%

Video recorder/DVD player 62% 61% 56%

Tablet n/a n/a 49%

Source: Understanding Newham Base: 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 998; 2015 (Wave 8), 965

However, these headline figures mask some very significant differences in terms of ownership among the income groups in Newham. Ownership of consumer goods is significantly higher among households in the highest income quartile - compared with those in the lowest income quartile, they are particularly more likely to own IT or digital technology such as a home computer (95% compared with 53%), a smartphone (93% compared with 47%) and a tablet (71% compared with 23%). Owning these goods is also correlated very strongly with internet use. For example, internet access is almost universal among residents who own a home computer (97%) or a tablet (98%).

Linked to their lower levels of internet access, disabled residents and those with a limiting health condition are less likely to have a home computer in their household than residents with no health conditions or disabilities (53% and 63% respectively compared to 82%).

There are also clear trends in ownership by age, with older residents aged 65+ less likely to have the most modern technological goods in their households. For example, they are less likely than those aged 25-44 to have a home computer (41% compared with 86%), a smartphone (22% compared with 86%), or a tablet (19% compared with 58%) at home. The only goods that residents aged 65+ are more likely to own are a colour television (98% compared with 92% of all households) and a landline telephone (88% compared with 74% of all households).


3.6 Health and wellbeing

3.6.1 Weight and BMI

A similar proportion of Newham residents are overweight or obese as are a healthy weight, although BMI is below national averages.

Whether a resident is overweight or underweight can be measured by collecting a resident’s height and weight and calculating their BMI55. As Table 3.6 shows, almost half the adult population of Newham falls into the BMI category of having a healthy normal weight (48%), but a similar proportion are also overweight, with one-in-five (19%) classified as obese or morbidly obese. There is little change in these figures since 2013.

The mean BMI in Newham is 25.8 (which is the same for both men and women), whilst the median BMI, which is less affected by extreme values, is 24.9 (25.4 for men and 24.5 for women)56. The World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies a ‘healthy’ BMI as lying between 18.5 and 2557, indicating that whilst the average Newham resident is on the cusp of having an unhealthy BMI, this is no different to the wider nation. In England in 2014, men recorded a mean BMI of 27.2 and women a BMI of 27.9.

55 BMI or Body Mass Index gives the ratio of a person’s weight compared with their height. BMI has been calculated using the standard formula: weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared (kg/m2). It has been collected for all respondents who provided this information. 56 Measurements were self-reported and there is likely to be an element of reporting bias in the figures. There is a tendency to over-report height and under-report weight largely as a consequence of social desirability. For more information see S. Gober et al. (2007): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00347.x/abstract 57 WHO classification BMI categorisation can be found here: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html (accessed 20/11/2015)


Table 3.6 ---- Proportion of residents falling into BMI category58 by Wave and by Gender

Newham (2013)

Newham (2015)

England (2014)

Total Total Male Female Male Female

Underweight (under 18.5kg/m2)

2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 1%

Normal (18.5-25kg/m2)

46% 48% 45% 51% 33% 40%

Overweight (25-30kg/m2)

33% 32% 39% 25% 41% 31%

Obese (30-40kg/m2)

16% 15% 13% 17% 24% 27%

Morbidly obese (over 40kg/m2)

2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4%

Source: Understanding Newham and Health Survey for England Base: Newham: 2013 (Wave 7), 867; 2015 (Wave 8), 859. England: Health Survey for England (2014), 7,034.

Men are more likely to have weight problems than women, with half of men (53%) registering as overweight or obese, compared with two-in-five women (44%), though women have higher levels of obesity.

Obesity is a particular and ongoing problem among residents from Black ethnic backgrounds – one-in-four (29%) are obese or morbidly obese, which is similar to the 24 per cent witnessed in 2013. By contrast, fewer than one-in-ten residents (nine per cent) from Asian backgrounds have a BMI that makes them obese or morbidly obese. It is worth noting that weight is still a problem in the Asian community though, with almost two-in-five (40%) reporting a BMI that makes them overweight59.

The relationship between weight problems and poverty has diminished since 2013, when it was found that those in poverty were more likely to be overweight or obese (57% compared with 47% of those outside of poverty). 58 Weight Classification is adapted from Health Survey for England categories as follows: Underweight = less than 18.5kg/m2, Normal = 18.5 to less than 25kg/m2, Overweight = 25 to less than 30kg/m2, Obese = 30 to less than 40kg/m2, Morbidly Obese = 40kg/m2 or more. Obese I and Obese II categories have been aggregated for simplicity into ‘Obese’. ‘Morbidly Obese’ is used for Obese III. https://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/public-health/surveys/heal-surv-eng-2011/HSE2011-All-Chapters.pdf (accessed 09/11/15) Those who were unable to give an estimate are excluded from the analysis. 59 It is also worth noting that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advise that BMI thresholds for those from an Asian ethnic background ought to be slightly lower. Asian residents should be classed as overweight if their BMI is 23 and they should be classed as obese if their BMI is above 27.5. NICE recommendations are found here: https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/lgb13/chapter/introduction (accessed 04/01/2016)


Now those outside of poverty are just as likely to be overweight or obese than those within poverty (55% below the poverty line compared with 54% who are above the poverty line).

3.6.2 Diet and exercise

The proportion of Newham residents who meet government guidelines for fruit and vegetable consumption and exercise is falling.

One-in-three (34%) residents eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day at least five times a week. This has been in persistent decline since 2008 when 42 per cent of residents said they ate the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables, as shown in Table 3.7. Those aged 25-34 are less likely to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables five time a week (32%, which is down from 42% in 2013), as are residents from an Asian background (31%, down from 39% in 2013).

Table 3.7 ---- Fruit and vegetable consumption within Newham

2008 (Wave 5)

2011 (Wave 6)

2013 (Wave 7)

2015 (Wave 8)

Everyday 28 24 27 23

5-6 times a week 14 16 11 11

3-4 times a week 32 33 23 26

1-2 times a week 14 17 23 22

Less than once a week 5 5 8 9

Never 6 5 7 9

Source: Understanding Newham Base: 2008 (Wave 5), 1,485; 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 1,019; 2015 (Wave 8), 1,024

The initial bounce the London Olympics may have given to levels of physical activity in Newham seems to have tailed off. Just one–in-five residents (23%) do at least 30 minutes of exercise five times a week, compared with over a quarter of residents in 2013 (28%).


Figure 3.5 ---- Amount of exercise taken by Newham residents

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015; 2013: (1,019), 13 May -2 September 2013; 2011: (1,153), 18 April - 28 June 2011; 2008: (1,485), August 2007 - February 2008

22% 23%28%

31%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2008 (Wave 5) 2011 (Wave 6) 2013 (Wave 7) 2015 (Wave 8)

Q In a typical week how often do you do at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, by which I mean the activities such as those listed on this card or other similar ones?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Active (30 minutes of activity at least 5 times a week)

Inactive (never undertake 30 minutes of activity or do so less than once a week)

3.6.3 Smoking and alcohol consumption

Smoking and alcohol consumption has largely remanded static in Newham.

Just over a third of Newham’s residents (35%) say they ever drink alcohol60. This is in stark contrast to the average in England where six-in-ten adults report that they drink (57%)61. This behaviour is also very consistent with matching results recorded in 2011 (36%) and 2013 (37%).

Residents who drink are not likely to drink above the recommended amount of alcohol per day (three units for women and four for men). Only two respondents reported that they drank more than the recommended amount of alcohol per day. In contrast, in England overall, 30 per cent of adults drink more than the recommended amount of alcohol.

The low figure is likely to primarily be due to the religious and ethnic diversity of the borough. Eighty-seven per cent of residents from an Asian ethnic background and 70 per cent of residents from a Black background do not drink. In contrast four-in-ten (42%) residents from a White background do not drink.

As Figure 3.6 shows, the proportion of residents who report that they smoke has been fairly consistent since 2006. One-in-five residents (19%) say they ever smoke in 2015.

60 It is important to note that this is a self-reported measure. Due to social desirability bias alcohol consumption is generally under reported. Because of this we are likely underestimating the proportion of residents who drink and the quantity they drink. 61 Health Survey for England (2014)


Figure 3.6 ---- Prevalence of smoking in Newham

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015; 2013: (1,019), 13 May -2 September 2013; 2011: (1,153), 18 April - 28 June 2011; 2008: (1,485), August 2007 - February 2008

21% 20%22%

20% 19%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2006 2008 2011 2013 2015

Yes, I smoke

Q Do you ever smoke?

Source: Ipsos MORI

3.6.4 Unhealthy behaviours

Unhealthy behaviours vary between different socio-demographic groups, and appear to be inter-dependent.

The key differences can be summarised as follows:

Women and men display different unhealthy behaviours from one another. Men are more likely to have active lifestyles than women. More than one-in-four men (28%) meet the recommended level of exercise compared with one-in-five women (18%). A high proportion of women live inactive lifestyles. Almost two-in-five women (38%) do 30 minutes of exercise less than once a week or never, compared with a quarter of men (25%). However, the pattern of unhealthy behaviour is reversed for smoking and alcohol consumption. Women are far less likely to smoke than men. Almost a quarter of men (24%) smoke compared with just over one-in-ten women (13%). Women are also less likely to drink than men (29% compared with 41%).


Residents from White ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to smoke (27%) than those from Asian (15%) and Black (seven per cent) backgrounds. Almost a third of residents (31%) who identify as ‘White other’ smoke (compared with 22% of White British residents and 19% of residents overall). Attention may also need to be given to the dietary and exercise habits of many Black Caribbean residents – while findings are not significant due to the low base size among this group, indicatively speaking they do suggest that they are less likely to meet exercise or dietary guidelines. Almost half of residents (46%) from a Black Caribbean background report never doing any exercise (compared with 21% of residents overall), and they are less likely to eat the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables every day (10% compared with 23% of all residents)62.

Almost half (46%) of residents over the age of 65 never do the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity (compared with 21% of all residents). But, two-in-five (42%) eat five portions of fruit and vegetables daily at least five times a week (compared with 34% of all residents), and almost three-in-four (72%) do not drink alcohol (compared with 64% of all residents).

Almost quarter (23%) of those who report having a disability ‘never’ eat the recommended daily portion of fruit and vegetables (compared with nine per cent of residents overall). This is in contrast to those who have a long-term health condition (but, do not report having a disability) where fewer than one-in-ten (eight per cent) ‘never’ eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. In fact those who report having a long-term health condition are likely to have very healthy diets. Almost half (46%) eat the recommended daily amount of fruit and vegetables at least five times per week.

As reported above, poverty does not seem to have a connection with being an unhealthy weight though poorer residents are more likely to display a number of unhealthy behaviours. Residents in poorer households are more likely to ‘never’ eat the recommended daily amount of fruit and vegetables (14% compared with eight per cent of those above the poverty line). They are also less likely to exercise regularly. Forty-four per cent of residents who are below the poverty line exercise less often than once a week or never, compared with 24 per cent of those who are not in poverty.

Further to demographic patterns the data also suggests how unhealthy behaviours can be inter-dependent. For example, those who drink alcohol are more likely to smoke. A quarter of those who drink also smoke (26% compared with 15% of people who do not drink). However, alcohol 62 Base are small for the Black Caribbean community, so caution must be taken with these findings


consumption and exercise show an inverse pattern, with those who do not drink being less likely to do exercise - over a third of residents (36%) who do not drink report that they exercise less than once a week or never (compared with 23% of residents who do drink alcohol).

There is a small but significant relationship between healthy exercise routines and a healthy diet. A quarter of residents (27%) who eat the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables every day also exercise at least five times a week (compared with 21% who do not eat the recommended amount). Conversely, residents with very unhealthy dietary habits also tend to have unhealthy exercise routines - 55 per cent of residents who never eat the recommended daily amount of fruit and vegetables also ‘never’ exercise for 30 minutes per day (overall 21% do not exercise).

3.6.5 Health risks taken by Newham residents

The data collected for smoking, exercise, diet and alcohol consumption can be compared with government health guidelines to get a sense of the health risks taken by Newham residents. This is a method developed by the King’s Fund to look at the combinations of health risks people take63.

Based on the King’s Fund analysis, unhealthy behaviours are defined as follows:

Smoking: the respondent smokes.

Drinking alcohol: the respondent drinks three units per day for women or four units per day for men.

Fruit and Vegetable consumption: the respondent does not eat five portions of fruit and vegetables every day.

Exercise: the respondent exercises for 30 minutes a day fewer than five days a week.

As Figure 3.7 shows, one-in-twenty Newham residents (five per cent) exhibit no unhealthy behaviours - in line with the King’s Fund findings for the population in England in 2008 (six per cent). However, almost two-thirds (65%) of residents exhibit at least two unhealthy behaviours, whilst one-in-ten exhibit three (11%). No residents exhibit all four unhealthy behaviours.

63 Clustering of unhealthy behaviours over time, The King’s Fund (2012): http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/clustering-of-unhealthy-behaviours-over-time-aug-2012.pdf The King’s Fund aggregate four unhealthy behaviours: smoking, excessive drinking, and not following the NHS recommendations on exercise and fruit and vegetable consumption.


Figure 3.7 ---- Unhealthy behaviours exhibited by Newham residents

5%

31%

54%

11%

No unhealthy behaviour One unhealthy behaviour

Two unhealthy behaviours Three unhealthy behaviours

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015 Source: Ipsos MORI

Residents from White and Mixed ethnic backgrounds are more than twice as likely to exhibit three unhealthy behaviours compared with those from a Black or Asian backgrounds (17% for White and 24% for Mixed compared with six per cent for Asian and eight per cent for Black residents).

Though women and men display different unhealthy behaviours, with men more likely to smoke and women less likely to exercise, they exhibit a similar number of unhealthy behaviours overall (a mean number of 1.7 for women and the same for men).

Despite indications that the majority of Newham residents have at least two unhealthy behaviours, eight-in ten (79% - a mean score of 5.4 out of 7) report being satisfied with their health. This is largely unchanged and is broadly consistent with 2013 (76% - a mean score of 5.35 out of 7).

3.6.6 Unhealthy behaviour: key drivers and changing behaviour

Statistical modelling of the data shows having either a limiting health condition or disability has the strongest link to the number of unhealthy behaviours a resident has. Being unable to recover from stress and being in poverty also have a strong link to the number of healthy behaviours demonstrated.

Linear regression (or ‘key drivers’) analysis64 was used to identify the factors most correlated with unhealthy behaviours, including obesity. A summary measure was created from the four unhealthy behaviours plus an indicator of whether or not the individual was obese (or morbidly obese).

The model produced explains five per cent of variance in unhealthy behaviours, which is very small for this type of analysis and therefore

64 See Appendix A for more information on the statistical analysis


suggests there are other factors at play such as culture and environment that are not captured in the Understanding Newham questionnaire. However, the model is still useful as it allows us to identify the biggest drivers of unhealthy behaviours within the realms of the survey subject matter.

The model controls for some underlying demographic characteristics, namely: age, gender, Community Forum Area (CFA) and education. These variables were included because they were all found to be significantly related to unhealthy behaviour. These characteristics were included as control variables to ensure the relationship between the drivers and unhealthy behaviours is not simply an artefact of demographic differences. (Put another way, it means the relationship between the drivers and unhealthy behaviours takes demographic differences into account.)

As shown in Table 3.8, the model suggests the biggest driver is whether or not the individual has a health condition or disability, followed by their ability to recover from stressful situations (lower resilience = more unhealthy behaviours). Together these explain the majority of variance in the model. This suggests poor health is a vicious circle, whereby residents who are ill have low resilience to taking up unhealthy behaviours, which then causes them to have poor health and low resilience. The model cannot identify which of these behaviours came first, but there is evidence to suggest that the behaviours are strongly linked.

Poverty also emerges as an important factor in unhealthy behaviour. Residents living in households that are below the poverty threshold are more likely to experience unhealthy behaviours.

After poverty the next strongest driver is the presence of children in the household. This has a negative association, so households without children are more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviours (remember this is after controlling for differences in age). Satisfaction with how leisure time is spent is also important; more satisfied residents report fewer unhealthy behaviours.

There is an association between employment, working hours and unhealthy behaviours. Being in employment is positively associated with unhealthy behaviour. However, working longer hours is negatively associated, suggesting part-time workers are more at risk.

Smaller households and private renters are both associated with a higher number of unhealthy behaviours.


Table 3.8 ---- Key drivers of unhealthy behaviour

Relationship with outcome

Importance Rank

Has limiting health condition or disability + 48% 1

Brief resilience score ‐ 11% 2

In poverty (BHC) + 9% 3

Dependent children in household ‐ 7% 4

Satisfaction with how leisure time is spent ‐ 7% 5

Number of hours worked ‐ 7% 6

Paid employment / self employed + 2% 7

Private renter + 2% 8

Number of people in household ‐ 2% 9

Rating of local health services + 0% 10

Source: Newham Household Panel Controlled variables: age, gender, CFA and qualifications Comparing Understanding Newham panellists’65 behaviour between 2013 and 2015 shows that exercise levels and dietary behaviours are more prone to change than smoking or alcohol consumption – as illustrated in Figure 3.8:

Smoking: This behaviour is the least prone to change. Seven per cent of panellists took up smoking between waves, which was matched by seven per cent giving it up. Eighty-six per cent did not change their behaviour.

Alcohol: Nine per cent started drinking alcohol between waves whilst 12 per cent gave it up. Eighty per cent did not change their behaviour between waves.

65 The panellists are respondents who have answered multiple waves of the study. By looking at their behaviour from wave to wave (i.e. longitudinally), we are able to get a sense of how behaviour has changed for Newham residents.


Fruit: Of the panellists who have stopped eating the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables per day (18%), almost two-in-five (38%) are now eating the recommended portion of fruit and vegetables less than three times a week. Conversely, of the panellists who have now started eating the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables (15%), the vast majority (89%) were already eating five portions of fruit and vegetables at least once a week, with two-in-five (38%) having a big shift in behaviour, by going from only eating fruit and vegetable one or two times a week, to eating the recommended portions every day.

Exercise: Of the panellists who were doing a healthy amount of exercise in 2013, one-in-five are no longer doing it (19%), a third (32%) stopped exercising completely, and further third (31%) now only exercise once a week. Further emphasising the finding that fewer residents are doing the recommended amount of exercise, only 11 per cent of panellists have now taken up the healthy amount. The majority of this group (57%) was already reported as doing 30 minutes of exercise at least two times a week.

Figure 3.8 ---- Change in panellist’s healthy and unhealthy behaviour since 2013 (Wave 7)

73%

56%

11%

8%

7%

12%

11%

15%

7%

9%

19%

18%

13%

24%

59%

59%

Smoking

Alcohol

Exercise

Fruit and Vegconsumption

Constant Healthy behaviour

Healthy Behaviour Wave 8 Unhealthy Behaviour Wave 7

Unhealthy Behaviour Wave 8 Healthy Behaviour Wave 7

Constant Unhealthy behaviour

Base: Panel respondents (555) Source: Ipsos MORI


3.6.7 Care

One–in-twenty Newham residents receive informal care66 due to a disability or health problem.

Almost all of this care comes from family, relatives or friends rather than their children with only two respondents saying they receive care from a child under the age of 16.

Of the residents who receive informal care, more than one-in-three residents (35%) receive up to nine hours of care a week, and a third (34%) receive between 10 and 34 hours of care a week. One-in-ten (nine per cent) receives between 35 and 99 hours of care, and just over one-in-ten (13%) receives continuous care or 100 hours a week67.

3.6.8 Life satisfaction

Newham residents continue to be more satisfied with their life overall compared with the rest of London and the UK.

Following on from 2013, over three-in-four (77%) Newham residents say that they are satisfied with life overall (this is defined as at least 5 on a scale of 1-7). Noticeably, Newham residents’ life satisfaction has remained consistent, whilst life satisfaction in the UK has dropped. Newham residents scored an average of 5.36 (which is not significantly different from 5.42 score in 2013, and a rise compared with all other waves since Wave 3). This is in contrast to the UK which had a life satisfaction score of 5.09 in 201468 (dropping from 5.22 in 2010)69. It is also considerably higher than the rest of London, where an average score of 5.0370 is given.

Residents from a White background are far more likely to be satisfied with their life than those from an Asian, Mixed, or Black background (85% compared to 73%, 71% and 70% respectively). Asian Pakistani residents are the least likely to be satisfied with just six-in-ten (62%) saying they are satisfied with their life overall. This fits with the national picture where 63 per cent of Asian Pakistani saying they are satisfied with the life overall71.

Those who are ‘harder-pressed’ – residents who are unemployed or have lower incomes - have lower life satisfaction levels. The unemployed are less likely to be satisfied (63% compared to 77% of residents overall). Linked to this, poverty has a strong connection with life satisfaction - 67 per cent of

66 Informal care is defined by HHSA as ‘help received either from members of one’s own household, or from members of other households’ 67 The base size is small for this question (n=43) so caution must be taken with these findings 68 Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014) 69 Understanding Society Wave 4 (2012-13) 70 Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014) 71 Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014)


those in poverty say they are satisfied compared 83 per cent of those who are above the poverty line72.

Also, perhaps unsurprisingly, being in good health also has a positive link with overall life satisfaction. Just over half of those with a long-term health condition or disability say they are satisfied with their life (55% compared with 81% of those without a long-term health condition or disability).

Residents who exercise are also slightly more likely to be satisfied with life (82% compared with 76% who do not do the recommended amount of exercise).

Though satisfaction with their social lives and the amount of leisure time they have has remained relatively stable for 2015, residents are less likely to be satisfied with the way they actually spend their leisure time.

In 2013, residents reported increased levels of satisfaction with their social life, the amount of leisure time they had, and what they did with it. These levels have remained largely unchanged in 2015, as Figure 3.9 shows. Seven-in-ten residents (70%) are satisfied with their social life (a mean score of 5.12). This compares with 73 per cent in 2013 (mean score of 5.2), which was up from 62 per cent in 2011 (mean score of 4.91). Almost six-in-ten (57% - a mean score of 4.76) are satisfied with the amount of leisure time they have compared with 58 per cent in 2013 (mean score 4.77) and up from 50% (mean score 4.43) in 2011. While more than half of residents (56% - mean score of 4.74) report being satisfied with the way they spend their leisure time, this has fallen by six percentage points since 2013 (62% - mean score 4.88), bringing it closer to the satisfaction levels reporting during 2011 (54% - a mean score of 4.55).

Figure 3.9 ---- % Satisfied with aspects of life within Newham

62%

73% 70%

50%

59%57%

54%

62%

56%

47%

54% 56%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2011 2013 2015

Social life

Amount of leisure time

Use of leisure time

Household income

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 Sep 2015; 2013: (1,019), 13 May – 2 Sep 2013; 2011: (1,153), 18 April - 28 June 2011; Source: Ipsos MORI

72 Poverty line is before household cost. See Appendix A for more details


The majority of residents are satisfied with their household income (56%), which has remained stable since 2013 (where it was 54%). The self-employed are more likely to be satisfied with their household income (71%) than those who are in paid employment (58%). Those who are unemployed or not working because they are long-term sick or disabled are least likely to be satisfied with their household income (40% for unemployed and 34% for long-term sick or disabled compared to 56% of residents overall). Those who are only on a part-time contract are far less likely to be satisfied with their household income than those in full-time employment (33% compared with 64%).

3.6.9 Personal resilience

Social isolation is a key factor affecting resilience to stress. Poverty caused by unmanageable housing costs may have a strong link with low resilience to stress too. One of the Council’s core objectives is to strengthen residents’ personal resilience, and key to this is ensuring that they are able to cope with, or ‘bounce back’ from, stressful situations. To assess this ability, respondents were asked a series of six psychometric questions73. The results of these questions were aggregated and each respondent given a score to indicate how able they are to recover from stress. These scores were then categorised into low resilience to stress (a score under 3), medium resilience (between 3 and 4.29), and high resilience (4.3 and 5). Using this method, we found that 21 per cent of residents could be said to have low resilience to stress, 74 per cent medium resilience and five per cent high resilience74.

The less frequently residents meet up with friends or family members the less likely they are to bounce back from stressful and difficult situations. Seventeen per cent of residents who meet up with friends or family at least twice a week have low resilience, rising to 27% among those who meet friends and family only once or twice a month, and 40% amongst residents who meet with friends and family less often than once a month or never. This may partly explain why older people and those with long-term health conditions are less likely to cope with stressful situations. Digital exclusion may be a factor too. Those with no access to the internet are almost twice as likely to never meet up with friends or family compared to those with it (19% compared with 10% who have internet access).

73 The questions used measure whether a person feels they are able to recover from stressful situations. The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back; Bruce W. Smith et al (2010) 74 It is worth noting that the Brief Resilience Scale has not been tested on a population similar to Newham before. As such it may be the case that the threshold for the high resilience group may be set too high for example, which may account for the low proportion of residents in this group.


Despite this finding, having access to one-to-one advice does not appear to have a very strong link with resilience. Residents who have access to advice from someone in their neighbourhood are equally as likely as those with no access to have low resilience to stress (20% and 21% respectively).

Older residents and those with a limiting health condition or disability are more likely to have low resilience to stress: almost a third of residents who are 65 or older (32%) and almost two-in-five of those with a long-term health condition (39%) have a low resilience to stressful situations (compared with 21% of all residents). Those with no formal qualifications are more likely to have a tough time dealing with stress (28% compared with 21% of residents overall).

Ethnicity does not appear to have a strong link with resilience to stress, with no significant difference between residents from different ethnic backgrounds.

In terms of poverty, a quarter of residents (27%) who are in poverty when housing costs are included have a low resilience to stress, as seen in Table 3.9. This compares with 16 per cent of those who are not in poverty after housing costs. Housing costs are likely to be the key factor here, because if housing costs are excluded from the poverty measure there is no significant difference between those within poverty and those outside it (27% in poverty have low resilience to stress compared with 23% of those outside of poverty).

Table 3.9 ---- Resilience to stress and poverty before housing costs and after housing costs

Household in poverty (before

housing costs

included)

Household not in poverty

(beforehousing

costs included)

Household in poverty (after

housing costs

included)

Household not in

poverty (afterhousing

costs included)

Low resilience to stress

27% 23% 27% 16%

Medium/High resilience to

stress

73% 77% 73% 84%

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 Base: 588 respondents for before housing costs; 448 respondents after housing costs

Self-reported levels of wellbeing are clearly linked to residents’ levels of resilience. For example, those more likely to be dissatisfied with their life


overall are also more likely to display low levels of resilience (37% compared with just 17% of residents who report being satisfied with their life overall). Similarly, residents who report being dissatisfied with their health are less resilient to stress compared with those who are satisfied with it (33% vs. 18%), as are residents who are dissatisfied with their social life (31% vs. 17% who are satisfied with it).

The case studies in Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.11 are used to illustrate the type of resident who might typically have a low resilience to stress and, conversely, the type who might have a high resilience to stress.

Figure 3.10 ---- An illustrative case study of a resident with a low resilience to stress

Figure 3.11 ---- An illustrative case study of a resident with a high resilience to stress

Marina tends to not be able to ‘bounce back’ from stress (low resilience)

Marina has a long-term health condition and no formal education. Though her household income is average for the area, the cost of keeping her home means that they are in poverty. As such she is unsatisfied with her household income. She rarely meets with friends and is dissatisfied with both the amount of leisure time she has, and, when she does have leisure time, she is not able to spend it the way she would like. Marina does not eat enough fruit or vegetables and does not do the level of exercise her doctor recommends she should do.

David tends be able to ‘bounce back’ from stress (high resilience)

David is a 36 year old White British resident. He has a Master’s degree and has a household gross income in excess of £52,000 per year which means his household is one of the higher earning households in Newham. However, this said, he is still not satisfied with this income.

He has a diverse range of friends with fewer than half coming from the same ethnic background. He is satisfied with the leisure time he gets and with life overall. David makes sure he exercises at least five times a week and he eats five potions of fruit and vegetables at least five days a week.


A key driver analysis was used to identify the factors most related to personal resilience75. The model explains 10 per cent of the results, which suggests there are other factors outside of the model that may be related to a resident’s resilience levels.

As Table 3.10 shows, the model clearly demonstrates the role of social isolation in a resident’s inability to bounce back from stress. Residents who rarely meet with friends or family are much more likely to have low resilience. The next most important factor is education, with higher levels of education related to higher levels of personal resilience. Finally being in the highest income group is also a strong predictor of higher resilience.

Table 3.10 ---- Key drivers of Brief Resilience

Relationship with outcome

Importance Rank

Rarely / never meets friends and

family -

51% 1

Degree level qualifications

+ 30% 2

Highest income quartile

+ 19% 3

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 Controlled variables: age, sex, CFA, health status, ethnicity, English as a first language

3.6.10 Value Modes of Newham residents

The Values Modes segmentation, designed by Campaign Strategy Ltd, was applied to survey data in order to understand the motivations and beliefs of Newham residents. The Value Modes model places people into one of three categories based on answers given to ten value-based questions76. Each of the three categories is then further broken down into four behavioural sub-categories. The model gives us a sense of the set of values different groups of residents hold in a given population. This analysis is used by a wide number of organisations and policymakers to understand which campaign and policy interventions will have the most impact upon a target group.

The three overall categories are Pioneers, Prospectors and Settlers. Over half of Newham residents (53%) fall into the Prospectors segment, whilst a quarter (26%) fall into the Settler category and just over a fifth (22%) in the

75 This time the model controlled for differences in age, gender, CFA, health status, ethnicity and English as a first language, since all these characteristics were significantly related to personal resilience. 76 Details of the questions used can be found in Appendix A


Pioneer category. This is in stark contrast to the UK, where just under a fifth (37%) of the population are Prospectors, a third are Pioneers (32%) just under a third are Settlers (31%)77.

How the three groups are proportionally broken down into their corresponding subgroups is shown in Table 3.11. A full description of the characteristics of each sub-group for each of the three Value Modes is listed in Appendix A.

Table 3.11 ---- Values Modes in Newham

Overall Value Mode group

Percentage Newham residents

(%)

Sub-group

Percentage Newham residents

(%)

Pioneers 22 Transitionals 3

Concerned Ethicals 3

Flexible Individualists 6

Transcenders 9

Prospectors 53 Tomorrow People 8

Now People 19

Happy Followers 10

Golden Dreamers 15

Settlers 25 Certainty First 8

Brave New World 9

Smooth Sailing 5

Roots 4

Source: Understanding Newham 2015

The largest group in Newham, the Prospectors, are ‘outwardly driven’; or driven by the esteem of others. A Prospector’s values are orientated around social and economic success, with their key motivation being seen by others to be succeeding. They are more orientated towards free market solutions are not as worried about differences in wealth. Those in this group are likely to be optimistic and willing to be active locally78, though they are not necessarily interested in particular ‘causes’ (this is the realm of Pioneers). In terms of engagement, Campaign Strategy Ltd suggests that

77 For more information see http://www.cultdyn.co.uk/ 78 This is not to say that they are active locally. In Newham, Prospectors are no more likely to go to community events and gatherings with 58 per cent never going to a community event or gathering (compared with 54% of residents overall)


Prospectors are best engaged through activities and public events where they can be seen to be active in the community79.

In Newham, those aged 25-34 are more likely to be in the Prospector group (61% compared with 53% overall) along with two thirds of residents from a Bangladeshi background (66%) and almost two thirds of residents from a White non-British background (65%). The new residents in Newham (those who have lived in the borough for two years of less) are more likely to be in the Prospector group than those who have lived in the borough for five years or more (63% compared to 49%). This has important implications for the Council; there are more new residents in Newham than in previous years and more of these new residents have a different set of values to many of the longer tenured residents.80 As such, policy and campaign interventions which may have worked in the past may be differently received now.

Of the Prospector subgroups, Newham residents mainly fall into the socially liberal Now People and the socially conservative Golden Dreamers groups–

A fifth of Newham residents (19%) fall into the Now People category. Cultural Dynamics defines this group as socially tolerant, and that they feel motives matter as much as outcomes. They are interested in being at the centre of things and confident in their own abilities. In Newham younger residents are more likely to be Now People than those who are older (25% of 16-34 year olds compared to six per cent of those who are 65+). Residents from a White non-British background (33%) and residents who have lived in the borough for less than two years (28%) are also more likely to be in this group.

Fifteen per cent fall into the Golden Dreamer category. Golden Dreamers are socially and culturally conservative. They want respect and are likely to be a central voice when their community is angry. However, they also are likely to feel that their situation can and will improve quickly. In Newham almost a third of residents (31%) from a Bangladeshi background and a quarter of residents (24%) from an Indian background are Golden Dreamers.

Though the majority of Newham residents are Prospectors, a quarter (25%) are in the Settler category. Settlers are socially conservative and anxious about their economic security. They are more pessimistic than other groups and nostalgic for the past. They are likely to have tight-knit social networks

79 ‘Summary of Values Based Segmentation (Values Modes)’, Chris Rose, Campaign Strategy Ltd (2013): http://threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Summary-of-Values-Based-Segmentation-CR-CSL-March-2013.pdf 80 It must be noted, compared to the UK overall, there is still a greater proportion of Prospectors amongst those who have lived in Newham for over five years


and a desire to belong. Settlers are best engaged via groups they already are involved with, and through existing authority figures they recognise81.

Male residents are more likely to be Settlers (29% compared with 21% of females), as are older residents aged 55 or over (45% compared with 25% overall) and those with a long-term health condition or disability (45%).

Not having affordable housing is linked to the Settler values set. Those in poverty when housing costs are taken into account are more likely to be in the Settlers (36% compared with 23% of those not in poverty after housing costs are counted).

The two major Settler sub-groups are Brave New World (nine per cent of Newham residents) and Certainty First (eight per cent).

Residents who hold Brave New World values are negative about the political system letting them down. They are likely to be more authoritarian and feel that people keeping to traditional family roles is correct. Those with a limiting health condition or disability (20%) are much more likely to be in this group, as are those who are in poverty when housing hosts are taken into account (16%).

Residents who hold Certainty First values are cautious, but less fatalistic than other Settlers. They prefer neatness and convention and see it as right to perform their role or duty. There is a tendency for older Newham residents to be in this group compared to younger residents (15% for those who are 55+ compared with four per cent of those who are 16-34). However, there are very few other demographic differences, suggesting that this value set is dispersed throughout Newham.

The smallest group of residents in Newham are the Pioneers. In terms of the values they hold, they are socially tolerant and have a more positive outlook about diversity. They are typically trend setters in society and want it to be fairer. They have looser knit and more diverse social networks –49 per cent of Pioneers have at least half their friends coming from a difference ethnic background. They also have a good sense of how the local environment is connected to the wider world. This group are best engaged via ‘issues’ and the discussion of ideas82.

In Newham, residents aged 16-24 (31%) and residents from a Black background (31%) are most likely to be Pioneers (compared to 22% of residents overall). Home ownership has an association with residents

81 ‘Summary of Values Based Segmentation (Values Modes)’, Chris Rose, Campaign Strategy Ltd (2013): http://threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Summary-of-Values-Based-Segmentation-CR-CSL-March-2013.pdf 82 Ibid


having a Pioneers values mode as owner occupiers are more likely to be Pioneers (27%) compared to social renters (14%) and private renters (14%).

Though there is a lower proportion of the trend setting Pioneers in Newham, almost one-in-ten residents (nine per cent) are in the Transcender Pioneer sub-group – a group which can be described as ‘über Pioneers’. This group are residents with a high degree of self-efficacy and openness to new ideas. They are also likely to be the activist base of any campaigns in the area. They will engage in, and ask, big questions and see the state as able to enable change in society.

Younger residents tend towards this value mode with almost one-in-five residents aged 16-24 being classed as a Transcender (18%). Income and home ownership have a link to this group too, suggesting that those with more economic security are able to think about the big questions in the community. Fourteen per cent of those in the highest income quartile are Transcenders compared with two per cent in the lowest two income quartiles, whilst 11 per cent of owner occupiers are in the group compared with four per cent of renters.

of employed residents are employed on permanent,

full-time contracts

Employment levels have increased since

2013 and are now in line with national figures

% employed

CHAPTER SUMMARY4 Economic resilience

EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

83%

Pay in Newham has fallen in real terms since 2013 and median pay is

three-quarters of the national average

More than half (53%) of employees earn

less than the LondonLiving Wage of £9.15

A third of employees on permanent part time

contracts want to work longer hours

1 in 5Underpayment of the

national minimum wage is highest in the retail

sector where 33% of employees are paid below national

minimum wage

Nearly

employees are paid less than the national

minimum wageof £6.50 per hour

2011 2012 2013

40 43

48


HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION

Household incomes in Newham are far below the national average

Poverty levels in Newham are far higher than nationally

and housing costs impact disproportionately

on Newham residents

Housing costs account for a quarter of Newham households’

gross incomes on average

Median monthly housing costs in Newham

per week

per week

per week

per week

£358 £453

£278 £386

Median net equivalised household income before housing

costs in Newham

Median net equivalised household income after housing

costs in Newham

of Newham’s children live in households in poverty before

housing costs*

(2013- 55%, UK, 2014-17%)

of households in Newham are in relative poverty before housing costs

(2013 – 40%, UK, 2014 - 15%*)

*Households Below Average Income report (2013/14)

* Households Below Average Income (2013/14)

* Households Below Average Income (2013/14)

..or 79% of the national median* net equivalised household income

before housing costs of

...or 72% of the national median* net equivalised household income

after housing costs of

35% 51%

Private rentersSocial tenants

Owner-occupiers

£934 £412 £500


FINANCIAL RESILIENCE

Over half of Newham residents receive some form of unemployment,

sickness or means-tested benefit payment

Residents’ perceptions of their financial situation

have improved since 2013

More Newham residents now save money each month

compared with 2013

Many Newham residents hold some

form of debt, but only a minority have sought advice

of Newham residents receive at least one unemployment,

sickness or means-tested benefit payment

(2013 - 62%)

say they are living comfortably or doing alright these days

(2013 - 42%)

19% are finding it difficult

of Newham residents save money each month

(2013 - 41%)

hold some form of debt. 8% have ever asked for advice about a debt

56%

49%

46%

27%


This chapter looks at Newham residents’ employment and income. It compares Wave 8 data to previous waves, and also to national datasets and benchmarks.

4.1 Employment and wages

4.1.1 Employment levels

The proportion of Newham residents in work has continued to increase since 2011. However, unemployment has also increased marginally.

Half of Newham residents (48%) are in paid employment, whether full- or part- time, while a further one-in-ten are self-employed (nine per cent). One-in-ten residents are currently unemployed (10%).

The proportion of Newham residents in work has increased by five percentage points since 2013, to 48 per cent, as shown in Table 4.1. Despite this, the proportion of residents who are unemployed has also increased marginally, from seven per cent in 2013 to 10 per cent in 2015.

Table 4.1 ---- Work status of Newham residents over time

2011(Wave 6)

2013 (Wave 7)

2015(Wave 8) London UK

Employed 40 43 48 51 48

Self employed 8 9 9 9 8

Unemployed 11 7 10 6 5

Looking after family

14 14 8 5 5

Retired 12 11 11 15 24

Full time student 10 11 10 9 7

Long-term sick/ disabled

4 4 3 3 3

On maternity leave

1 1 * 1 1

Source: Understanding Newham, Understanding Society Newham: 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 998; 2015 (Wave 8), 965. London: Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014), 2,122. UK: Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014), 15,830.

As in 2013, employment is higher among men than women, with 55 per cent of men in paid employment, compared with 40 per cent of women. The


proportion of women who say that they are looking after their home and/ or family has fallen by nine percentage points since 2013 (from 25% to 17%).

Unemployment is particularly a problem among the youngest age group where they are not in education or training: 19 per cent of residents aged 17-24 define themselves as unemployed, compared with only 10 per cent of all residents.

Employment levels also vary between ethnic groups. It should be noted, however, that this is largely reflective of the age profile of those groups. For example, residents from a Black background are less likely than those of other ethnicities to be in paid employment (39%, compared with 48% of all residents). However, this difference disappears when looking at residents of working-age only. Perhaps reflective of cultural differences, residents from Bangladeshi backgrounds are less likely than those of other backgrounds to be employed, but are more likely to be looking after the home or family.

Employment status is strongly related to income, with employment levels increasing with income quartiles (from 29% among the lowest income quartile to 65% among the highest quartile). While this is in part due to the fact that employment drives income, it is noticeable that a significant proportion of residents living in households with the lowest incomes are in work.

Employment among working-age residents is in line with the national average.

Almost three-quarters of working-age residents – i.e. those aged 25-55 – are currently working (73%), whether employed full- or part-time (60%), or self-employed (13%). This compares with 73.7% nationally and 72.1% in London83. One-in-ten working-age residents (11%) are looking after their home and/ or family, while just under one-in-ten (eight per cent) are unemployed.

As Figure 4.1 shows, employment patterns vary between the sexes with working-age men more likely to be in paid employment (68%, compared with 50% of working-age women) or self-employed (20%, compared with six per cent of working-age women). By contrast, working-age women are more likely to say that they are looking after their home and/ or family (24%, compared with one per cent of men). Working-age women are also more likely to define themselves as unemployed (13%, compared with four per cent of working-age men) – albeit no less likely to report being in part-time work - suggesting that women in Newham have greater issues accessing work opportunities.

83 Labour Market Statistics (August 2015): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/august-2015/statistical-bulletin.html. It should be noted that ONS UK Labour Market Statistics are based on the working population from 16-64.


Figure 4.1 ---- Labour market status by gender: 25 to 55 year olds in Newham

53% 54%

7%

13%14%

20%

38%

33%

8%

14%

3%6%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2004 2008 2011 2013 2015

Source: Ipsos MORI

Part-time (men)

Self-employed (men)

Self-employed (women)

Part-time (women)

Full-time (women)

Full-time (men)

Q Which of these best describes your current employment situation?

Base: Respondents aged 25-55; 2015: (645), 17 April - 16 September 2015;

Differences also emerge across Newham’s ethnic groups. Working age residents from White backgrounds are more likely to be self-employed (23%, compared with 13% of all working age residents). While this is largely driven by residents from ‘other’ White backgrounds (29%), White British working-age residents are also more likely than average to be self-employed (15%). Unemployment is highest among working age residents from Black (15%) and Mixed84 (19%) backgrounds.

Working-age residents with no formal qualifications are more likely to be unemployed (11%) than those with A-Levels (where it is just six per cent) or Higher Education qualifications (six per cent). However, they are also more likely to be self-employed (17%, compared with eight per cent of working age residents with A-Levels and 12% of those with Higher Education qualifications).

Residents in poorer health are less likely to be working: four-in-ten working age residents with a disability or limiting health condition are employed (39%), compared with almost two-thirds of residents without (63%).

Tenure is also linked to employment status among residents of working age. Just under half of social renters are currently employed (48%), while one-in-five (19%) are unemployed. By contrast, almost two-thirds of owner-occupiers and private renters are in paid employed (65% and 61% respectively), and one-in-twenty of each group are unemployed (five per cent and six per cent respectively).

84 Indicative finding only – small base size (n=22) among residents from Mixed backgrounds.


In line with 2013 findings, the majority of employed residents are on permanent, full-time contracts.

More than four-in-five employed residents (83%, compared with 82% in 2013) are employed on permanent, full-time contracts, while a further one-in-ten (nine per cent compared with 12% in 2013) have permanent part-time contracts. As such, only eight per cent of working residents are employed under other arrangements, such as temporary fixed contracts (two per cent) or casual work (also two per cent).

As in 2013, only one per cent of working residents are employed on zero-hours contracts85: this is below the national figure of 2.4%86.

There is little variation in employment type between different demographic groups or industry sectors. However, women are more likely than men to be in part-time employment (14% compared with six per cent). Working residents from Black ethnic backgrounds are marginally more likely to be employed part-time (14%) or on temporary contracts (six per cent), though neither is significant against the total (nine per cent and two per cent respectively).

In line with their contract types, more than half of employed residents (54%) say they work during the day. One-in-seven employed residents do not have standard hours, whether working rotating shifts (seven per cent), split shifts (two per cent), or with no usual work pattern (six per cent).

Employed residents from Black ethnic backgrounds are more likely to say that they work in the morning only (25%, compared with 14% of all employed residents) – this is linked to the different contracts under which they are employed.

Shift working is most common among employees in the Leisure and Retail sectors, where 18 per cent and 12 per cent of employees respectively say they work rotating shifts (compared with seven per cent of all employees).

A significant minority of residents who could potentially have worked in the last year (excluding those who were retired, long-term ill, in full-time education or on maternity leave) did not work at all.

Eighteen per cent of residents who were eligible to work in the last year did not work at all. The majority of these residents (81%) said that they could

85 The number of people saying they are employed on zero-hours contracts depends on recognition of the term. However, it should be noted that the incidence of zero-hours contracts among Newham workers has remained constant since Wave 7 of the survey, while national figures have risen. 86 ONS Labour Market Statistics (2015): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/employee-contracts-that-do-not-guarantee-a-minimum-number-of-hours--2015-update-/index.html


not have worked during this time, and half (53%) said that they were looking after their home or family.

Nine-in-ten residents (88%) worked all of the months that they said they could have in the last year. While there are few differences in levels of underemployment by sector, workers on part-time contracts were less likely to have worked all the months they could have in the last year (74% did so, compared with 92% of full-time employees).

On average, employees work a full-time week with variation linked to the varying employment terms.

Across all employed residents, the typical working week was a mean 34.72 hours (median 38 hours). This varies by contract type, however, with residents employed on permanent full-time contracts working a mean 36.55 hours (median 40 hours), compared with a mean 20.48 hours (median 21 hours) among residents employed on permanent part-time contracts.

Some differences emerge in the length of the average working week across demographic groups, related to their different employment terms: on average, women work fewer hours than men, while employees from Black ethnic backgrounds work fewer hours than other ethnic groups.

Underemployment exists not just across the year, but also week-to-week, with many part-time workers wanting to work longer hours.

Only one-in-eight employees (14%) would like to work longer hours at their current rate of pay. However, this increases to one-third (33%) among workers employed on part-time contracts. This suggests that some part-time workers may be willing to work full-time, if possible.

The desire to work longer hours is also linked to income. Whereas only nine per cent of employees living in households in the top income quartile would like to work longer hours, this figure rises to 17 per cent in the upper-middle quartile, 18 per cent in the lower-middle quartile and 20 per cent in the lowest quartile. While this is in part driven by the different working hours and contract types across income quartiles (with the highest income quartile working a median 40 hours, compared with 35 hours among the lowest income quartile), on average, residents who would like to work longer hours already work a median 35 hours.

4.1.2 Wages

Pay in Newham has fallen in real terms, and median pay is three-quarters of the national average.

Median gross monthly pay in Newham among employees is £1,400 (mean £1,693). This suggests pay is largely unchanged since 2013, when median monthly pay was £1,409 (mean £1,657), not accounting for inflation. Median


gross weekly pay among employees in Newham is £323.08 (mean £390.86), which is unchanged from 2013, when median weekly pay was also £323.08.

While residents’ pay is unchanged from 2013, adjusting the 2013 pay-rate for inflation shows that the median pay of employees in Newham has fallen in real terms, with the 2013 median weekly pay worth £328.1987 in current terms (i.e. respondents would need to earn £328.19 in 2015 for their income to match the 2013 median income adjusted for inflation).

Comparison with national data shows that pay in Newham is well below national levels. The latest ONS data for 2014 provides a UK median weekly gross pay of £417.9088, suggesting that median pay in Newham is just over three-quarters of the national median (77%).

Some differences emerge between groups of residents, although it is important to note that differences in pay rates are largely related to employment terms and working hours.

Employees from Black ethnic backgrounds have the lowest median gross weekly pay at £300.0089, compared with a median pay of £323.08 among employees of White backgrounds and £346.15 among employees of Asian backgrounds.

Men enjoy higher gross pay, with a median gross weekly pay of £362.43, compared with £276.92 among women. This discrepancy can be partially attributed to differing employment terms (with men more likely to work full-time), but, as discussed below, is also the result of differing levels of hourly pay.

Hourly pay has increased slightly since 2013, but is still well below national levels.

In order to calculate employees’ gross hourly pay90, gross weekly pay was divided by the number of hours worked per week91. This provides a median hourly pay among employed Newham residents of £8.87 per hour (mean £10.52). By contrast, in indicative terms, median hourly pay within the UK is

87 Median gross weekly pay was upweighted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) values for August 2015 and August 2013 (the midpoint of each fieldwork period). CPI data taken from the ONS website: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=D7BT&dataset=mm23&table-id=1.1 88 ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2014): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html 89 Caution – this is based on n=39 Newham residents from Black ethnic backgrounds who were employed during the survey period and provided income data 90 Gross hourly pay has been calculated for employees only (excluding self-employed), consistent with minimum wage legislation 91 In order to be comparable with minimum wage figures, the total number of hours worked includes overtime, and may therefore include unpaid overtime


£11.6192, while within London median hourly pay is £15.81. It should be noted that the calculation for gross hourly pay used in Understanding Newham differs from national statistics, since it includes total pay for the last pay period, including overtime pay, and total hours worked, including both paid and unpaid overtime. As such, derived hourly pay is not directly comparable with national figures.

Hourly pay has increased since 2013, in both absolute and real terms. In 2013, median hourly pay among Newham employees sat at £8.65 per hour – applying inflation, this equates to £8.79 in real terms, which is below the 2015 median pay of £8.87 per hour. This increase in hourly rates has not had a knock-on effect on monthly pay for employees in Newham, however, suggesting that increased pay rates have been to some extent offset by individuals working fewer hours.

Looking at panellists only, median hourly pay has increased from £9.11 in 2013 to £9.23. This suggests that panellists’ pay has stagnated, with the 2013 median pay of £9.11 equivalent to £9.23 in real terms.

Gross hourly pay is lowest among the youngest age group of employees (16-24), at a median £7.50, compared with £9.14 among employees aged 25-34 and £8.97 among those aged 35-44.

Median hourly pay is lowest among employees from White ethnic backgrounds (at £8.66 overall), and this is driven by those from ‘other’ White backgrounds (i.e. non-British), among whom median hourly pay is £8.03. This finding comes despite the fact that weekly income is lowest among employees from Black backgrounds, and therefore suggests that employment terms are the biggest factor in determining overall income.

Men earn more per hour than women, with a median gross hourly pay among male employees of £9.62, compared with £7.83 among female employees. This represents a shortfall of 19%, which is in line with the national gender pay gap (19.1%)93. Therefore, while women work fewer hours than men, there is also significant gender-based inequality driving the differential in gross pay94.

The low number of Newham employees working within each industry sector makes comparison between sectors difficult. However, indicative findings suggest that median pay is lowest within the Retail (£7.31) and Leisure and Accommodation (£7.52) sectors.

92 ONS data (2014). See footnote 88 for details. 93 ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2014): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html 94 It should be noted that this comparison of hourly pay looks at average pay rates for men and women overall, and does not account for differences in jobs/ roles.


The data indicates that employees working on full-time permanent contracts earn more per hour than those working on part-time permanent contracts (median hourly pay is £9.02 among full-time employees, compared with £7.83 among part-time employees). Again, however, it should be noted that this analysis is based on small base sizes95.

Underpayment of the National Minimum Wage is still a problem in Newham, with one-in-five employees aged 21 and over in Newham (19%) being paid less than £6.50 per hour96.

Underpayment of the minimum wage is broadly in line with 2013, when 18% of employed Newham residents aged 21 and over were paid below the then existing rate of £6.19.

Some groups of eligible respondents are less likely to be paid the minimum wage. Employees from White ethnic backgrounds are less likely than those of Asian and Black backgrounds to earn less than the minimum wage (17% compared to 20% and 21% respectively). Differences also emerge within broad ethnic groups. While employees from Asian backgrounds are less likely overall to be paid the minimum wage, the rate of underpayment among those from Indian backgrounds is even lower (15%), and in line with the rate among employees from White backgrounds.

Despite their lower hourly pay rates, women are not significantly more likely to be paid less than the minimum wage than men, with more than one-in-five female employees (20%) paid less than the minimum wage, compared with one-in-seven men (18%).

Underpayment of the minimum wage is highest in the Retail sector, where one-in-three (33%) employees earn below the minimum wage.

It should be noted that Understanding Newham is a far-reaching study, designed to cover a broad range of topics: it has not been designed specifically to capture detailed household and individual income. As a consequence, there are some limitations that should be borne in mind when interpreting this data. This is discussed further in the technical note provided in Appendix A.

Figure 4.2 provides an illustrative case study looking at a resident paid below the National Minimum Wage to investigate their lifestyle, expenditures and financial and personal attitudes. The data contained within the case study is drawn directly from respondents’ (anonymised) answers to the Wave 8 survey: the name provided is not the respondent’s own. This case

95 Data on pay and number of working hours was collected for n=36 residents in part-time employment 96 The National Minimum Wage was set at £6.50 between October 2014 and October 2015, and is therefore accurate for the period of the fieldwork: https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates


studies demonstrates the sort of impact that underpayment of the minimum wage has on Newham residents.

Figure 4.2 ---- An illustrative case study of a resident who does not receive the National Minimum Wage

More than half of employed Newham residents earn less than the London Living Wage.

Comparing median gross hourly pay in Newham (£8.87) with the London Living Wage (£9.1597) shows that the majority of Newham residents (53%) are paid less than the London Living Wage. This represents an increase from 2013 (when 48% of residents worked for less than the London Living Wage, then set at £8.55), and reflects trends across London, where the proportion of jobs paid below the London Living Wage has increased steadily since 2006 (from 13% in 2006 to 20% in 201498). It should be noted that the Understanding Newham estimate is significantly higher than that collected in the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, which finds that 30% of Newham residents are paid less than the London Living Wage99. This is reflective of the different methodologies, and so direct comparison between the two sets of figures should be interpreted with caution.

The majority of employees are paid direct into their bank accounts with other means of payment relatively more common in the Leisure sector.

97 The London Living Wage was set at £9.15 between November 2014 and November 2015, and is therefore accurate for the period of the fieldwork. We have used this figure in order to be consistent with Minimum Wage calculations: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation 98 ibid. 99 National data from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. Latest data for 2014: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html

Jasmine is 23 and has lived in Newham for three years. She currently lives with friends in a shared flat rented from a housing association. Rent accounts for almost a third of her household’s gross income.

Jasmine works in a shop full-time and earns just below the minimum wage once all her hours are accounted for. She receives benefits and thinks the benefits system helps to keep people like her in work.

Given her low paid job, Jasmine struggles to make ends meet. She doesn’t feel that she has enough money to keep her home in a decent state of decoration and struggles to replace or repair broken electrical goods – this is made harder because she doesn’t have insurance on her belongings. She finds it difficult to put a small amount of money aside to spend on herself each week and so isn’t able to save any money each month. She isn’t especially happy with her income, but thinks she’s just about getting by.


Nine-in-ten employed residents (92%) are paid direct into their bank, while just under one-in-twenty are paid by cash (four per cent), cheque (three per cent) or a combination of cash and cheque (two per cent).

Cash payment is more common among part-time workers than full-time workers (nine per cent compared to four per cent). Employees in the Leisure sector are most likely to be paid by means other than bank transfer (cash in hand, cheque or a mix of the two) – only 76% are paid direct into their bank.

4.2 Household income and financial management

4.2.1 Income from, and attitudes towards, benefits

Just over half of Newham residents (56%) say that they receive at least one unemployment, sickness or means-tested benefit payment100 - fewer than in 2013 (62%).

In fact, this represents a continued downward trend since 2011, when 66 per cent of residents received means-tested benefits.

As Figure 4.3 shows, the most common type of benefit payment received is child benefit (27% of residents are in receipt of this), followed by housing or Council Tax reduction benefit (19%) and Child Tax Credit (17%).

Figure 4.3 ---- Proportion of Newham residents in receipt of means-tested benefit payments

27%

19%

17%

11%

6%

5%

5%

4%

2%

1%

54%

Child benefit

Housing or Council Tax Reduction

Child Tax Credit

Working Tax Credit

Sickness, disability or incapacity benefits

Income Support

Pension

Unemployment-related benefits

Other family related benefit

Other state benefit

None of these

Q Which, if any, of these types of payments are you currently receiving?

Source: Ipsos MORIBase: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015;

While the overall incidence of residents receiving benefits payments has fallen, this is largely due to churn among residents rather than people 100 Respondents were asked whether they received any of the following benefits: Unemployment-related benefits, or National Insurance Credits; Income Support; Sickness, disability or incapacity benefits (including Employment Support Allowance); Any sort of pension including a private pension or the State pension; Child Benefit; Working Tax Credit; Child Tax Credit; Any other family related benefit or payment; Housing or Council Tax Benefit, other than the single person council tax discount; Income from any other state benefit.


moving off benefits. Residents who have lived in the borough for 10 or more years are twice as likely to receive at least one form of means-tested benefit compared with residents who have lived in the borough for less than two years (68% of long-term residents, compared with 32% of newcomers). Analysis of panellist data supports this finding – nine-in-ten panellists (89%) who received a benefit payment in 2013 still receive at least one form of means-tested benefit, while almost four-in-ten panellists (38%) who did not receive any benefits in 2013 now do so. The types of benefits being claimed by new benefit claimants varies, though; most commonly, panellists have started claiming child benefit (30%).

Receipt of housing or Council Tax benefit has not increased among employed residents, with one-in-ten employed residents (10%) claiming this benefit, compared with 11% in 2013. However, renters are now less likely to say that housing benefit was deducted from their last rental payment (26% of renters had this deduction from their last rental payment). This is a fall of six percentage points from 2013, and brings findings back in line with 2011 levels, when 25 per cent of residents received this benefit. This may, therefore, represent a normalisation following changes to Council Tax benefits in 2013, immediately prior to Wave 7 fieldwork101. Council Tax reductions are more common among social renters, two-in-five of whom (37%) receive this benefit, compared with fewer than one-in-five private renters (16%).

Residents are less likely to receive Housing Benefits, but a majority believe benefits are targeted appropriately.

One-quarter of households in Newham who rent their property (26%) had a rental rebate or allowance deducted from their last payment (see Figure 4.4). Since 2013, the incidence of Housing Benefit rebate has fallen across both social tenants (42%, from 50% in 2013) and private renters (13%, from 23% in 2013). Again, this brings benefit payments back in line with 2011 levels. It should be noted that changes have been made to the benefits system across the course of the Household Panel surveys, which may impact on proportion of residents claiming benefits within a particular wave.

101 For more details, see https://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/Campaigns/Benefits-are-changing.aspx


Figure 4.4 ---- Proportion of Newham tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit

35%

26%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2008 2011 2013 2015

Source: Ipsos MORI

Yes

Q Was any Housing Benefit such as rent rebate or rent allowance deducted from the last rent payment?

Base: Rented households; 2015: (593), 17 April - 16 September 2015;

Receipt of Housing Benefit is more common among longer-term residents. Ten per cent of residents who have lived in the borough for up to two years had some form of Housing Benefit deducted from their last rental payment, compared with 43 per cent of residents who have lived in the borough for 10 years or more.

Almost six-in-ten residents (56%) agree that “the current benefits system targets benefits only at those who need them”, and a similar proportion (60%) agree that “the current benefits system ensures people are better off in work than on benefits”.

Levels of agreement are relatively consistent across demographic groups, although views do differ according to residents’ benefit and employment status. Residents who currently receive at least one means-tested benefit are more likely to agree that benefits are targeted at those who need them (63% agree or ‘strongly agree’, compared with 48% of those who do not receive any benefits). This is in part due to the fact that this group are more likely to offer an opinion. One-in-five residents who receive a benefit payment (21%) say they ‘do not know’ or ‘neither agree nor disagree’ that “the current benefits system targets benefits only at those who need them”, compared with almost two-in-five residents who do not receive any benefits (38%).

Differences emerge across Values Modes groups, with Pioneers less likely than the other Values Modes groups to agree that “the current benefits system ensure people are better off in work than on benefits” (47%, compared with 60% of Prospectors and 72% of Settlers). Twenty-three per cent of Pioneers disagree with this statement, compared with 15 per cent of Prospectors and 11 per cent of Settlers. Agreement that the benefits system leaves people better off in work is lowest among Transcenders (33%, compared with 60% of all residents).


Pioneers (41%) are also less likely than Settlers (61%) or Prospectors (61%) to agree that benefits are targeted at those who need them. However, they are no more likely than other groups to disagree with this statement, but are instead more likely to say that they ‘neither agree nor disagree’ that benefits are well targeted (30% of Pioneers say this).

Residents who receive at least one means-tested benefit are also more likely to agree that people in work are better off than those on benefits (63% agree that “the current benefits system ensures people are better off in work than on benefits”, compared with 57% of those who do not receive any benefits).

4.2.2 Household income

Household incomes in Newham are increasing, but remain well below national levels, with high housing costs only exacerbating this.

The median net equivalised household income before housing costs in Newham is £18,604 (mean £21,439). This equates to £358 per week, and compares with a national median equivalised household income before housing costs of £453 per week102 (as shown in Figure 4.5).

Median net equivalised household income after housing costs falls to £14,466 (mean £17,186) per year, or £278 per week. This compares with a national median equivalised income after housing costs of £386 per week.

Figure 4.5 ---- Distribution of household income in Newham

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Net Equivalised household income (Before Housing Costs)

Newham median (£358)

Newham median (£278)

Net Equivalised household income (After Housing Costs)

National median (£386)

National median (£453)

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015; Source: Ipsos MORI

Median equivalised income has increased from 2013 both before (from £15,704 in 2013 to £18,604 in 2015) and after housing costs (from £12,172 to £14,466). Despite this positive movement, household incomes in

102 National data for 2013/14 from the Department of Work and Pensions report on Households Below Average Income, see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437246/households-below-average-income-1994-95-to-2013-14.pdf


Newham are still far below the national median, and housing costs continue to impact disproportionately on Newham residents: while median income in Newham is 79% of the national median before housing costs, this falls to 72% after housing costs.

As might be expected, median incomes vary between households with different tenancy arrangements. Owner-occupiers enjoy the highest median income before housing costs (at £24,396), followed by private renters (£20,073). The median income before housing costs of social renters, at £13,305 per year (or £256 per week), is just over half that of owner-occupiers and below the poverty threshold of £272 per week. Private renters, however, are most affected by housing costs. Whereas the median net equivalised household income after housing costs is 88% of median income before housing costs for both owner-occupiers and social renters, this falls to 73% among private renters.

Residents from White ethnic backgrounds live in households with a higher equivalised median net income (£21,358 before housing costs) than residents from Asian (£16,693) and Black (£16,298) backgrounds. However, housing costs impact less on the households of Black residents, and the median income after housing costs of this group (£14,023) is higher than that of residents from Asian backgrounds (£11,695). This is mostly due to the fact that residents from Black ethnic backgrounds are significantly more likely to be social renters.

There is a notable difference in the incomes of Asian residents by individual ethnic group. Residents from a Bangladeshi background have the lowest incomes before housing costs (median £12,203, compared with £20,893 among residents from Pakistani background and £20,118 for those from an Indian background). They also have the lowest equivalised incomes after housing costs, with a median household income of £7,943. It is noticeable, however, that residents from an Indian background are more affected by housing costs, with a median income after-housing-costs of £12,064 among this group, compared with £15,863 among residents from a Pakistani background. Although base sizes among different ethnic subgroups are low, this difference in incomes before and after housing costs is likely related to the fact that residents from an Indian background are far more likely to rent their homes within the private sector (50% do so), compared with residents from Bangladeshi (33%) and Pakistani (24%) backgrounds.

Longitudinal analysis was conducted to identify those factors associated with changes in household income between 2013 and 2015, as shown in Table 4.2.

It finds that being continuously in work between waves (although not necessarily the same job) is significantly related to an increase in income.


Lone parents (residents who were lone parents at Wave 7 in 2013) are more likely to see a decrease in income between Wave 7 and Wave 8. Being behind on bills at Wave 7 is also significantly related to a drop in income at Wave 8, suggesting a spiral of low income and poor finances.

Low household income at Wave 7 is significantly related to an increase in income at Wave 8. This is difficult to interpret - it could be that residents with low income at Wave 7 are seeking alternative employment, or doing overtime, leading to an increase in income. It could be that low income is motivating residents to make positive changes. Alternatively (or also) those on lower incomes may simply be more likely to be due a raise (i.e. starting from a low baseline).

Table 4.2 ---- Longitudinal analysis of factors related to change in household income

Unadjusted Model for demo-

graphics

Attitudinal and behavioural

data adjusted by demo-graphics

Black 2.59 2.69

Lone parent -0.50 -1.15

Respondent is in the lowest income quartile

at W7 3.61 3.95

Respondent was continuously in work between W7 and W8

0.76 1.74

In the last 12 months I have fallen behind on

paying bills (agree) -1.04 -0.72

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 All variables significant at 5%

4.2.3 Household expenditure

Newham households spend a median 18 per cent (mean 23%) of their (unequivalised) gross incomes on gas and electricity bills and food (inside and outside the home).

Further to this, less affluent households spend a larger proportion of their incomes on everyday necessities. The impact of bills varies massively by income quartile. Whereas the highest income quartile spend around 10 per cent of their gross income (median 10%, mean 12%) on food and utilities, this rises to half (median 59%, mean 58%) among the lowest income


quartile. This has a knock-on impact for all groups more likely to have lower incomes. For example, social tenants spend around a quarter of their gross incomes on food and utilities (median 23%, mean 29%), compared with less than one-on-five owner-occupiers (median 16%, mean 19%) and private renters (median 15%, mean 23%). Similarly, households in poverty are also disproportionately affected by household costs, with a median 37% (mean 43%) of their gross income going towards food and utilities, compared with a median 14% (mean 16%) of gross income among households not in poverty.

Households in Newham spend around £1,000 a year on their gas and electricity (mean £1,026, median £1,000). Average spend on utilities has fallen significantly since 2013 (when the mean spend was £1,178 per year for dual fuel customers and £1,364 for split-bill customers), but it should be noted that this question was asked differently in 2015103.

Households in Newham spend a median £50 (mean £71) a week on food shopping in supermarkets and other food stores. Weekly spend is higher among families and larger households: whereas single person households spend a median £30 (mean £38) per week, this rises to £100 (mean £103) for couples with three or more children104.

On average, Newham households spend £20 on meals and snacks outside the home every four weeks. Average spend on eating out increases with income: while the lowest income quartile spend a median £10 (mean £18) every four weeks on eating out, this increases to a median £30 (mean £63) among the highest income quartile.

Housing costs (whether rent or mortgage) account for a quarter of Newham households’ (unequivalised) gross incomes (median 25%, mean 30%) – but, private renters are the most heavily impacted.

The median mortgage payment among owner-occupiers in Newham is £500 (mean £467). This is broadly similar to average rents in Newham (median £545, mean £665). Rental payments, however, vary widely according to tenure. Whereas social tenants pay a median £412 a month in rent (mean £405), private renters pay a median £934 a month (mean £905).

In light of the varying levels of rent/ mortgage payments and respective household incomes, the impact of housing costs varies according to tenancy arrangements. One-third of households in Newham are rented privately (34%), and these households are more affected by housing costs. Housing costs account for a median 15 per cent of the gross income of 103 In 2015 residents were asked a single question requesting their combined spend on electricity and gas. In 2013, residents were asked whether they paid their bills separately. If they did so, they were asked for spend on each utility – these figures were then combined to create total spend on utilities 104 This should be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of couples with 3+ children (n=27)


owner-occupier households (mean 21%). This increases to 22 per cent among social renters (mean 27%), while private renters spend one-third (33%) of their gross incomes on rent (mean 38%). This is despite the fact that the median (unequivalised) gross household income of private renters is almost double that of social renters (£23,270 and £14,534 respectively).

A minority of Newham households are struggling to pay their rent and Council Tax, with one-in-ten households (12%) falling more than two months behind with their mortgage or rent in the last 12 months, and a similar proportion falling behind on paying Council Tax.

This is likely related to the combination of income and housing costs: income has a direct influence on households’ ability to stay up-to-date with their housing costs – one-in-five households in poverty (17%) have found themselves more than two months behind with their rent or mortgage. Given that people prioritise their housing costs over other bills, this relatively high level of residents falling behind on bills highlights the difficulties some residents face.

Meanwhile, households in the rental sector are also more affected, with social tenants significantly more likely than owner-occupiers to have missed payments (16% compared to three per cent). (Ten per cent of private renters have missed payments – higher, but not significantly so, than the proportion of owner-occupiers.) In order to meet these commitments, six-in-ten households who have fallen behind with their rent or mortgage (59%), have cut back household spending, while half (50%) have had to borrow money.

Households in poverty (15%, compared with nine per cent of households not in poverty) and those in rented accommodation (18% of social tenants, compared with 10% of private renters and five per cent of owner-occupiers) are also more likely to say they are struggling to pay their Council Tax.

Seven per cent of households in Newham are behind with at least some of their household bills. Again, this is driven by social tenants (15% of whom are behind with at least some bills).

A third of households in Newham (38%) spent money on flights in the last year. Among households who spent money on flights in the last year, median spend on flights was £779 (mean £1,107).

Wealthier households are more likely to be able to afford flights and those who do pay for flights spend more doing so – 61 per cent of households in the highest income quartile spent money on flights in the last year, spending a median £1,000, compared 15 per cent of households in the lowest income quartile, who spend a median £400.

Residents from White ethnic backgrounds are more likely to spend money on flights abroad. Four-in-ten White residents (40%) spent money on flights


in the last year, compared with three in ten residents from Asian backgrounds (32%), and a quarter of residents from Black backgrounds (25%). However, residents from White backgrounds typically have a lower spend on flights (median £499) compared with residents from Asian (median £1,000) and Black (median £800) backgrounds.

One-in-six households in Newham (17%) sent money to people abroad in the last year. Households who send money abroad sent a median £500 (mean £1,126).

Likelihood to send money abroad is most linked with income and ethnicity. Households in the highest income quartiles are more likely to send money abroad, with more than one-in-five (23%) doing so, compared with around one-in-ten of each of the other income quartiles (11% of the upper middle quartile, 13% of the lower middle quartile, and 10% of the lowest income quartile).

Residents from Asian and Black ethnic backgrounds are more likely to say their household sends money overseas than those from White backgrounds (22% and 21% respectively compared to nine per cent). However, there is also significant variation within broad ethnic categories (19% of residents from ‘other’ White backgrounds say their households send money, compared with one per cent of White British residents; 27% of residents from Black African backgrounds say their households send money, compared with nine per cent of those from Black Caribbean backgrounds).

4.2.4 Financial optimism

Residents’ perceptions of their current financial situation have improved since 2013, though some groups still express concerns.

As shown in Table 4.3, almost half of Newham residents (49%) say they are living comfortably or doing alright these days, while one-in-five are finding it quite difficult or very difficult (19%). Residents’ perceptions of their financial circumstances have improved since 2013. Residents are now more likely to offer a positive appraisal of the current situation (from 42% in 2013 to 49% in 2015), and more likely to feel that they are living comfortably (from 11% in 2013 to 20% in 2015). This may reflect that fact that median household incomes in Newham have increased over this period.

Despite this, Newham residents are still struggling more than their peers in London and across the UK. Whereas two-in-ten Newham residents (20%) say that they are doing comfortably, this figure is closer to three-in-ten in London (29%) and across the UK (33%)105.

105 Understanding Society, Wave 5 (2014)


Table 4.3 ---- Residents’ perception of their financial situation over time

2011(Wave 6)

2013 (Wave 7)

2015(Wave 8)

London UK

Living comfortably

8% 11% 20% 29% 33%

Doing alright 37% 31% 29% 35% 35%

Just about getting by

31% 32% 32% 24% 23%

Finding it quite difficult

16% 19% 12% 8% 6%

Finding it very difficult

7% 7% 7% 5% 3%

Source: Understanding Newham, Understanding Society Newham: 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 1,004; 2015 (Wave 8),1,024. London: Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014), 2,117. UK: Understanding Society Wave 5 (2014), 15,800.

Statistical analysis has been undertaken to look at what affects residents who are finding it difficult to manage financially. As before, a number of demographic variables have been controlled for: age, gender, Community Forum Area (CFA), health status, ethnicity and qualifications. The following statistical model explains 19 per cent of the variance in the outcome variable “how would you say you yourself are managing financially these days?”.

As Table 4.4 shows, social renting accounts for nearly half of the total variance explained by the model; this it is by far the strongest driver of negative perceptions of household finances. The second strongest driver is personal resilience, as measured by the Brief Resilience scale106. Respondents with lower levels of resilience were more likely to be struggling financially.

Whilst household size is not a significant driver of financial insecurity, the presence of children in the household is a fairly strong driver - households with children are more likely to struggle financially. Households below the

106 The Brief Resillience Scale measures individual’s ability to cope with or ‘bounce back’ from stress.


poverty threshold are, unsurprisingly, more likely to be struggling financially107.

Finally, those not in work and who believe it is not at all, or not very, important to have lots of possessions are more likely to be struggling financially. This is the only financial attitudes question that is significant in the model; respondent views on the current benefit system and views on savings are not significant.

Table 4.4 ---- Key drivers of perceptions of financial difficulty

Relationship Importance Rank

Social renters + 49% 1

Personal resilience score - 18% 2

Dependent children in household

+ 15% 3

Household is below the poverty threshold

+ 7% 4

Self-employed or in full-time or part-time employment

- 6% 5

Respondent agrees it is not important to have lots of

possessions

- 6% 6

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 Controlled variables: age, gender, CFA, health status, ethnicity, qualifications

Some differences emerge between demographic groups. Residents from White and Asian ethnic backgrounds are more likely than those from Black backgrounds to say that they are ‘living comfortably’ or ‘doing alright’ these days (59% and 51% respectively compared to 30%). It should be noted that within the Asian ethnic group, those of Indian backgrounds show greater positivity, with around three-in-five residents (63%) living comfortably or doing alright, compared with around two-in-five residents from Pakistani (43%) and Bangladeshi (42%) backgrounds.

Unsurprisingly, residents’ assessments of their financial situations are strongly linked to income. One-in-three households in poverty (35%) say

107 Households with low income are also more likely to be struggling financially, however, it was not possible to include both the poverty indicator and income in the model due to multi-collinearity – the two variables are too strongly correlated. The income variable was therefore dropped because poverty is the stronger predictor


they are doing alright or living comfortably these days, compared with six-in-ten households not in poverty (59%).

Linked to their lower incomes, and in light of the difficulties they face in meeting their household expenses, social tenants offer a less secure picture. One quarter of this group are living comfortably or doing alright these days (27%), while a further quarter are finding it quite or very difficult (28%). In comparison, seven-in-ten owner-occupiers (72%) are positive about their current financial situation, while fewer than one–in-ten (six per cent) offer a negative assessment.

Household size and composition also influence residents’ perceptions. Lone parents offer the least positive view of their financial situations. Only 14 per cent of this group say they are comfortable or doing alright these days, compared with 65 per cent of couples with no children and 55 per cent of couples with one or two children.

4.3 Financial resilience

A quarter (27%) of Newham residents hold some form of debt108, yet few one-in-ten) have ever asked for advice about it

Residents from White ethnic backgrounds are less likely to have a debt (19% do so, compared with 32% of residents from an Asian background, and 29% of residents from a Black ethnic background). This high incidence of debt among Asian residents is driven by those from a Pakistani background, 53 per cent of whom currently owe money for some form of debt (compared with 30% of residents from a Bangladeshi ethnic background and 27% from an Indian background). Private renters (19%) are less likely to have debt than social tenants (31%) or owner-occupiers (30%). There is little difference in the overall incidence of debt among households in poverty (29%) and those not in poverty (26%).

While the survey did not split out different types of debt, Wave 7 conducted in 2013, found that types of debt vary by income. Whereas wealthier households are more likely to hold non-priority debts such as credit card debts or personal loans, households on lower incomes are more likely to have priority debts.

Despite this relatively high incidence of debt, only one-in-ten Newham residents (eight per cent) have ever asked for advice about a debt. There is

108 In previous waves of Understanding Newham, respondents were asked to identify each of their sources of debt – in 2015, this question was amended to ask whether respondents held any of the following forms of debt: Mortgage/rent/service charge, Gas & electricity arrears, Council Tax arrears, Court fines, Child maintenance, Income tax or VAT arrears, TV license , Water, Secured loan, Catalogue , Credit Card, Overdraft, Store Card, Personal loan, Home credit, Payday loan.


little differentiation in the likelihood of asking for help across demographic groups.

A quarter of residents (26%) have taken out a loan. Most commonly, residents take out loans to pay for home improvements (10%) or to pay a debt (10%). Again, there is little difference in the incidence of taking loans across different groups of residents. However, residents have different reasons for taking out a loan. Home owners and wealthier households are more likely to take a loan for home improvements (19% of the highest income quartile have taken a loan to pay for home improvements, compared with four per cent of the lowest income quartile). Despite this, poorer households are not any more likely to take out loans to pay debts – this may be due to prudent financial management, or simply a lack of access to credit.

Newham residents have become increasingly likely to save money since 2013, though still fewer than half of residents regularly do so.

Just under half of Newham residents (46%) save money each month (an increase from 2013, when 41% of residents saved money each month). Fifty-four per cent save nothing, which represents a steady decline over the last decade (see Figure 4.6). Most residents who save, are able to put aside up to £100 per month (25% of residents), but around one-in-seven residents (14%) are able to put aside over £200 per month.

Figure 4.6 ---- Incidence of saving among Newham residents

72%

54%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2011 2013 2015

Source: Ipsos MORI

Save nothing each month

Q About how much on average do you personally manage to save a month?

Base: All respondents; 2015: (1,024), 17 April - 16 September 2015;

The ability to save money each month is strongly associated with income: only one quarter (25%) of residents living in households in the lowest income quartile save money each month, compared with three quarters (75%) of residents in the highest income quartile. As a consequence of this relationship, residents from groups that have lower incomes are less likely to save.


Residents from Black ethnic backgrounds are least likely to save money each month (28% do so, compared with 46% of residents from Asian backgrounds and 55% from White backgrounds). Residents with a limiting health condition or disability are also less likely to save, with only one third (33%) doing so, compared with 48% of residents without a health condition.

The majority of residents who save want to ensure they have emergency funds set aside (60%). Residents are also saving to travel, whether on holiday (35%) or to visit friends or family abroad (24%). Sixteen per cent of Newham residents who are saving are doing so to try to get on the property ladder – notably, almost one-in-five residents (17%) aged 35-44 who are saving are doing so for this reason – again highlighting the difficulties Newham residents have in buying property.

4.4 Poverty and deprivation

Despite poverty levels falling overall, the incidence of poverty in Newham is more than double the national level before housing costs, with the high cost of living in Newham increasing poverty levels still further after housing costs.

The incidence of poverty in Newham has fallen by five percentage points since 2013. Despite this improvement, more than one third (35%) of households in Newham have incomes below the relative poverty threshold109, and poverty is far more prevalent in Newham than nationally, where 15% of the population live in households in poverty110.

Poverty is far more prevalent among residents with a limiting health condition or disability, with more than half of this group (54%) living in households in poverty.

After housing costs are accounted for, almost half of households in Newham (46%) are pushed into poverty111. This increase far exceeds the national shift (with poverty levels nationally increasing from 15% before housing costs to 21% after), and demonstrates the impact high housing costs have on Newham residents. In line with poverty before housing costs, poverty after housing costs has fallen by four per cent since 2013 (when 50% of households were in relative poverty after housing costs).

109 Defined as having a gross equivalised household income before housing costs of less than 60% of the national median income for that year. Calculated for all households (n=744) where we have net equivalised household income data. 110 DWP Households Below Average Income report (2013/14): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437246/households-below-average-income-1994-95-to-2013-14.pdf 111 Calculated for all households (n=562) where we have net equivalised household income data and housing cost information.


The high cost of renting a property in Newham is demonstrated by the impact housing costs have on poverty levels. While social tenants are more likely to be in poverty both before (53%) and after (56%) housing costs, the incidence of poverty among private renters increases by 18 percentage points once housing costs are accounted for (from 27% before housing costs to 45% after). The impact of rent in the private sector reflects that seen nationally112: across the UK poverty levels increase by 20 percentage points after housing costs (from 17% before housing costs to 37% after).

Residents from Asian and Black backgrounds are also more affected by housing costs. Poverty levels rise by more than 10 percentage points among residents from an Asian background (from 40% before housing costs to 56% after housing costs) and Black background (from 41% to 53%). By contrast, accounting for housing costs only increases poverty levels among residents from White backgrounds by six percentage points (from 28% to 34%)113.

Absolute poverty114 is also more prevalent in Newham than nationally. Almost two-in-five households in Newham (37%) are in absolute poverty before housing costs. As with relative poverty, there has been positive movement on this measure since 2013, when 44% of households were in poverty. Poverty levels still far exceed the national incidence of 17%115 however.

Longitudinal analysis was undertaken to look at what factors were most linked with transition into and out of poverty over time amongst existing panellists. Table 4.5 shows those factors most associated with a move into poverty.

Not surprisingly, residents who were on lower incomes at Wave 7 were more likely to move into poverty at Wave 8. Residents in the highest income quartile were less likely to move into poverty.

Residents from an Asian ethnic background were more likely to move into poverty, as were female residents. However, the number of dependent children in the household, lone parent status and changes in number of children (i.e. a new baby in the household) were not significantly associated with a move into poverty

Residents who were in stable employment (i.e. employed at both Wave 7 and Wave 8, although not necessarily in the same job) were less likely to move into poverty. However, changes in employment status (i.e. job loss,

112 Data from HBAI supporting tables: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-19941995-to-20132014 113 See section 4.2.2 for further detail on differences in income before/ after housing costs between ethnic groups. 114 Defined as having an income before housing costs of less than 60% of the national median income for 2010/11 adjusted for RPI inflation. 115 HBAI


retirement) were not significant in the model, although this is likely to be due to small sample sizes.

Changes in the level of income are significantly related to poverty status; specifically, a resident who has seen an increase in income between Wave 7 and Wave 8 is less likely to move into poverty. Residents who reported being behind with bills at Wave 7 were more likely to move into poverty. This indicates a link between poor economic resilience and a move into poverty, though it should be noted that other aspects of financial management, such as savings and feeling they are good at organising their finances, were not significant.

Table 4.5 ---- Longitudinal analysis of factors linked with transition into poverty

Unadjusted Model for

demo-graphics

Attitudinal and behavioural data

adjusted by demo-graphics

Male 0.64 0.58

Asian 2.93 3.10

Change in income between W7 and W8

0.01 0.00

Respondent was continuously in work between W7 and W8

0.21 0.48

Respondent in the highest income

quartile at W7

0.54 0.03

In the last 12 months I have fallen behind

on paying bills (agree)

0.62 0.44


Additional longitudinal analysis was undertaken to look at what factors were most linked with transitioning out of poverty over time. Table 4.6 shows those factors most associated with a move out of poverty.

The model contains a very similar set of variables to the 'move into poverty' model. Similar patterns are seen.


There is a strong and significant association between increases in income and movement away from poverty. Residents with low incomes in Wave 7 were less likely to move away from poverty in Wave 8. Residents in households with a growing income are, unsurprisingly, more likely to move away from poverty.

Residents in households with no, or a small number, of dependent children were more likely to move away from poverty. Larger families were associated with remaining in poverty. However, a change in the number of children in the household between Wave 7 and Wave 8 was not significantly associated with a change in poverty status. An increase in number of children was not significantly related to moving into poverty; likewise, a drop (or stable numbers) was not significantly related to moving out of poverty. This implies changes in the number of children are not necessarily linked with a move into poverty, but once a resident is in poverty, a large family hinders the move out.

Tenure is also associated with a move out of poverty - social renters in Wave 7 found it harder to move out (perhaps a proxy for people who are 'long term' benefit claimants?). We also looked at other measures of economic resilience and financial attitudes but these were not significant.

Table 4.6 ---- Longitudinal analysis of factors linked with transition out of poverty

Unadjusted Model for

demo-graphics

Attitudinal and behavioural

data adjusted by demo-graphics

Social renters at W7 0.40 0.24

Number of children in household at W7

0.51 0.42

Respondent is in the lowest income quartile

at W7

1.56 0.20

Change in income between W7 and W8

4.98 7.15

In the last 12 months I have fallen behind on

paying bills (agree)

0.77 0.69



Almost one in five households (18%) is in fuel poverty116.

This represents a decrease from 2013, when 28 per cent of households were in fuel poverty. Despite this positive movement, Newham households are still almost twice as likely to be in fuel poverty compared with national data (12%)117. Please note that Understanding Newham data is not directly comparable to national data, since it looks at household income with actual fuel costs, rather than modelled fuel costs, whereby a household is said to be fuel poor if it needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its income on fuel to maintain an adequate level of warmth.

More than half of Newham’s children live in households in poverty and this rises to two-in-three once housing costs are accounted for.

Fifty-one per cent of children in Newham live in households in poverty before housing costs. Comparing this to national figures (which find that 17% of children live in poverty118) suggests that children in Newham are three times more likely to live in poverty. Reflecting the overall fall in poverty levels in Newham since 2013, child poverty has also fallen (by four percentage points, from 55 per cent in 2013).

After housing costs, two-thirds of Newham’s children (65%) live in households in poverty. This increase in the effect housing costs have on child poverty (increasing poverty by 14 percentage points) is over and above the overall increase across Newham (where poverty increases by 11 percentage points, from 35% before housing costs to 46% after), and suggests that households with children may be slightly harder hit by housing costs – most likely due to the need for more living space.

Parents of children aged 15 and under were asked about the activities their children undertake and the things they have. If their child(ren) did not have these items, parents were then asked whether this was because the parent wanted them to have the item, but could not afford it.

As shown in Figure 4.7, parents are least likely to be able to afford to give their child a week’s holiday away each year (41% would like their child to have this, but cannot afford it). Three-in-ten parents (29%) say they cannot afford to give each child of a different sex their own bedroom.

116 Defined as spending more than 10% of their income on fuel. 117 From DECC Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report (2015): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/468011/Fuel_Poverty_Report_2015.pdf 118 Household Below Average Income, DWP (2013)


Figure 4.7 ---- Child material deprivation

75%

57%

56%

54%

50%

47%

49%

37%

39%

13%

15%

26%

23%

22%

29%

31%

22%

45%

20%

10%

17%

21%

24%

22%

21%

29%

18%

41%

Celebrations on special occasions

Going on a school trip at least once a term

A hobby or leisure activity

Leisure equipment

Friends round for tea or a snack once a fortnight

Swimming at least once a month

Own bedroom for child over 10 of different sex

Play group at least once a week

A holiday away from home at least one wk/ year

None of these

Have Dont want Cant afford

Base: All respondents with children; 2015: (353) , 17 April - 16 September 2015; Source: Ipsos MORI

Q Now looking at this card. Please tell me which things your child/children have?

Q Would you like your child to be able to … but must do without because you cannot afford it?

These findings highlight the challenges Newham’s children face as a result of the widespread poverty across the borough. While the Council is investing to provide opportunities for children, it is clear that financial hardships continue to create inequalities.

Newham residents typically have

friends from diverse backgrounds

Most residents haveregular contact

with others in their community

of Newham residents agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on

well together (England - 86%*)

Community Life Survey, England 2014 to 2015: Statistical Bulletin (July 2015)

Newham is seen as a place where people of different backgrounds

get on well

CHAPTER SUMMARY5 Community resilience

COMMUNITY COHESION AND SOCIAL NETWORKS

89%

10%of Newham residents see friends or family less than once a month or never.

42%

57%

of residents say that half or more of their friends are from different

ethnic backgrounds

of Newham residents feel they could go to someone in their neighbourhood for advice if

they need it

of Newham residents report seeing friends and family who do not live with them at least

once a week

68%

Civic participation is increasing 60%

22%of Newham residents do unpaid

voluntary work at least once a year. (2013 - 16%)

Stated turnout for the United Kingdom - 66.1% and Greater

London 65.4%

of Newham residents intended to vote or had voted in the

General Election

CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND VOTING

HOUSING


Tenure status in Newham greatly

differs from national patterns

*English Housing Survey (2013 to 2014)

Private landlord Homeowner Social Renter34% 39% 28%

of all Newham residents are satisfied with the quality of

their accommodation

80%

Newham residents who rent from a private

landlord are less satisfied with the quality of their

accommodationboth compared with other

Newham residents and with their peers nationally

of private renters in Newham are satisfied with the quality of

their accommodation

73%

in England* in England* in England*19% 63% 17%


CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Fear of crime hasfallen since 2013 andNewham residents aremore likely in 2015 to

feel safe walking alone

But fewer residents are concerned about cars

being broken into locally……or vandalism

Despite this reduced fear of crime some forms of anti-social

behaviour are still seen as relatively common

Four-in-ten residents are concerned about becoming

a victim of crime (51% in 2013)

More residents are now concerned about people

dealing drugs

(28% in 2007)

(49% in 2007)(50% in 2007)

of residents say they or a family member have been a victim of crime

in the past year

39%15%

45%

32% 31%

of Newham residents feel safe walking alone in their local area during the day

(87% in 2013)

92%of Newham residents feel safe walking alone in their

local area after dark (45% in 2013)

57%


This chapter examines the strength of community resilience in Newham by looking at some of the key metrics such as volunteering, whether people feel they can seek advice from their neighbours, and the frequency of visiting friends and family.

Community resilience is examined through a number of question areas covered by Wave 8 of Understanding Newham, including resident perceptions of local community cohesion, relationships and support, participation in the 2015 General Election, housing conditions and experiences of crime and anti-social behaviour.

5.1 Community cohesion

Almost nine-in-ten Newham residents think their local area is cohesive, with a majority of residents having friends from other ethnic backgrounds.

Eighty-nine per cent of residents agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together. This score compares favourably to the latest results from the Community Life Survey of England119 - which found 86 per cent of the public agrees that their local area is cohesive - particularly as Newham is more diverse than England overall.

Despite the ever-changing make-up of the borough’s population, levels of cohesion have remained fairly static since 2011, with active disagreement at one of its lower levels this decade – as Figure 5.1 shows. This also reflects the views of residents who have participated in the survey panel since 2011 – 89 per cent of this group agreed that their neighbourhood is cohesive in 2015, and the figures for 2013 and 2011 were 85 per cent and 90 per cent respectively.

119 Community Life Survey, England 2014 to 2015: Statistical Bulletin (July 2015): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447010/Community_Life_Survey_2014-15_Bulletin.pdf


Figure 5.1 ---- Resident views on community cohesion over time

Base: 1,024 Newham residents interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses.

79%

85% 83% 83%90% 87%

89%

20% 15% 16% 17%10% 13%

11%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003Wave 2

2004Wave 3

2005-6Wave 4

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

% Disagree

% Agree

Q To what extent do you agree or disagree that this local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together?

Source: Ipsos MORI

As shown in Figure 5.2, when it comes to mixing in the community, the majority of residents - close to six-in-ten (57%) - say that most of their friends are from the same ethnic background as them. Fifteen per cent report that all their friends are from their ethnic group.

This represents a small but significant decline in mixing between different ethnic groups – in 2013 50 per cent said that more than half or all of their friends were from the same ethnic group as them. However, the proportion of residents who say that all their friends are from the same ethnic group as them has remained unchanged (14% in 2013, and 15% in 2015).

Figure 5.2 ---- Proportion of Newham residents’ friends from their

ethnic group

15%

42%

26%

16%1%

All the same More than half About half

Less than half Don't have any friends

Base: 1,024 Newham residents interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses. Source: Ipsos MORI

Q What proportion of your friends are of the same ethnic group as you?


Younger residents and those from a Black ethnic background are more likely to have friends from different ethnic groups:

One quarter (25%) of residents aged 16-24 say that less than half of their friends are from the same ethnic background than they are – this drops to 12 per cent among residents aged 65 and above.

Six per cent of residents from a Black ethnic background say that all their friends are from the same ethnic group as them, compared with 18 per cent of residents from a White ethnic background and 17 per cent of those from Asian ethnic backgrounds.

Residents from a Bangladeshi background were most likely to say that all their friends come from their ethnic group (21%), with those from other White ethnic backgrounds the second-most likely to say this (20%).

Applying the Values Modes segmentation120 to residents’ views of social cohesion reveals a divergence between the views and practice of the three main groups – Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers.

Newham residents of all three categories agree to a similar extent that their local area is a place where people of different backgrounds get on well together, with 92 per cent of Pioneers and 88 per cent of both Prospectors and Settlers agreeing. There is similarly close agreement between the three groups on whether there is someone in the neighbourhood they could go to for advice (Settlers 58%; Pioneers and Prospectors both 57%).

However, the reported friendship groups of each of these groups differ markedly, with Pioneers most likely to have a greater number of friends from a different ethnic group, followed by Prospectors and Settlers. Five per cent of Pioneers report that all of their friends are from the same ethnic group as they are, compared to 16 per cent of Prospectors and 22 per cent of Settlers. The picture is exactly reversed at the other end of the scale, with 23 per cent of Pioneers reporting that less than half of their friends are from their own ethnic group, compared to 15 per cent of Prospectors and 12 per cent of Settlers.

120 See Report section 3.6.10 for further background on this segmentation.


Table 5.1 ---- Value Mode groups ---- friendship group ethnic breakdown

Pioneers Prospectors Settlers

All the same 5% 16% 22%

More than half 45% 44% 37%

About half 26% 26% 29%

Less than half 23% 15% 12%

Don’t have any friends 1% 1% 1%


There are also marked differences within the Values Modes subgroups. The proportion of subgroup members with all their friends from the same ethnic group as them ranges from one per cent to 12 per cent amongst Pioneers, nine and 22 per cent for Prospectors, and 11 and 29 per cent for Settlers.

A varied pattern can also be observed when considering how often members of each group meet with friends and family who do not live with them – although the pattern here is different to that observed when considering residents’ friendship groups.

Table 5.2 ---- Value Mode groups ---- frequency of meeting friends and family


On most days 19% 27% 19%

Once or twice a week 52% 40% 47%

Once or twice a month 19% 24% 22%

Less often than once a month

5% 7% 8%

Never 4% 2% 4%



Although residents from all three groups are equally likely to meet with friends and family frequently (either on most days or once or twice a week), Prospectors are substantially more likely to say they meet with friends and family on most days (27%, compared to 19% for the other groups).

The base sizes for many of the subgroups are too small for statistically significant differences to be reported. However, indicatively speaking there is notable divergence within the Prospector group, with Tomorrow People (17%) and Happy Followers (20%) as likely as Pioneers overall to meet with their friends on most days – among Prospectors it is Now People (34%) and Golden Dreamers (30%) who are most likely to meet with friends and family on most days. The Settler group is similarly split to a lesser extent, with Certainty First and Roots groups (13% and 11%) notably below average and Brave New World (25%) and Smooth Sailing (24%) above.

5.2 Social networks

5.2.1 Support in the community

A majority (57%) of Newham residents feel they could go to someone in their neighbourhood for advice if they needed it.

Whilst this is unchanged from 2013, the balance of opinion has changed slightly, with one-in-four (24%) now disagreeing they could go to someone in their neighbourhood for advice, which is higher than the one-in-five (20%) recorded in 2013.

This figure varies markedly by resident ethnicity – 30 per cent of White residents do not feel they can go to someone in their neighbourhood for advice, almost double the proportion of Asian residents who say the same thing (17%). Those from Bangladeshi backgrounds are the most positive on this measure, with 76 per cent agreeing they have someone in the neighbourhood they could go to, and 11 per cent disagreeing.


Table 5.3 ---- The proportion of residents who feel they can seek advice from a neighbour

2013(Wave 7)

2015(Wave 8)

Strongly agree 8% 7%

Agree 49% 50%

Neither agree nor disagree 19% 16%

Disagree 15% 17%

Strongly disagree 5% 8%

Don’t know 3% 2%

Source: Understanding Newham Base: 2013 (Wave 7), 1,004; 2015 (Wave 8), 1,024

Those who rent from a private landlord are less likely to agree that they could go to someone in their neighbourhood for advice – 53 per cent of private renters agree, compared with 64 per cent of residents who own their home outright, and 63 per cent of social tenants. It is likely that this is predominantly due to the fact that private tenants are far more likely to have lived in the borough for two years or less, and therefore do not have the same depth of personal networks. However, given the economic difficulties unique to this group, this highlights a further challenge for private renters.

There is a continuing strong correlation between residents’ ethnicity and the feeling that they can rely on neighbours for advice; 66 per cent of residents from an Asian ethnic background agree with this statement, compared with 55 per cent of residents from a White background and 58 per cent of residents from a Black ethnic background. It is also worth noting a large divergence amongst residents with a White ethnic background – 60 per cent of White British residents feel they can go to neighbours for advice, but just 48 per cent of residents from other White ethnic backgrounds feel they can.


A majority of Newham residents also have frequent social contact with friends and family.

Nearly seven-in-ten residents (68%) report seeing friends and family who do not live with them at least once a week, as Figure 5.3 illustrates. This represents a return to the levels recorded in 2011, after a significant drop in 2013 of 59 per cent. A minority of residents see friends and family much less frequently: 10 per cent see them less often than once a month, and three per cent never see their friends or family.

Figure 5.3 ---- Residents’ frequency of contact with friends and family

23%

45%

22%

7%3%

On most days Once or twice a weekOnce or twice a month Less often than once a monthNever

Base: 1,024 Newham residents interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses. Source: Ipsos MORI

Q How often do you meet friends and relatives who are not living with you?

Older residents are particularly likely to have limited contact with friends and family; 20 per cent of residents aged 65 and over see family and friends less often than once a month or never; twice the level of Newham residents overall (10%). Digital exclusion is another factor, with 19 per cent of those living in households without the internet seeing friends and family less often than once a month or never, compared to 10 per cent of households with the internet.

Frequency of contact with friends and family is closely related to personal resilience (explored in Chapter 3). Whilst the proportions are relatively small, residents who are already vulnerable are more likely to say they never meet friends or family is a concern. Seven per cent of residents who self-define as disabled, and the same proportion of those with a limiting health condition, say they ‘never’ meet friends or family. By contrast, two per cent of residents without a self-defined disability, or who do not have a limiting health condition, ‘never’ see friends or family.

The Values Modes analysis suggests that whilst residents from all three groupings agree to the same extent that people from different backgrounds get on well together in their neighbourhood, and are equally likely to feel that there is someone they can go to in their neighbourhood for advice, the extent to which each of the groups is actively part of the diverse and


cohesive society found in Newham differs. Pioneers are the most integrated, with the greatest proportion of friends from different ethnic groups, Prospectors are less integrated but slightly more sociable, and Settlers are the least integrated and sociable – although overall all three groups are well integrated and community-minded.

Linear regression (or ‘key drivers’) analysis was used to identify the factors most correlated with visiting family and friends. The model produced controls for some underlying demographic characteristics, namely: age, gender, Community Forum Area (CFA) and educational attainment. These variables were included because they were all found to be significantly related to visiting friends and family. Controlling for these characteristics allows for focus on the relationship between the drivers and outcome of interest, instead of confounding these relationships with other underlying characteristics related to the controlled variables.

The model shown in Table 5.4 explains 12 per cent of variance in visiting family and friends. The remaining variation is accounted for by variables outside the model, i.e. variables not measured in the survey or other collected data such as environmental factors.

It suggests the biggest driver behind visiting friends and family is whether or not residents feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together. This is followed closely by household size, with residents from smaller households more likely to visit friends and family often.

Residents are also less likely to visit friends and family often if their household is in poverty (based on income prior to housing costs), and if they have dependent children in the household. Residents who say they do not believe it is important to have a large group of friends are also less likely to visit friends and family.

Residents who feel they can turn to someone in their neighbourhood for advice are also more likely to see friends and family often, as are residents from an Asian ethnic background.

Weaker drivers are linked to employment, with residents who are self-employed or working (either full- or part-time) less likely to visit friends. However, within these groups those who work longer hours are more likely to visit friends and family.


Table 5.4 ---- Key driver analysis: visiting friends and family

Relationship with outcome Importance Rank

Agree people from different backgrounds get on well

together in local area + 23% 1

Household size - 21% 2

Household in poverty (BHC) - 13% 3

Dependent children in household

- 13% 4

Agree it is important to have a large group of friends

- 11% 5

Agree they could go to someone in the

neighbourhood for advice + 9% 6

Ethnicity (Asian) + 6% 7

In paid work (full/part-time) or self-employed

- 2% 8

Total number of hours worked

+ 1% 9

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 Controlled variables: age, gender, CFA and health status

A longitudinal key driver analysis of panel respondents allows closer examination of the drivers behind increased social activity (Table 5.5). Investigating those panel respondents who reported in 2013 that they did not see their friends very often (less often than once or twice a week), but said in 2015 that they saw their friends at least once a week reveals four key correlated factors.

Residents who saw friends and family less than once or twice a week in 2013 were more likely to have increased the frequency of their social activity by 2015 if they were younger (aged 16-34), if they placed in the highest household income quartile, or if they were from an Asian ethnic background. Conversely, they were less likely to increase the frequency with which they meet their friends if they were in work in 2013.

This group of people is likely to be quite diverse, as a wide range of characteristics – including gender, being a retiree, or whether the respondent looked after their home and family – were investigated and found not to have a significant correlation. Similarly, neither household size


nor the number of dependent children in the household were found to have a significant bearing on this change once age and ethnicity had been taken into account. This suggests that there is no single key factor which can help people to become more socially active; the solutions may be as individual as the residents concerned.

Table 5.5 ---- Longitudinal key driver analysis: frequency of visiting friends and family

Odds ratios

Unadjusted Model for demogr-aphics


adjusted by demographics

Respondent aged 16-34 in 2013

1.92 1.83

Respondent of Asian ethnic background

in 2013 2.58 3.02

Respondent in employment in 2013

0.61 0.46

Respondent in top income quartile in

2013 2.17 3.04


5.3 Civic participation

Volunteering in Newham remains relatively low, with one-in-five (22%) residents doing unpaid voluntary work at least once a year.

This is far below the national average in England of 69 per cent121, although there are differences between the question wording for this survey and the benchmark survey (which has a wider definition, incorporating informal volunteering) which means caution must be exercised in making comparisons.

Despite this, levels of volunteering have increased in Newham since 2013 (when it was 16%), and are now at the highest level seen since 2008. The

121 Community Life Survey 2014-2015 Statistical Press Release (July 2015): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447117/Community_Life_Survey_2014-15_-_Statistical_press_release.pdf


prevalence of volunteerism is evenly spread across age, gender and ethnic groups – for instance 21 per cent of men and 24 per cent of women have taken part in some voluntary work in the past year. Participation in voluntary work amongst different ethnic groups is also similar, with 20 per cent of residents from white backgrounds, 23 per cent from Asian backgrounds, and 21 per cent from Black backgrounds volunteering.

Amongst panellists, increased participation in community gatherings and events was driven by a number of factors, including concern about crime, household poverty, and age.

A longitudinal key driver analysis was conducted amongst panel respondents who said in the 2013 survey that they rarely or never attended community gatherings, but in 2015 said that they occasionally or frequently attended such events. The model revealed eight key characteristics correlated with this change.

Residents who were concerned about becoming a victim of crime, or who were aged 16-34 in 2013, as well as those whose households had dropped below the poverty threshold (before housing costs) between 2013 and 2015 were more likely to increase their participation in community events. Those who in 2013 were more satisfied with Newham Council, who did not regularly attend events such as concerts and the theatre, as well as those who voted in the 2010 General or local elections were also more likely to increase participation – as were those living in less deprived local areas (measured by IDACI122 rank) in 2013. Length of time spent in Newham was the final factor found to have a significant correlation, with longer-term residents (those who had lived in the borough for five years or more in 2013) less likely to increase their participation (Table 5.6).

122 The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index – see http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/inyourarea/idaci.pl


Table 5.6 ---- Longitudinal key driver analysis: frequency of

attending community events

Odds ratios

Unadjusted Model for demogr-

aphics


adjusted by demographics

Respondent aged 16-34 in 2013

1.84 1.57

Lived in Newham 5 years or more in

2013 0.44 0.48

ICADI rank of local area (LSOA)

(Higher = less deprived)

1.00 1.00

Worried about crime in 2013

2.21 2.71

Did not regularly attend theatre,

concert or dance show in 2013

1.33 1.45

Satisfaction with council in 2013 (Higher = more

satisfied)

1.39 1.46

Household moved into poverty (BHC) between 2013 and

2015

1.89 1.86

Voted in 2010 (General or Local)

1.21 1.62



5.4 Voting

Six-in-ten residents voted, or planned to vote, in the 2015 General Election.

Sixty per cent of Newham residents said that they intended to vote or had voted in the General Election during the Wave 8 study, which closely matches the recorded turnout in the two Parliamentary Constituencies that cover Newham (East Ham – 60.11% turnout; West Ham – 58.51% turnout).

Whilst stated turnout levels are below those recorded for the United Kingdom (66.1%) and Greater London (65.4%)123, they do represent an increase of six percentage points on the proportion of residents who said that they voted in the 2010 General Election and local elections (54%) when asked during Wave 7 in 2013.

As fieldwork was split over the General Election the question was altered to reflect this; residents interviewed prior to the election were asked if they intended to vote, whilst those interviewed from the 8 May onwards were asked whether they had voted in the election. As these are very different questions we have split the data in Table 5.7 to show the difference in results.

Table 5.7 ---- Breakdown of responses to voting question based on date of interview completion

All respondents

(n=1,024)

Interviewed pre-election

(n=58)

Interviewed post-election

(n=966)

Voted/ planned to vote in GE

60% 87% 59%

Did not vote/ plan to vote in GE

29% 8% 31%

Couldn’t vote 3% 2% 4%

Not eligible 7% 4% 7%


123 The 2015 General Election: aspects of participation and administration, University of Plymouth, August 2015 (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/191861/Plymouth-UKPGE-electoral-data-report-final-WEB.pdf)


Examining only those interviewed after the General Election, there are clear differences in reported turnout between a number of key groups:

One of the starkest differences is between residents of an Asian ethnic background (73% of whom say they voted) and residents of a White ethnic background (just 48% of whom say they voted). It should be noted, however, that this disparity is likely due to eligibility to vote, with residents from non-British white backgrounds least likely to vote (22%) of all ethnic groups and white British residents as likely to vote as residents from Asian backgrounds. Both percentages have risen since 2013 (from 65% and 42% respectively). This increase could be attributable to a number of factors, from more accurate recollection due to the greater immediacy of the election through to turnover in the population meaning that a higher proportion of residents were eligible to vote at the time.

There is a similarly strong correlation between age and reported voting, with 38 per cent of 16-24 year olds saying that they had voted, compared with 63 per cent of those aged 35-44, and 81 per cent of those aged 55 to 64. Beyond this age, the level of reported voting falls again, with 66 per cent of those aged 65 and above saying that they voted at this year’s election.

Looking at panellists, there is a strong level of consistency in voting patterns, with 72 per cent of those who voted in this year’s General Election also saying that they had voted in the 2010 General Election. Abstention is similarly entrenched, with 58 per cent of panellists who did not vote in 2010 also saying that they did not vote in 2015.

Analysis of voting patterns between the three Values Modes groups reveals that residents from the Settlers segment were more likely to have voted than either Pioneers or Prospectors. This pattern has been observed in other studies of the Values Modes groups; Settlers are most likely to be ‘tribal’ and habitual voters124. It should be noted that for this analysis only those who answered the question after the General Election (966 residents) were included.

Sixty-seven per cent of Settlers said that they voted in the 2015 General Election, compared to 57 per cent of Prospectors and 54 per cent of Pioneers. It can also be seen that Pioneers were least likely to be ineligible to vote (four per cent), reflecting their more habitual approach to voting (Table 5.8).

124 http://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/10/new-electorate-voter-values_Oct2013_11359.pdf#page=6


Table 5.8 ---- Voting record of Values Modes groups


Voted 54% 57% 67%

Did not vote 30% 34% 25%

Couldn’t vote 5% 3% 4%

Not eligible 11% 7% 4%

Source: Understanding Newham 2015 Base: 966

5.5 Housing

5.5.1 Tenure pattern

Overall tenure patterns amongst Newham residents have remained broadly stable since 2013, but longer-term trends continue.

In particular, and as Figure 5.4 illustrates, the proportion of home owners in Newham remains on a downward trajectory, with just 28 per cent of Newham households now classed as being owned (of which 13% are owned outright and 14% are being bought on a mortgage). Conversely, we see a general, longer-term, trend in rising private rented households. These make up the biggest tenure group (34 per cent of households). This is likely due to the fact that Newham residents are simply being priced out of the housing market, which is indicated by the disparity in poverty levels before and after housing costs (see chapter four).

These findings clash somewhat with other existing data sources – Newham and Greater London Authority (GLA) find 42 per cent of Newham residents to be private renters, 31 per cent to be social renters, and 26 per cent to be owner-occupiers.

Fifteen per cent of Newham households now rent their accommodation from a housing association or charitable trust, which is the highest recorded score since 2005/6.


Figure 5.4 ---- Changes in Newham residents’ tenure over time

Base: 965 Newham households interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses.

18%

34%

28% 24%

32%

14%12%

13%10%

15%

44%

28%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2002Wave 1

2003Wave 2

2004Wave 3

2005-6Wave 4

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

Q Does your household own this accommodation outright or on a mortgage / Who is this accommodation rented from or provided by?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Homeowner (NET)

Private landlord

Buying on a mortgage

Local Authority rentedHousing Association rented

Owned outright

Newham’s pattern of home ownership differs markedly from the national picture. According to the most recent results from the English Housing Survey (EHS)125 (for the years 2013 – 2014), owner-occupiers are the largest tenure group nationally, comprising 63 per cent of the English household population (33% own outright; 31% buying with a mortgage). Private renters are the next largest group nationally at 19 per cent of households, and social renters comprise 17 per cent (note that renters from housing associations and trusts are included in this category in the English Housing Survey). There are also notable differences between Newham and the EHS data for Greater London – whilst the proportion of private renters is similar (30% in EHS and 34% in Newham), the proportion of mortgagors in London is double that in Newham – at 27 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.

There are well established connections between residents’ age and/ or the time they have lived in the borough, and tenure type. For example, older residents are more likely to be owner-occupiers (42% of those aged 65 and over, compared with seven per cent of 16-24 year olds), and conversely younger residents are the most likely to rent from a private landlord (71% of 16-24 year olds and 59% of 25-34 year olds, compared with six per cent of those aged 65 and over).

The proportion of residents who are owner-occupiers increases in a linear relationship with age, with those aged 45 and above more likely than average to be an owner-occupier and those aged 44 and below less likely than average. The pattern is reversed amongst private renters, as Table 5.9 shows.

125 English Housing Survey 2013 to 2014: Headline report ( February 2015): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469213/English_Housing_Survey_Headline_Report_2013-14.pdf


Table 5.9 ---- Private renting and owner-occupation by age

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Overall

Private renter

71% 59% 39% 18% 10% 7% 34%

Owner- occupier

7% 17% 27% 38% 37% 42% 28%

Source: Understanding Newham, 2015 Base: 965 Newham Households

Home ownership rates also differ across and within126 ethnic groups. Four-in-ten (40%) residents from an Asian ethnic background live in owner-occupier households, although this falls to 27% among those of Bangladeshi heritage. Overall, 26 per cent of residents from White ethnic backgrounds live in owner-occupied houses, but this figure is driven by those from White British backgrounds, 39% of whom live in owner-occupier households.

Overall, 72 per cent of Newham households rent their property, and there has been limited change to the shape of the rental sector.

As shown in Figure 5.5, the proportion of residents renting from different landlord types remains at broadly the same level as in 2013. The largest group of households who rent do so from the Council (33%), with those renting from private individual landlords comprising the second-largest group, at 27 per cent. Seven per cent rent their property from another type of organisation (i.e. not a local authority, property company or housing association), and one per cent rent their property from a relative.

The biggest shifts have been in a reduction in the proportion of residents who rent from property companies, falling from 18 per cent in 2013 to 13 per cent of all renting households in 2015, and a rise in the proportion renting from housing associations (rising four percentage points from 2013 to 20%). However, looking at the trend data the overall picture is of a diverse and growing private rented accommodation sector, and a decline in renting from the local authority.

126 Due to low base sizes, differences among individual ethnic groups are not statistically significant, and should be treated as indicative only


Figure 5.5 ---- Changes to the rented sector in Newham over time

Base: 663 Newham households interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses.

40%

33%

24%

27%

10% 13%

24%

20%

1%7%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005-6Wave 4

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

Q Who is this accommodation rented from or provided by?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Local Authority

Property company

Private landlord

Other organisations

Housing Association

5.5.2 Satisfaction with accommodation

Eight-in-ten households (80%) are at least fairly satisfied with the quality of their accommodation. However, longer-term, satisfaction looks to be on the decline.

Figures for the main tenure groups are broadly similar to those recorded in the most recent wave of the English Housing Survey127, although residents who rent their property are slightly less satisfied than the national average (see Table 5.9).

As shown in Table 5.10, in 2015 we see the lowest satisfaction score recorded since 2011. While not representing large drops wave to wave, it does suggest Newham is heading on a downward trajectory in terms of overall satisfaction levels for accommodation. This table also includes the results of the most recent wave of the EHS where applicable.

127 English Housing Survey, DCLG (2013)


Table 5.10 ---- Satisfaction with accommodation by tenure type (% satisfied)

2008 Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

EHS 2013-2014

Overall 84% 85% 82% 80% -

Owned outright 90% 98% 96% 96% 94%

Owned on mortgage 94% 92% 97% 93% 92%

Rented from Local Authority

81% 76% 75% 75% 81%

Rented from Housing Association

74% 81% 82% 80% -

Rented from private landlord

78% 84% 74% 73% 82%

Source: Understanding Newham, English Housing Survey 2013-14 Base: 2008 (Wave 5), 854; 2011 (Wave 6), 1,153; 2013 (Wave 7), 998; 2015 (Wave 8), 965

Households that rent their property from any landlord – the local authority, housing associations or from private landlords – are less likely to be satisfied with the quality of their accommodation than those who own their own home. In particular, it is residents living in private rented households that show the lowest levels of satisfaction, at just 73 per cent, suggesting a role for the Council in addressing poor housing conditions in the private rental market. Newham Council has been the first Council in the country to introduce a full licensing scheme for privately rented properties in the borough to tackle this. Another area of focus is in improving its own housing stock, as households renting from the local authority are the next least likely to be satisfied at (75%). The relatively lower level of dissatisfaction with rented property is consistent with 2013, when 74 per cent of private renters were unhappy with their property. It is possible, however that this reflects dissatisfaction with quality in light of rental costs.

5.6 Crime and anti-social behaviour

5.6.1 Victimhood

Newham residents’ experience of crime has remained static since 2011, with around one-in-seven (15%) saying that they or a household member have been a victim of crime in the past year.

Residents are most likely to have been victim to a car break-in, experienced by six per cent of residents and/ or those they live with.


Experience of crime in the broad sense is spread relatively evenly across residents from different ethnic backgrounds, with no significant differences across White, Black, or Asian ethnic groups. Similarly, residents who are panellists reported a similar level of crime to non-panellists.

However, the specific types of crime experienced do show some differences. Worryingly, sixteen per cent of residents who have a disability have experienced home burglary in the last year – far above the overall figure of three per cent.

Incidence of street robbery also varies across demographic groups. Five per cent of White residents say they or someone they live with has experienced this, compared with three per cent of all residents. A similarly strong pattern is observed by income, with six per cent of residents from the highest household income quartile also reporting experiencing a street robbery.

Both patterns of theft echo emerging crime patterns nationally, where street robbery is increasingly being driven by smartphone (or similar high-value technology item) theft128. Crime types reported by those from lower income quartiles tend to be crimes against property rather than the person – for instance, eight per cent of those from the lowest income quartile are more likely to report experience of home burglary in the past year, compared with two per cent of residents in the highest income quartile.

Four-in-ten residents (39%) are concerned about becoming a victim of crime, which represents a decrease in concern from two years ago.

In 2013, 51 per cent of residents said they were worried about themselves or a member of their household becoming a crime victim. The figures for 2015 are back in line with 2011 levels (when concern was 41%), which may suggest that the 2013 findings represent more of a spike than a sustained rise in concern about crime.

Concern about becoming a victim of crime is more common amongst those in aged 35-44, 49 per cent of whom said they were concerned, significantly higher than the 39 per cent of residents overall.

Among those who are concerned about becoming a victim of crime, for one-in-three (34%) it is a ‘big worry’, with a further half (49%) saying it is ‘a bit of a worry’. This represents a fall in those who said it was a ‘big worry’ in 2013 (38%), but remains at a slightly higher level than that recorded in 2011, when 30 per cent said being a victim of crime was ‘a big worry’ for them.

128 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-property-crime--2011-12/rpt-section-2---focus-on-mobile-phone-theft.html


5.6.2 Feelings of safety

Feelings of safety have improved in the borough, with a higher proportion now saying they feel safe in their local area both during the day and after dark.

The vast majority of Newham residents (92%) say they feel safe walking alone in their local area during the day, with almost half (48%) saying they feel very safe. This is a significant improvement on 2013 levels (when 87% said they felt safe), as Figure 5.6 shows.

Similarly, the proportion of residents reporting feeling unsafe has fallen from 13% in 2011 and 2013 to just eight per cent now.

Figure 5.6 ---- Residents feeling safe during the day over time


93% 92% 87% 87% 87% 92%

7% 8% 12% 13% 13% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2004Wave 3

2005-6Wave 4

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

Safe Unsafe

Q How safe do you feel walking alone in this area during the daytime?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Improvements in feelings of safety after dark are even greater. Fifty-seven per cent of residents now feel safe walking alone in their local area after dark, a 12 percentage point rise since 2013, as Figure 5.7 shows. Whilst over two-in-five residents (43%) say they feel unsafe after dark, that this proportion has declined by 12 percentage points over two years should be encouraging for the Council, the police and other local partners. Effectively, we are now seeing a bigger proportion of residents feeling safe than unsafe; a reverse from the pattern witnessed in 2013.


Figure 5.7 ---- Residents feeling safe during the day and after dark over time


57% 55% 52% 47% 45%57%

43% 45% 48% 53% 55%43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2004Wave 3

2005-6Wave 4

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

Safe Unsafe

Q How safe do you feel walking alone in this area after dark?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Men are more likely than women to feel safe in their local area after dark (65% of men feel safe, compared with 47% of women), although both figures are lower than the figures recorded in the 2014 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), where 85% of men and 58% of women said they felt safe129. Despite this, the increase in feeling safe after dark has been felt equally across both sexes – rising by six percentage points for men, and five percentage points for women since 2013.

Residents from White and Black ethnic backgrounds are most likely to feel safe in their local area after dark – 60 and 61 per cent respectively, compared with 49 per cent of residents from Asian backgrounds. Whilst similar proportions of residents from different White ethnic backgrounds said they felt safe walking in their local area after dark, amongst those from Asian backgrounds, residents from Bangladeshi backgrounds are much less likely to say that they feel safe (42%, compared to 51% of those from Asian Indian backgrounds).

Linear regression (or ‘key drivers’) analysis was used to identify the factors most correlated with how safe residents feel when walking alone in their local area after dark. This model set out in Table 5.11 explains 23 per cent of variation which is fairly high for a model of this kind. The remaining variation is accounted for by variables outside the model.

The strongest driver influencing how safe residents feel walking alone after dark, by a substantial margin, is whether or not they have been a victim of crime in the past year.

Other strong drivers include whether residents agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together –

129 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_398059.pdf#page=26


those agreeing are less likely to feel unsafe – and ethnicity, with residents from an Asian ethnic background more likely to feel unsafe.

Other, more weak, drivers include having higher levels of personal resilience, living in areas with higher ethnic fractionalisation, and agreeing that neighbours can be approached for advice.

There is also a weak relationship between feeling safe after dark and some elements of the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation, an index that ranks all lower layer super output areas (LSOAs – a geographical sub-unit of between 400 and 1,200 households used by the Census) according to their relative levels of deprivation in six principal dimensions. Residents living in areas with lower crime deprivation scores (i.e. lower levels of crime) and living in areas with lower index of multiple deprivation scores (i.e. less deprived areas) are more likely to feel safe walking alone in their local area after dark.

Table 5.11 ---- Key driver analysis: feeling safe walking alone after dark

Relationship with outcome Importance Rank

Been a victim of crime in the past year

+ 41% 1

Agree local area is place where people from different

backgrounds get on well together

- 20% 2

Ethnicity (Asian) + 17% 3

Brief Resilience Scale score - 11% 4

Ethnic fractionalisation score of local area (LSOA)

- 3% 5

Agree could go to someone in the neighbourhood for advice

- 3% 6

Frequency of visiting family and friends

- 3% 7

Rank of local area (LSOA) ---- crime deprivation score

- 2% 8

Rank of local area (LSOA) ---- multiple deprivation score

- 1% 9

Source: Understanding Newham, 2015 Controlled variables: age, gender, CFA and health status


5.6.3 Perceptions of anti-social behaviour

Despite an overall improvement in the perception of safety during the day and after dark, perceptions of some types of anti-social behaviour (ASB) being common problems have actually risen slightly when compared to 2013.

The biggest ASB concerns remain teenagers hanging around on the street (66% of residents think this is a common problem in their local area), followed by people being drunk and rowdy in public (50%).

As Figures 5.8 and 5.9 show, there have been some notable rises in perceptions that particular types of ASB are problems locally since 2013, in particular:

people dealing drugs in the local area (which has risen by seven percentage points to 45 per cent)

prostitution, curb crawling and other sexual acts (where the proportion who feel this is common has almost doubled since 2013, rising from 12% to 21%)

graffiti, which after a dip in 2013 is now back up to 2011 levels (27%)

abandoned cars (which has risen from 13% in 2013 to 18%)

a gradual rise over the longer-term in perceived problems with people taking drugs, which is now at 45 per cent, and in drunk and rowdy behaviour, which has been progressively increasing since 2011 and is now at 50 per cent.

Figure 5.8 ---- Occurrence of ASB in Newham over time ---- chart I

Base: c. 1,024 Newham residents interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015.

28%

45%

19% 21%

69% 66%

32%29%

44%50%

13%7%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

Q Please can you tell me how common each of the following are in your area?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Fire setting

People dealing drugs

Teenagers hanging around

Prostitution and curb crawling

People being drunk and rowdy in public

Homes being broken into

Conversely, 2015 has seen some encouraging falls in perceptions that particular types of ASB are a common problem locally. Specifically, the


proportion of residents who feel that racially-motivated attacks are common in Newham has continued to fall – 15 per cent now feel this sort of ASB is common locally, a similar level to that recorded in 2013 (17%), but substantially lower than the proportion who felt this was common in 2007/8 (26%). Figure 5.9 also demonstrates that, whilst there have been some rises in particular ASB issues locally since 2013, concerns are still far lower than they were eight years ago when car crime, abandoned cars and vandalism were seen big issues.

Figure 5.9 ---- Occurrence of ASB in Newham over time ---- chart II

Base: c. 1,024 Newham residents interviewed face-to-face, 17 April – 08 September 2015.

26%

15%

49%

32%

27% 27%

45%

18%

50%

31%

26%23%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2007-8Wave 5

2011Wave 6

2013Wave 7

2015Wave 8

Q Please can you tell me how common each of the following are in your area?

Source: Ipsos MORI

People attacked on the streets

Racially motivated attacks

Graffiti

Cars being broken into/stolen

Vandalism

Abandoned cars

As in previous years, residents from Asian ethnic backgrounds are more likely to say that a wide range of ASB problems are common in Newham, including teenagers hanging around on streets (73% of Asians this this is a common ASB problem compared to 66% of residents overall), people dealing drugs (53% compared with 42% overall), and people being drunk or rowdy in public (57% compared with 50% overall).

The most striking example is with the perceived prevalence of prostitution and curb crawling; one-in-three (34%) of residents from an Asian background perceive this to be very or fairly common in their area, whereas the figures for residents from White and Black ethnic backgrounds stand at 11 and 14 per cent respectively. It is high across the different Asian ethnicities, but is highest amongst those from a Pakistani background (47%).

The incidence of racist or religious insults is also higher among residents from an Asian background (notably those from Indian and Pakistani backgrounds) - 23 per cent feel it is a common issue in their area, compared with nine per cent of those from White ethnic backgrounds, 10 per cent of those from Black ethnic backgrounds, and 16 per cent of those from a Bangladeshi background.


Income is also a defining factor. There are a number of ASB problems that lower income groups are more likely to see as problems locally, specifically insults or attacks to do with someone’s race, colour or religion (24% of residents in the lowest income quartile cite this as a common problem compared to 15% of residents overall) and fire setting (13% vs. seven per cent). Conversely, those in higher income quartiles are more likely to cite the following as common problems locally: people dealing drugs (56% of residents in the third income quartile cite this is a common problem compared to 45% of residents overall), people being attacked on the streets (33% of this same income group compared to 23% of residents overall), graffiti on walls or buildings (34% vs. 27%), homes being broken into (39% vs. 29%), and vandalism and deliberate damage to property (41% vs. 31%).

Experience of crime is strongly linked to perceptions of how much of an issue ASB is seen to be in the local area, as Table 5.12 illustrates. Residents who have been a victim of crime are far more likely to view ASB as a common issue in their area

Table 5.12 ---- Perceptions different ASB as a common problem locally (% very/ fairly common)

Not victim of crime

Victim of crime Difference

Cars being broken into or stolen

26% 65% +39

People attacked on the streets

19% 50% +31

Insults or attacks to do with race, colour or religion

11% 38% +27

Homes being broken into 25% 52% +27

Vandalism and deliberate damage to property

27% 52% +25

People being drunk or rowdy in public

47% 66% +19

People dealing drugs 42% 60% +18

Graffiti on walls/buildings 25% 42% +17

Teenagers hanging around on streets

64% 81% +17

Abandoned cars 16% 29% +13

Prostitution, curb crawling and other sexual acts

20% 29% +9

Fire setting 6% 12% +6

Source: Understanding Newham, 2015 Base: 903 who were not a victim of crime, 121 who were a victim of crime


Adopting the Values Modes segmentation as an analytical framework, roughly equal proportions of all three main groups say they are worried about becoming a victim of crime – this is a concern for 41 per cent of Pioneers, 37 per cent of Prospectors, and 42 per cent of Settlers.

However, the size of the concern is very different for the three groups; half (51%) of Settlers consider it to be ‘a big worry’, compared to three in ten (30%) Prospectors and one quarter (24%) of Pioneers.

Table 5.13 ---- Size of concern with crime by Values Mode segment


Concerned about becoming a victim of crime

41% 37% 42%

Of whom, size of concern:

Big worry 24% 30% 51%

Bit of a worry 46% 55% 40%

Occasional doubt 30% 15% 10%

Source: Understanding Newham, 2015 Base: 1,024 Newham residents interviewed 17 April – 8 September

Values Mode segments are also linked to residents’ perceptions of how frequent particular types of anti-social behaviour and crime happen in their area. Typically, Settlers are most likely to think that crimes are common in their area, particularly:

the incidence of drug dealing – 51% of Settlers, 45% of Prospectors and 38% of Pioneers think this is very or fairly common

home-breaking (39% of Settlers, 27% of Prospectors and 22% of Pioneers)

people being attacked in the street (33% of Settlers, 20% of Prospectors and 19% of Pioneers)

prostitution and kerb crawling (30% of Settlers, 18% of Prospectors and 19% of Pioneers), and

incidents involving racial or religious slurs (21% of Settlers, 14% of Prospectors and nine per cent of Pioneers).

However, for some other categories, such including teenagers hanging around on the streets, the presence of graffiti, cars being broken into and abandoned cars, the differences between the Values Modes groups are minimal or non-existent. This may be related to a variety of factors – Settlers


tend to feel that the level of crimes against the person is higher than other groups, which may relate to their more pessimistic outlook, or their demographic composition. Settlers are typically older and longer-term Newham residents who are poorer than average, and these groups also tend to see higher levels of this type of crime.

Overall satisfaction with the Council is high with

more residents now saying they are very

satisfied with how the Council runs things

CHAPTER SUMMARY6 Newham services

SATISFACTION WITH THE COUNCIL AND ITS SERVICES

SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL AMENITIES

The extent to which local public services are rated well is a big driver

of positive sentiment towards the Council

81% Public transport 80% Shopping facilities 62% Leisure facilities58% GP/medical services58% Police44% Advice centres

Newham’s public transport and shopping amenities come in for

particularly high praise from its residents

rate street cleaning as excellent or

very good

rate schools as excellent or

very good

49%

65%

70% of residents are satisfied with

the Council.

70%

rate rubbish collection as excellent

or very good

65%


This chapter looks at residents’ perceptions of local services and amenities in Newham, whether provided by the Council or another organisation.

6.1 Council satisfaction

Satisfaction levels with Newham Council have been broadly maintained, and the proportion of residents who feel ‘very satisfied’ has actually increased.

Seven-in-ten residents (69%) are satisfied with how Newham Council runs things overall, while one-in-nine (11%) are dissatisfied.

As shown in Figure 6.1, overall satisfaction has increased by three percentage points since 2013; although not statistically significant, it has cancelled out the slight fall in satisfaction witnessed between 2011 and 2013. However, the proportion of residents who say they are ‘very satisfied’ with the Council has actually increased significantly since 2013 (from eight per cent to 11%) while levels of overall dissatisfaction have fallen (from 14% to 11%). More generally, when looking at the longer-term picture, satisfaction with Newham Council has improved considerably over the last decade.

Figure 6.1 ---- Overall satisfaction with Newham Council


47%

69%

4% 11%

21%

11%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2011 2013 2015

Q Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with how the council runs things in Newham?

Source: Ipsos MORI

Satisfied

DissatisfiedVery Satisfied

Satisfaction with the Council is lower among longer-term residents who have lived in the borough for at least 10 years (64% are satisfied compared with 73% of those who have not lived in the borough as long). It also varies by ethnicity, with the highest level of satisfaction among White residents (75% compared with 69% of residents overall). Conversely, Black residents and those of a Bangladeshi background are more likely to express dissatisfaction with the Council (20% for each group, compared with 11% of all residents).

Across other groups of residents, satisfaction with the Council is particularly high among those who are not working because of long-term sickness or a


disability (91%) – likely reflecting the higher level of service use amongst this sub-group - but, is lower among those who are unemployed (54% compared with 69% overall).

In terms of Value Modes, satisfaction with the Council varies relatively little, but variance is greatest among Prospectors: 83 per cent of Tomorrow People are satisfied with the Council compared with 69 per cent of all residents; in contrast, dissatisfaction with the Council is greatest among Golden Dreamers (20% compared with 11% of all residents).

Regression (or ‘key drivers’) analysis has been used to look at the drivers behind levels of satisfaction with the Council, with a focus on how satisfaction with different aspects of Council services is related to overall satisfaction. The model produced controls for a number of demographic characteristics related to Council satisfaction, namely age, gender, employment status and how long residents have lived in Newham. The model explains 42 per cent of the variance in Council satisfaction, which is strong for a model of this kind.

As Table 6.1 shows, the strongest drivers of satisfaction are how well various other local public services are rated, and the strongest driver of all is the ratings for street cleaning services; this alone accounts for nearly a third (31%) of the overall variance explained. It is followed closely by ratings for rubbish collection services (28% of the variance), housing services and health services. The fact that over half of the variance in the model is explained by street cleaning and rubbish collection emphasises the importance of the ‘street scene’ and universal services in the overall reputation of the Council among residents. This reinforces findings from previous Ipsos MORI research which looks at the factors most important for driving wider council reputation130.

Social cohesion is another driver, as there is correlation between satisfaction with the Council and agreement that the local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well (six per cent of the variance explained). Another driver is the rating given to local shopping facilities (six per cent of the variance explained), although the link is weaker than for other local services. This is perhaps because residents do not place shopping facilities within the Council’s remit, or at least not to the same extent as for other services.

Other drivers of satisfaction with the Council include being a private renter, agreeing that neighbours can be approached for advice if needed and being of a White ethnic background.

130 People, Perceptions and Place, Ipsos MORI (August 2009): https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-localgov-peopleperceptionsandplace-revisedsept.pdf


Table 6.1 ---- Key drivers of satisfaction with Newham Council

Relationship Importance Rank

Satisfaction with street cleaning services + 31% 1

Satisfaction with rubbish collection services + 28% 2

Satisfaction with housing services + 12% 3

Satisfaction with health services + 9% 4

Agree local area is a place where people from different

backgrounds get on + 6% 5

Satisfaction with local shopping facilities + 6% 6

Tenure (private renters) + 5% 7

Agree could go to someone in neighbourhood if needed

advice + 2% 8

Ethnicity (White) + 1% 9

Source: Understanding Newham, 2015 Controlled variables: age, gender, CFA, health status, ethnicity, qualifications

6.2 Satisfaction with key services

When it comes to Council services, residents express the greatest satisfaction with schools and rubbish collection.

Following the long-term trend, schools and rubbish collection remain the most positively rated Council services, as Figure 6.2 shows. Two-in-three residents who have an opinion on them rate them as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ (65% for both). Just under half of residents give a positive rating for local street cleaning (49%), social services (47%) and housing services (45%).

Only a minority of residents actually say these Council services are poor. They are most likely to say this of housing services (24%), followed by street cleaning (16%), social services (13%) and rubbish collection (10%). Only four per cent say that local schools are poor.


Figure 6.2 ---- Ratings of Newham Council services

Base: Various – all who express an opinion on each service. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses.

35%

65%

31%

49%46%

65%

19%

45%

25%

47%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2011 2013 2015

% rating service as very good or excellent

Source: Ipsos MORI

SchoolsRubbish collection

Street cleaningSocial servicesHousing services

Perceptions of Council services are broadly consistent with the levels seen in 2013, and the proportions of residents who say these services are poor have changed little, if at all, since 2013. One exception is local housing services, which has seen a nine percentage point increase in positive ratings since 2013 (to 45%). However, one-in-four still see housing services as poor, which reinforces earlier findings in Chapter 5 where satisfaction with accommodation is generally lower among local authority tenants than it is for most other tenures.

Housing services are viewed more positively by social tenants though (51% rate them as very good or excellent, compared with 31% of private tenants), which is very likely to be because social tenants are more likely to use these services131.

Residents who are looking after their home and/ or family have more positive perceptions of local schools (83% rate them as very good or excellent, compared with 65% of all residents). Despite this finding, residents who actually have children in their household are no more likely than average to give a positive rating to local schools (67% compared with 65% of all residents). Residents looking after their homes and families are also more likely than others to have a positive view of social services (72% rate them as very good or excellent, compared with 47% of all residents).

Public transport and shopping amenities come in for particularly high praise from Newham residents, but positive perceptions of health services continue to decline.

131 Only four per cent of social tenants say they ‘don’t know’ when asked to give a rating for local housing services, compared with 62 per cent of owner-occupiers and 53 per cent of private sector tenants.


Four-in-five Newham residents view the borough’s public transport and shopping facilities as very good or excellent (81% and 80% respectively), as shown in Figure 6.3. Three-in-five give this positive rating to local leisure facilities (62%), further education and skills training (58%), GP and medical services (58%) and policing (58%). Residents are least likely to rate local advice centres as very good or excellent (44%).

Again, only a minority of residents actually rate these services negatively. They are most likely to say local advice centres are poor (19%), followed by health services (14%) and the local police (12%), but very few say this about local shops (four per cent) or public transport (two per cent).

In general, perceptions of local amenities are relatively consistent with views expressed in 2013. However, there has been a significant increase in the positive ratings given to local advice centres (up seven percentage points). Conversely, residents are less likely to hold a positive view about local health services. This continues a trend from 2013, and likely reflects the wider well-reported issues affecting the NHS. The proportion of residents viewing these services as very good or excellent is now 10 percentage points lower than the level seen in 2011 (58% compared with 68%).

Figure 6.3 ---- Ratings of other services and facilities

Base: Various – all who express an opinion on each service. Excludes ‘don’t know’, ‘not stated’ responses.

36%

58%54%

81%

45%

58%

28%

58%

27%

44%

50%

62%61%

80%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2011 2013 2015

% rating service as very good or excellent

Source: Ipsos MORI

Public transport

Further ed./skills

Leisure facilities

Advice centres

Police

Shopping facilities

GP/medical services

Ratings of local amenities vary relatively little between demographic groups, although residents from a Bangladeshi ethnic background are more likely to give a rating of ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ to local advice centres (70% compared with 56% of all residents) and local further education and skills training (57% compared with 42% residents).

Perhaps reflecting their greater use of these services, local health services are viewed more positively by those not in work because of long-term sickness, and by older residents (82% and 69% respectively rate local


health services as very good or excellent, compared with 58% of all residents).


7 Appendix A: Technical note

7.1 Methodology

This chapter outlines details of the methodological approach to Wave 8 of the Newham Household Panel Survey (NHPS), also known as Understanding Newham.

7.1.1 Sampling

The 2015 (Wave 8) sample consisted of two different sample types; panel and fresh cases.

Panel sample

The panel sample consisted of households who had been interviewed at Wave 6 and 7132. All panel cases with a productive outcome (i.e. an interview) in the two previous waves were eligible for the Wave 8 study, with the exception of those who explicitly asked not to be re-contacted at the end of their last interview.

A total of 1,032 panel cases were issued.

Fresh sample

In addition to the panel sample, a fresh sample was selected in order to ensure an adequate sample size for analysis.

1,232 fresh cases were issued, and although reserve sample was prepared, none was used during fieldwork

Both samples used the Post Office Small User Address File (PAF) as a sampling frame. This was chosen as it provides high coverage of the population and is the most up-to-date source of addresses available. It is also the same sample frame used on previous waves of the Newham Household Panel and on Understanding Society.

Given the relatively small size of Newham, a one-stage unclustered random probability sample design was employed. The sample was stratified by: i) forum area; and, ii) the proportion of household reference persons with non-manual occupations (NS SEC 1 and 2), although as the sample was unclustered the stratification would have very little effect.

132 At Wave 6 the sample was completely refreshed. Respondents from Waves 1 to 5 of the study were not approached.


The eligible population for NHPS comprises of two distinct groups:

Adults (16+) resident in Newham for at least six months.

Households in Newham, containing an adult who has been resident for at least six months.

In fresh households, an adult was selected at random from those aged 16+ in the household. This selection was administered by interviewers using a Kish grid selection method133. In panel households the adult respondent was the person who responded to the adult interview in the last wave in which the household participated. They had been selected randomly in the previous wave using the same method described for the fresh sample.

In order to collect data about households in Newham it was necessary to interview the Household Reference Person (HRP) or their partner. In the majority of households the randomly selected individual was the HRP or partner and was eligible to respond to both the individual questionnaire and the household questionnaire. In households where this was not the case the selected individual answered the individual questionnaire and the household interview was conducted separately with the HRP or HRP’s partner.

The HRP was defined by the following criteria:

The adult who owns/rents the property.

If the property is owned/rented by multiple adults, the one with the highest income.

If multiple adults own/rent the property and have equal incomes, the oldest of these adults.

This was established in the Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) script. In panel cases there was no assumption that the current HRP was the same as in the previous wave.

7.1.2 Questionnaire development

The survey comprised of four separate questionnaires:

The CAPI household grid questionnaire, asked of the randomly selected adult (16+) in each household.

133The Kish grid uses a pre-assigned table of random numbers to find the person to be interviewed. Interviewers first list the eligible respondents alphabetically. They then refer to the selection table which tells them the number of the respondent to be interviewed.


The household grid section captured basic information about all individuals (including children aged under 16) in the household and the relationships between them. For panel households, the household grid established any changes to the household composition since the previous wave. It asked whether anyone had left or joined the household and confirmed the sex, dates of birth, and relationships collected at the last wave.

The CAPI individual questionnaire, asked of the same randomly selected adult (16+) in each household.

The individual questionnaire was made up of 14 sections, covering general information about the respondent, religion, values and opinions, health and caring, emotions, childcare, employment, training, crime, unearned income and state benefits, retirement and savings. Respondents were also asked to provide contact information and permission for future waves of the survey.

The CAPI household questionnaire, asked of the Household Reference Person or their partner.

The household questionnaire asked about housing tenure, housing conditions, accommodation costs and household expenditure and financial management.

The household income module.

The interview included the ONS harmonised question to collect Income as a Classificatory Variable134. This series of questions asks the respondent to provide an income bracket for each adult member of the household. This module was included as part of the individual questionnaire, however if the respondent was unable to provide answers for all adults in the households then the remaining adults would be asked directly. These data were collected in a separate income module.

The majority of questions in the questionnaires were taken from those used in the previous wave of the NHPS, which themselves were taken from questions used in the British Household Panel Survey (now called Understanding Society). This allowed for comparisons between NHPS Wave 8 data and data from Understanding Society. A number of new questions were also included, whilst others asked in Waves 6 and 7 were excluded.

To test the length and content of the interview a ‘live-pilot’ exercise was undertaken. After 30 interviews had taken place. analysis of the length of the interviews was undertaken and a tele-conference was conducted with a

134http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/harmonisation/secondary-set-of-harmonised-concepts-and-questions/income-for-analysis-and-income-as-a-variable.pdf


number of survey interviewers. Overall the questionnaire was felt to function well, however interviewers identified three questions of concern that were changed following the pilot debrief:

Question H109 (Uses of the internet question): Amended to include a ‘none of these’ code.

Question H90 (Question asking if respondent lacks something because they cannot afford it): An interviewer instruction was added here to deal with any respondent confusion arising from the question format.

Question H100a (Sources of debt question): Changed from a long battery question to a single question asking if the respondent has any of the debts listed.

Following a meeting with Newham Council after the pilot, a few additional questions were cut from the survey to keep it at the agreed length – these were A18, V7, E16, H28, H98 and H99. The question battery formerly called V15 was split up, with the questions moved to different sections to reflect the differing topics the questions in this battery cover.

7.1.3 Fieldwork procedures

Thirty field interviewers worked on the survey. Interviewers posted advance letters prior to visiting each address, which included a leaflet explaining the study in greater detail. There were two versions of the letter – one for panel respondents (addressed to the relevant individual) and one for fresh respondents (addressed “Dear Resident”).

Interviewers were required to make a minimum of six face-to-face calls to each address before coding a final outcome of ‘no contact’, with at least one call required in the evening (after 6pm), another on the weekend, and a further call on either an evening or weekend. The first and last calls needed to be at least three weeks apart.

Foreign language interviews were undertaken with interpretation either by the interviewer, or a household interpreter aged over 16. Incentives (£5 high street vouchers) were provided to each respondent on completion of an interview.

Fieldwork for the survey was conducted between 17 April and 6 September 2015. The average (median) total interview length per household was 44 minutes (i.e. summing the interview lengths across respondents in those households where different individuals answered the household and individual questionnaires). Interviews were conducted in 1,024 households. In 965 of these the individual questionnaire and household questionnaires were completed. In 59 only the individual questionnaire was completed, and no household questionnaire was obtained.


7.2 Responses at Wave 8

Table 7.1 ---- NHPS Wave 8 response summary

All(n)

Panel (n)

Fresh(n)

Total issued sample 2,264 1,032 1,232

Ineligible 144 69 75

Panel member moved out of Newham 59 59 -

Panel member deceased 3 3 -

Panel member institutionalised 2 2 -

Deadwood 48 2 46

No eligible respondent resident 14 - 14

Other ineligible 18 3 15

Unknown eligibility 247 124 123

No contact 118 11 107

Panel member moved, no follow-up address 111 111 -

Other unknown eligibility 18 2 16

Productive 1,024 532 492

Individual and household interviews 965 514 451

Individual interview only 59 18 41

Refusals 462 161 301

Office refusal 1 - 1

Refusal to interviewers 449 153 296

Broken appointment 12 8 4

Other unproductive 387 146 241


Overall the Wave 8 response rate135 was 48%. Among panel respondents it was 55% and among fresh cases it was 43%. The co-operation rate136 was 55% overall.

7.3 Panel attrition

During Wave 8 of NHPS, 532 existing panel members (50% of those issued) were again interviewed as can be seen in Table 7.2. Panel attrition was moderate, with seven per cent of panellists being marked as ineligible, predominantly due to the respondent moving out of Newham, and a further 12 per cent being marked with unknown eligibility. The latter refers to the cases where the respondent had moved since the previous survey but no follow up address was available or where no contact was made and eligibility could not be established. The number of refusals (161, or 16% of those issued) was higher than in the previous wave but remains a fairly typical rate for a panel survey.

Table 7.2 ---- The final fieldwork outcomes for the panel sample

Frequency

Percent of total

Percent of issued

Percent of known to be eligible

Total 1,055 100.0

Not issued137 23 2.0

Total issued 1,032 98.0 100.0

Respondent ineligible 69 6.5 6.7

Unknown eligibility 124 11.8 12.0

Total known eligible 839 79.5 68.7 100.0

Productive 532 50.4 51.6 63.4

Refused 161 15.3 15.6 19.2

Other unproductive138 146 13.8 14.2 17.4

The breakdown of the panel members who were ineligible at Wave 8 can be seen in Table 7.3. A small number of respondents were institutionalised or were found to be deceased, as would be expected in any panel survey; however, the largest proportion of ineligible panel contacts were those who had moved home and had become ineligible by leaving the borough (59, six per cent of those issued). It is also certain that had contact been

135 Response rate = productive/(productive+refusals+unproductive+unknown eligibility) 136Co-operation rate = productive/(productive+refusals+unproductive) 137Due to no re-contact permission 138Other unproductive outcome codes: Physically / mentally unable, Language difficulties, Away or in hospital throughout fieldwork period, Ill at home throughout fieldwork period, No contact with selected respondent, Other unproductive.


possible, a proportion of the non-contacted cases would have been found to be ineligible as well.

Table 7.3 ---- Final fieldwork outcomes of ineligible panel sample cases

Frequency Percent of issued

Respondent moved out of Newham 59 6%

Respondent deceased 3 >1%

Respondent institutionalised (e.g. care home / prison)

2 >1%

Deadwood address (e.g. address derelict) 2 >1%

Other ineligible 3 >1%

Total ineligible 69 7%

7.4 Demographic profile of the Newham Household Panel

Table 7.4 shows the demographic profile of those who left the panel at the end of the previous wave (Wave 7) in comparison to those panellists who remained in the panel and completed Wave 8, as well as all panel and non-panel respondents to Wave 8.

It shows that amongst current panel respondents, those from White and Black ethnic backgrounds are slightly over-represented (and Asian-background panellists are slightly under-represented) when compared with the overall Wave 8 sample. Panellists are also (perhaps understandably) more likely to have resided in Newham for longer than the overall sample. In terms of employment status, retirees and home-makers are more common amongst the panel than in the wider sample, with those in employment under-represented; and there is a clear under-representation of private renters amongst panellists.

The demographic profile of those who left the panel after the last wave (Wave 7) is similar to the existing panel in some respects – it over-represents those who have lived in Newham for over five years, and there are more home-makers than in the overall sample. However, in most other respects those who left the panel at the last wave are more similar to the overall sample for this wave; their tenure and employment status make-up closely matches the Wave 8 panel.


Table 7.4 ---- Profile of former and continuing members of the

Newham Household Panel (unweighted)

W7 resp only Resp to both W7 and W8

W8 resp overall

Base: 268 505 1,024

Length of time in Newham

Less than 5 years 12% 15% 28%

5-9 years 22% 16% 16%

10 years + 65% 69% 56%

Tenure

Owner-occupier 31% 35% 33%

Social renter 42% 47% 42%

Private renter 27% 18% 26%

Work status

In paid employment (full/part time) 42% 37% 41%

Self-employed 5% 7% 9%

Unemployed 10% 7% 9%

Retired 20% 26% 21%

Looking after home or family 14% 15% 12%

Full time student 4% 1% 1%

Long-term sick/disabled 6% 7% 7%

Ethnicity

White 38% 43% 42%

Asian 36% 33% 34%

Black 19% 20% 20%

Mixed 5% 4% 4%

Other 1% 1% 2%

Receive Housing Benefit 33% 38% 29%

Table 7.5 compares the socio-demographic profile of panel members who were interviewed at Wave 8 with those who could not be interviewed in this most recent wave. The data used for comparison is from Wave 7, so that any systematic differences between those who were contactable in this wave, and those who were not, can be examined.

The table shows many similarities and some small variations which are to be expected given the small sample sizes. However, the larger differences included respondents of ages 16-24, where 37% were interviewed (compared with 50% overall), and the age group of 25-34, where slightly


fewer still (34%) were interviewed; hence panel attrition was worst amongst younger respondents. Other groups that suffered greater than average panel attrition included those from households of two or more unrelated adults and respondents who rent from private landlords.

Table 7.5 ---- Proportion of Wave 7 respondents interviewed at Wave 8 by demographic profile (unweighted ---- row %s)

Interviewed at Wave 8

Unproductive at Wave 8

Total(n)

Sex

Male 45% 55% 454

Female 53% 47% 565

Age

16-24 years 37% 63% 68

25-34 years 34% 66% 200

35-44 years 55% 45% 256

45-54 years 52% 48% 186

55-64 years 59% 41% 126

65+ years 58% 42% 167

Ethnicity

White 43% 57% 391

Asian 47% 53% 356

Black 48% 52% 217

Mixed 56% 44% 41

Other 40% 60% 10

Household composition

Single person HH 51% 49% 260

Couple: no children 56% 44% 97

Couple: children 48% 52% 175

Lone parent 49% 51% 80

2+ unrelated adults 42% 58% 224

Other (3+ with relations) 55% 45% 183

Household tenure

Owner occupier 52% 48% 326

Social renter 55% 45% 400

Private renter 39% 61% 267

Self employed 51% 49% 82

Employment status

In paid employment (full or part-time) 44% 56% 388

Unemployed 46% 54% 85

Retired 59% 41% 192

Looking after family or home 52% 48% 136

Full-time student / at school 38% 62% 53

Long-term sick or disabled 55% 45% 56


7.5 Further characteristics of panel attrition

Table 7.6 shows further comparisons between those who were interviewed at Wave 8 and those who were not.

Table 7.6 ---- Further characteristics of panel responders at Wave 8 (unweighted ---- row %s)

Interviewed at wave 8

Unproductive at wave 8

Total(n)

How likely is it that you will move house in the next two years?

Very likely 23% 74% 91

Fairly likely 44% 56% 89

Not very likely 53% 47% 102

Not at all likely 54% 46% 602

Don't know 49% 51% 128

How well would you say you yourself are managing financially these days?

Living comfortably 36% 64% 106

Doing alright 47% 53% 300

Just about getting by 55% 45% 327

Finding it quite difficult 52% 48% 188

or finding it very difficult 47% 53% 75

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way the council runs things in Newham?

Very satisfied 51% 49% 88

Satisfied 51% 49% 581

Neither satisfied/dissatisfied 46% 54% 199

Dissatisfied 51% 49% 105

Very dissatisfied 38% 62% 37

Don't know 66% 33% 9

Are you currently receiving housing or council tax benefit?

No 45% 55% 674

Yes 58% 42% 345

Length of time lived in Newham

Under 5 years 39% 61% 193

5-9 years 40% 60% 185

10+ years 56% 44% 631


Unsurprisingly, there was greater attrition amongst those who said they were either very or fairly likely to move in the next two years, as it appears many did follow through with their intention to move. There was higher attrition amongst those who had lived in Newham for under five years, with 39% being interviewed.

7.6 Weighting

Weights were computed to account for both the design of the survey, and non-response to the survey. Six separate weights were computed as follows.

Table 7.7 ---- Computed weights

Purpose of weight

wv8_IND_cxwt_h A weight for longitudinal analysis of individuals

wv8_HH_cxwt_h A weight for longitudinal analysis of household

wv678_IND_longwt_h A weight for cross-sectional analysis of individuals who have participated in Waves 6, 7 and 8

wv78_IND_longwt_h A weight for cross-sectional analysis of individuals who have participated in Waves 7 and 8

wv678_HH_longwt_h A weight for cross-sectional analysis of households who have participated in Waves 6, 7 and 8

wv78_HH_longwt_h A weight for cross-sectional analysis of households who have participated in Waves 7 and 8

7.6.1 Weighting the longitudinal sample

The first step in the weighting was to generate the four longitudinal weights; weights for analysis of individuals and households that responded at Wave 6, Wave 7 and Wave 8, and weights for analysis of the individuals and households that responded at Wave 7 and Wave 8. Each of the four weights was generated separately, although the same process was used each time.

The aim was to reduce bias arising from non-response between waves. A range of variables (a set of economic and demographic characteristics taken from the Wave 7 questionnaire) were examined for their relationship to response status. Those most closely related to non-response were used to construct a non-response model. Non-significant variables were dropped. The household non-response model used the same variables as used in the individual non-response model, although an additional variable – the total number of rooms in the house - was included in the initial variable set.


A logistic regression model was fitted, with the outcome taken as the individual’s response status. The predictor variables identified by each model as being significantly related to response behaviour are listed in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8 ---- Predictor variables for longitudinal weights

W6->W7->W8 W7->W8

Individual Household Individual Household

Age within gender Age within gender Age within gender Age within gender

Community Forum Area Community Forum Area Community Forum Area Community Forum Area

Marital status Number of children in the household

Employment status Ethnicity of main respondent

Tenure Tenure English language skills English language skills

Number of children in the household

- Number of adults in the household

Number of adults in the household

Whether the respondent had a dish washer in their

accommodation

- A count of the commodities an individual

had listed as owning

length of time the household have lived in

Newham

- - Highest achieved qualification

-

The non-response weight was taken as the reciprocal of the predicted probability of response. A small number of large weights (the top one per cent of respondents) were trimmed to ensure no single individual was over-influential on the survey results. This weight for was then multiplied by the weight from the previous wave to generate the Wave 8 longitudinal weights. Hence the weight for Wave 6 => Wave 7 => Wave 8 was multiplied by the Wave 7 longitudinal weight, and the weight for Wave 7 => Wave 8 was multiplied by the Wave 7 cross-sectional weight. Each weight therefore corrects for differences in the individual and household selection probabilities, non-response to any previous waves and non-response to Wave 8.

7.6.2 Weighting the cross-sectional sample

Cross-sectional estimates are obtained using the longitudinal and fresh samples. A household design weight was calculated for each household in the fresh sample to account for differing selection probabilities at the dwelling unit selection and household selection stages. This weight is simply the product of the number of dwelling units and the number of households within the dwelling unit (in each case capped to have a maximum value of three). An individual design weight was then calculated


as the product of the household design weight and the number of eligible individuals within the household (capped at a maximum of four).

The longitudinal and fresh samples were then combined and calibrated to Newham population data using two rims - sex by age and Community Forum Area. The cross-sectional weight used the selection weight as its initial starting weight in the calibration, whereas the longitudinal sample used the Wave 8 longitudinal weight.

7.6.3 Use of the weights

The weights are designed to be used to make inferences about different populations. The longitudinal weights refer to the population resident in Newham – one set refers to the population who have been resident since Wave 6, and the other for those who have been resident since Wave 7. This population excludes all newcomers to Newham, and any young adult resident in Newham at Wave 8, but who was under 16 at Wave 7. The cross-sectional weights refer to the current Newham population.

7.7 Longitudinal and cross-sectional samples used in analysis

The NHPS is a panel survey, whereby attempts are made to interview the same individuals at each wave. In Wave 6 the sample was completely refreshed with a new sample. Collecting data from individuals at more than one point in time enables change to be explored at the individual level, rather than to look at changes in the estimates for the whole population, which is the main purpose of repeated cross-sectional data. For this purpose the part of the sample which is of most interest is the longitudinal sample, i.e. those individuals who provide information at two or three waves.

The longitudinal sample contains those interviewed at Waves 6, 7 and 8, as well as those interviewed at Waves 7 and 8; this sample consists of 505 individual respondents who have answered Wave 7 and 8, and within that number 289 individual respondents who have answered all three waves. A larger sample is available from a cross-sectional perspective, i.e. all those who responded at Wave 8.

7.8 Statistical reliability

The respondents to the survey are only samples of the total population, so the figures obtained will differ from those we would have obtained if everybody in Newham had been interviewed. We can, however, predict the variation between the sample results and the true values from knowledge of the size of the samples on which the results are based and the variability of


the weights. We estimate the design effect due to weighting and calculate the weighting efficiency as the reciprocal of the design effect. The effective sample size is then estimated as the product of the achieved sample size and the efficiency.

Tables 7.8 and 7.9 estimate the design effect due to weighting using the formula of one plus the coefficient of variation of the weights squared. This formula does not take into account any relationship between the response variable and the weighting variables (the relationship will be specific to each question) so for many questions the effective sample sizes are likely to be slightly larger than those given here.

Table 7.9 ---- Statistical reliability for different types of analysis

Achieved sample size

Design effect Efficiency Effective

sample size

Individual longitudinal

(Waves 6,7,8)

289 1.49 66.9% 193

Individual longitudinal (Waves 7 &

8)

505 1.24 80.8% 221

Household longitudinal

(Waves 6,7,8)

273 1.40 71.4% 344

Household longitudinal (Waves 7 &

8)

482 2.21 45.3% 463

Individual cross-

sectional 1,024 2.21 45.3% 463

Household cross-

sectional 965 1.65 60.8% 587

The relationship between the effective sample size and the precision of estimates is shown in the Table 7.9. The table shows the margin of error associated with estimates of different population proportions for various different effective sample sizes. Thus, for the individual cross-sectional analysis (having an effective sample size approximately equal to 600) our estimates could have a margin of error of approximately 4.0 percentage


points (if the true population percentage is 50%) or as little as 2.4 percentage points (if the true population percentage is 10% or 90%).

Table 7.10 ---- Estimate precision for effective sample sizes

Population proportion

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

Effective sample size

300 3.4 5.2 5.7

400 2.9 4.5 4.9

500 2.6 4.0 4.4

600 2.4 3.7 4.0

700 2.2 3.4 3.7

800 2.1 3.2 3.5

900 2.0 3.0 3.3

1,000 1.9 2.8 3.1

1,100 1.8 2.7 3.0

7.9 Statistical analysis

Throughout this report, ‘key drivers’ analysis has been used to better understand what factors are most associated with specific attitudes and behaviours. Key drivers analysis is a type of regression analysis that shows how much of the variation in responses to a single measure, the dependent variable, can be explained by other measures known as ‘drivers’. These drivers include respondent characteristics and other attitudinal data.

A regression model allows the impact of different drivers in relation to each other to be measured. It will not show any causal path from one variable to another; rather it shows the relative importance of each driver in explaining the variation in the outcome variable.

A number of models were also run to investigate what factors are associated with change over time. This longitudinal analysis was based on logistic regression modelling. These models, sometimes called conditional change models or lag regression, use information from previous waves to explain change over time. The modelling was run on sub-sets of residents based on their specific state at W7 (for example, residents whose household was in poverty at W7) were selected for the analysis. The model then identified factors related to a change in state (hence the outcome for this example would be whether or not a household was in poverty at W8).


This allowed for the identification of variables related to change and their strength and direction.

The analysis was based on transitions from W7 to W8, since the sample size for cases that had participated at all three time points was too small for a robust model. The predictor variables include characteristics from W7 and variables related to change. For example; changes in income between waves is likely to be related to movement into or out of poverty. Interactions between variables were tested, but none found to be significant.

7.10 Values Modes segmentation

The Values Modes segmentation was applied to the data by Cultural Dynamics. Newham residents were segmented based upon their answers to the following10 value based questions shown in table 7.11


Table 7.11 ---- Values Modes questions

Values Modes questions

To spend time and effort caring for your appearance - How important are these things in your life?

To find out who you are and what you’re good at - How important are these things in your life?

To have lots of possessions - How important are these things in your life?

To have a large group of friends and neighbours that you can turn to - How important are these things?

People who worry about what others may think of them - How similar are you to these kinds of people?

People who enjoy keeping up with current trends in home decorating - How similar are you to these kinds of people?

I can't bear untidiness in the home - How do you feel about each of these statements?

There are too many foreigners in my country- How do you feel about each of these statements?

Criminals should be punished with maximum prison sentences to make them learn their lesson- How do you feel about each of these statements?

I have little to expect from the future - How do you feel about each of these statements?

Residents are then segmented into three groups – Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers, each of which then divided into four sub-groups. The characteristics of each group and subgroup are listed below

Settlers: older and more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds

Anxious about economic security Socially conservative Desire to belong Safety and social order, routine and normal Bounded choice More pessimistic about the future and nostalgic for the past ;

fatalistic Local means local Tight knit networks



Settler sub-groupsCertainty First Brave New World Smooth Sailing RootsCautious Less fatalistic than other Settlers Neatness and convention Perform your duty or role

Negative about the political system letting them down Traditional family roles More authoritarian and disciplinarian Things used to be better Us and them

Be satisfied with what you have Insular Self contained Tradition

Desire for authority figures Maintaining culture important Fear of crime typically high Making ends meet Us and them The state should look after you

Prospectors– younger and overall more likely to be better off

Focused on economic maximization Generally optimistic about the future Socially conservative or liberal Status and respect competitive More oriented to free market solutions and relaxed about

differences in wealth Hierarchy Not interested in causes Being at the centre of things locally


Prospector sub-groupsTomorrow people

Now people Happy Followers

Golden Dreamers

Socially tolerant Typically enjoying life now and optimistic about tomorrow Socially tolerant Adaptive Seek new experiences

Socially tolerant or liberal Want to be at the centre of things Confident about themselves but seek the esteem of others Busy Want the latest technology Self-efficacious Aim to adopt healthy lifestyles Seek new experiences

Socially conservative Trying to work out what is on trend Follow where other Prospectors lead

Socially conservative Loyal to class or culture Can be vocal when the community is angry Want respect See things in terms of hierarchy Dream of a better tomorrow and often believe they can get there quick –gimmicks therefore have


appealPioneers: No obvious age profile but typically slightly better off

Socially tolerant or liberal More positive about diversity Post materialist and want a fairer society Typically start trends in society No simple solutions Lower fear of crime Looser knit and more diverse social networks Local connects to global


Pioneer sub-groupsTransitionals Concerned

Ethicals Flexible Individualists

Transcenders

Socially tolerant More focused on tradition and conformity than other Pioneers Tried and tested ways can be evolved rather than jettisoned Pragmatic and less big picture then other Pioneers but still care about fairness

Socially tolerant or liberal Deep concern or even anger about lack of fairness in the world but lower self efficacy than Transcenders means they do not always act on this See things holistically Want to be better people Motives matter as much as outcomes

Socially tolerantMore open to market solutions than other Pioneers Self sufficient and adaptive Reflective

Socially tolerant or liberal Can be seen as über Pioneers High self efficacy Openness to new ideas Provenance matters The most diverse group The activist base for many campaigning organizations – they want to change the world More likely to engage and ask the big questions Sees state as an enabler

7.11 Derived variables

A number of variables used in the analysis are derived from a number of questions in the survey or, in the case of panel respondents, from a combination of Wave 7 and Wave 8 data. Details of the variable derivations are outlined below.


7.11.1 National Minimum Wage payment

This survey did not collect hourly pay information directly from Newham residents. Instead, this data was derived from other survey responses. This required a number of steps.

Respondents to the individual questionnaire were asked to provide their gross pay ‘the last time you were paid’. They were then asked to confirm what period that covered. Finally, they were asked to provide the number of hours they work ‘in a normal week’. In order to calculate hourly pay, the latest gross pay was converted into weekly gross pay (e.g. by dividing by 52 if an annual pay figure was provided, or by 4.333 if a monthly pay figure was provided). The weekly gross pay was then divided by the total number of hours worked in the last week to create an hourly pay rate.

All hours worked by residents were included in the calculation of the hourly pay rate. In some cases, this will also include unpaid overtime, which is included in the legal calculation of the National Minimum Wage.

It is important to note the following limitations:

While interviewers were instructed to try to check a pay slip to confirm respondents’ pay, in practice it was not always possible to do so139;, either to reduce the burden on the respondent, or simply because the respondent did not have a pay slip or refused to provide one. In some cases, this will have resulted in a rounded figure being provided. Furthermore, two per cent of residents declined to provide their pay details.

Only residents who were currently in work were asked their gross pay. This means that some residents who may have worked earlier in the year and been paid less than the minimum wage are not included in these calculations.

Residents were asked to provide the number of hours worked excluding overtime, total overtime hours, and number of paid overtime hours.

It should be noted that while respondents were asked to provide their total pay ‘last time you were paid’, they were asked to provide the number of hours worked ‘in a normal week’. As a consequence, it is possible that hourly pay calculations may be inaccurate where, over their last pay period, an individual worked significantly more or fewer hours than ‘normal’.

139 In total, 20% of respondents in paid employment provided a payslip for the interviewer to check.


Self-employed people are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage and are therefore not included in these calculations. Self-employed workers typically have far more variable working hours than employed workers, and are more likely to work longer hours without extra pay. As such, their hourly pay rates are not comparable with those of employed workers.

Similarly, people who work for a family business and live with their employer are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage. NHPS did not identify whether people lived with their employer, and for this reason it was decided to omit all people who identified themselves as unpaid workers from a family business from these calculations.

The low employment level in Newham means that the base size used to calculate National Minimum Wage payment is relatively small. This prohibits the amount of sub-group analysis that is possible. When interpreting the data, sub-groups of fewer than 50 respondents should be treated with caution. Data for any sub-groups of fewer than 30 residents has been omitted.

As with any sample survey data, the figures are subject to margins of error.

7.11.2 English proficiency

This variable sums the scores of A7, A8, A9 into one variable to identify English Language proficiency.

A7 How well do you feel you can speak English?

A8 How well can you read English?

A9 How well can you write English?

If < 5 = Strong English Skills; if 5 to 7 = moderate English skills; if 8 to 11 = Weak English Skills; if > 11 = Poor or no English Skills.

7.11.3 Monthly and weekly pay

This variable calculates weekly pay using questions E18 and E19 for paid employees, and questions E60- E63 for self-employed residents.

E18 The last time you were paid, what was your gross pay that is including any overtime, bonuses, commission, tips or tax refund, but before any deductions for tax, national insurance, or pension contributions, union dues and so on?

E19 How long a period did that cover?


E60 On average, what was your WEEKLY or MONTHLY income from this job/business over the last 12 months?

E61 Was that weekly or monthly income?

E62 Can I just check, is that figure before the deduction of income tax?

E63 And is that figure before the deduction of National Insurance?

7.11.4 Savings as a percentage of total income

This variable calculates savings (from question S2) as a percentage of total monthly pay (obtained for residents in paid employment or the self-employed).

S2. About how much on average do you personally manage to save a month?

7.11.5 Highest qualification

For the purpose of this analysis, highest qualification is derived from questions on higher education qualifications held (A16) and school qualifications held (A20). Details of this are as follows:

GCSE/O Level/NVQ12 qualifications

Youth training certificate/Skillseekers, Recognised trade apprenticeship completed, Clerical and commercial qualifications (e.g. typing/shorthand/book-keeping/commerce), City & Guilds Certificate - Craft/Intermediate/Ordinary/Part I/or Scotvec National Certificate Modules/or NVQ1/SVQ1, School Certificate or Matriculation, CSE grades 1-5/A-G, GCSE A-G, O level, GNVQ, SCE Ordinary Grade bands D-E or 4-5 (1973 or later), O grades, Standard Grade level 1-7, Higher Grade, and School Leaving Certificate.

A level or equivalent

A level A-G, City & Guilds Certificate (Advanced/Final/Part II/or Scotvec Higher National Units/or NVQ2/SVQ2 or Full Technological/Part III/or Scotvec Higher National Units/or NVQ3/SVQ3), Ordinary National Certificate (ONC) or Diploma (OND), BEC/TEC/BTEC/Scotvec National Certificate or Diploma/or NVQ3/S, Higher National Certificate (HNC) or Diploma (HND), BEC/TEC/BTEC/Scotvec Higher Certificate or Higher Diploma/or NVQ, Teaching qualifications (not degree), Higher School Certificate, AS level, and Certificate of 6th year studies.

Degree/Masters/PhD


Nursing qualifications (e.g. SEN, SRN, SCM, RGN), University diploma, University or CNAA First Degree (e.g. BA, B.Ed, BSc, University or CNAA Higher Degree (e.g. MSc, PhD).

7.11.6 Tenure

Households defined as owner-occupier include those owned outright, those owned or being bought on a mortgage, and those in shared ownership.


7.11.7 Monthly and weekly rent

This has been approximated based on H26 (How much was the last rent payment, including any services or water charges but after any rebates?) and H27 (What period did this cover?).

7.11.8 Household composition

Households are defined according to the number of people in the household, as well as by the relationships between them. For instance, a ‘couple’ household contains exactly two adults, and may contain children (in the case of ‘couple: 1-2 children’ and ‘couple: 3+ children’) or not (in the case of ‘Couple: no children’). Households defined as ‘2+ unrelated households’ are where no household members are related, and where there are no children in the household. Households defined as ‘Other (3+ with relations)’ are those where there are three or more adults in the household, with or without children, and at least two household members are relatives.

Children were defined as those aged 0-15 years old.

7.11.9 Intensity of leisure activity

Respondents were categorised by how frequently they engage in leisure activities from V7. At least 2 activities once a week or at least 6 activities once a month or at least 9 activities several times a year = Active Users; at least 1 activity once a week or at least 3 activities once a month or at least 6 activities several times a year = Moderate Users; at least 1 activity once a month or at least 3 several times a year or at least 9 activities once a year or less = Occasional Users; at least 1 activity several times a year or at least 1 activity once a year or less = Infrequent Users; all others = Non Users.

V7 We are interested in the things people do in their leisure time, I'm going to read out a list of some leisure activities. Please look at the card and tell me how frequently you do each one.

7.11.10 Fruit expenditure as a % of grocery bill

Household expenditure on fruit as a percentage of all household bills was calculated by dividing H57 by H55.

H55. About how much does your household spend in total on food and groceries each week from a supermarket or other food shop or market? Please do not include alcohol but do include non-food items such as paper products, home cleaning supplies and pet foods.

H57. And about how much do you and other members of your household spend in total on fruit and vegetables each week, including frozen, tinned and dried types?


7.11.11 Food at point of purchase expenditure compared with grocery bill

Calculates the ratio of household expenditure on food outside the home (H56) compared with that from a super market (H55).

H55. About how much does your household spend in total on food and groceries each week from a supermarket or other food shop or market? Please do not include alcohol but do include non-food items such as paper products, home cleaning supplies and pet foods.

H56. And about how much have you and other members of your household spent in total on meals or snacks purchased outside the home in the last four weeks? Please include food bought from takeaways, restaurants, sandwich shops, work or school canteens but do not include alcohol.

7.11.12 Health status

Respondents were categorised into one of three health status categories on the basis of their answers to questions M2, M3 and M6. Those who considered themselves to be disabled, those who had a limiting long-term health problem (but didn’t consider themselves disabled) and those to whom neither of these categories was applicable.

M2 Do you have any of the health problems, disabilities or impairments listed on this card?

M3. Does this health problem or disability/Do these health problems or disabilities mean that you have substantial difficulties with any of the following areas of your life?

M6. Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person?

7.11.13 BMI (Body Mass Index)

BMI is a measure of respondents’ weight relative to their height. It is a standard index used to measure healthy weight. It is derived using respondents’ self-reported height and weight from questions M27 and M28.

M27. I would like to ask you about your height and weight. There is interest in how people’s weight, given their height, is associated with their health. How tall are you without shoes?

M28. What is your current weight?

7.11.14 Total hours worked

The total number of hours respondents work is calculated from E8 (primary job core hours), E9 (primary job overtime) and E27 (second jobs).


E8. Thinking about your (main) job, how many hours, excluding overtime and meal breaks are you expected to work in a normal week?

E9. And how many hours overtime do you usually work in a normal week?

E27 How many hours do you usually work in a month in your second/odd job(s), excluding meal breaks but including any overtime you might do?

7.11.15 Perceived anti-social behaviour

Perceived anti-social behaviour (ASB) is derived using a similar method to the British Crime Survey. However, the questions are not directly comparable. NHPS respondents are asked how common a number of ASB are in their area (CR5). Their answers are then coded (0-3) and summed. The lowest possible score is 0 (all items very uncommon) and the highest score is 36 (all items very common). Those with a score of 18 or higher were classified as having high perceived ASB.

CR5 Please can you tell me how common each of the following things are in your area?

1 Graffiti on walls or buildings

2 Teenagers hanging around on streets

3 People being drunk or rowdy on the streets or in other public places

4 Vandalism and deliberate damage to property

5 Insults or attacks to do with someone’s race, colour or religion

6 Homes being broken into

7 Cars being broken into or stolen

8 People attacked on the streets

9 Abandoned cars

10 People dealing drugs

11 Prostitution, curb crawling and other sexual acts

12 Fire setting


7.11.16 Income and poverty measures

Gross household income

Gross household income was collected using the ONS harmonised question for Income as a Classificatory Variable. This method is a relatively straight-forward and brief way of collecting household income. However, it does not replicate specialist income surveys such as the Family Resources Survey (FRS) or the Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS) which collect thorough and complete information about household finances.

Complete income data was collected for 75% of households.

A numeric gross household income variable was created by combining the answers provided for each individual in the household, using the mid-points from the income bands used in the questionnaire. This was used to create a gross income quartiles variable and a banded gross income variable with nine broad income bands.

Net household income

To estimate net household income a simple algorithm was applied to the gross income values. The algorithm is based on FRS data in which both gross and net income are collected. The method has been used on the Understanding Society data140. The following was applied:

net income = gross income up to a threshold + 63% of gross income above that threshold

The threshold varies according to the size of the household and the age of its members as set out in Table 7.11.

Table 7.15 ---- Threshold used in new income estimates

Household contains no pensioners141

Household contains at least one pensioner

One adult £1,127 pm £1,180

Two adults £1,576pm £1,809

Three + adults £2,022 £2,096

A banded net income variable with nine broad income bands.

140Berthound, R. (2011 )Income and Other Measures of Material Well-Being. Understanding Society Early Findings. 141 Pensioners were defined as men over 65 or women over 60.


There are two income definitions: the first is net income before housing costs (BHC) are deducted, and the second is this same income after housing costs (AHC). We define housing costs simply as mortgage or net rent payments in line with previous NHPS reports142.

Poverty

In keeping with government practice, poverty has been defined in terms of household income. The total household income is then equivalised to take account of the differential needs that different households have (i.e. adjusted for size and composition).

In calculating equivalised income for the Annual Households Below Average Income (HBAI) report, the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) use the Modified OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) equivalisation method which has been adopted for this analysis.

The OECD Equivalisation Scale is a conversion factor to allow for the effects of household size and composition to enable more accurate income comparisons to be undertaken. There are two variations: before housing costs and after housing costs. The OECD Equivalisation Scale creates a weight for each household based on its composition. The conversion factor is the sum of the individual weights given to each household member in accordance with Table 7.12. The total household income is then divided by the OECD conversion factor.

Table 7.16 ---- OECD Equivalisation Scale

Before Housing Costs

After Housing Costs

First adult .67 .58

Subsequent adult/s (14+ years) .33 .42

Children (under 14) .2 .2

For example:

In a single person household the Before Housing Costs conversion factor would be 0.67. For a household income of £1,250 a month the equivalised household income would be £1,866 (1250/0.67 = 1865.67).

In a lone parent household with two children the Before Housing Costs conversion factor would be 1.07. (0.67+0.2+0.2 = 1.07). For a household

142 The HBAI series uses a wider definition of housing costs based on the detailed data collected in the FRS.


income of £1,250 a month the equivalised household income would be £1,186 (1250/1.07 = 1186.22).

Households in relative poverty are defined as those with less than 60% of the national equivalised median income for the current year. Households in absolute poverty are defined as those with less than 60% of the national equivalised median income for the year 2010/11, adjusted for inflation.

The most recently published HBAI report provides figures for these measures. These figures were £1,108 BHC and £953 AHC. Households in Newham were defined as living in poverty if their equivalised income level fell below these thresholds.

It is important to bear in mind that the national figures have been calculated using a specialist income survey (the FRS) whereas Newham’s figures are based on a few questions within a much broader survey.

Child poverty

Children are considered to be in poverty if they live in a household that is in poverty. The child poverty rate is calculated by dividing the number of children in poverty by the number of children in all households.

7.12 Reference of external data sources

Throughout this report, data has been compared with national and regional benchmarks. The following sources have been used for comparison.

Understanding Society - Understanding Society is an innovative world-leading study about 21st century UK life and how it is changing. It captures important information about people’s social and economic circumstances, attitudes, behaviours and health. The study is longitudinal in its design. https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/

Community Life Survey - The Community Life Survey is held annually to track trends and developments in areas that encourage social action and empower communities. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/community-life-survey

English Housing Survey - The English housing survey is a continuous national survey commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). It collects information about people’s housing circumstances and the condition and energy efficiency of housing in England. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey


ONS Labour market statistics/Labour Force Survey - The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a survey of the employment circumstances of the UK population. It is the largest household survey in the UK and provides the official measures of employment and unemployment http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/get-involved/taking-part-in-a-survey/information-for-households/a-to-z-of-household-and-individual-surveys/labour-force-survey/index.html

ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earning - ASHE is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in the UK. It provides information about the levels, distribution and make-up of earnings and hours paid for employees by sex and full-time/part-time working. Estimates are available for various breakdowns, including industries, occupations, geographies and age groups. ASHE is used to produce hours and earnings statistics for a range of weekly, annual and hourly measures. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html

British Social Attitudes Survey – Each year NatCen's British Social Attitudes survey asks around 3,000 people what it's like to live in Britain and what they think about how Britain is run. The survey is a critical gauge of public opinion, and is used by the Government, journalists, opinion formers and academics. http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/

Households Below Average Income - These publications provide statistics and commentary on living standards in UK households, as determined by disposable income. They include the number and percentage of people living in low-income households, and changes in income patterns over time. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/households-below-average-income-hbai--2

ONS annual fuel poverty statistics report - This series brings together all documents relating to Fuel poverty statistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fuel-poverty-statistics

Health Survey for England - The Health Survey for England is a major monitoring tool looking at the nation's health. It is used by the Government to plan health services and make important policy decisions that have an impact on us all. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/healthsurveyengland

14-088296-01 | FINAL | Public | This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for Market Research, ISO 20252:2012, and with the Ipsos MORI Terms and Conditions which can be found at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/terms. © Ipsos MORI 2016.


Doug Warren Research Manager Ipsos MORI [email protected] Victoria Harkness Research Director Ipsos MORI [email protected]

For more informationIpsos MORI 3 Thomas More Square London E1W 1YW t: +44 (0)20 7347 3000 f: +44 (0)20 7347 3800

www.ipsos-mori.com www.twitter.com/IpsosMORI

About Ipsos MORI’s Social Research Institute The Social Research Institute works closely with national governments, local public services and the not-for-profit sector. Its c.200 research staff focus on public service and policy issues. Each has expertise in a particular part of the public sector, ensuring we have a detailed understanding of specific sectors and policy challenges. This,

Newham Household Panel Survey

Documents

Transcript of Newham Household Panel Survey