Developing the Evidence Base for the Bedfordshire & Luton

Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion www.ocsi.co.uk

Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Development Partnership

Needs Analysis for Investing in Communities Business Plan

SEPTEMBER 2005

Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion Ltd (OCSI) Oxford: 52 New Inn Hall St, Oxford OX1 2QD Brighton: Suite 6, 68 Middle St, Brighton BN1 1AL Tel: 0870 240 1474 Web: www.ocsi.co.uk Email: [email protected] About Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) helps local government and other public sector organisations identify deprived neighbourhoods, target resources, evaluate programme effectiveness and strengthen regeneration bids. OCSI, Oxford University’s first spin-out company from the social sciences, launched in October 2003. OCSI’s consultancy is based on nearly two decades of ground-breaking research at the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) in the University’s Department of Social Policy and Social Work. The SDRC is a world leader in area-based deprivation research, developing the National Indices of Deprivation, for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.

Oxford: 52 New Inn Hall Street, Oxford OX1 2QD, UK. Brighton: Suite 6, 68 Middle St, Brighton BN1, 1AL. Tel: 0870 240 1474 Web: www.ocsi.co.uk/ Email: [email protected]

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 2 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Contents

Section 1 Executive summary 5 1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 Key Themes 5 1.3 Key Issues: Economic growth in Bedfordshire and Luton 6 1.4 Recommendations for Better Information 12 Section 2 About this study 13 2.1 Background 13 2.2 Sustainable economic development 13 2.3 Benchmarking against regional comparators 14 2.4 Local Area Agreements 14 2.5 Thematic and spatial targeting 14 2.6 Rural issues 14 2.7 The information sources 14 2.8 Acknowledgements 15 2.9 Report structure 15 Section 3 Background 17 3.1 Key themes for the study 17 3.2 Bedfordshire and Luton population and projections 18 Section 4 Multiple deprivation in Bedfordshire and Luton 21 4.1 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) 21 4.2 The IMD 2004 across Bedfordshire and Luton 21 4.3 Types of deprivation in Bedfordshire and Luton 24 4.4 Interactions between types of deprivation 28 4.5 Income deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton 30 Section 5 Employability 35 5.1 Introduction 35 5.2 Education, skills and training 35 5.3 Employment History 44 5.4 Health and work limiting illness 47 Section 6 Liveability 50 6.1 Introduction 50 6.2 Liveability and “image” 50 6.3 Housing affordability and condition 51 6.4 Living Environment 54

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 3 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 6.5 Crime 55 Section 7 Inclusion 58 7.1 Introduction 58 7.2 Younger and older groups 58 7.3 Black and Minority Ethnic groups 60 7.4 Presence of children, lone parents and carers 62 7.5 Access to services and lack of transport 63 7.6 Rural communities 65 Section 8 Enterprise and innovation 68 8.1 Introduction 68 8.2 Economic growth across Bedfordshire and Luton 68 8.3 Pay and work conditions 69 8.4 Entrepreneurship and business support 71 8.5 Private sector investment 73 8.6 Skills and training (matching skills to jobs) 73 8.7 Physical infrastructure – transport and space 73 8.8 Businesses and deprived areas 75 Appendix A Key Theme Recommendations 76 Appendix B Maps 94 Appendix C Dataset definitions 119 Appendix D The Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2004 124 Appendix E Geographies in this report 128 Appendix F Additional research 130 Appendix G Additional thanks 133

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 4 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 1 Executive summary

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 This study was commissioned by Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Development Partnership as part of the business case planning for the East of England Development Agency Investing in Communities (IiC) programme. 1.1.2 The 10-year IiC programme encourages a holistic partnership approach to tackling regeneration and renewal in deprived communities in the East of England. IiC was launched in December 2003 and will run for the next 10 years. It is being delivered by strategic partnerships at a sub regional and regional level, building on existing structures. The key priorities for action include social inclusion, learning and skills, community and voluntary capacity building, business development, the social economy and social capital. 1.1.3 The study is based on a brief to “strengthen and build the evidence base of economic and social need upon which robust decisions can be made about priorities for action and investment”. The project brings together a wide range of material from national, regional and local sources to fulfil the three broad aims of the brief:  Strengthen the deprivation evidence base: Bring together a comprehensive set of data, analysis and reports covering different forms of social and economic deprivation at small area level across Bedfordshire and Luton. This will be available to all groups across the Bedfordshire and Luton Partnership, supporting strategic and service planning, regeneration funding proposals, performance management, and further detailed research studies. Existing research and evaluation reports from national, regional and local sources will be brought together with the new material developed as part of this project  Increase understanding of deprivation: Assess the levels of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton relative to the broader contexts of England and the region, using evidence from local and national datasets as well as previous research. The project will identify the key themes having the greatest impact on deprivation levels across the area, highlighting populations and communities at increased risk of deprivation  Identify the specific geographical areas and forms of deprivation that have the biggest impact: Provide a set of recommendations on areas and themes across the Partnership appropriate for more detailed studies and/or intervention programmes, for potential funding under the IiC programme. Specific attention will be paid to deprivation affecting rural communities, and benchmarking Bedfordshire and Luton against other areas in the region 1.1.4 The project analyses the deprivation evidence base in the context of the IiC programme, in other words focusing on those aspects of deprivation relevant to the IiC targets. The study is not intended to be an overall analysis of all aspects of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton, and in particular we do not carry out in-depth analysis of certain aspects of deprivation including severe health morbidity, or deprivation affecting older people or young children.

1.2 Key Themes 1.1.5 The initial stage of this study reviewed national, regional and local strategies and policies, in order to recommend a set of strategic priority themes for the Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities (IiC) Partnership. Four key themes were identified:  Employability: “Personal factors that impact upon people’s potential in the labour market, which can act as barriers to gaining and retaining employment and which can be directly improved through intervention”. Employability factors include skill levels and work limiting illness1

1 Employability factors are detailed and analysed in 5.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 5 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Liveability: “Socio-environmental factors that can act to disadvantage people and businesses irrespective of labour market conditions”. Liveability factors include access to affordable housing and business premises, and the quality of the local environment2  Inclusion: “Personal and neighbourhood factors which can act to disadvantage people in the labour market but which are not necessarily forms of deprivation in their own right”. Inclusion factors include barriers to employment faced by particular age, ethnic, and gender groups. Inclusion factors also include community and neighbourhood issues such as those faced by rural communities3  Enterprise and Innovation: “Business development factors that can act to reduce efficiency and productivity and therefore limit growth potential and sustainability”. Enterprise and innovation factors include business support, skills and training, and physical infrastructure4

1.3 Key Issues: Economic growth in Bedfordshire and Luton 1.1.6 The analysis of the deprivation evidence base in this study identified a number of issues in terms of economic growth that could potentially be tackled by the IiC programme. Further discussion with the IiC Research and Evaluation working group5 identified the final set of nine key issues. 1.1.7 Each of the issues was given a priority based on how effective IiC funding could be in combating that issue, not on the importance of the issue across Bedfordshire and Luton:

High priority  Work limiting illness  Children and Education, transition from school, and adult skills and training  Transport

High – medium priority  Commercial premises

Medium priority  Business support and Social Enterprises  Crime

Low priority  Housing  Retaining and attracting skilled people  Image 1.1.8 The nine issues are examined below, highlighting the relevant key themes (Section 1.2 above), as well as potential areas for IiC intervention. Under each issue we highlight where the relevant evidence can be found in this report. 1.1.9 Following on from this study, the next stages of the Business Case planning process are likely to be:  Identify specific interventions under each issue that would be suitable for support by IiC6  Assess the overlap between the proposed interventions and IiC and EEDA priorities and objectives

2 Liveability factors are detailed and analysed in 6. 3 Inclusion factors are detailed and analysed in 7. 4 Enterprise and innovation factors are detailed and analysed in 8. 5 The IiC Research and Evaluation working group meeting 18th August, 2005. 6 The emphasis of Investing in Communities as a capital expenditure fund will have impact on which interventions will be suitable.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 6 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Research the current programmes being carried out by service agencies across Bedfordshire and Luton to identify scope for collaboration between IiC and these agencies on the proposed interventions  Assess the impact of the proposed interventions on both economic growth and levels of deprivation across the sub-region  Detail the potential outcomes under the proposed interventions, and how these will be measured7  Finalise the proposed interventions for submission to IiC based on the above analysis 1.1.10 We should emphasise that under many, if not all, of the issues examined below there will be a number of service agencies already involved. The timescale and scope of this study did not allow detailed discussion with the relevant agencies, and we strongly recommend that the IiC Business Case focus on how best to tackle these identified issues in collaboration with existing organisations.

Key Issue: Work limiting illness Key Themes: Employability Priority: High 1.1.11 People receiving out-of-work sickness benefits far outweigh those receiving unemployment benefits, with 17,715 people across Bedfordshire and Luton receiving Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance, compared with 7,855 receiving Jobseekers Allowance. Out- of-work sickness benefit levels are highest in the most deprived areas across the sub-region, including Luton and Bedford town centres. In several wards across both Bedford and Luton more than 8% of the working-age population are receiving out-of-work sickness benefits, with a relatively high proportion of these aged under 308. 1.1.12 Jobcentre Plus programmes aimed at supporting people on Incapacity Benefit back into employment include the national Pathways to Work programme starting in 2006, and it is likely that other service providers including Primary Care Trusts also have programmes aimed at this group. 1.1.13 Although Jobcentre Plus in Bedfordshire and Luton is not one of the national Pathways to Work pilot areas, there is clear scope for IiC collaborating with Jobcentre Plus and other service providers on this issue. Further discussion is needed with Jobcentre Plus to identify areas where IiC could provide suitable support, however the potential impact on both economic growth and reducing deprivation levels is huge.

Key Issue: Children & Education, transition from school, adult skills & training Key Themes: Employability, Enterprise & innovation Priority: High

Children & Education 1.1.14 Across Bedfordshire and Luton there are a number of programmes in place to improve education and skill levels in deprived areas, including Sure Start, Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative, Educational Maintenance Allowance, and the various New Deals. Many of these are closely aligned with the IiC objectives, for example the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative has an explicit aim of reducing unemployment rates through providing childcare as well as meeting the needs of parents entering the job market9. 1.1.15 These programmes are typically well placed to target the most educationally deprived areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, for example in Tithe Farm, Marsh Farm, Cauldwell, Dallow, Shortstown and Goldington10. However, there may be additional support that IiC could provide for particular areas, communities or programmes. Further investigation of this issue is

7 Programme monitoring and evaluation often focuses on “activity” rather than “outcomes”. 8 Section 5.4. 9 See Section 1.1.137 for discussion of early years programmes

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 7 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. needed in collaboration with the mainstream service providers, to see where IiC could add value.

Transition from school 1.1.16 Additional areas where IiC could potentially play a role include supporting initiatives aimed at improving the transition from school to employment, education or training. For example, the Social Exclusion Unit has found that many parents are unaware of their child’s entitlement to the Educational Maintenance Allowance, aimed at helping children from low income families into further education11. Similarly, many young people Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs) are not aware of the various New Deal opportunities. There may be areas appropriate for IiC intervention highlighted by discussions with mainstream providers including Jobcentre Plus12. Programmes could potentially target geographical areas with high levels of NEETs, for example Tithe Farm13, or communities with low levels of qualifications such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, indicating low numbers from these groups going on to Further or Higher Education14.

Adult skills & training 1.1.17 Finally under Education and skills, the IiC could support programmes aimed at improving adult skills and training across Bedfordshire and Luton. A number of areas and communities across Bedfordshire and Luton show extremely low skill levels, for example only 7% of all working age adults in Tithe Farm have a degree or higher compared with 16% across Luton and 21% across England15. Additional support could be provided for programmes targeting groups with low economic activity, for example Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, or people aged 16-2416. This might tie in with support for training schemes such as Modern Apprenticeships, alternatively through supporting appropriate social enterprise organisations such as the Ethnic Minority Training Resource Centre.

Key Issue: Transport Key Themes: Inclusion, Enterprise & innovation Priority: High17 1.1.18 The Regional Economic Strategy and EEDA Corporate Plan both highlight as key themes the need to address transport infrastructure constraints. But despite the excellent location of Bedfordshire and Luton in terms of road-distance to the rest of the country and access to international airports and shipping terminals, many businesses as well as the Sub-Regional

10 See Section 5.2 for details of Education, skills and training across Bedfordshire and Luton. Nine areas in Bedford town and seven areas in Luton are in the most deprived 10% of all areas across England, including areas in Tithe Farm, Cauldwell, Goldington, and Northwell. For example in Tithe Farm ward less than 20% of all pupils received five or more GCSE passes graded C or above, compared with 42% across Luton and 54% across the region (9 and 11). 11 The impact of government policy on social exclusion among young people, Social Exclusion Unit (ODPM). 12 Although of course the IiC emphasis is on capital expenditure will need to be considered carefully for such programmes. 13 This study estimates that less than 8% of school leavers from Tithe Farm go onto Higher Education (11, page 43). 14 44% of Bangladeshis have no qualifications and only 7% have a degree or higher, compared with 15% of all people with no qualifications and 25% with a degree or higher (Labour Force Survey 2002, 12, page 43) 15 10, page 41. 16 People aged 16-24 make up one-quarter of all unemployed across the sub-region (Section 1.1.215), indicating the barriers this group faces to employment. In wards with the highest unemployment levels, people aged 16-24 make up an even larger proportion of all unemployed, for example Parkside and Biscot (Section 1.1.216) where more than one-third of all unemployed are aged 16-24. 17 Again we should emphasise that the priorities reflect how effective IiC funding could be in combating that barrier, not the importance of the barrier across Bedfordshire and Luton.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 8 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Strategy for the Luton – Dunstable - Houghton Regis area highlight transport as a priority issue in terms of development18. 1.1.19 Support is needed to ensure workers in manufacturing industries and airport have access to employment, potentially 24 hours per day. This implies good links between the most deprived areas of Luton in the west and north-west, as well as areas in Dunstable-Houghton Regis, with the main industries on the Luton fringe19. Also good transport links are needed between central Bedford and the outlying commercial areas such as Marsh Leys. 1.1.20 Support is also needed to ensure deprived rural areas have good transport links to employment and key services, particularly those rural areas identified as having high proportions of households with no car or high proportions of other groups such as lone parents20. Rural transport issues are a major theme in the sub-regional Local Transport Plan, and IiC will need to work closely with agencies delivering the Local Transport Plan in rural areas across Bedfordshire. 1.1.21 Potential areas suitable for collaboration between IiC and agencies involved in delivering the Local Transport Plan would be helping to improve engagement with local businesses, identifying and working with those businesses employing groups from the most disadvantaged areas and communities21. There are also possibilities for IiC providing capital funding for vehicles.

Key Issue: Commercial premises Key Themes, Liveability, Enterprise & innovation Priority: High - medium 1.1.22 The growth in retail and office space across Bedfordshire and Luton has been well below that of neighbouring areas over recent years. The Sub-Regional Strategy identifies Bedford – Kempston as an urban priority area with support for Priory Park Innovation Centre and Bedford Enterprise Hub, as well as a pilot area for Business Improvement Districts, highlighting that “difficulties in achieving structural changes have held back growth in other centres, particularly Bedford … and Luton” 22. 1.1.23 Rural businesses also highlighted difficulty in finding suitable local business premises as a serious limiting factor to business start up or expansion processes. Typically, available properties were judged as either too expensive and / or inappropriate for small enterprise requirements, and many conversion schemes in particular were judged as simply too costly. 1.1.24 It is not immediately clear how to align potential IiC interventions with the far larger Sub- Regional Strategy programmes, however one potential avenue would be helping ensure that the incoming businesses maximise use of the local workforce, working with businesses and local communities to match the skills base to the economic growth. Commercial premises could potentially be provided / supported by IiC as part of the package, in order to encourage businesses take on employees from deprived areas.

18 Section 1.1.277. 19 This matches with the key priorities in the sub-regional strategy to enhance accessibility of Luton through public transport, as well as work on the sub-regional Local Transport Plan. Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the most deprived areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, for evidence of the influx of part-time / low paid workers from South Bedfordshire to Luton see Section 1.1.257. 20 Rural areas with high proportions of households with no car are often the outskirts of towns, for example Wootton and Eastcotts (Section 1.1.234). High proportions of lone parents in rural areas are also seen in Eastcotts (Section 1.1.238). 21 From discussion with Luton Transport Planning, there are issues in engaging with local businesses, even though businesses recognise the vital importance of adequate transport for workers (Section 1.1.276). 22 Section 1.1.277.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 9 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Key Issue: Business support and social enterprises Key Themes: Employability, Inclusion, Enterprise & innovation Priority: Medium 1.1.25 We recommend that IiC explore how best to support and target the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) programme across Bedfordshire and Luton. The Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) will provide investment to some of the most deprived areas across the UK to support locally-developed businesses stimulate economic activity and productivity growth through enterprise development. The funds available under LEGI will rise to £150M per year by 2008 1.1.26 Levels of enterprise across Luton and Bedford town are low, a factor of low business survival rates rather than low start-up rates23. Helping provide support to small businesses in order to increase survival rates, especially those located in the most deprived areas, is a potential area for IiC intervention. There is clear scope here for collaborating with the Small Business Service, Chamber of Commerce and other local business support organisations. 1.1.27 The low economic activity of particular BME groups including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (Section 5.3) is likely to be a result of low economic activity in Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. Increasing the engagement of these groups with the economy is clearly an issue of sensitivity, but could lead to wide reduction in poverty and deprivation in the most deprived areas and communities across Bedfordshire and Luton. We recommend that the IiC explore how best to collaborate with current programmes on increasing women’s enterprise across the region24, in order to reach these groups. 1.1.28 There is evidence that social enterprises face barriers to growth, as available business support is typically targeted at helping businesses start-up25. Providing support to social enterprises across Bedfordshire and Luton is likely to have impact on both economic growth and reducing deprivation, as the sector provides services and employment opportunities often in areas of high levels of deprivation and low employment. However, few Voluntary and Community Sector businesses seek advice from mainstream business agencies, and specialist agencies such as co-operative support organisations are under-resourced. Helping provide business support to social enterprises in order to identify and take advantage of growth opportunities (rather than focusing on helping businesses start-up) is a potential area for IiC intervention. 1.1.29 There is also evidence that levels of Lottery and Community Funding in Luton are lower than expected given levels of deprivation across the Borough26, indicating that social enterprises and other groups likely to receive these funds may face difficulties in applying. There is a potential role for IiC intervention in helping to provide support on application bids for groups in applying to Lottery and Community Funding bodies. This could be specifically targeted at those groups facing additional barriers such as language difficulties, and other groups identified under the Inclusion theme such as those from over 50 age groups, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other BME groups concentrated in the most deprived areas27. Further investigation of this issue is needed to understand the barriers that IiC can help tackle, for example evaluating whether organisations are applying and being rejected, or not applying at all.

23 Start-up rates across Luton are relatively high, but survival rates are low (Section 1.1.260), indicating that support is needed to help ensure businesses do not fail, rather than in helping start-ups. This data is not available for Bedford town, but it would seem a reasonable assumption that similar issues affect both Luton and Bedford town. 24 Women’s Enterprise Strategic Framework, East of England Business Links, 2005 (Draft). 25 Section 1.1.263. 26 Section 1.1.282. 27 Section 1.1.221.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 10 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Key Issue: Crime Key Themes: Liveability, Enterprise & innovation Priority: Medium 1.1.30 Areas with high crime rates are often less attractive as places to live, work and socialise, and can be less attractive to businesses as places in which to operate. Across Bedfordshire and Luton, the highest crime rates are focused in Luton28, and to a lesser extent Dunstable and Houghton Regis. 1.1.31 There are a number of potential programmes for collaboration between IiC and the Police (and other relevant crime and disorder groups). Further consultation with the relevant Police and other crime and disorder groups is needed to identify specific initiatives suitable for IiC support. 1.1.32 Relevant initiatives might include the Crime Audit Project (CDRP-CAP) programme being developed in Bedfordshire, part of the Citizens Service Partnership which is a joint funded partnership supported by Mid-Beds DC, South-Beds DC and Beds County Council. The CDRP-CAP aims to provide monthly updated crime data in order to support strategic decision making - it may be that there is a potential role for IiC to help extend this programme to Luton.

Key Issue: Image Key Themes: Liveability, Enterprise & innovation Priority: Low 1.1.33 Liveability factors play a key role in the image of an area – people and businesses are simply less likely to stay in or move into undesirable areas. It is likely that attracting and retaining skilled workers and employers is made considerably more difficult by the negative perception of Luton and low recognition of Bedfordshire29. 1.1.34 However this issue was given a low priority as the IiC Research and Evaluation working group felt it was unclear that potential interventions would be suitable for the IiC programme.

Key Issue: Housing Key Themes: Liveability, Enterprise & innovation Priority: Low 1.1.35 Housing is a key feature of liveability as it has a direct impact on people’s quality of life and on the willingness of people to remain in, move to, or leave an area. Housing related issues include the quality of local housing, the availability of local housing, and the affordability of local housing. Housing factors can also lead to poor health, with overcrowding linked to range of problems. Other factors such as lacking basic amenities and inadequate heating insulation can lead to increased levels of social and economic exclusion. 1.1.36 Across Bedfordshire and Luton there are high levels of “Barriers to Housing” as measured by the Indices of Deprivation 200430. These are particularly focused in Luton and Bedford town, indicating real issues with affordable housing in the urban areas across the sub-region. 1.1.37 These issues are recognised and addressed in the government’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. A number of pathfinder areas across England are identified in either experience severe lack of affordable housing or experience housing market collapse due to low demand.

28 See Section 6.5 and Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found). There is also evidence that the burglary rates across Luton are increasing, see 18 (page 57), with rates across Bedfordshire, the region and England as a whole fairly stable. 29 Section 6.2. 30 Measured using local incomes and house-prices, as well as levels of household overcrowding, see Section 6.3.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 11 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. The Sub-Regional Strategy31 focuses on increasing affordable housing in five urban areas including Bedford and Luton – Dunstable – Houghton Regis. 1.1.38 However this issue was given a low priority as the IiC Research and Evaluation working group felt that potential interventions under the IiC programme would only have a very limited effect in the context of the large-scale Sub-Regional Strategy programme.

Key Issue: Retaining and attracting skilled people Key Themes: Employability, Enterprise & innovation Priority: Low 1.1.39 The forecast decreases in school leavers / higher education groups (Section 1.1.82) in Luton and South Bedfordshire between 2006 and 2016 is likely to impact both on skill levels across the sub-region, and on employers willingness to invest in the area. This points to a potential issue for Bedfordshire and Luton, in the context of evidence that both the sub-region and the East of England as a whole do poorly in attracting and retaining skilled people and graduates32. 1.1.40 There are direct ways that this issue could be addressed, for example providing incentives and support to graduates to stay in or move in to the area, however it is unclear that these would tackle deprivation levels (except very indirectly). It was therefore felt that this issue should be given a low priority in terms of the IiC programme, and that interventions should focus on increasing education and skill levels in the most deprived areas and communities (see above).

1.4 Recommendations for Better Information 1.1.41 In order to support the evaluation of the IiC programme interventions in particular areas and communities, we suggest that the Bedfordshire and Luton economic partnership explore developing a joint central source of information available to IiC and other programmes and researchers across the sub-region.

31 Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, GO-SE, GO-East, GO-EM, March 2005. 32 For example see 1.1.153 (page 42).

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 12 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 2 About this study

2.1 Background 1.1.42 This study was commissioned by Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Development Partnership as part of the business case planning for the East of England Development Agency Investing in Communities (IiC) programme. 1.1.43 The 10-year IiC programme encourages a holistic partnership approach to tackling regeneration and renewal in deprived communities in the East of England. IiC was launched in December 2003 and will run for the next 10 years. It is being delivered by strategic partnerships at a sub regional and regional level, building on existing structures. The key priorities for action include social inclusion, learning and skills, community and voluntary capacity building, business development, the social economy and social capital. 1.1.44 The study is based on a brief to “strengthen and build the evidence base of economic and social need upon which robust decisions can be made about priorities for action and investment”. The project brings together a wide range of material from national, regional and local sources to fulfil the three broad aims of the brief:  Strengthen the deprivation evidence base: Bring together a comprehensive set of data, analysis and reports covering different forms of social and economic deprivation at small area level across Bedfordshire and Luton. This will be available to all groups across the Bedfordshire and Luton Partnership, supporting strategic and service planning, regeneration funding proposals, performance management, and further detailed research studies. Existing research and evaluation reports from national, regional and local sources will be brought together with the new material developed as part of this project  Increase understanding of deprivation: Assess the levels of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton relative to the broader contexts of England and the region, using evidence from local and national datasets as well as previous research. The project will identify the key themes having the greatest impact on deprivation levels across the area, highlighting populations and communities at increased risk of deprivation  Identify the specific geographical areas and forms of deprivation that have the biggest impact: Provide a set of recommendations on areas and themes across the Partnership appropriate for more detailed studies and/or intervention programmes, for potential funding under the IiC programme. Specific attention will be paid to deprivation affecting rural communities, and benchmarking Bedfordshire and Luton against other areas in the region 1.1.45 The project analyses the deprivation evidence base in the context of the IiC programme, in other words focusing on those aspects of deprivation relevant to the IiC targets. The study is not intended to be an overall analysis of all aspects of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton, and in particular we do not carry out in-depth analysis of certain aspects of deprivation including severe health morbidity, or deprivation affecting older people or young children.

2.2 Sustainable economic development 1.1.46 Sustainable economic development involves fostering economic growth within the Region, taking into account the long term social and environmental implications of such growth. Achieving sustainable economic development requires decision makers to strike a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations when developing policy33. 1.1.47 The IiC programme aims to promote economic development through reducing social and economic exclusion; the areas and themes highlighted for potential IiC support in this study are explicitly targeted at both these aims.

33 Urban and Rural Prioritisation in the East of England, EEDA, EERA, GO-East, 2002.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 13 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 2.3 Benchmarking against regional comparators 1.1.48 Throughout the study, and where information is available, we have benchmarked Bedfordshire and Luton against the comparator areas of all Unitary areas and Counties in the East Region, namely Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.

2.4 Local Area Agreements 1.1.49 The IiC programme is based around collaborating and partnering with mainstream agencies engaged in sustainable economic development and regeneration activities. As such, it will be crucial that IiC priorities across Bedfordshire and Luton match with the key priorities and themes of other programmes, including the sub-regional strategy and Local Area Agreements (LAA). 1.1.50 It is too early in the LAA process to yet have a clear understanding of what this might entail, however we flag up that the IiC steering and management groups should be aware and engaged with LAA developments.

2.5 Thematic and spatial targeting 1.1.51 In this report we refer to “thematic” and “spatial” (or “area”) targeting. Spatial targeting links resources to particular geographical areas, where thematic targeting links resources to particular communities or groups irrespective of location. Where target groups are highly concentrated in particular geographical areas it may be more useful to use area-based targeting, whereas groups that are spread out across larger areas may be more amenable to thematic targeting.

2.6 Rural issues 1.1.52 It is well understood that many indicators of social and economic deprivation underestimate the effect of deprivation in rural areas, with issues such as low benefit take-up, poor transport links, and difficulty of access to crucial services having major impact. People in rural areas are also highlighted as potentially experiencing geographical isolation from labour markets and broader social networks, and deprived rural communities are identified as requiring slightly different interventions to urban neighbourhoods due to the dispersed nature of rural deprivation 1.1.53 In this study we focus on rural issues under the “Inclusion” theme, which focuses on barriers to employment and services which are not forms of deprivation in their own right (see 7 for further details). Access to services and lack of transport, and other rural issues are explored in sections 7.5 and 7.6.

2.7 The information sources 1.1.54 This report draws on a wide range of data at small area level, including the Indices of Deprivation 2004 , Census 2001, DfES Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC), DWP benefits datasets, Neighbourhood Renewal Floor Targets, and Bedfordshire and Luton crime data. C gives full details of the datasets, all of which will be made available as an output from this project. There are of course many other important data sources that could have been added to the analysis, however this report includes the majority of deprivation datasets identified in the EEDA Deprivation Briefing 2 list of datasets34.

34 Available from the East of England observatory, as well as in the evidence base supplied as part of this project.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 14 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Information not included in the study 1.1.55 As outlined above, this study is a needs analysis for the IiC programme, and is not intended to be an overall analysis of all aspects of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton. In particular we do not carry out in-depth analysis of certain aspects of deprivation including severe health morbidity, or deprivation affecting older people or young children - for this reason certain available datasets were not used in the study, including Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance health benefits, life expectancy and mortality rates. 1.1.56 A number of datasets were also provided by Luton that were not available across Bedfordshire, including small area income datasets. These were not used in the study. In addition, some datasets were available only at 1998 ward level so not directly comparable with the 2003 wards used in this study35. 1.1.57 The one major type of information not available to the study was robust small area income data, particularly for the most deprived areas and communities across Bedfordshire and Luton. However, it is unclear how accurate data-sources such as CACI are for areas and communities at the lower end of the income scale, so it is not clear that such data would be of use over and above means-tested benefits such as Income Support. We suggest that the IiC group investigate the low income indicators underlying the IMD 2004 now being published (unfortunately too late to be examined in this study).

Central information source 1.1.58 A wide range of data was obtained from local partners for the study, including crime data, homelessness, life expectancy, housing benefits and council tax benefits. One issue that the study highlighted was that a number of different partners needed to be contacted in order to obtain datasets covering both Bedfordshire and Luton. Luton BC tended to have already collated information from the partners across the Borough36, however for particular datasets covering Bedfordshire it was necessary to approach the Primary Care Trusts and Districts directly. 1.1.59 In order to support the evaluation of the IiC programme interventions in particular areas and communities, we therefore suggest that the Bedfordshire and Luton economic partnership explore developing a joint central source of information such as an online data observatory available to IiC and other programmes and researchers across the sub-region.

Ordnance Survey data 1.1.60 The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this publication is provided by Bedfordshire County Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfil its public function as a planning body. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping for their own use.

2.8 Acknowledgements 1.1.61 We would like to thank the BLEDP project coordinator Jon Billington, and the steering group – Paul Barton, Sarah Hughes and Helen Wiltshire – as well as all contributors of research reports and data to the study. A full list of acknowledgements is given in G.

35 Housing benefits and council tax benefits were also not used in the study as provided only at District level. 36 This reflects both Luton’s status as a Unitary Authority, also the use of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding for local neighbourhood statistics projects. Information is made available through the Luton Observatory - http://www.luton.gov.uk/internet/community_and_living/local%20community/Obsevatory %20Projects.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 15 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 2.9 Report structure 1.1.62 The report is organised under the identified four key themes of employability (5), liveability (6), inclusion (7) and enterprise and innovation (8). 3 reviews the national, regional and local evidence for these four key themes (the full research review is given in A), as well as setting the scene in terms of population across the County. 4 details multiple deprivation levels across the area based on analysis of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. Within each of the following four key theme sections, relevant information and research is used to provide and analyse the evidence base for social and economic exclusion across Bedfordshire and Luton. 1.1.63 As a primary research report, there is a large amount of research material included. The executive summary of the key issues is intended to be the “bullet-point bite-size” digest of the study. 1.1.64 A contains the full key theme research review, B contains maps of the key datasets including Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 and all domains, C contains definitions for the datasets used in the study, D gives full details of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 including domains and summary measures, E gives an introduction to the small area geographies used in the study, including wards and Census Super Output Areas, F gives full list of background research materials used in the study, and finally G acknowledges thanks for the valuable input received from groups and individuals across Bedfordshire and Luton.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 16 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 3 Background

3.1 Key themes for the study Employability “personal factors that impact upon people’s potential in the labour market, which can act as barriers to gaining and retaining employment and which can be directly improved through intervention” Enterprise and Innovation “business development factors that can act to reduce efficiency and productivity and therefore limit growth potential and sustainability” Liveability “socio-environmental factors that can act to disadvantage people and businesses irrespective of labour market conditions” Inclusion “personal and neighbourhood factors which can act to disadvantage people in the labour market but which are not necessarily forms of deprivation in their own right” 1.1.65 As a preliminary stage of this study we were asked to review national, regional and local strategies and policies aimed at addressing these joint goals in order to recommend a set of strategic priority themes for the Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities (IiC) Partnership. The full review is contained in A. 1.1.66 The Government’s central economic and social objectives are “to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment”37 whilst simultaneously “tackling the causes and consequences of poverty and social exclusion and…promoting a fairer and more inclusive society in which nobody is held back by disadvantage or lack of opportunity”38. 1.1.67 The stated economic and social objectives do not always go hand in hand and trade offs are often required in order to strike a suitable balance between the two. This review aims to highlight the importance of achieving a suitable balance in order to foster sustainable economic and social development. 1.1.68 Increasing business efficiency and productivity may lead to higher levels of economic growth but this will not necessarily generate reductions in poverty and social exclusion. For example, one method of increasing business efficiency is by lowering employees’ wages, and this clearly will not help to alleviate income disadvantage. Similarly, reducing disadvantage and exclusion does not necessarily lead directly to increased employment and growth in the local economy as it is also necessary to generate sufficient jobs for people to take. 1.1.69 There are, however, clear links between the two objectives which need to be addressed in a holistic manner in order to achieve sustainable progress in both. A consistent theme throughout the literature is the importance of giving all people the opportunity to maximise their potential and therefore contribute fully to the economy and to society. Linked to this is an appreciation that a number of forms of disadvantage can act to prevent people having the opportunity to reach their full potential. 1.1.70 There is recognition across all levels of government that people can be disadvantaged in a number of ways and that the negative effects of these forms of disadvantage can be cumulative. The very nature of these forms of deprivation tends to result in deprived and multiply deprived people becoming concentrated in particular neighbourhoods. While social and economic problems may be greatest in these areas, here also lies the greatest potential for improvement. 1.1.71 People on low incomes are at greatest risk of experiencing other forms of deprivation and exclusion and at greatest risk of suffering multiple deprivation. However, it is also recognised that multiply deprivation acts to reduce the opportunities for people to escape from income

37 (Enterprise and economic opportunity in deprived areas: A consultation on proposals for a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, HM Treasury, Small Business Service and ODPM, 2005, p.1) 38 Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, ODPM, 2004, p.11

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 17 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. deprivation and thus low income and multiple deprivation do not only go hand in hand but also form a mutually reinforcing cycle. 1.1.72 Across national, regional and local government, the key to breaking the cycle of disadvantage caused by income deprivation and multiple deprivation is seen as employment. Employment is regarded as the means by which individuals can fulfil their own potential and increase their own standard of living whilst also contributing to the local and wider economies. 1.1.73 A number of barriers to employment exist which must be addressed if the key economic and social objectives are to be realised. These barriers can relate to the individual (e.g. age, sex, ethnic minority background, education and skills, health and disability, and employment/unemployment history), the family or household (e.g. presence/number of children, presence/lack of partner, and responsibility as a carer), and the neighbourhood or community (e.g. poor housing and physical environment, poor access to housing and services, and crime and disorder). 1.1.74 Clearly, some of these factors are forms of deprivation in their own right (e.g. crime and disorder) while others are not deprivation in their own right, but can become forms of disadvantage in the labour market (e.g. ethnic minority background, presence of children). Attempts to tackle these barriers must therefore address both direct forms of deprivation and the indirect disadvantage experienced in the labour market. 1.1.75 The barriers listed above are all factors affecting the supply of suitable labour. An equally key factor is the demand for suitable labour i.e. the availability of suitable jobs in accessible areas. Without sufficient demand for labour, removing the barriers to employment is simply likely to result in out migration of skilled people to areas of employment demand. 1.1.76 This extensive review of national, regional and local strategies and policies puts forward four suggested themes for the Bedfordshire and Luton IiC Partnership:  Employability: “Personal factors that impact upon people’s potential in the labour market, which can act as barriers to gaining and retaining employment and which can be directly improved through intervention”  Liveability: “Socio-environmental factors that can act to disadvantage people and businesses irrespective of labour market conditions”  Inclusion: “Personal and neighbourhood factors which can act to disadvantage people in the labour market but which are not necessarily forms of deprivation in their own right”  Enterprise and Innovation: “Business development factors that can act to reduce efficiency and productivity and therefore limit growth potential and sustainability” 1.1.77 We should emphasise that the themes are not intended to be well-defined distinct entities – many factors may fall into two or more themes and there is no “correct” theme for any particular factor. For example employment rates of particular BME groups are known to be below that of the population as a whole, which could be examined under any of the “employability”, “enterprise and innovation”, and/or “inclusion” themes. 1.1.78 In addition to factors potentially belonging to more than one theme, the issues of sustainability, equality and diversity are cross-cutting. In other words these issues are considered when examining any or all of the themes.

3.2 Bedfordshire and Luton population and projections 1.1.79 To complete this background section, 1 contains information on the number of people in the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England & Wales, England, the East of England region, Bedfordshire and Luton as a whole and the four Bedfordshire and Luton districts and eight comparator areas. The Bedfordshire and Luton population of 566,000 is just over 10% of the region's population, with Luton the largest district in terms of population (184,000), and South Bedfordshire the smallest (just under 113,000). Table 1 Population counts and proportions by gender Total Population Males Females

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 18 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. United Kingdom 58,789,194 28,579,869 (48.6%) 30,209,325 (51.4%) England & Wales 52,041,916 25,325,926 (48.7%) 26,715,990 (51.3%) England 49,138,831 23,922,144 (48.7%) 25,216,687 (51.3%) East of England 5,388,140 2,638,335 (48.7%) 2,749,805 (51.3%)

Bedfordshire and 565,943 281,283 (49.7%) 284,660 (50.3%) Luton

Luton 184,371 92,119 (50.0%) 92,252 (50.0%) Mid Bedfordshire 121,024 60,444 (49.9%) 60,580 (50.1%) Bedford 147,911 73,066 (49.4%) 74,845 (50.6%) South Bedfordshire 112,637 55,654 (49.4%) 56,983 (50.6%)

Peterborough 156,061 76,010 (48.7%) 80,051 (51.3%) Southend-on-Sea 160,257 76,749 (47.9%) 83,508 (52.1%) Thurrock 143,128 69,669 (48.7%) 73,459 (51.3%) Cambridgeshire 552,658 273,645 (49.5%) 279,013 (50.5%) Essex 1,310,835 640,193 (48.8%) 670,642 (51.2%) Hertfordshire 1,033,977 505,059 (48.8%) 528,918 (51.2%) Norfolk 796,728 387,827 (48.7%) 408,901 (51.3%) Suffolk 668,553 327,900 (49.0%) 340,653 (51.0%)

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Census 2001) 1.1.80 2 shows the break down by age, ethnic group and religion for Bedfordshire and Luton, alongside the region and England as a whole. Table 2 Population counts by age and ethnic group and religion Bedfordshire and East of England England Luton

All people 565,943 5,388,140 49,138,831

Aged 0-4 37,468 321,612 2,926,238 Aged 5-15 86,733 761,149 6,975,343 Aged 16-24 63,577 549,860 5,361,556 Aged 25-54 246,167 2,283,257 20,890,433 Aged 65 and over 75,722 886,616 7,808,000 Aged 75 and over 33,803 421,275 3,705,159 Aged 90 and over 2,691 35,789 316,323

White Ethnic group 488,541 5,125,003 44,679,361 BME Groups 77,402 263,137 4,459,470

Pakistani 19,552 38,790 706,539 Indian 15,347 51,035 1,028,546 Black Caribbean 11,095 26,199 561,246 Bangladeshi 9,733 18,503 275,394 Black African 4,316 16,968 475,938 Chinese 2,348 14,552 214,619

Christian 386,660 3,886,778 35,251,244 No Religion 87,651 902,145 7,171,332 Muslim 32,441 78,931 1,524,887 Hindu 8,496 552,421 546,982

OCSI 2005 (from Census 2001) 1.1.81 Seven urban areas across Bedfordshire and Luton have populations above 10,000:

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 19 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Luton / Dunstable 236,318  Bedford / Kempston 101,928  Leighton Buzzard 32,753  Flitwick / Ampthill 19,467  Biggleswade 15,383  Henlow / Shefford 12,052  Sandy 10,887 1.1.82 The population in Bedfordshire and Luton is expected to change in the following ways39:  The total population in Bedfordshire and Luton was 568,000 in 2001. This is expected to grow by about 6% over the next decade reaching a total of 602,700 in 2011 (3470 a year) and then 644,500 by 2021 (a further 4180 per year), as planned increases in housing developments take place.  Luton’s population is forecast to increase up to 2006 and then to decline to 2021. In contrast, Bedfordshire’s population will grow significantly through to 2021.  The Bedfordshire and Luton area will continue to grow to 2021 at a higher rate than England and Wales – by, overall, 13.5% compared to 9%.  A small increase in the Under 5s is forecast from 2001, the balance of a significant increase in Luton up to 2006 followed by a decrease up to 2021, offset by a decrease for Bedfordshire, especially in Mid Bedfordshire, up to 2006 followed by an increase up to 2016, predominantly in South Bedfordshire.  A decrease in the school population is expected between 2001 and 2006, to be followed by a small increase up to 2021. A more significant decline than Bedfordshire’s is expected for Luton up to 2006, then Luton’s school age population is expected to increase to 2016 before decreasing up to 2021, whilst Bedfordshire’s continues to decline up to 2011 and then to increase to 2021. This hides varying patterns of increase in the districts with Mid Bedfordshire decreasing after 2006 and South Bedfordshire increasing significantly after 2011.  School leavers / higher education age group are expected to grow up to 2006, in both Luton and Bedfordshire. The decreases in Luton and South Bedfordshire between 2006 and 2016 will be the result of a very low young teenage population feeding through. These are followed by increases up to 2021.  Significant increases in this post retirement age group are forecast for both Luton and Bedfordshire. The increase for Bedfordshire after 2006 is very rapid.

39 Analysis provided by Helen Wiltshire at Bedfordshire County Council from Population and Forecasts, Bedfordshire CC and Luton BC, 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 20 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 4 Multiple deprivation in Bedfordshire and Luton

4.1 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) 1.1.83 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004)40 is the most up-to-date and comprehensive measure of multiple deprivation available. The concept of multiple deprivation underlying the IMD 2004 is that separate types of deprivation exist and are measurable. The IMD 2004 consists of seven types or “domains” of deprivation, each of which contains a number of individual measures, or indicators:  Employment deprivation  Income deprivation  Health deprivation and disability  Education, skills and training deprivation  Crime  Living environment deprivation  Barriers to housing and services 1.1.84 Within each domain, the indicators are combined to create a domain-level score, which indicates the levels of deprivation in an area, and a rank, which relates the levels of deprivation to other areas across England. The scores of each domain are also combined to produce the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. The IMD 2004 and individual domains are released at Census Super Output Area (SOA) level. For more detail on the geographies in this report see E. 1.1.85 In addition, the IMD 2004 scores are summarised at District and County level. These summaries describe the average scores and ranks of the SOAs within each District and County, the proportion of the population living in the most deprived of all SOAs across the country (the "Extent" score), the average level of deprivation across the most deprived 10% of areas in the District or County (the "Local Concentration" score), and the numbers of people living in employment and income deprivation. 1.1.86 The Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004) consist of the primary Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2004), as well as the separate scores for each of the seven domains of deprivation, the two supplementary indices of income deprivation affecting children and older people, and the six County and District level summary scores. 1.1.87 In this section we set the context for the remainder of the report, identifying the most deprived areas across Bedfordshire and Luton and highlighting the types of deprivation that are driving the high levels of disadvantage seen in particular areas. The analysis in this section focuses on picking out the geographical areas showing high levels of deprivation measured in the IMD 2004 and Income deprivation domains, in later sections we move on to identify the communities particularly affected. 1.1.88 B contains a comprehensive set of maps of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 and individual domains, as well as other mapped datasets examined later in the report. For further details of the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2004 see D and for details of the geographies see E.

4.2 The IMD 2004 across Bedfordshire and Luton 1.1.89 1 shows the IMD 2004 average scores for Bedfordshire and Luton, and all districts in the East of England. The four Bedfordshire and Luton districts are shown in dark blue, with the average across Bedfordshire and Luton shown in red. Higher scores indicate higher levels of

40 The information used in this report is the revised ID 2004 information released by the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister on June 17th 2004.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 21 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. deprivation, the Districts range from the most deprived, Norwich, to the least deprived, East Hertfordshire. Figure 1 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004, East of England Districts

e 25 r o c s

r e h g i

d e g a t n

a 15 v d a s i d

e r o 10 m (

e r o c S

District level data is shown, higher scores indicate higher levels of deprivation Bedfordshire and Luton Districts shown in dark blue Bedfordshire and Luton population-weighted average shown in red Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.90 There is wide variation in deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton at district level, with Luton ranked as the 5th most deprived district in the region and Mid Bedfordshire ranked as the 6th least deprived, of all 48 regional Districts. Luton and Bedford Districts show higher levels of deprivation than the Bedfordshire and Luton average, with South Bedfordshire and Mid Bedfordshire significantly less deprived. The four Districts in the region ranked as more deprived than Luton are all urban areas – Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Ipswich and Peterborough. Bedford District shows up as less deprived due to the urban-rural make-up of the District; although many of the areas across Bedford town have high levels of deprivation, the average levels of deprivation in the rural areas of the District are significantly lower. 1.1.91 This difference between larger urban and rural areas is clearly seen in 2, showing the IMD 2004 average scores for Bedfordshire and Luton, and all Counties and Unitaries in the East of England. The four most deprived areas are all urban Unitaries, with Counties showing significantly lower levels of deprivation. Luton is the 2nd most deprived of all Counties and Unitaries across the region, with only Peterborough showing up as more deprived. Bedfordshire is the 3rd least deprived of the Counties and Unitaries, with only Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire showing as less deprived. 1.1.92 The combined population weighted IMD score for Bedfordshire and Luton (shown in red) is higher than for any County in the region with the exception of Norfolk, however it is less deprived than the four unitary authorities in the region.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 22 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Figure 2 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004, East of England Counties and Unitaries

25 ) e r 20 o c s

r e h g i h

d 15 e g a t n a v d a s i d 10 e r o m (

e r o c S

D 5 M I

County and Unitary level data is shown, higher scores indicate higher levels of deprivation Bedfordshire and Luton areas shown in dark blue Bedfordshire and Luton population-weighted average shown in red Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.93 3 shows the IMD 2004 score at settlement level41 for the largest 10 settlements across Bedfordshire and Luton (ordered by population size). The largest area is Luton / Dunstable, which comprises all of Luton Borough Council area plus Dunstable in South Bedfordshire. The combined IMD 2004 score for this urban area is 21.53, just below deprivation levels across the Luton Borough Council area, reflecting the slightly lower deprivation levels across Dunstable. Table 3 IMD 2004, largest settlements in Bedfordshire and Luton Settlement Name Population IMD 2004 Score Luton / Dunstable (L,SB) 236,318 21.53 Bedford / Kempston (B) 101,928 20.69 Leighton Buzzard (SB) 32,753 9.71 Flitwick / Ampthill (MB) 19,467 5.80 Biggleswade (MB) 15,383 9.95 Henlow / Shefford (MB) 12,052 6.81 Sandy (MB) 10,887 11.29 Stotfold (MB) 6,109 5.90 Woburn Sands (MB) 4,963 5.50 Cranfield (MB) 4,802 6.55

Settlement level data is shown, developed by OCSI from ONS settlement definitions and IMD 2004 scores District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004, Census 2001, ONS Settlement Definitions) 1.1.94 Probably as expected, Bedford town shows higher levels of deprivation than Bedford District; a factor of lower levels of deprivation across rural Bedford District somewhat masking the higher deprivation levels in Bedford town. However the effect is small, Bedford town would only rank 2 places above Bedford District over all Districts in the region (although 34 places

41 IMD 2004 settlement scores have been developed by OCSI from ONS settlement definitions at Output Area level and population-weighted IMD 2004 SOA level scores.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 23 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. higher over all Districts in England). Bedford town also shows as only just less deprived than the combined Luton / Dunstable area. 1.1.95 At the more detailed Super Output Area level, seven of the 377 SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton are in the most deprived 10% of all areas across England, with 60 SOAs in the most deprived 10% across the region. 4 shows the most deprived SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton, with the IMD 2004 score and the relative rankings in terms of the national distribution and the regional distribution. A higher IMD 2004 score relates higher levels of multiple deprivation whilst the most deprived SOA is allocated a rank of 1. 1.1.96 The most deprived SOAs are focused in Luton and Bedford Districts, showing the high concentration of deprivation in the two major urban areas. Four of the twenty most deprived areas are in Dallow ward (Luton) and a further three are in Luton’s Biscot ward. Luton is also home to the most deprived area in Bedfordshire and Luton - Northwell E01015771 – ranked 19th most deprived across the region (of 3,550), and 1,555th across England (of 32,482). 1.1.97 The seven most deprived SOAs in Bedfordshire and Luton (all in the most deprived 10% across England) are all spread across different wards indicating high levels of multiple deprivation in a number of areas in Luton and Bedford town. This is confirmed by Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found), showing the IMD 2004 across Bedfordshire and Luton. The colours are based on the distribution across the region, with dark blue areas the most deprived of all areas across the East of England, and light yellow areas the least deprived. The major concentrations of deprivation across Bedfordshire are Luton are seen in Luton and Bedford town, with other areas highlighted in Dunstable (Manshead, Parkside and Tithe Farm). It is clear that high levels of deprivation are prevalent in large parts of the centres of Luton and Bedford town, which are predominately shaded dark blue. Table 4 IMD 2004, most deprived areas across Bedfordshire and Luton Ward name and SOA code (District IMD 2004 England rank (%) East of England abbreviation) Score rank (%) Northwell E01015771 (L) 54.39 1,555 (4.8% ) 19 (0.5% ) Cauldwell E01017477 (B) 51.03 2,109 (6.5% ) 40 (1.1% ) Castle E01017471 (B) 50.57 2,185 (6.7% ) 41 (1.2% ) Dallow E01015729 (L) 49.44 2,409 (7.4% ) 46 (1.3% ) Biscot E01015699 (L) 47.10 2,832 (8.7% ) 57 (1.6% ) Kingsbrook E01017523 (B) 46.57 2,946 (9.1% ) 58 (1.6% ) Harpur E01017502 (B) 46.28 3,009 (9.3% ) 61 (1.7% ) Dallow E01015725 (L) 43.70 3,591 (11.1% ) 84 (2.4% ) Cauldwell E01017472 (B) 43.11 3,722 (11.5% ) 90 (2.5% ) Biscot E01015701 (L) 42.99 3,758 (11.6% ) 93 (2.6% ) Kingsbrook E01017519 (B) 41.43 4,183 (12.9% ) 106 (3.0% ) South E01015791 (L) 41.36 4,200 (12.9% ) 108 (3.0% ) Lewsey E01015760 (L) 41.14 4,263 (13.1% ) 111 (3.1% ) High Town E01015741 (L) 40.59 4,414 (13.6% ) 117 (3.3% ) Leagrave E01015749 (L) 40.20 4,531 (13.9% ) 122 (3.4% ) Dallow E01015727 (L) 39.93 4,613 (14.2% ) 125 (3.5% ) Dallow E01015726 (L) 39.12 4,895 (15.1% ) 138 (3.9% ) Round Green E01015779 (L) 39.02 4,926 (15.2% ) 140 (3.9% ) Biscot E01015703 (L) 38.97 4,935 (15.2% ) 142 (4.0% ) Farley E01015736 (L) 38.88 4,960 (15.3% ) 144 (4.1% )

SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) 1 is the most deprived rank across the East of England, 3,550 the least deprived 1 is the most deprived rank across England, 32,482 the least deprived Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 24 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 4.3 Types of deprivation in Bedfordshire and Luton 1.1.98 It is important to drill down into the IMD 2004, in order to understand what kind of issues are driving the high levels of deprivation seen, especially in Luton and Bedford town. As discussed above, the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 consists of seven domains – Income, Employment, Health, Education, Barriers to Housing and Services, Crime and the Living Environment (the "Indices of Deprivation 2004", or ID 2004). Many of these domains are discussed in more depth in the relevant sections of this report, however here we compare levels of deprivation across the domains. 1.1.99 Error: Reference source not found to Error: Reference source not found (pages Error: Reference source not found to Error: Reference source not found) show the seven domains and six sub-domains of the ID 2004 as well as the supplementary Income deprivation affecting older people and young children Indexes, mapped against the regional distribution. Dark blue areas are in the most deprived 10% of areas across the East of England, while light yellow areas are in the least deprived. 1.1.100 It is clear from the maps that the geographical distribution of the individual domains is similar to the distribution of the overall IMD 2004, with the marked exception of Barriers to Housing and Services. This domain picks out areas that may have issues with access, for example rural areas that are some distance from to key services, as well as areas that may have issues with access to affordable housing, for example where local incomes are well below housing market prices. 1.1.101 There is also a slight variation in geographical distribution of deprivation in the Crime domain where deprivation is more heavily concentrated in Luton. 1.1.102 Over all domains with the exception of Barriers to Housing and Services (and the Geographical Barriers sub-domain), the major urban areas of Luton and Bedford show high levels of deprivation relative to the East of England region, with much of the town centres shaded dark blue. Other areas that are highlighted include Dunstable, especially on the Education domain and sub-domains (Tithe Ward and Parkside areas) and central areas of Leighton Buzzard and Biggleswade. 1.1.103 5 shows Bedfordshire and Luton area and comparison areas (all Counties and Unitaries in the region), with the IMD 2004 and individual domain scores ranked against all Counties and Unitaries in England (population-weighted domain scores were developed for all Counties and Unitaries and ranked, with 1 the most deprived ranking and 149 the least deprived). Table 5 Deprivation levels across Bedfordshire and Luton and comparison areas by type of deprivation I I E H E B C E L M n i d a n m e r v c i D u r v a m i o p n r i c l i m r l t g e e 2 o a o h

0 r e y t n s i 0 m o m 4 n e e n n t t

Bedfordshire and 104.5 100.5 116.5 112.5 79.5 49.5 89.5 112.5 Luton Bedfordshire 131 128 129 126 106 54 103 136 Luton 72 61 84 81 47 41 44 79

Cambridgeshire 134 136 136 131 111 69 104 128 Essex 121 115 123 121 80 52 120 135 Hertfordshire 138 132 138 133 126 74 124 132 Norfolk 97 97 85 111 60 59 130 104 Peterborough 71 62 83 79 48 89 11 123 Southend 80 63 70 80 61 131 80 64 Suffolk 114 112 112 118 84 51 142 100 Thurrock 84 87 97 94 20 72 37 85

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 25 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Population-weighted scores have been calculated and ranked out of 149 Counties and Unitaries across England 1 is most deprived area, 149 is least deprived Bedfordshire and Luton area half-rankings indicate where the area would be ranked if a single County / Unitary Unitary Authorities in italics Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.104 As seen above (2), Bedfordshire and Luton is more deprived than all Counties with the exception of Norfolk, with the four urban Unitaries more deprived than the Counties. The picture is broadly similar across the different domains of deprivation, with the major exception of Barriers to Housing and Services with Bedfordshire and Luton as a whole more deprived than all Counties and Unitaries across the region. The Crime domain also shows as relatively more deprived across Bedfordshire and Luton, with only the four Unitaries showing higher levels of recorded crime. As with the Barriers to Housing and Services this is likely to be driven by the Luton urban area, as well as proximity to London. 1.1.105 Barriers to Housing and Services is driven by two major components, geographical access to services and access to affordable housing (measured by local incomes against housing prices, overcrowded housing, and council housing applications). Geographical access to services is driven by the rural Districts of Mid- and South-Bedfordshire (and to a lesser extent Bedford District), while access to affordable housing is very driven by areas in Luton and Bedford town with high levels of overcrowding and unaffordable housing. There is a clear issue with access to affordable housing across Luton, although there housing overcrowding is likely to be strongly linked to cultural patterns. This is examined further in Section 6.3. 1.1.106 3 shows the overall levels of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton ranked against all Counties and Unitaries in England (dark blue bars) and the region (light blue bars), with percentage rankings used to allow comparison between the regional and national contexts (in other words the ranking as a percentage of all areas) . As in 5, lower percentage rankings indicate higher levels of deprivation. On the majority of domains, Bedfordshire and Luton ranks in the least deprived 50% of all Counties and Unitaries across both England and the region, with the exception of the two domains identified above – Barriers to Housing and Services and Crime. Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People, both subsets of the overall Income domain, also show relatively higher levels of deprivation. In other words, in Bedfordshire and Luton relative to other areas across the region, levels of Income Deprivation in those aged under 16 and over 60 are higher than in the population as a whole. 1.1.107 One final point to note, in general levels of deprivation across the East of England are lower than across England as a whole, shown by Bedfordshire and Luton typically ranking as less deprived compared to England Counties and Unitaries (dark blue bars) than when compared to the regions Counties and Unitaries (light blue bars). However this is not the case with Education and Skills deprivation, where the percentage ranking is similar across England and the region. In other words levels of Education and Skills deprivation across the region are higher than for the other domains, supporting the weight given to education and training in the regional strategy42 and EEDA priorities43.

42 Shared Vision: The regional economic strategy for the East of England, EEDA, 2004 43 Urban and Rural Prioritisation in the East of England, EEDA, EERA, GO-East, 2002

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 26 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Figure 3 Deprivation levels across Bedfordshire and Luton by type of deprivation

England Ranking 80.0% East of England Ranking

0.0% IMD Income Employment Health Education Barriers To Crime Living IDAC IDAOP Housing and Environment Services

Population-weighted scores calculated and ranked out of Counties and Unitaries across England and region Lower percentage rankings indicate higher relative levels of deprivation Across England (dark blue bars) 1 is most deprived area, 149 is least deprived Across East of England (light blue bars) 1 is most deprived area, 8 is least deprived Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.108 Where 5 and 3 above focused on average levels of all areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, 4 and 5 show the proportion of SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton that fall into the most deprived 20% of all areas across England (4) and the East of England region (5). Both Figures differentiate between areas in the most deprived 10% (dark blue bars), and the most deprived 10-20% (light blue bars). Data is shown for the IMD 2004, all domains and sub- domains, and the two supplementary Income indexes for children and older people. 1.1.109 If Bedfordshire and Luton displayed average levels of overall deprivation, we would expect roughly 10% of areas to be in the most deprived 10% of all areas across the region or England, 20% of areas to be in the most deprived 20%, and so on. In other words the bars in 4 and 5 would be at the 10% and 20% levels. Bars above these levels indicate higher than average levels of deprivation on that domain in terms of the numbers of highly deprived areas, bars below these levels indicate lower than average levels of deprivation. 1.1.110 It is clear that in terms of the most highly deprived areas, deprivation levels across the region are lower than across the country as a whole, with far fewer SOAs in Bedfordshire and Luton in the most deprived areas across England (4) than across the region (5). This is the case on every domain except for Geographical Barriers to Services, reflecting the rural nature of much of the region – although Mid- and South-Bedfordshire are rural Districts, they are classed as “accessible rural” by contrast to the more remote rural areas in Norfolk and Suffolk44. As a result, nearly one-quarter of Bedfordshire and Luton SOAs are in the most deprived 20% in terms of geographical barriers across England, but only one-seventh in the most deprived 20% across the East of England. By contrast, Bedfordshire and Luton shows significant levels of Wider Barriers to Housing at both national and regional level – access to affordable housing again shows up as a significant issue. 1.1.111 Levels of Income deprivation and Education and skills deprivation also show up as low in the national context (4), with roughly 15% of all SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton highlighted in the most deprived 20% of areas across England. At a national level, Health and

44 Poverty and Social Exclusion in Rural East of England, Observatories Social Exclusion Partnership, 2002

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 27 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Employment deprivation levels are low, with these domains typically driven by high levels of deprivation in the North of England. Figure 4 Bedfordshire and Luton SOAs in the most deprived areas across England

30.0% Most deprived 10-20% Most deprived 10% 25.0%

Proportion of SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton in most deprived 10% (dark blue) and 10-20% (light blue) Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004)

Figure 5 Bedfordshire and Luton SOAs in the most deprived areas across the East of England region

Most deprived 10-20% 40.0% Most deprived 10%

Proportion of SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton in most deprived 10% (dark blue) and 10-20% (light blue) Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 28 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.112 In the regional context (5) Bedfordshire and Luton has higher than average levels of extreme deprivation across all domains with the exception of the Barriers to Housing and Services domain (discussed above in the context of the rural nature of the region). Bedfordshire and Luton has higher than average levels of crime deprivation when considered in regional context with nearly one-third of areas in the most deprived 20% in the region in terms of crime deprivation. Similarly, more than one-quarter of the County is in the most deprived 20% of all areas across the region in terms of the IMD 2004, Income deprivation and Health deprivation.

4.4 Interactions between types of deprivation 1.1.113 Although it is not possible with area-level aggregate information to examine the interaction between the different types of deprivation experienced by individuals, we can look at levels of deprivation at the area level, focusing on whether areas are deprived on one or more domains. 6 shows the most deprived 10% of SOAs (37 of the 377 SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton), and whether each SOA is in the most deprived 10% of all areas across England on the IMD 2004 and each of the domains. 1.1.114 Of the four "core" domains – Income, Employment, Health and Education – it is clear that in the national context it is high levels of low income that are driving levels of deprivation measured by the IMD 2004. of the most deprived SOAs, twenty are in the most deprived 10% of all areas across England on the Income domain, compared with seven on the full IMD 2004, five on the Employment domain, six on the Health domain and fourteen on the Education and skills domains. In other words, deprivation levels in the most deprived areas are driven primarily by low income, rather than by high levels of worklessness, poor health or low skills (although these certainly play a large role). High levels of people in receipt of means tested benefits and/or in low-paid work are driving the deprivation levels seen in Luton and Bedford town. 1.1.115 It is interesting to note how few of the most deprived areas in Bedfordshire and Luton show up as highly deprived on the Barriers measure, despite this being the most deprived measure across the County (3 above). 1.1.116 In terms of areas being highly deprived on a number of measures, Northwell E01015771 and Dallow E01015729 in Luton, and Castle E01017471 in Bedford town are in the most deprived 10% of areas across the country on the IMD and a further four domains, with eight SOAs in the most deprived 10% of areas nationally on three or more domains and seventeen areas in the most deprived 10% on two or more domains. Table 6 Most deprived areas in Bedfordshire and Luton, showing whether or not in the 10% most deprived across England for IMD 2004 and domains I I t E H a E B C E L n M

Ward name and SOA code n i d a m n e r v c i D d u r v m a i o p n r

(District abbreviation) i c

l i m s r l g t e e 2 o a o h k

0 r e y t n i s i l 0 m o l m s 4 n e e

E01015771 Northwell (L) X X X X X E01017477 Cauldwell (B) X X X X E01017471 Castle (B) X X X X X E01015729 Dallow (L) X X X X X E01015699 Biscot (L) X X X X E01017523 Kingsbrook (B) X X X X E01017502 Harpur (B) X X X X E01015725 Dallow (L) X X E01017472 Cauldwell (B) X X E01015701 Biscot (L) X X E01017519 Kingsbrook (B) X X X E01015791 South (L) X X E01015760 Lewsey (L) X

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 29 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. E01015741 High Town (L) X E01015749 Leagrave (L) X E01015727 Dallow (L) X X E01015726 Dallow (L) X E01015779 Round Green (L) X X E01015703 Biscot (L) X E01015736 Farley (L) X E01017490 Goldington (B) X E01015720 Crawley (L) X E01015789 South (L) X X E01015772 Northwell (L) X E01015802 Sundon Park (L) X E01015704 Biscot (L) X E01015773 Northwell (L) X X E01015774 Northwell (L) X E01015795 South (L) X E01015794 South (L) X E01017466 Castle (L) E01017594 Manshead (SB) E01017509 Kempston North (B) X X E01015754 Leagrave (L) E01015698 Biscot (L) X E01017492 Goldington (B) X E01015732 Farley (L) X

SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) "X" indicates the area is in the most deprived 10% of areas across England on that domain Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.117 7 shows the most deprived 10% of SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton, and whether each SOA is in the most deprived 10% of all areas across the East of England region for the IMD 2004 and each of the domains. In these most deprived areas, the core domains of Income, Worklessness, Health and Education show up as highly deprived in the context of the region, while again it is interesting to note how few of the most deprived areas show high levels of Barriers to Housing and Services.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 30 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Table 7 Most deprived areas in Bedfordshire and Luton, showing whether or not in the 10% most deprived across the region for IMD 2004 and domains I I t E H a E B C E L n M

Ward name and SOA code n i d m a n e r v c i D d u r v m a i o p n r

(District abbreviation) i c

l m i s r l g t e 2 e o a o h k

0 r e y t n i s i l 0 m o l m s 4 n e e

E01015771 Northwell (L) X X X X X X E01017477 Cauldwell (B) X X X X X X E01017471 Castle (B) X X X X X X E01015729 Dallow (L) X X X X X X E01015699 Biscot (L) X X X X X X E01017523 Kingsbrook (B) X X X X X X E01017502 Harpur (B) X X X X X E01015725 Dallow (L) X X X X X X E01017472 Cauldwell (B) X X X X X E01015701 Biscot (L) X X X X X X E01017519 Kingsbrook (B) X X X X X X X E01015791 South (L) X X X X X X E01015760 Lewsey (L) X X X X X X E01015741 High Town (L) X X X X X X E01015749 Leagrave (L) X X X X X X E01015727 Dallow (L) X X X X X E01015726 Dallow (L) X X X X X X E01015779 Round Green (L) X X X X X X E01015703 Biscot (L) X X X X X X E01015736 Farley (L) X X X X X E01017490 Goldington (B) X X X X X E01015720 Crawley (L) X X X X X E01015789 South (L) X X X X X E01015772 Northwell (L) X X X X X X E01015802 Sundon Park (L) X X X X X X E01015704 Biscot (L) X X X X E01015773 Northwell (L) X X X X X X E01015774 Northwell (L) X X X X X X E01015795 South (L) X X X X X E01015794 South (L) X X X X X E01017466 Castle (L) X X X X X X E01017594 Manshead (SB) X X X X X E01017509 Kempston North (B) X X X X X E01015754 Leagrave (L) X X X X X E01015698 Biscot (L) X X X X E01017492 Goldington (B) X X X X X X X E01015732 Farley (L) X X X X

SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) "X" indicates the area is in the most deprived 10% of areas across the region on that domain Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004)

4.5 Income deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton 1.1.118 In this section we look at Income deprivation. In the context of the Investing in Communities programme it is likely that low income issues can only be tackled indirectly, for example by helping to overcome barriers to sustainable employment such as low skills, lack of transport, access to affordable childcare and other issues. For that reason Income deprivation is not examined directly under the four key themes making up the bulk of this report, although it is

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 31 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. used to identify particular groups suffering high levels of deprivation, for example young children living in low income households. 1.1.119 6 shows the Income domain score (in other words the proportion of the total population experiencing income deprivation) for the twenty SOAs with the highest score across Bedfordshire and Luton. As seen with the IMD 2004, Income deprivation in Bedfordshire and Luton is concentrated in the urban areas of Bedford town and Luton with thirteen of the most deprived 20 SOAs in Luton and the remaining seven in Bedford. Further evidence of this is shown in Error: Reference source not found (on page Error: Reference source not found) which shows Income domain, mapped against the regional distribution. Figure 6 ID2004 Income domain, most deprived SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton

40.0% e

r 35.0% o c

S 30.0%

e 25.0% d n I 20.0% 4 0

0 15.0% 2 10.0%

SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) The ID 2004 Income deprivation domain measures the proportion of the total population living in Income deprivation See C for further details Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.120 Four of the most deprived 20 SOAs in Bedfordshire and Luton are in Northwell ward including Northwell E01015771 (the most County's most deprived SOA on the IMD 2004), where nearly 45% of all residents are Income deprived. In ten areas, more than 35% of all people are income deprived.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 32 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Figure 7 ID2004 Income domain and IMD 2004 ranking

45% Northwell E01015771 (L)

40% More deprived

d 35% e v i r p e d

30% e m o c n I

25% n o i t a l u

p 20% o p

0% 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 IMD 2004 ranking (1 is most deprived) SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) The ID 2004 Income deprivation domain measures the proportion of the total population living in Income deprivation A logarithmic best fit curve has been added to show the strong relationship between the two measures See C for further details Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.121 7 shows the close relationship between the IMD 2004 ranking and the Income deprivation scores for all SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton, showing how strongly Income deprivation drives overall deprivation levels across Bedfordshire and Luton. The most deprived areas (in the top left of the Figure) all show extremely high levels of people experiencing Income deprivation, while the less-deprived areas clustering in the right-hand side show much lower levels of deprivation. However it is important to note how many Income deprived people do not live in the most deprived areas – even in the least deprived rural areas in the County there are still up to 5% of the population living on low incomes. Area based programmes are unlikely to reach these groups. 1.1.122 8 shows the most deprived 20 areas with their England and regional rankings on the Income deprivation domain. All 20 are in the most deprived 10% of all areas across England, and also in the most deprived 100 SOAs across the region (in other words in the most deprived 3% of all 3,550 regional SOAs). Six SOAs within the area are ranked among the most deprived 1% in the region including two SOAs in Cauldwell ward in Bedford town. It is clear that a number of areas across Bedfordshire and Luton show severely high levels of deprivation relative to both England and the region. Table 8 ID2004 Income domain, 20 most deprived SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton Ward name and SOA code (District Income England rank East of England rank abbreviation) domain (%) (%) score Northwell E01015771 (L) 43.6% 794 (2.4%) 14 (0.4%) Kingsbrook E01017523 (B) 39.2% 1,403 (4.3%) 26 (0.7%) Cauldwell E01017472 (B) 39.1% 1,420 (4.4%) 27 (0.8%) Cauldwell E01017477 (B) 38.9% 1,456 (4.5%) 30 (0.8%) Round Green E01015779 (L) 38.3% 1,560 (4.8%) 34 (1.0%) Dallow E01015725 (L) 38.3% 1,564 (4.8%) 35 (1.0%) Biscot E01015701 (L) 36.7% 1,862 (5.7%) 41 (1.2%) Dallow E01015729 (L) 36.0% 1,992 (6.1%) 49 (1.4%) Biscot E01015699 (L) 35.4% 2,128 (6.6%) 55 (1.5%) Leagrave E01015749 (L) 35.1% 2,214 (6.8%) 57 (1.6%)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 33 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Goldington E01017490 (B) 34.5% 2,353 (7.2%) 64 (1.8%) Castle E01017471 (B) 34.0% 2,497 (7.7%) 74 (2.1%) Dallow E01015726 (L) 33.2% 2,701 (8.3%) 82 (2.3%) Northwell E01015773 (L) 32.3% 2,944 (9.1%) 90 (2.5%) Biscot E01015703 (L) 32.3% 2,950 (9.1%) 91 (2.6%) Northwell E01015772 (L) 32.3% 2,956 (9.1%) 92 (2.6%) Northwell E01015774 (L) 31.6% 3,127 (9.6%) 95 (2.7%) Dallow E01015727 (L) 31.6% 3,138 (9.7%) 97 (2.7%) Kempston North E01017509 (B) 31.4% 3,190 (9.8%) 99 (2.8%) Harpur E01017502 (B) 31.4% 3,205 (9.9%) 100 (2.8%)

SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) 1 is the most deprived rank across the East of England, 3,550 the least deprived 1 is the most deprived rank across England, 32,482 the least deprived Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004)

Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Older People 1.1.123 Children and older people are known to be particularly vulnerable to social exclusion. The Income domain includes two supplementary indices measuring those children living in households that are income deprived and older people (those over 60) experiencing income deprivation (both groups are also included in the full Income domain). The geographical distribution of deprivation across these two supplementary indices are presented in Error: Reference source not found and Error: Reference source not found (pages Error: Reference source not found toError: Reference source not found). 1.1.124 8 shows the 20 SOAs across the County with the highest scores for Income Deprivation Affecting Children (the indicator measures the proportion of children under 16 in each area living in Income deprivation). The proportions of children experiencing income deprivation are significantly higher than the proportions of the whole population living in Income deprivation (6); ten SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton have more than half of all children affected while only one SOA has more than 40% of all people affected. A similar pattern is seen with older people, who are at higher risk of experiencing income deprivation than the population as a whole (9). Figure 8 ID2004 Income Deprivation Affecting Children, most deprived SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton

60.0% e r o

c 50.0% S

e 40.0% d n I

4 30.0% 0 0 2 20.0%

The Income deprivation Affecting Children measures the proportion of children under 16 living in Income deprivation Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 34 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.125 Children living in Income deprivation in Bedfordshire and Luton are heavily concentrated in the urban areas of Bedford and Luton. The picture is slightly different from the overall Income domain as there are greater concentrations of income deprivation affecting children in Bedford with five of the nine most deprived SOAs in Bedford district including the most deprived SOA across the County – in Castle E01017471 in Bedford more than two-thirds of all children under 16 are experiencing income deprivation. Figure 9 ID2004 Income Deprivation Affecting Older People, most deprived SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton

50.0% e r 40.0% o c S

e 30.0% d n I

0 20.0% 2

The Income deprivation Affecting Older People measures the proportion of people over 60 living in Income deprivation Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.126 9 shows the 20 most deprived areas across Bedfordshire and Luton in terms of Income Deprivation Affecting Older People (as with the children measure above, the indicator measures the proportion of older people in each area living in Income deprivation). Income Deprivation Affecting Older People is heavily concentrated in Luton with the nine most deprived areas all in Luton, mainly in the Dallow and Biscot wards. Six SOAs in Luton District have rates higher than 50%, in other words more than half of people aged 60 and over are income deprived. However a number of areas in Bedford are also highlighted, in particular areas in the Castle, Harpur and Queen's Park wards.

Young adults living in low income 1.1.127 Finally in this section we examine young adults living on a low income, those aged 16 to 19. By contrast with the IMD 2004 datasets examined above, here we use DWP Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance Income-Based benefits which are provided at Ward level. 10 shows the rates of income deprivation amongst people aged 16-19 in 2003 for the twenty highest ranked wards in Bedfordshire and Luton.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 35 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Figure 10 Young adults living on low income, most deprived wards in Bedfordshire and Luton

10.0% e t a R 8.0% n o i t a l 6.0% u p o P 4.0% 3 0 0 2 2.0%

Data is presented at ward level Source: OCSI 2005 (from DWP 2003) 1.1.128 The 16-19 year old data presents a contrasting picture to overall income deprivation as measured in the IMD, with South Bedfordshire having a number of areas ranked amongst the most deprived (containing two of the three most deprived wards across Bedfordshire and Luton, and four of the twenty most deprived) in the South Bedfordshire district. Additionally each of the four Districts have at least one ward ranked among the most deprived in the area. 1.1.129 The highest proportions of young people are seen in the three wards of Parkside, Castle and Manshead, where more than 10% of young people are receiving Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance Income-Based benefits. It should be noted that the numbers involved here are fairly small, with only 1,225 across the whole of Bedfordshire and Luton, with Dallow (Luton) having the highest numbers (65), compared with 35 in Parkside ward. However, the data still suggests that young adults living in low income circumstances may be geographically distributed somewhat differently to all people on low income (the ward level benefits data for all people support this hypothesis, showing very similar distributions to the ID2004 Income deprivation domain)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 36 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 5 Employability

Personal factors that impact upon people’s potential in the labour market, which can act as barriers to gaining and retaining employment and which can be directly improved through intervention45

5.1 Introduction 1.1.130 Over the next three sections we focus on “supply-side” factors – employability, liveability and inclusion – those factors that affect the supply of a suitably skilled workforce well matched to the economy and jobs available. The enterprise and innovation section then looks at the other side of the coin, examining demand-side factors in the context of issues highlighted in the supply-side analysis. In other words, the first sections identify potential workforce issues, while the final section matches these to potential areas for IiC support, where there is a clear mechanism by which the IiC programme can meet its twin goals of sustainable economic development and reducing exclusion. 1.1.131 Of course the distinction between supply-side and demand-side is a loose one, and a number of factors cut across all themes. For example workplace training is clearly an issue for both employer and employee, helping match skills to requirements. Issues of sustainability, equality and diversity are also cross-cutting through all themes. 1.1.132 This section focuses to a large extent on the major employability issues of education, skills and training. The section goes on to examine economic activity and employment history using a mixture of Census and workless benefit information, and concludes by looking at health issues. 1.1.133 Within each of the above areas, information is examined at area level where available, in order to highlight geographical areas suitable for IiC programmes. Information is additionally examined in terms of age and ethnic break-downs where available, in order to highlight particular communities suitable for IiC programmes.

5.2 Education, skills and training 1.1.134 “The East of England can best be described as a strong economy supported by a weak skills base. The region displays characteristics of a low skills equilibrium labour market, where an economy becomes trapped in a spiral of low value added, low skills and low wages.”46 1.1.135 Education and skills levels are strongly linked to both income and employment levels, and are a major factor under the employability theme. Increasing the levels of education, skills and training in the population is likely to be a focus of the Investing in Communities programme, leading to increased employment opportunities and business investment across the local area, as well as providing opportunities for individuals who may otherwise be excluded. 1.1.136 The following section examines education, skills and training across the Bedfordshire and Luton area under the four areas of early years education, school-age education, access to Higher Education and training, and adult skills and lifetime learning.

Early years education 1.1.137 It is increasingly recognised that early years education plays a central role in later development, with a number of current programmes aimed at boosting progress in particularly disadvantaged areas and groups. Recent government programmes include Sure Start and Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative focused on areas with high levels of deprivation and low child attainment. Active early years projects in Bedfordshire and Luton include Sure

45 For full discussion of the key themes in the context of national, regional and local policy see A. 46 Tackling the low skills equilibrium, DTI, 2003

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 37 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Start programmes in Cauldwell and Shortstown, as well as other early years interventions in Dallow, Marsh Farm (Northwell ward), Tithe Farm and Goldington47. 1.1.138 National evaluations of the government Sure Start and Neighbourhood Nurseries initiatives are currently underway, with initial signs showing progress has been made48. However it is likely that any progress in terms of measurable impacts on overall education and skills levels will not be seen for some time, once the younger age groups have progressed through to formal school examinations. 1.1.139 However, although there will be a long time-lag between current early years programmes and direct impact on the economy due to the increased skill levels of children in these schemes, there is likely to be a much more immediate impact in terms of increased opportunity for younger families to return to full and part-time employment. In areas with high levels of young families who may be excluded from the employment market, provision of free or subsidised nursery places and other early years support can give crucial help in getting back into paid employment. 1.1.140 Additionally, both Sure Start and the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative (NNI) have explicit targets in reducing unemployment rates and meeting the needs of parents entering the job market through a variety of approaches49:  “Lifelong learning”: Emphasising basic skills development through a return to learning provided by other agencies such as LSCs  “Intermediate labour market”: Providing work experience and job-related training in the Sure Start / NNI programme  “Passive”: Offer access to mainstream employment and training, but no support 1.1.141 There is clearly a large overlap between current early years programmes and IiC, however the Sure Start and NNI areas are well targeted at the most deprived areas (particularly in terms of education and skills levels), so it is less clear what role IiC support could play.

School-age education 1.1.142 9 shows the Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 (GCSE) results for the Bedfordshire and Luton, together with comparison area data. It is clear that Bedfordshire and Luton pupils perform less well at GCSE (Key Stage 4) than their national and regional counterparts, and less well than all the comparator Counties and Unitaries except Peterborough. The results across Luton are well below all other Unitaries in the region on both Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 2, although Key Stage 2 results across Bedfordshire and Luton are broadly comparable with Norfolk and Suffolk, though well below results in Cambridgeshire, Essex and Hertfordshire. Table 9 Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 pupil attainment results Key Stage 4, 5+ Key Stage 2, % reaching Level 4 passes A*-C level English Science Maths England 50.7% 74.9% 86.5% 72.1% East of England 53.8% 77.1% 87.7% 72.7%

Bedfordshire and 69.1% Luton 47.9% 75.0% 86.0%

Luton 42.1% 71.8% 82.7% 65.5% Bedford District 46.1% 75.9% 85.8% 69.7% Mid Bedfordshire 58.4% 80.3% 90.6% 76.3%

47 Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership Priorities, Bedfordshire County Council, June 2005 48 National Evaluation of Sure Start, DfES Sure Start Unit, 2003; Early Stages of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative: Opening the Nurseries, Smith et al, January 2005, University of Oxford / DfES. 49 Early Stages of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative: Opening the Nurseries, Smith et al, January 2005, University of Oxford / DfES.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 38 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. South Bedfordshire 49.5% 74.4% 87.1% 67.6%

Peterborough 46.6% 73.6% 87.1% 71.7% Southend-on-Sea 52.0% 74.6% 86.1% 71.3% Thurrock 49.3% 67.8% 84.4% 65.9% Cambridgeshire 54.8% 79.4% 89.6% 75.5% Essex 56.1% 77.7% 88.3% 73.6% Hertfordshire 56.6% 80.7% 89.7% 76.4% Norfolk 50.2% 75.6% 86.3% 71.9% Suffolk 57.1% 75.5% 86.2% 68.9%

Comparator areas are East of England Counties and Unitaries. Unitaries are in italics. Source: OCSI 2005 (from DfES 2003) 1.1.143 At a more detailed level, there is a clear trend of increasing levels of deprivation against pupil attainment. Error: Reference source not found (pageError: Reference source not found) shows the ID2004 Children and young people education sub-domain50 ranked against the regional distribution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, comparison with overall multiple deprivation in the region (Error: Reference source not found) shows that many of the same areas are highlighted as having low levels of child attainment in the context of the region (areas shaded dark blue on the map), including much of Luton and Bedford town. Smaller communities are also highlighted, including Sandy and Biggleswade in Bedford District, and there is indication that areas in the North of Dunstable show higher levels of deprivation in terms of child attainment than on overall multiple deprivation levels. A similar pattern is seen in Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) showing KS4 attainment across wards in Bedfordshire and Luton (ranked in the context of the region). 1.1.144 There is also a clear relationship between child deprivation and school attainment. 11 shows the strong relationship between the proportion of children aged under 5 in low income households and pupils achieving five or more A*-C grade GCSE passes. Although the Figure shows an area-level relationship rather than a direct relationship at individual level, there is a wide range of evidence linking child poverty and later income, employment and skills outcomes. Several of the areas identified in 11 show extremely low levels of pupil attainment and high levels of children under five living in low income households, namely Tithe Farm, Northwell, Kingsbrook, Goldington, Eastcotts and Manshead, many of the areas highlighted in Error: Reference source not found.

50 The ID2004 Children and young people education sub-domain is made up of Key Stage attainment scores, pupil absence rate, people over 16 not staying on at school and people under 21 not entering Higher Education. C gives fuller detail of the datasets presented in this report.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 39 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Figure 11 Children in Low Income Households aged under 5 and pupils achieving five or more A*-C grade GCSE passes

100% Silsoe (MB)

90% Carlton (B) 80% s e

s 70% s a p

E S C G

+ 50% 5

n Manshead (SB) i v e

h Goldington (B) c

a Eastcotts (B)

p 30% Kingsbrook (B) u

P Northwell (L)

Tithe Farm (SB) 10%

0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Children under five living in low income households Source: OCSI 2005 (from Pupils achieving five or more A*-C grade GCSE passes, DfES PLASC 2003, Dependents of Income Support claimants, DWP 2002) 1.1.145 12 shows the national percentage rank for the twenty Bedfordshire and Luton SOAs in the most deprived 10% of all areas across England on the ID2004 Children and young people education sub-domain. Four of the most deprived five areas are in Bedford - Cauldwell (in the most deprived 1% of all areas across England), Goldington, Kingsbrook and Eastcotts with nine of the most deprived 20 areas in Bedford town. Two areas in Tithe Farm (South Bedfordshire) are in the most deprived 10% across England, supporting the evidence seen above (11) for extremely low pupil attainment in Tithe Farm ward. Other areas highlighted in South Bedfordshire include Parkside, also in Dunstable, and Plantation ward in Leighton Buzzard. Seven of the twenty areas are Luton, with areas in Lewsey, Farley, Sundon Park, Round Green, Leagrave and Northwell showing as significantly deprived on the ID2004 Children and young people education. Figure 12 ID2004 Children and young people education sub-domain

g 10.0% n i k n a r 8.0% e g a t n

e 6.0% c r e p

a 4.0% n o i t a

N 2.0%

National percentage ranks are shown, with lower values indicating higher levels of deprivation relative to England SOA level data is shown. Districts are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 40 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Source: OCSI 2005 (from ID2004 Children and young people education sub- domain, ODPM 2004)

Educational attainment and ethnicity 1.1.146 Unfortunately we do not have pupil attainment data at sub-national level broken down by gender or ethnic group, however there is a wide range of evidence at national level that Bangladeshi, Black and Pakistani pupils perform less well than White pupils throughout compulsory schooling, while Indian and Chinese groups out-perform White pupils51. Overall, the difference between ethnic groups attainment levels increases during schooling, in other words Bangladeshi and Pakistani GCSE results are worse than expected given Key Stage 1 results. But there is also evidence starting to emerge that BME groups, including Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups, may be closing the gap52. 1.1.147 The low attainment of BME groups is likely to be a particular issue in Luton and Bedford, with high proportions of people from Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic groups. Overall, the picture is relatively clear that by the end of compulsory schooling pupils from across Bedfordshire and Luton perform less well than their counterparts in other East of England counties and to a lesser extent Unitaries. With a number of regional priorities aimed at increasing skills across the region, this is clearly an important area for potential IiC programmes.

Access to Higher Education and higher qualifications 1.1.148 10 shows a range of Higher Education information for Bedfordshire and Luton and comparator areas. Proportions of student populations and people with no qualifications are shown from the Census, as well as an estimate of school-leavers going on to Higher Education courses. 1.1.149 We have estimated school-leavers going on to Higher Education at ward level and above. This is based on the numbers of “non-mature” undergraduates at ward level published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, as a proportion of the 14-16 age group living in that area (a younger age cohort is used for the denominator to avoid bias in areas with high levels of inward migration from students and other young adults). This estimate is consistent between wards and larger areas shown here, however is well below other published figures for entry to Higher Education. This is due to the HESA data defining only those students under 21 as “non-mature”, which has the unfortunate effect of excluding large numbers of students before they have completed their studies. However in terms of comparing areas as done here, the estimates are likely to be robust53. Table 10 Access to Higher Education and higher qualification levels School-leavers Full time People aged 16- People aged 25- going on to students aged 74 with degree 34 with degree Higher 18-74 or higher or higher Education

England 24.3% 4.5% 20.6% 29.2%

51 See for example Minority Ethnic Attainment and Participation in Education and Training: The Evidence, Bhattacharyya et al. DfES Research Paper RTP01-03, 2003. 52 There is strong evidence that after accounting for deprivation levels (by taking only those pupils eligible for Free School Meals), Bangladeshi groups score far more highly than White groups. Minority Ethnic Attainment and Participation in Education and Training: The Evidence, Bhattacharyya et al. DfES Research Paper RTP01-03, 2003 53 There are likely to be some differences in the relative rankings between the HESA data presented here, covering a much wider range of Higher Education courses and institutions, and UCAS data which only covers University admissions. Unfortunately UCAS data is not provided at small area level. The only UCAS data available at District level, released on Neighbourhood Statistics as part of the Indices of Deprivation 2000 study, shows an identical pattern in terms of Luton, Bedford, South- and Mid-Bedfordshire, with Mid- and South-Bedfordshire broadly similar, Luton significantly below and Bedford significantly above.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 41 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. East of England 25.4% 3.2% 18.8% 24.8%

Beds and Luton 25.3% 4.2% 19.0% 25.1%

Luton 21.3% 6.1% 15.7% 23.2% Bedford District 29.2% 4.6% 22.6% 28.0% Mid Bedfordshire 26.9% 2.9% 21.6% 27.5% South Bedfordshire 25.7% 2.0% 16.9% 21.8%

Peterborough 21.3% 2.2% 15.4% 20.4% Southend-on-Sea 21.8% 2.2% 14.1% 17.4% Thurrock 11.6% 1.8% 10.2% 14.2% Cambridgeshire 28.0% 6.7% 26.1% 37.4% Essex 25.1% 2.5% 16.1% 20.4% Hertfordshire 32.2% 3.3% 24.4% 32.9% Norfolk 21.9% 2.9% 15.2% 18.6% Suffolk 22.3% 1.9% 17.1% 20.4%

Comparator areas are East of England Counties and Unitaries. Unitaries are in italics Source: OCSI 2005 (from Census 2001, HESA 2002) 1.1.150 It is fairly clear that the region is under-performing England as a whole in terms of Higher Education qualifications, with lower proportions of students, lower proportions of people with higher level qualifications and much lower proportions of younger adults (those aged 25-24) with higher level qualifications. However the region is a major exporter of young full-time undergraduates, with the lowest proportion across all regions of “home grown” students choosing to stay and study in the East of England54, and we estimate school leavers going on to HE courses comparable to England as a whole. In other words, the region has issues with attracting and retaining graduates, rather than with producing future graduates. 1.1.151 Across Bedfordshire and Luton, the picture is similar to the region in terms of HE qualifications and school-leavers going on to HE courses. The higher proportion of students is mainly driven by Luton, although higher levels are also seen in Bedford District. In other words, Bedfordshire and Luton also has issues with attracting and retaining graduates, rather than with producing future graduates. 1.1.152 However the picture is more varied across the four Districts. Luton has well below average proportions of school-leavers going on to HE, as well as low proportions of people with higher level qualifications. Mid Bedfordshire, despite excellent GCSE results, appears to be doing rather less well in terms of both access to HE and higher qualification levels. South Bedfordshire has levels of higher qualifications comparable to Luton, well below the region and England as a whole. Only Bedford District appears to be doing well on all measures, despite relatively weak GCSE results. 1.1.153 Overall there are indications that the population across the more urban parts in the South of the County is rather poorly skilled in terms of levels of higher qualifications, and that the high levels of students in Luton is not translating into higher levels of skills in the general population, even in the younger 25-24 age group. 1.1.154 11 shows the 20 wards across Bedfordshire and Luton with the lowest levels of estimated school-leavers going on to HE courses, against the proportion of students and higher qualification levels in the population. Many of the areas picked out on the ID 2004 children and young people education domain are highlighted here, including Tithe Farm and Parkside in South Bedfordshire, Biggleswade and Sandy in Mid Bedfordshire, also the well-known areas including Farley, Lewsey, Sundon Park and Northwell in Luton, and Eastcotts and Kingsbrook in Bedford.

54 East of England Regional Profile of Higher Education, HEFCE, 2003.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 42 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Table 11 Access to Higher Education and higher qualification levels Ward name (District) School-leavers Full time students People aged 16-74 going on to Higher aged 18-74 with degree or Education higher Tithe Farm (SB) 7.9% 1.8% 7.0% Farley (L) 9.7% 8.0% 14.9% Eastcotts (B) 9.7% 2.9% 15.2% Parkside (SB) 10.5% 2.6% 7.9% Lewsey (L) 11.2% 2.9% 10.9% Sundon Park (L) 11.3% 3.7% 10.2% Biggleswade Stratton (MB) 11.7% 1.7% 17.1% Sandy Pinnacle (MB) 12.8% 1.4% 15.0% Kingsbrook (B) 13.9% 3.6% 14.7% Northwell (L) 14.2% 4.3% 10.6% Leagrave (L) 14.3% 3.3% 12.2% Northfields (SB) 14.8% 2.0% 9.4% Round Green (L) 14.9% 2.9% 13.8% Dunstable Central (SB) 15.4% 2.1% 17.4% Manshead (SB) 15.4% 2.2% 13.7% Goldington (B) 15.7% 3.0% 13.8% Cauldwell (B) 15.8% 5.5% 17.4% Planets (SB) 16.5% 1.8% 10.7% Wigmore (L) 17.6% 3.1% 15.2% Houghton Hall (SB) 18.3% 1.6% 11.9%

Source: Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.155 In the three South Bedfordshire wards of Tithe Farm, Parkside, and Northfields levels of higher qualifications in the population are below 10%, with only 7% in Tithe Farm. 1.1.156 Finally in this section, 12 shows levels of qualifications across the UK by ethnic group. The difference between the population as a whole and the major BME groups in Bedfordshire and Luton is stark, with 25% of the general population having a degree or higher level qualifications, compared with 12% of Pakistanis and 7% of Bangladeshis (in both these groups the numbers for those with higher degree qualifications was suppressed due to small counts). Table 12 Level of highest qualification held by people of working age in the UK Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Below level No Qualifications (%) (%) (%) (%) 2 (%) (%)

All People 5 20 19 22 19 15

White White British 4 20 20 22 19 15 Other White 9 18 12 22 24 13 Mixed White and Black * 18 17 23 22 16 Caribbean White and Black * * * * * * African White and Asian * 19 * 25 * * Other Mixed * * * * * * Asian Indian 7 21 17 19 19 17 Pakistani * 12 13 18 23 32 Bangladeshi * 7 11 17 19 44 Other Asian 5 24 16 22 23 11

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 43 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Black Black Caribbean 3 16 17 25 24 15 Black African 7 21 16 20 22 15 Other Black * * * 26 * * Chinese 13 16 14 16 21 20 Other Ethnic Group 11 18 13 18 22 17

Level 2 = 5+ ‘O’ levels; Level 3 = 2+ ‘A’ Levels; Level = 4 First degree; Level 5 = Higher degree or professional qualifications * Suppressed due to small counts Source: LFS 2002

Adult skills and lifetime learning 1.1.157 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID2004 Adult skills sub-domain55 ranked against the regional distribution. It is fairly clear that Bedfordshire and Luton fares better in terms of adult skills deprivation than on educational deprivation, with fewer areas in the most deprived across the region (90 SOAs are in the most deprived 20% across the region in terms of educational deprivation, 60 in terms of adult skills deprivation). In particular, areas to the south of Bedford town show much lower levels of adult skills deprivation, although there are still a fairly large number of highly deprived areas highlighted across Luton and Bedford. Adult skills deprivation levels are also lower than child education levels in the national context, so this is not simply a factor of the region having good school attainment but poor adult qualifications. In other words, levels of adult skills deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton are lower than might be expected given the educational deprivation levels.

1.1.158 The Dallow and Biscot wards show up as having the highest levels of ID2004 Skills deprivation, with five SOAs across the two wards in the most deprived 5% of all areas in England; by contrast the ID2004 Children and young people education sub-domain showed no SOAs in Dallow or Biscot in the most deprived 10% across England. In these two areas overall deprivation levels measured by the IMD 2004 are driven primarily by older age groups, with high levels of older people living on low incomes (more than one in three of all people over 60 in these two wards are on the Income Support Minimum Income Guarantee), high levels of people over 50 living on sickness benefits (more than one in five of all people aged 50 - 64 are on Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance) and low levels of adult skills (the five SOAs in these two wards identified on the ID2004 Skills sub-domain all show more than 40% of all adults as having no qualifications). A similar pattern is seen in Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) showing adults with no qualifications across SOAs in Bedfordshire and Luton (ranked in the context of the region). 1.1.159 The Census data on qualifications allows us to examine the breakdown by a number of other factors, including age and BME group. 13 shows the number and proportion of adults with no qualifications, for all adults and those from White and BME groups. There is a strong trend for decreasing skill levels with increasing age, seen in both the overall population and BME groups56. In the overall population, the proportion of adults with no qualifications varies from 11.5% in the highest skilled group (25 to 34 year olds) to over 60% in the oldest age group (60 to 74 year olds).

55 The ID2004 Adult skills sub-domain is made up of the proportion of working age adults (aged 25-54, in other words generally post-higher education and below retirement) who have no or low qualifications as measured by the Census 2001. C gives fuller detail of the datasets presented in this report. 56 More detailed one-to-one interview techniques tend to show that the Census underestimates skill levels in the older population, as these groups are more likely to be unaware that they have workplace qualifications, or may simply have forgotten qualifications. However the strong trend for decreasing qualifications with increasing age is consistently seen.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 44 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.160 BME groups perform less well than White groups at all ages, however the gap is narrowest for the youngest 16 -24 age group suggesting that there may be a generational effect, with younger BME groups performing better than older generations and starting to close the gap (as indicated in school attainment above). However there is a wide differential at ages 25-34 from which the BME groups never recover ground. Table 13 Adults with no qualifications by age, Bedfordshire and Luton All people White Ethnic group All BME Group N % N % N %

All ages 110,202 27.0 93,501 26.2 16,701 32.7

16 – 24 9,881 15.5 7,563 14.9 2,318 17.9 25 – 34 9,599 11.5 6,350 9.1 3,249 23.9 35 – 49 23,088 18.6 18,938 17.3 4,150 27.8 50 – 59 25,418 36.7 22,990 35.7 2,428 50.8 60 – 74 41,037 60.7 37,660 60.0 3,377 69.7

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Census 2001) 1.1.161 14 shows the same no qualifications level data as 13, broken down for the largest BME groups across Bedfordshire and Luton. It is clear that no qualification levels vary widely between the different groups, with Black Africans and younger Indians performing better than Whites, Black Caribbeans comparable to Whites, and Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups much more poorly. 1.1.162 There is no clear evidence for a generational age effect across any of the groups that is over and above the generational gap seen across all groups, although possibly between young and old Indians. However it is likely that much of the underperformance of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups is due to gender issues, with very poor skills among Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. This inevitably leads on to the low levels of economic activity seen in these groups. Increasing skill levels in (young) Pakistani and Bangladeshi women is clearly a desirable target, and is likely to require cultural shifts as well as suitable training and employment opportunities. Table 14 Adults with no qualifications by age and ethnic group, Bedfordshire and Luton Pakistani Indian Bangladeshi Black Caribbean Black African N % N % N % N % N %

All ages 5,476 44.9 3,426 29.5 3,036 50.9 2,269 26.3 388 12.1

16 – 24 893 22.1 278 11.6 451 23.5 156 13.6 75 11.0 25 – 34 1,308 38.8 330 12.1 926 48.6 172 9.8 154 11.6 35 – 49 1,890 65.0 1,242 33.2 879 73.4 563 16.7 100 10.6 50 – 59 661 72.9 775 50.9 285 79.4 398 43.1 33 18.1 60 – 74 724 75.0 801 66.4 495 85.5 980 68.9 26 32.5

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Census 2001)

5.3 Employment History 1.1.163 Employment status and history are a strong indicator of future employment success. Individuals with particular employment trajectories may need additional support in terms of getting into sustainable employment – this support might for example take the form of particular training schemes, or temporary work placement, or providing support to employers to enable them to offer jobs to particular groups (linking with the enterprise and innovation theme, again this illustrates the overlap between the different themes). In this section we look

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 45 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. at a number of different employment indicators, including employment rates of particular groups and long-tem unemployment rates. 1.1.164 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID 2004 Employment domain57 ranked against the regional distribution, highlighting the usual areas in the west and north of Luton, much of central Bedford town, and areas in Dunstable – Houghton Regis. This distribution of deprivation is also evident in Error: Reference source not found on page Error: Reference source not found showing overall workless rate across wards in Bedfordshire and Luton. 13 shows all SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton with the Employment domain score (y-axis) against the IMD 2004 national ranking (x-axis). The most deprived areas in the County lie in the upper-left part of the figure – in the most deprived areas of Castle and Harpur wards in Bedford 25% of all working age adults are employment deprived, with areas in Cauldwell and Northwell showing above 20%. It is clear that across the County there are areas with high employment deprivation levels. Figure 13 ID2004 Employment domain and IMD 2004 ranking

Castle E01017471

Harpur E01017502 (B) 25%

d More deprived

e Cauldwell E01017477 (B) v i r p e

d Northwell

n E01015771 e m y o l p m E

s 15% t l u d a

k 10% r o w

0% 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 IMD 2004 ranking (1 is most deprived)

SOA level data is shown. District abbreviations are shown in brackets (B, L, MB, SB) The ID 2004 Employment deprivation domain measures the proportion of the total population workless A logarithmic best fit curve has been added to show the strong relationship between the two measures See C for further details Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004) 1.1.165 15 shows the employment rates for the working age population, people aged over 50, ethnic minorities, lone parents, and no qualifications. Across the region we see that employment rates are higher than across England as a whole, and that employment rates for each of the groups is well above the corresponding rates across England. Bedfordshire as a whole shows high employment rates in each of the groups (and specifically ethnic minority groups), which appears to be a factor of high employment rates in both Mid and South Bedfordshire. Luton performs less well, with noticeably low employment rates for those groups who face barriers to employment, including people from BME groups, lone parents and those with no qualifications. In all five categories shown, the employment rates for Luton are below every one of the comparator areas.

57 The ID2004 Employment domain is made up of the proportion of working age adults involuntarily out of work, and includes those on Jobseekers Allowance as well as work-related sickness benefits such as Incapacity Benefit. C gives fuller detail of the datasets presented in this report.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 46 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.166 As seen above, the performance of BME groups is likely to be driven by gender issues with very low economic activity in Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. Again increasing the engagement with these groups could potentially provide a large impact on both the economic development of Luton and Bedfordshire and levels of exclusion and inequality. However as discussed above this is a culturally sensitive issue, and likely to require shifts in attitudes and aspirations. 1.1.167 Gender and ethnic issues may also partly explain the employment rates of lone parents and people with no qualifications seen in Luton, unfortunately we do not have information available in order to confirm this. Table 15 Employment rates by group Overall People over BME groups Lone Parents People with employment 50 no rate qualifications

England 75.0% 69.9% 58.1% 49.0% 50.1% East of England 78.8% 74.0% 68.0% 54.7% 61.3%

Bedfordshire 81.7% 77.7% 75.9% 58.2% 62.6% Luton 72.7% 66.2% 58.5% 45.4% 43.6%

Bedford District 79.0% 76.2% 67.8% * 58.6% Mid Bedfordshire 83.1% 79.2% * * 61.8% South Bedfordshire 83.8% 78.3% * * *

Peterborough 78.1% 74.5% 68.1% 58.9% 55.6% Southend-on-Sea 76.3% 68.5% 82.0% 55.1% 51.2% Thurrock 75.4% 68.0% 72.2% 48.5% 48.5% Cambridgeshire 81.4% 79.6% 67.6% 57.4% 71.8% Essex 78.2% 73.1% 75.2% 52.1% 61.4% Hertfordshire 81.6% 77.7% 69.0% 59.5% 64.6% Norfolk 74.8% 68.3% 73.0% 49.0% 58.1% Suffolk 77.9% 75.2% 62.9% 58.7% 64.7%

Comparator areas are East of England Counties and Unitaries. Unitaries are in italics Source: Annual Local Area Labour Force Survey (ALALFS) 2005, OCSI 2005 *Data Unavailable 1.1.168 16 shows the number and proportion of unemployed (Census 2001 data), with the number and proportion of all people unemployed who are long-term unemployed. The picture across Bedfordshire and Luton shows overall levels of unemployment below that of England as a whole though above the region, and higher levels are seen in Luton. Proportions of long-term unemployed are below that of England and the region, with particularly low levels in Mid and South Bedfordshire. 1.1.169 It would appear that the low employment rates seen in 15 are not a result of particularly high levels of long-term unemployed in Luton. Analysis of long-term unemployed at ward level shows no strong correlation between unemployment levels and proportion of long-term unemployed. However, high levels were seen in Harpur (more than one in three of all unemployed people reported long-term unemployment) and Goldington wards in Bedford town, which may be an indication of particular barriers to employment in these areas, or lack of suitable skills to match available jobs. Table 16 Unemployment and long-term unemployment rates Total Unemployed Long Term Unemployed N % N % of unemployed

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 47 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. England 1,188,855 3.3% 359,728 30.3% East of England 101,023 2.6% 27,405 27.1%

Beds and Luton 12,044 3.0% 3,209 26.6%

Luton 5,064 3.8% 1,435 28.3% Bedford District 3,341 3.1% 916 27.4% Mid Bedfordshire 1,656 1.9% 376 22.7% South Bedfordshire 1,983 2.4% 482 24.3%

Peterborough 3,731 3.3% 918 24.6% Southend-on-Sea 4,085 3.7% 1,349 33.0% Thurrock 3,514 3.4% 924 26.3% Cambridgeshire 8,562 2.1% 2,141 25.0% Essex 23,386 2.5% 6,202 26.5% Hertfordshire 15,905 2.1% 3,858 24.3% Norfolk 17,075 3.0% 5,135 30.1% Suffolk 12,721 2.7% 3,669 28.8%

Source: Census 2001, OCSI 2005

5.4 Health and work limiting illness 1.1.170 Poor health clearly has a major impact on employability, and a number of national policies and programmes are designed to increase employment opportunity for people with health conditions or disabilities. As with the employment issues explored above, individuals with particular health issues may need additional support in terms of getting into sustainable employment. However it is known that the likelihood of people with work-limiting illness leaving benefits and entering employment is much lower than the likelihood of unemployed people leaving benefits and entering employment58. 1.1.171 Analysis of numbers of “workless” people – those in receipt of unemployment benefits (Jobseekers Allowance, JSA) or work-related sickness benefits (Incapacity Benefit / Severe Disablement Allowance, IB / SDA) – shows a clear match against areas of high deprivation, as might be expected. Of the 25,570 people across Bedfordshire and Luton receiving workless benefits, by far the largest proportion – 17,715 people – were in receipt of IB / SDA, with 7,855 in receipt of JSA59. In other words people on work-limiting sickness benefits far outweigh those on unemployment benefits. 1.1.172 17 shows the proportion of IB / SDA recipients of all working age adults, for the 20 wards with the highest levels across Bedfordshire and Luton. It is clear that work-related sickness levels are highest in Luton and Bedford, with a number of South Bedfordshire wards also highlighted. 1.1.173 In areas of high multiple deprivation and high worklessness, evidence of long-term unemployment and high levels of depression can be indicated by high numbers of young people on sickness-related benefits. However analysis shows no clear trends for areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, and no evidence of links between proportions of long-term unemployed and young people receiving IB / SDA benefits. 1.1.174 It remains to be seen what impact current policy moves towards reducing the numbers on IB / SDA will have in terms of helping sections of these groups move back into economic activity. Programmes in this area run by Job Centre Plus and other agencies are likely to be better resourced than IiC, however there may be potential scope for collaborating with mainstream providers on identifying and helping particular groups at local level.

58 Changing Fortunes : geographic patterns of Income Deprivation in the late 1990s DTLR and SEU 2001 59 This is a somewhat lower proportion of sickness-related benefits than typically seen in traditional industrial areas such as the coalfield areas.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 48 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Table 17 Incapacity Benefit / Severe Disablement Allowance claimants by age IB / SDA Claimants IB / SDA Claimants aged under 30 N % N % of IB / SDA South (L) 655 8.7% 75 11.5% Northwell (L) 460 8.4% 60 13.0% Farley (L) 565 8.3% 45 8.0% Dallow (L) 670 8.2% 90 13.4% Biscot (L) 675 8.2% 85 12.6% Cauldwell (B) 420 7.6% 40 9.5% Harpur (B) 430 7.4% 50 11.6% Goldington (B) 390 7.3% 50 12.8% Kingsbrook (B) 420 7.3% 35 8.3% Castle (B) 415 7.2% 50 12.0% Leagrave (L) 505 7.2% 60 11.9% Lewsey (L) 555 7.1% 45 8.1% Saints (L) 510 7.0% 55 10.8% Northfields (SB) 295 6.8% 25 8.5% High Town (L) 350 6.8% 35 10.0% Manshead (SB) 215 6.8% 25 11.6% Tithe Farm (SB) 195 6.5% 20 10.3% Queen's Park (B) 305 6.4% 45 14.8% Kempston South (B) 315 6.3% 40 12.7% Parkside (SB) 220 6.3% 25 11.4%

Bedfordshire and Luton 17,715 4.8% 1,790 10.1%

Data shows 20 wards across Bedfordshire and Luton with highest IB / SDA rates Source: OCSI 2005 (from DWP 2003) 1.1.175 18 shows all people (aged 16-74) with limiting long-term illness as a proportion of the total population across England– around 17%, or one in six of all working age people suffer from limiting long-term illness. The proportion of people with limiting long-term illness working full- time is much lower – only 6% of the full-time working population, indicating the difficulty for this group of accessing employment. People with limiting long-term illness are more likely to work part-time than full-time, but more likely to not work at all; increasing opportunity for this group to work part-time, through individual training and support to employers, would potentially be an option for the IiC programme. The picture across Bedfordshire and Luton is rather similar to that across England and the region. Table 18 People Employed Full Time and Part Time With Limiting Long-Term Illness All People With People Employed Full People Employed Part Limiting Long Term Time: With Limiting Long Time: With Limiting Long Illness Term Illness Term Illness N % N % N %

England 6,085,39 17.13% 1,018,121 6.07% 457,082 9.35% 2 East of England 578,585 14.90% 111,590 5.78% 51,806 9.12%

Beds and Luton 57,533 14.10% 11,936 5.68% 4,538 8.44%

Bedfordshire 36,971 13.38% 8,106 5.52% 3,290 8.53% Luton 20,562 15.62% 3,830 6.06% 1,248 8.20%

Bedford District 15,600 14.59% 3,025 5.65% 1,330 9.22% Mid Bedfordshire 10,538 11.97% 2,655 5.38% 1,039 8.23% South Bedfordshire 10,833 13.31% 2,426 5.51% 921 8.00%

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 49 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.

Source: Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.176 There is a strong link between levels of poor health and levels of deprivation. People with limiting long-term illness are more likely to live in the most deprived areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, with young people with limiting illness far more likely to live in these areas – nearly 20% of all people aged 25-34 with limiting illness live in the most deprived 10% of areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, compared with 14% of all people with limiting long-term illness. 1.1.177 There is some evidence of links between young people in limiting long-term illness and mental health issues, it may be that a large proportion of this group experience mental health issues, potentially as a result of workless problems and are certainly likely to face barriers to re-entering employment. 1.1.178 By contrast there are no clear links between ethnic group and limiting long-term illness - 19 shows that levels of limiting long-term illness in the population are highest for Whites and White British, with slightly lower rates for Indian, Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups. Rates are significantly lower in Black African, Chinese and Mixed groups. It is possible that there could be underlying trends hidden by differing age profiles between the different ethnic groups, further analysis from the census is needed to this explore this possibility. Table 19 Limiting Long-term Illness By ethnic group BME Group Limiting Long Term Illness N Limiting Long Term Illness %

All People 82,756 14.62%

White British 67,764 14.77% White 73,267 15.00% Non White 9,489 12.26% Mixed 780 7.98% Pakistani 2,636 13.48% Indian 2,232 14.54% Bangladeshi 1,324 13.60% Black Caribbean 1,585 14.29% Black African 220 5.10% Chinese 134 5.71% Other Ethnic Group 578 11.03%

Source: Census 2001, OCSI 2005

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 50 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 6 Liveability

Socio-environmental factors that can act to disadvantage people and businesses irrespective of labour market conditions60

6.1 Introduction 1.1.179 Liveability is conceptualised here as the physical and social environment in which people live and businesses operate. It includes household and neighbourhood factors that impact upon people’s quality of life in general and which can also have a negative impact on businesses and therefore the local economy. In other words, it represents those factors that affect the willingness of local people and businesses to stay in an area and the willingness of new people and businesses to move to an area. 1.1.180 Liveability therefore encompasses issues relating to (a) local residents, such as housing quality, availability and affordability; (b) local businesses, such as quality, availability and affordability of suitable commercial and/or industrial sites; and (c) both local residents and local businesses, such as crime and anti-social behaviour; quality of the physical environment, including green spaces and air quality. 1.1.181 The following sections examine some of the key data sets available under the theme of liveability. It should be noted that this selection of indicators is not exhaustive, and new indicators may become available in the future which enable measurement of elements of liveability that are not presently possible. In particular, there is currently little data at small area level available across both Bedfordshire and Luton, as many of the key datasets are held locally and not normally published61 62, although both Bedfordshire CC and Luton BC were able to provide ward level crime rates for this study63. 1.1.182 There is also a strong overlap between the liveability and inclusion themes, specifically with issues surrounding access to services. Poor access to particular services is likely to affect the willingness of people to move into or stay in areas, for example parents and young couples are likely to view neighbourhoods lacking access to good quality schools as less desirable areas in which to live.

6.2 Liveability and “image” 1.1.183 Liveability factors play a key role in the image of an area – people and businesses are simply less likely to stay in or move into undesirable areas. It is likely that attracting and retaining skilled workers and employers is made considerably more difficult by the negative perception of Luton and low recognition of Bedfordshire64. 1.1.184 This is supported by the BLEDP by employment growth study, where job growth over the period 1982 – 2002 across Bedfordshire and Luton was seen to be well below that of

60 For full discussion of the key themes in the context of national, regional and local policy see A. 61 This is an issue with Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Partnership covering both the first tier authorities of Luton and Bedfordshire. We would recommend that BLEDP explore the options around a centralised information source, providing (or at least linking to) information from all relevant statutory organisations including Luton BC, Bedfordshire CC, Mid-Bedfordshire DC, South Bedfordshire DC, the relevant PCTs, and the relevant Police forces / CDRP groups. 62 Luton BC have used a wide variety of local and national datasets in their Quality of Life analysis and published a number of datasets on the Luton Observatory website, State of Luton Quality of Life, Luton BC, 2005. 63 Luton were additionally able to provide a wider range of data including household income estimates and health mortality rates at small area level. These were potentially available from Bedfordshire CC and the PCTs, but unfortunately not in the timescale for this study. 64 Awareness and Perceptions of the East of England Region for EEDA, MORI, 2003; discussed further in Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 51 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. comparator areas across the region. Alongside issues with low skills and low economic activity among particular communities, survey of local businesses came up with the following five major factors contributing to low job growth65: Table 20 Underlying factors contributing to low job growth across Bedfordshire and Luton Factor Private Sector Public Sector All Poor identity & image 15 7 22 Inadequate transport 15 4 19 Insufficient choice of land and premises 9 7 16 Uncompetitive city retailing/culture etc 9 1 10 Poor physical environment 7 1 8

Based on 43 interviews across private and public sector Source: Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005 1.1.185 A major point to note is the disparity between the public and private sector respondents, with the private sector far more likely to highlight liveability issues including poor identity and image, insufficient choice of land and premises, and poor physical environment. This has the implication that the public sector are more likely to highlight traditional issues such as poor skills, and are less aware of the impact of liveability factors on the overall business economy. 1.1.186 Additionally the employment growth study reported direct evidence of businesses choosing not to relocate or invest in the area due to poor image. Respondents directly linked potential investor decisions to “down-market” perceptions of Luton in particular. 1.1.187 Alongside the poor identity and image, inadequate transport facilities were cited by the most respondents as a factor in low job growth – this is discussed further in the section on Inclusion in this report. Private sector respondents also highlighted insufficient provision of land and premises, and poor physical environment. Both these issues are tackled directly in the Milton Keynes South Midland Sub-Regional Strategy66.

6.3 Housing affordability and condition 1.1.188 Housing is a key feature of liveability as it has a direct impact on people’s quality of life and on the willingness of people to remain in, move to, or leave an area. Housing related issues include the quality of local housing, the availability of local housing, and the affordability of local housing. Housing factors can also lead to poor health, with overcrowding linked to range of problems. Other factors such as lacking basic amenities and inadequate heating insulation can lead to increased levels of social and economic exclusion. 1.1.189 In some areas, where demand outstrips supply, there are major problems of lack of affordable housing, which can be particularly problematic for key workers who need to be located close to their place of employment. In other areas the problem is reversed, with low demand leading to housing market collapse. Both these issues can have serious consequences for the sustainability of economic growth and poverty reduction. 1.1.190 These issues are recognised and addressed in the government’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. A number of pathfinder areas across England are identified in either experience severe lack of affordable housing or experience housing market collapse due to low demand. The Sub-Regional Strategy67 focuses on increasing affordable housing in five urban areas including Bedford and Luton – Dunstable - Houghton Regis. 1.1.191 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID 2004 Wider Barriers to Housing sub-domain, measuring access to affordable housing against the regional distribution. The most deprived areas, those showing the highest levels of unaffordable and overcrowded housing (dark blue areas) are massively concentrated in

65 The authors note a caveat in that many of the businesses may have been responding on issues to do with their business, rather than the wider problem across Bedfordshire and Luton. 66 Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, GO-SE, GO-East, GO-EM, March 2005. 67 Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, GO-SE, GO-East, GO-EM, March 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 52 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Luton and Bedford urban areas, to a far greater extent than the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (Error: Reference source not found on page Error: Reference source not found). Of the 377 SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton, 83 (or 22%) are in the most deprived 10% of all areas across the region in terms of Wider Barriers to Housing, and 41% in the most deprived 20%. 1.1.192 It is interesting to compare Error: Reference source not found showing Wider Barriers to Housing (in effect “demand”), and Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found), showing the proportion of social rented housing across Bedfordshire and Luton, again in the context of the region as a whole. It is clear that levels of social rented housing across Bedford and Luton urban areas are much lower than other areas across the region (with the exception of areas to the West and North-West of Luton, and a few areas across Bedford), and are potentially likely to be a major factor in barriers to housing affordability issues identified in the Indices of Deprivation. It is clear that there is a great deal of unmet demand for affordable housing across the two major urban areas in Bedfordshire and Luton, presumably playing a major factor in the identification of the area in the Sub- Regional Strategy. 1.1.193 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID 2004 Indoors Living Environment sub-domain, measuring housing condition and quality at SOA level against the regional distribution. As might be expected, the poorest quality housing (dark blue areas) is seen in the urban areas of Luton and Bedford, with some areas in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard also showing up. The large (rural) area near Woburn is also prominent, possibly based around larger proportions of houses lacking central heating68. Figure 14 ID 2004 Indoors Living Environment, regional percentage ranks

4.5% g n

i 4.0% k n a

r 3.5%

g 3.0% a t n

e 2.5% c r e p

2.0% l a n

o 1.5% i g

e 1.0% R 0.5%

Source: OCSI 2004 (from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004) 1.1.194 14 shows regional percentage ranks for the 20 SOAs across Bedfordshire and Luton with the most deprived levels on the ID 2004 Indoors Living Environment sub-domains. It is clear that the most deprived areas across the area are highly focused in Luton, containing the 17 most deprived SOAs on this measure, with areas in Bedford also highlighted. 39 SOAs are in the most deprived 10% of all areas across the East region, highlighting that housing condition is a major issue in the sub-region. 1.1.195 21 shows three housing indicators from the Census, including overcrowded housing, vacant housing, and households lacking central heating. Luton shows extremely high levels of

68 The indicator also contains a modelled estimate of housing condition based on the English House Conditions Survey, which tends to highlight older housing stock – see the Indices of Deprivation, ODPM, 2004 for more details.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 53 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. overcrowded housing, 11.6% of all households across the District, likely to be due to a combination of lack of access to affordable (and social) housing identified above as well as cultural factors. Levels of overcrowding in Bedford District are well around 7.6%, roughly the Bedfordshire and Luton average, with Mid and South Bedfordshire showing much lower levels. 1.1.196 Vacant housing levels are low across Luton, below those in the Bedfordshire Districts which are roughly equivalent to the region as a whole. Again it is clear that there is wide demand across Luton for affordable housing. Table 21 Key housing indicators Overcrowding Household spaces vacant Households lacking housing central heating N % N % N %

England 1,457,51 676,196 3.3% 2 7.1% 1,711,405 8.4% East of England 114582 5.2% 62,071 2.8% 11,4047 5.1%

Bedfordshire and Luton 16,465 7.3% 5,625 2.5% 10,607 4.7%

Luton 8,198 11.6% 1,420 2.0% 4,338 6.1% Mid Bedfordshire 1,667 3.4% 1,366 2.8% 2,003 4.1% Bedford 4,530 7.6% 1,696 2.8% 2,769 4.6% South Bedfordshire 2,070 4.5% 1,143 2.5% 1,497 3.3%

Peterborough 3,639 5.6% 2,877 4.4% 3,220 4.9% Southend-on-Sea 5,422 7.6% 3,127 4.4% 4,295 6.1% Thurrock 3,849 6.6% 852 1.5% 3,385 5.8% Cambridgeshire 11,515 5.2% 6,046 2.7% 10,672 4.8% Essex 26,740 4.9% 13,411 2.5% 21,761 4.0% Hertfordshire 24,517 5.8% 8,736 2.1% 14,717 3.5% Norfolk 12,225 3.6% 11,352 3.3% 24,031 7.0% Suffolk 10,966 3.9% 10,045 3.6% 21,359 7.6%

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Census 2001) 1.1.197 15 shows the three indicators from 21 – overcrowded housing, vacant housing and households lacking central heating – against overall levels of multiple deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton. Each set of bars summarises the proportion of all housing affected by each indicator by level of deprivation. For example 25% of all overcrowded households lie in the most deprived 10% of areas across Bedfordshire and Luton (the first dark blue bar), while only 12% of all vacant housing falls in the same areas (first light blue bar). 1.1.198 It is clear that household overcrowding (dark blue bars) is more prevalent in the most deprived neighbourhoods. A quarter of all overcrowded households in Bedfordshire and Luton are located in the most deprived ten percent of neighbourhoods on the IMD 2004. In absolute terms, this equates to almost a fifth (18.36%) of all houses in the most deprived decile being overcrowded, which is over nine times the level of overcrowding in the least deprived decile (2.02%). Overcrowding clearly has implications for quality of life and therefore must be addressed alongside efforts to increase the number of available houses. 1.1.199 15 shows that vacant housing (light blue bars), unlike household overcrowding, shows no strong correlation with deprivation levels – vacant housing is spread pretty evenly by level of deprivation. This supports that Bedfordshire and Luton suffers primarily from lack of housing supply rather than lack of housing demand (as is experienced in a number of other locations across the country). 1.1.200 Finally, 15 shows households lacking central heating (light green bars) against deprivation levels. While there is a correlation between level of multiple deprivation and lack of central

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 54 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. heating – around 15% of all households lacking central heating are in the most deprived 10% of areas compared with less than 5% in the least deprived areas – this relationship is not as strong as that between distribution of overcrowding and deprivation. Furthermore, the actual proportion of households in the most deprived decile without central heating is well below the proportion experiencing overcrowding. Figure 15 Key housing indicators by level of deprivation

Overcrowded Households Household spaces vacant Households lacking central heating 25%

20% s d l o h e s u

o 15% h

e r a h S 10%

0% Most deprived 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% Least deprived 10% 10% Level of deprivation (IMD 2004)

Decile 1 is the most deprived 10% of all areas across Bedfordshire and Luton , decile 10 is the least deprived 10% of all areas Source: Source: OCSI 2005 (from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001)

Housing in Rural Areas 1.1.201 This section has very much picked out housing in the urban areas across Bedfordshire and Luton as an issue in terms of liveability. However rural businesses identify issues in terms of both finding suitable commercial premises, and high house prices as factors behind local recruitment problems, particularly of lower skilled workers who effectively can no longer afford to live in many areas of the county including much of rural Bedfordshire69. These issues are are examined further in Section 8.7 under the Enterprise and Innovation theme.

Commercial premises and office space 1.1.202 The clear concerns highlighted in the BLEDP Employment growth study from private sector respondents regarding insufficient choice of land and premises are examined further in Section 8.7 under the Enterprise and Innovation theme.

6.4 Living Environment 1.1.203 The outdoors living environment also plays a large role in overall liveability issues, alongside housing condition and affordability. Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID2004 Living Environment Outdoors sub-domain, measuring poor air quality and road traffic accident data, against the overall regional distribution. Again it is clear that poor outdoors environment is overwhelmingly concentrated in Luton, particularly to the west, and central Bedford town. The sub-domain is heavily correlated with traffic levels, so it is perhaps unsurprising that the major urban areas are highlighted. 16 shows the 20 69 The Range and Scope of the Bedfordshire Rural Economy, Bedfordshire Rural Business Support, 2005

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 55 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. areas across Bedfordshire with the highest levels of Outdoors Living Environment deprivation; all are in the most deprived 4% of all areas across the region and focused in Luton with 18 of the most deprived 20 SOAs. One area in Bedford town (in Castle ward) and one in South Bedfordshire (Icknield ward) are also highlighted. Figure 16 ID 2004 Outdoors Living Environment, regional percentage ranks

g 3.0% n i k n

a 2.5% r

t 2.0% n e c r

e 1.5% p

o 1.0% i g e

R 0.5%

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004) 1.1.204 A number of other indicators of outdoors living environment quality are available at local level; 6.5 shows resident satisfaction with local parks and green spaces, from surveys carried out for Qualify of Life indicators. Although survey numbers are too small to show information at areas below District level, they do indicate that satisfaction with the local living environment is increasing markedly across both Bedfordshire and Luton, although Luton still lags some way behind England and the region as a whole.

Table 1 Resident satisfaction with local parks and open spaces 2000/01 2003/04 England 63% 72% East of England 65% 72% Bedfordshire CC 62% 75% Luton UA 60% 68%

Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2000-2004) 6.5 Crime 1.1.205 Crime can have severe impacts upon individuals and communities. Areas with high crime rates are often less attractive as places to live, work and socialise, and can be less attractive to businesses as places in which to operate. Fear of crime can have an even greater impact on people’s quality of life than actual experience of crime, therefore community safety strategies often highlight reduction of crime and fear of crime as key priorities. Whereas measurement of recorded crime levels is possible at neighbourhood level using police data, measurement of fear of crime is currently restricted to much higher geographical levels due to being examined in national surveys (for example the British Crime Survey). 1.1.206 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID 2004 Crime domain, measuring the number of recorded offences by crime type, ranked across the East of England region. It is clear that large parts of the urban areas across Bedfordshire and Luton show very high crime levels in relation to the rest of the region (those areas shaded blue on the map). The high crime levels in Luton are clearly not limited to the administrative borders, and spill over into the wider Luton – Dunstable – Houghton Regis

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 56 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. urban area. There is also an additional rural area to the North of Luton town, which appears to be centred on Toddington and is likely linked to vehicle crime in the M1 service station. 1.1.207 17 shows levels of recorded Violence offences across Bedfordshire and Luton (red bar), with national and regional and comparator areas also shown. Overall levels in Bedfordshire and Luton are slightly above those in the East region, slightly below England as a whole. Levels in Luton are well above those in the region and England, however well below the rates seen in Peterborough and (to a lesser extent) Southend. Mid Bedfordshire shows the lowest levels of the Bedfordshire and Luton Districts, with Bedford and South Bedfordshire showing overall similar levels. Unsurprisingly there is a strong link with urban areas, it would be expected that the distributions would be similar to those seen in the ID 2004 Crime domain. Figure 17 Recorded crime - Violence offences, rates per 1000 people

30.00 e t

a 25.00 R

n 20.00 e f f O

0 15.00 0 2 - 2

0 10.00 0 2

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Home Office 2003) 1.1.208 18 shows the recorded rates for burglary offences over the period 1999/2000 to 2003/4. Burglary rates in Bedfordshire County and the East of England are significantly below that in England and Luton, however there is evidence of increasing trend across Luton from the period 2000/1 onwards. In 2003/4 burglary rates per 1,000 households in Luton (37%) were more than double those in Bedfordshire (14%). Figure 18 Burglaries (Rate per 1,000 households), Change 1999/00 to 2003/04: Bedfordshire and Luton with regional and national comparisons

ENGLAND

35.0% East of England

Bedfordshire CC

30.0% Luton UA

0.0% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 57 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Source: OCSI 2005 (from Home Office 1999-2004) 1.1.209 This is supported by data provided by Luton BC and Bedfordshire CC for this study, shown in ??, with 17 of the 20 wards with the highest burglary rates in Luton. Of the other three, two are just over the border in South Bedfordshire (Manshead and Parkside) and a single ward (Harpur) in Bedford. Error: Reference source not found shows this ward level burglary information mapped across the Bedfordshire and Luton area, highlighting the concentration of burglaries in Luton (wards shaded dark blue).

Table 2 Burglaries (Rate per 1,000 households), 2003/04: most deprived wards in Bedfordshire and Luton Ward Name Burglaries, rate per 1,000 households Violence offences, rate per 1,000 people South (L) 65.76 114.92 High Town (L) 58.11 32.43 Round Green (L) 51.81 14.17 Leagrave (L) 45.77 19.12 Northwell (L) 45.21 23.86 Wigmore (L) 44.52 14.90 Farley (L) 39.64 19.48 Crawley (L) 39.23 12.93 Manshead (SB) 36.60 16.40 Sundon Park (L) 33.45 23.99 Stopsley (L) 31.41 10.70 Limbury (L) 31.15 18.63 Biscot (L) 30.20 25.78 Dallow (L) 28.99 20.53 Saints (L) 27.45 13.48 Lewsey (L) 26.02 17.46 Parkside (SB) 25.40 17.40 Barnfield (L) 24.85 7.11 Bramingham (L) 24.44 8.31 Harpur (B) 24.03 20.94

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Bedfordshire CC 2005, Luton BC 2005)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 58 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 7 Inclusion

Personal and neighbourhood factors which can act to disadvantage people in the labour market but which are not necessarily forms of deprivation in their own right70

7.1 Introduction 1.1.210 Inclusion is here seen as representing those factors which might act as barriers to equal opportunity in the labour market and in society more broadly. In other words, these factors are not necessarily forms of deprivation in their own right (like poor educational attainment or poor health), but rather factors that can prevent people accessing equality of opportunity. 1.1.211 Inequality of opportunity is a form of disadvantage to and therefore it is vital to address the barriers to equality in parallel to addressing the more direct forms of deprivation affecting individuals and communities explored in previous sections. Opportunity can be affected by social factors and geographical factors. Diversity is a valuable attribute of society and yet there is recognition that it can also present particular problems for stability and sustainability. Diversity in itself is not a form of deprivation, however, the discrimination that sometimes accompanies diversity often can be depriving as it reduces access to opportunity. Geographical isolation can similarly act to reduce people’s access to opportunity; individuals living in rural areas or areas with poor public transport can encounter difficulties accessing employment or employment support services, along with other important services. 1.1.212 People can experience unequal opportunity in the labour market and in society more broadly due to numerous factors. These may be personal factors (such as age, sex, ethnic background, religion etc), family/household factors (such as presence/number of children, presence of partner, care responsibilities etc), or neighbourhood/community factors (such as rural location, difficulty of access to public transport, lack of car ownership, living in a stigmatised area and so on). 1.1.213 As noted above, people can be disadvantaged in many ways and the effects of these forms of disadvantage can be cumulative. This applies equally to these potential discriminatory factors. For instance, even if an individual has valuable labour market skills and lives in an area of good physical environment which is relatively close to demand for suitable labour, if the individual is aged over 50 with responsibility for caring for an elderly family member and does not have access to a car or public transport then his/her labour market opportunities are severely restricted. Similarly, an individual of ethnic minority background may experience discrimination in the labour market due to encountering problems accessing suitable employment support in his/her first language. Particular cultures may also exert pressures on certain groups (such as women) to not join the labour market. Indeed, this culture of male- dominated labour markets has only recently begun to change in the white population group in the UK. 1.1.214 Inclusion is, in effect, a cross-cutting theme that impinges upon each of the other key themes examined in this study, through reducing the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from employment and society. The remainder of this section examines a selection of available data sources to highlight particular population groups and particular geographical areas that are vulnerable to inequality of opportunity. The focus here is on exploring how these various forms of disadvantage interact with each other and with multiple deprivation as a whole to affect people’s labour market opportunity.

70 For full discussion of the key themes in the context of national, regional and local policy see A.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 59 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 7.2 Younger and older groups 1.1.215 22 shows the numbers and proportions of unemployed groups across Bedfordshire and Luton and comparator areas. As discussed previously, Bedfordshire and Luton shows unemployment levels somewhat above that of the region but below that of England as a whole. The highest rates in the County are seen in Luton (3.8%), with the lowest in Mid Bedfordshire (1.9%). 22 also shows the number and share71 across each area of unemployed people aged 16 to 24, and unemployed people aged 50 and over. In general, people aged 16 to 24 make up roughly one-quarter of all people unemployed, indicating the barriers these groups face in obtaining suitable employment, while those aged 50 and over make up around one-fifth of all unemployed people. At District level there is some indication that in Luton those aged 16 to 24 make up a higher proportion of the unemployed than in the Bedfordshire Districts, by contrast the highest proportions of those aged 50 and over are seen in Mid and South Bedfordshire. However this can be attributed to the differing age profiles in each of the Districts, and there is no strong evidence that these groups are specifically disadvantaged. Table 22 Unemployment among younger and older groups, Bedfordshire and Luton and comparator areas Total Unemployed Unemployed people Unemployed people aged 16 - 24 aged 50 and over N % N Share N Share

England 1,188,85 5 3.3% 305,452 25.7% 221,511 18.6% East of England 101,023 2.6% 26,219 26.0% 21,051 20.8%

Beds and Luton 12,044 3.0% 3,175 26.4% 2,240 18.6%

Luton 5,064 3.8% 1,411 27.9% 795 15.7% Bedford District 3,341 3.1% 854 25.6% 620 18.6% Mid Bedfordshire 1,656 1.9% 407 24.6% 365 22.0% South Bedfordshire 1,983 2.4% 503 25.4% 460 23.2%

Peterborough 3,731 3.3% 1,139 30.5% 573 15.4% Southend-on-Sea 4,085 3.7% 959 23.5% 818 20.0% Thurrock 3,514 3.4% 1,053 30.0% 569 16.2% Cambridgeshire 8,562 2.1% 2,199 25.7% 1,773 20.7% Essex 23,386 2.5% 6,156 26.3% 4,990 21.3% Hertfordshire 15,905 2.1% 3,920 24.6% 3,323 20.9% Norfolk 17,075 3.0% 4,322 25.3% 3,943 23.1% Suffolk 12,721 2.7% 3,296 25.9% 2,822 22.2%

Source: Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.216 23 shows the same unemployment data at ward level for the 20 wards with the highest levels of unemployment across Bedfordshire and Luton. In the ward with highest unemployment levels, Dallow in Luton, the rate is over double that in Bedfordshire and Luton as a whole, however this has dropped massively from the mid-teens unemployment levels seen in Luton in the mid-1990s. It is clear that in a number of wards with high unemployment levels, the levels of unemployed 16 to 24 year olds are well above that of Bedfordshire and Luton, particularly in Parkside (South Bedfordshire), Biscot (Luton), Manshead (South Bedfordshire), Queens Park (Bedford) and Dallow (Luton). Although again this can be attributed to the age profile of these areas, with higher numbers of young people, it is an indication that support could be focused on these particular groups.

71 The share is defined as the proportion of all unemployed people from a particular group, for example the proportion of all unemployed who are aged 16 to 24.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 60 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Table 23 Unemployment among younger and older groups, wards with highest levels Ward (District) Total Unemployed Unemployed people Unemployed people aged 16 - 24 aged 50 and over N % N Share N Share Dallow (L) 543 6.2% 165 30.4% 71 13.1% Biscot (L) 514 5.8% 170 33.1% 59 11.5% Cauldwell (B) 308 5.1% 80 26.0% 37 12.0% Castle (B) 317 5.1% 82 25.9% 43 13.6% Northwell (L) 296 5.1% 93 31.4% 40 13.5% South (L) 385 4.7% 83 21.6% 79 20.5% Farley (L) 353 4.6% 107 30.3% 39 11.0% Leagrave (L) 357 4.6% 106 29.7% 60 16.8% Saints (L) 355 4.5% 97 27.3% 68 19.2% Queen's Park (B) 233 4.4% 75 32.2% 27 11.6% High Town (L) 232 4.2% 67 28.9% 38 16.4% Tithe Farm (SB) 145 4.2% 38 26.2% 19 13.1% Kingsbrook (B) 267 4.2% 66 24.7% 40 15.0% Harpur (B) 259 4.0% 57 22.0% 45 17.4% Eastcotts (B) 77 4.0% 15 19.5% 12 15.6% Lewsey (L) 346 3.9% 100 28.9% 42 12.1% Parkside (SB) 141 3.8% 48 34.0% 21 14.9% Manshead (SB) 132 3.7% 42 31.8% 26 19.7% Goldington (B) 220 3.6% 61 27.7% 39 17.7% Crawley (L) 185 3.6% 55 29.7% 23 12.4%

Source: Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.217 19 shows the employment rate changes for people over 50 across Bedfordshire and Luton (separately), with the region and England also shown. As seen above, employment rates are highest in Bedfordshire, and lowest in Luton and the region. There is some indication that rates may have dropped somewhat in Luton over the period 2002/3 – 2003/4 (the most recent data available), in the context of rising rates across England as a whole. However the Labour Force Survey does fluctuate from year to year at District level, so this would need to be tracked in future to see whether this is a longer term trend or a short-term “blip”. Figure 19 Employment rates for over 50 year olds

ENGLAND East of England Bedfordshire CC 60.0% Luton UA

50.0% 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Source: OCSI 2005 (from Annual Local Area Labour Force Survey, ALALFS)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 61 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 7.3 Black and Minority Ethnic groups 1.1.218 People from BME groups are known to be particularly vulnerable to social exclusion. 24 shows the proportion of people from BME groups across Bedfordshire and Luton, East of England and England as a whole, by the level of deprivation in the area in which they live as measured by the IMD 2004. 1.1.219 Bedfordshire and Luton has higher proportions of people in BME groups (13.7%) than the regional (4.9%) and national (9.1%) averages. However there is wide variation in the proportions of BME groups against deprivation levels. In the most deprived 10% of all areas across Bedfordshire and Luton, 37.5% of the population is from a BME group, dropping to 2.6% in the least deprived 10% of areas – in other words people living in the most deprived areas in Bedfordshire and Luton are nearly fourteen times more likely to be from a BME group than people living in the least deprived decile. Similar trends are seen at regional and national level, showing BME groups are highly concentrated in the most deprived areas. Table 24 People in non-white ethnic groups by level of deprivation Bedfordshire East of England % England % and Luton % All areas 13.7% 4.9% 9.1%

Most deprived 10% 37.54% 10.63% 19.58% 10-20% 30.27% 6.98% 17.29% 20-30% 20.69% 5.15% 12.78% 30-40% 13.35% 4.10% 9.78% 40-50% 9.54% 3.85% 8.01% 50-60% 5.75% 3.80% 6.18% 60-70% 4.70% 3.23% 5.07% 70-80% 7.84% 3.76% 4.40% 80-90% 3.21% 3.55% 4.03% Least deprived 10% 2.60% 3.76% 3.82% Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.220 25 shows the overall BME population and the four main groups – Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean – across Bedfordshire and Luton, again shown by level of deprivation. Here we look at the proportion of each group living in areas by level of deprivation. 1.1.221 Nearly 28% of all people from BME groups live in the most deprived 10% of areas across the County, with less than 2% living in the least deprived areas. This is not equal across the different groups; Bangladeshi (and to a lesser extent Pakistani) groups are massively focused in the most deprived areas, with over half of all Bangladeshis and over one-third of all Pakistani groups living in the most deprived areas. Nearly 80% of all Bangladeshis in Bedfordshire and Luton live in the most deprived 20% of all areas, with less than 0.4% in the least deprived 20%. 1.1.222 To a lesser extent Black Caribbeans show similar trends to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in terms of being focused in the most deprived areas. By contrast, Indian groups are much less likely to be focused in the most deprived areas, reflecting a more established community with higher levels of skills and professional occupations, less vulnerable to exclusion. However there is evidence of much smaller numbers of Indians in the least deprived areas – these areas are still overwhelmingly white. 1.1.223 Perhaps unsurprisingly, analysis looking at population groups by religion shows very similar patterns, with Muslim groups overwhelmingly concentrated in the most deprived areas. It is clear that Bangladeshi and Pakistani and Muslim groups are particularly at-risk in terms of social and economic exclusion. There is clearly potential for thematic IiC programmes aimed at reaching these groups through community and/or faith-based groups.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 62 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Table 25 Proportion of non-white ethnic groups by level of deprivation All BME groups Pakistani % Indian % Banglades Black (share) (share) (share) hi % Caribbean % (share) (share) Most deprived 10% 27.78% 34.10% 12.99% 55.46% 26.44% 10-20% 22.76% 30.39% 18.08% 23.21% 22.15% 20-30% 15.20% 17.98% 16.54% 9.76% 15.97% 30-40% 10.00% 7.62% 13.33% 5.07% 11.83% 40-50% 6.80% 4.19% 10.65% 2.95% 7.29% 50-60% 4.12% 1.61% 6.62% 1.04% 4.24% 60-70% 3.39% 0.86% 5.17% 0.49% 3.81% 70-80% 5.69% 2.67% 10.39% 1.62% 4.98% 80-90% 2.40% 0.31% 3.84% 0.23% 2.05% Least deprived 10% 1.84% 0.28% 2.38% 0.16% 1.26%

Bedfordshire and Luton 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.224 20 shows the share of the four main BME groups across Bedfordshire and Luton by level of deprivation, from 25. Again it is overwhelmingly clear how focused the Bangladeshi (light blue bars) and Pakistani (dark blue bars) groups are in the most deprived areas. Figure 20 Proportion of non-white ethnic groups by level of deprivation

People in Pakistani Ethnic Group People in Indian Ethnic Group 50% People in Bangladeshi Ethnic Group People in Black Caribbean Ethnic Group

40% n o i t a l u p o

e r a h S

0% Most deprived 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% Least deprived 10% 10% Level of deprivation (IMD 2004)

Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005

7.4 Presence of children, lone parents and carers 1.1.225 Lone parents with dependent children are another group known to be particularly vulnerable to social and economic exclusion. 26 looks at households with dependent children by level of deprivation, broken down into lone parent households and non-lone parent households. As in the BME analysis data is shown by level of deprivation (based on the IMD 2004). The proportion of all households in each 10% deprivation band that are lone parent households is shown, alongside the proportion of all lone parents households in that 10% band (the “share”).

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 63 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.226 It is clear that lone parent families make up a much smaller proportion of households with dependent children than do non-lone parent families, however the lone parents are more focused in the most deprived areas – more than 18% of all lone parents are in the most deprived 10% of areas compared with only 9% of non-lone parents (the non-lone parents show no overall trend with increasing levels of deprivation). However, there are significant numbers of lone parents living in less deprived areas, and they are much less focused in the most deprived areas than for example the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black Caribbean groups identified above. Table 26 Households with dependent children and lone parents by level of deprivation Lone Parent Households with Non-Lone Parent Households dependent children with dependent children % Share % Share

Most deprived 10% 10.04% 17.58% 24.17% 9.02% 10-20% 9.17% 15.64% 27.20% 9.89% 20-30% 6.96% 12.35% 24.41% 9.23% 30-40% 6.80% 12.68% 24.76% 9.83% 40-50% 5.08% 9.01% 25.32% 9.57% 50-60% 4.17% 7.40% 25.62% 9.67% 60-70% 4.22% 7.37% 27.69% 10.30% 70-80% 3.84% 6.53% 28.90% 10.47% 80-90% 3.41% 6.04% 29.38% 11.11% Least deprived 10% 3.21% 5.40% 30.43% 10.92%

Bedfordshire and Luton 10.71% 100.0 50.38% 100.0

Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.227 It is likely that the picture would be different when examining lone parents living in deprivation, for example those receiving Income Support. In previous work we have seen how this group is much more focused in more deprived areas than lone parents as a whole (many of whom are relatively undeprived). 1.1.228 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the proportion of unpaid carers across Bedfordshire and Luton. High levels of unpaid care across the county are seen predominantly in rural areas. Levels of unpaid care are typically associated with lower levels of deprivation. However individuals caring for relatives are likely to face real barriers in terms of accessing employment and services.

7.5 Access to services and lack of transport 1.1.229 Error: Reference source not found (page Error: Reference source not found) shows the ID 2004 Geographical Barriers sub-domain, indicating the distance to key services for areas across Bedfordshire and Luton (ranked against all areas across the East of England) with dark blue shading highlighting areas with poor access to services and light yellow indicating good access. It is clear that the more urban areas of Luton, Bedford and Dunstable have good access to key services in terms of distance, with more rural areas showing out as more deprived on this measure. 1.1.230 However, although the Geographical Barriers measure tells us about actual distance to services, it doesn’t look at the difficulty of access – people in rural areas are more likely to have access to their own transport than in urban areas. 27 shows the proportion of households with no car or van by level of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton, highlighting that high levels of households lacking their own transport, relying on public transport to access key services and employment, are focused in the most deprived (urban) areas. 1.1.231 In the most deprived 10% of all areas – largely comprising areas in Luton, Bedford and Dunstable – nearly half of all households don’t have access to their own transport. By

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 64 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. contrast, in the least deprived 10% of all areas, less than one in ten households don’t have similar access. Table 27 Households with no car or van, by level of deprivation across Bedfordshire and Luton Households with no car or van N % Share

Most deprived 10% 9,982 44.54% 21.78% 10-20% 6,998 32.04% 15.27% 20-30% 6,573 28.93% 14.34% 30-40% 5,454 22.86% 11.90% 40-50% 4,261 18.77% 9.30% 50-60% 3,225 14.22% 7.04% 60-70% 2,756 12.33% 6.01% 70-80% 2,396 11.00% 5.23% 80-90% 2,267 9.98% 4.95% Least deprived 10% 1,911 8.86% 4.17%

Bedfordshire and Luton 45,825 38.39% 100.0

Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.232 28 shows the proportion of households lacking their own transport, for the rural areas across Bedfordshire and Luton with the highest such proportions, alongside the Countryside Agency / ONS urban-rural classification of the area72, and level of deprivation on the IMD 2004. Table 28 Rural areas and lack of transport SOA (District) Urban – rural classification Households with IMD 2004 no car or van Score Arlesey E01017378 (MB) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 25.6% 14.13 Stotfold E01017446 (MB) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 25.1% 8.82 Clapham E01017479 (B) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 23.6% 11.94 Eastcotts E01017487 (B) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 22.8% 29.35 Caddington, Hyde and Slip Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 21.3% 19.08 End E01017562 (SB) Wootton E01017554 (B) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 20.9% 12.66 Woburn E01017452 (MB) Village, Hamlet & Isolated 19.8% 4.46 Dwelling Cranfield E01017395 (MB) Village, Hamlet & Isolated 19.2% 7.45 Dwelling Clapham E01017481 (B) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 18.1% 11.81 Eaton Bray E01017571 Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 16.3% 13.18 (SB) Kensworth and Totternhoe Village, Hamlet & Isolated 16.2% 13.07 E01017588 (SB) Dwelling Toddington E01017622 Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 16.2% 13.01 (SB) Wootton E01017552 (B) Village, Hamlet & Isolated 15.8% 20.60 Dwelling Marston E01017418 (MB) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 15.7% 12.83 Maulden and Clophill Village, Hamlet & Isolated 15.6% 8.74 E01017420 (MB) Dwelling Bromham E01017463 (B) Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 15.4% 4.34 Caddington, Hyde and Slip Town and Fringe - Less Sparse 15.2% 5.88 End E01017563 (SB)

72 The most recent urban – rural classifications distinguish a variety of types of rural area, from town and fringe urban areas, to isolated villages, hamlets and dwellings.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 65 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Eastcotts E01017486 (B) Village, Hamlet & Isolated 15.0% 17.31 Dwelling Aspley Guise (MB) Village, Hamlet & Isolated 14.8% 7.90 E01017379 Dwelling Harrold E01017504 (B) Village, Hamlet & Isolated 14.5% 8.07 Dwelling

Higher IMD 2004 scores indicate higher levels of deprivation Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.233 Of the rural areas with the highest levels of households with lack of transport, most are town and fringe urban areas so fairly close to more major urban areas. These include Arlesey and Stotfold, near the Hertfordshire town of Letchworth, and Clapham, Eastcotts and Wootton on the edge of Bedford town. 1.1.234 However, a number of more isolated rural areas show up as having high levels of households without access to cars, including Woburn and Cranfield in Mid Bedfordshire, Kensworth and Totternhoe (South Beds), Wootton (Bedford). Although most show relatively low levels of deprivation, two areas in Bedford – Wootton and Eastcotts (at the more rural Southern end of Eastcotts ward) – show high levels of deprivation as well as high proportions of households with no cars. In these areas residents are likely to face severe barriers to employment through transport issues, unless adequate public transport provision is provided. 1.1.235 Access to transport is also likely to be an issue in urban areas, where levels of car ownership are lower and businesses may be in 24 hour operation. The sub-regional strategy highlights enforcing accessibility by public transport as a key priority for Luton.

7.6 Rural communities 1.1.236 29 shows four key deprivation indicators over the three major rural-urban classifications. 434,000 of the population across Bedfordshire and Luton live in “Urban > 10K” areas (Luton / Dunstable, Bedford / Kempston, Leighton Buzzard, Flitwick / Ampthill, Biggleswade, Henlow / Shefford and Sandy), with the remaining population split between “Town and Fringe” (72,000 people) and “Village, Hamlet and Isolated Dwelling” (61,000 people) 1.1.237 Levels of low skills and work limiting long-term illness, although lower than corresponding levels in the urban areas, are not that much lower (likely to be related to the older age profile). And although the numbers and proportions of people experiencing Income and Employment deprivation are well below those in urban areas, these groups are likely to experience major difficulty in accessing key services and employment opportunity. Table 29 Indicators of disadvantage by rural-urban classification Classification Populatio Income Employment Limiting Long No n Deprived (ID Deprived Term Illness Qualifications 2004) (ID 2004) N % N % N % N % Urban > 10K - 433,588 56,23 13.0 25,40 8.2% 64,69 14.9 87,71 28.2 Less Sparse 0 % 3 6 % 5 % Town and Fringe 71,645 3,983 5.6% 2,313 4.4% 9,646 13.5 12,39 23.7 - Less Sparse % 2 % Village, Hamlet & 60,710 3,045 5.0% 1,903 4.2% 8,414 13.9 10,10 22.5 Isolated Dwelling % 2 %

Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004, Census 2001, ONS 2005) 1.1.238 Across the county, lone parents living in rural areas made up approximately 19% of all lone parents (2,400 of 12,800) 73 across Bedfordshire and Luton. This group face increased difficulties through lack of access to transport and services. 21 shows lone-parent households (as a proportion of all households) against level of deprivation for the rural areas across 73 Thanks to Jane Markham, Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity for data on rural issues

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 66 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire. As expected from the above analysis of lone-parent households, there is a relatively clear trend with increasing level of deprivation. Although many of the highest areas are town and fringe areas on the edge of urban areas (including the extreme outlier Eastcotts E01017487), there are likely to be issues for lone parents and other groups in accessing key services and job opportunities. Figure 21 Lone parents in rural areas by level of deprivation

Eastcotts E01017487 16%

12% s d l o h e

s 10% u o h

r Marston E01017418

a 8% p

e n o L 6%

0% 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 IMD 2004 Score (higher scores are more deprived)

Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2004, Census 2001, OCSI 2005 1.1.239 22 shows the proportion of the rural areas across Bedfordshire and Luton that are in the most deprived of all rural areas across the East of England. In other words, after excluding all urban areas, how deprived are the rural areas in the County relative to other rural areas? It is fairly clear that overall levels of deprivation are low across most of the domains, with only a very few in the most deprived 10% of all rural areas across the region (the dark blue bars). However there is a clear issue with crime levels, with nearly one-third of the rural areas across the County showing significant levels of crime relative to other rural areas across the region. This is likely to be driven by spillover from the Luton and Bedford urban areas, as is the Barriers to Housing and Services domain. As Bedfordshire and Luton is less rural than most of the region the Barriers to Housing and Services is likely to be driven by the Wider Barriers sub-domain, i.e. access to affordable housing.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 67 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Figure 22 Rural SOAs in the most deprived of all rural areas in the region

Most deprived 10-20% 30.0% Most deprived 10%

0.0% IMD Income Employment Health Education Barriers To Crime Living IDAC IDAOP Housing and Environment Services

Source: OCSI 2005 (from ODPM 2004, ONS 2005) 1.1.240 Additional analysis has investigated levels of deprivation (as measured by the IMD 2004 and individual domains) at settlement level across Bedfordshire and Luton, in order to highlight communities with higher levels of deprivation than the District as a whole. Small settlements with higher than expected levels of deprivation masked by lower levels across the District include Sandy in Mid Bedfordshire (10,000 population) and Shortstown in Bedford District (1,750 population to the South of Bedford town). In these areas employment opportunities may be lower than in other nearby areas, so it will be important to ensure good access to services through public transport. 1.1.241 Overall it is clear that rural areas across Bedfordshire and Luton suffer from a number of issues related to high crime levels and lack of affordable housing in the urban areas of Luton and Bedford. This is in addition to the transport issues discussed above. Further issues in terms of access to affordable housing and business premises are examined further in Section 8.7.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 68 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Section 8 Enterprise and innovation

Business development factors that can act to reduce efficiency and productivity and therefore limit growth potential and sustainability74

8.1 Introduction 1.1.242 Where the previous three sections examined “supply-side” factors (in terms of the supply of employable people across Bedfordshire and Luton, liveability and inclusion issues), this section focuses on “demand-side” factors, in terms of business demand for a suitably skilled workforce. We explore a number of areas potentially suitable for support under the Investing in Communities programme:  Pay and work conditions  Entrepreneurship and business support  Private sector investment  Skills and training (matching skills to jobs)  Physical infrastructure – transport and space  Businesses and deprived areas 1.1.243 In this section we focus on the above factors in terms of potential interest to the IiC programme, in other words identifying potential geographical areas and communities of interest that fulfil the primary IiC purposes of sustainable economic development through tackling social and economic exclusion. As in all the themes examined in this report, the factors examined here are considered in the context of the key issues of sustainability, equality and diversity. 1.1.244 This section also draws together relevant information from the previous sections on multiple deprivation, employability, liveability and inclusion; matching supply-side factors together with the demand-side analysis presented here. 1.1.245 Finally we should emphasise that this analysis does not set out detailed feasibility studies of the projects highlighted here – and could not hope to in the six week timescale – but provides analysis and recommendations from the social and economic deprivation evidence base in the context of the IiC programme. For the full recommendations from this study see Section Error: Reference source not found.

8.2 Economic growth across Bedfordshire and Luton 1.1.246 Over recent years, the economy across Bedfordshire and Luton has under-performed with respect to England and the region as a whole, as well as a number of comparator areas. 30 shows the growth in jobs over the period 1982 to 2002 for Bedfordshire and Luton, with the annual average jobs growth rate over the period shown alongside75. From a position of a similar sized economy to that of both Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire in 1982 in terms of numbers of jobs, in 2002 the Bedfordshire and Luton economy was only around two- thirds the size of these Counties. Unsurprisingly Milton Keynes showed extremely high growth levels, more than doubling in size in terms of jobs, and if present trends continue might be expected to overtake the Bedfordshire and Luton economy some time over the next 20 years. Table 30 Jobs growth over period 1982 – 2002 Local Authority Area 1982 Job Levels 2002 Job Levels Annual average jobs growth rate Bedfordshire and Luton 241,396 251,699 -0.12% Buckinghamshire 251,485 384,983 2.03%

74 For full discussion of the key themes in the context of national, regional and local policy see A. 75 Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 69 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Northamptonshire 239,813 327,871 1.46% Milton Keynes 62,265 140,479 3.81%

Data shows relative number of jobs and average annual growth taking into account relative population growth Source: Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005 (from EBS) 1.1.247 A number of potential reasons for this under-performance were highlighted in the Employment Study, and examined in detail:  Poor industrial structure  Slower growth of particular sectors  Labour force constraints  Labour skills shortcomings  Low inward investment  Lack of dynamism in local economy  Low innovation and high technology presence  Poor retail status and other service deficiencies  Potentially depressing impact of lack of identity, downmarket image  Relatively poorer quality and availability of employment land sites  Shortcomings in communications infrastructure 1.1.248 There is some more optimistic evidence to suggest that recent growth across the Bedfordshire and Luton area might be rather higher than seen in the Bone Wells study, showing that the growth performance and capacity of the economy in terms of change in employment, business stock and population projections – dynamism - is relatively high across the County, particularly in Mid-Bedfordshire76. 1.1.249 Analysis of change over time in the local economy is unfortunately beyond the scope of this project – rather than focusing on the reasons for this poor economic performance over recent years, which are well explored in the studies referenced above, in this section we highlight the areas of potential interest for the IiC programme.

8.3 Pay and work conditions 1.1.250 31 shows residential and workplace weekly gross earnings for full-time and part-time workers across the Bedfordshire County and the four Districts77, alongside the national and regional datasets and the comparator areas of the regional Counties and Unitary Authorities. Table 31 Residential and workplace earnings Residents Workplace Earnings, Workplace / Full-time / Earnings, Gross Weekly Pay Residents Part-time Gross Weekly Earnings Ratio Workplace Pay Earnings Ratio Full Part Full Full Time Time Time Part Time Time Part Time Part Time

England £485 £155 £483 £154 1.00 1.00 3.13 East of England £509 £146 £476 £144 0.94 0.99 3.49

Bedfordshire £510 £137 £482 £127 0.95 0.93 3.72 Luton £445 £125 £458 £128 1.03 1.03 3.56

76 The Range and Scope of the Bedfordshire Rural Economy, Bedfordshire Rural Business Support, 2005 77 The data comes from the Annual Business Inquiry survey, and cannot be straightforwardly averaged up to the Bedfordshire and Luton area.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 70 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedford £481 £144 £457 £135 0.95 0.94 3.34 Mid Bedfordshire £544 £143 £563 £134 1.04 0.94 3.80 South Bedfordshire £511 £126 £458 £108 0.90 0.86 4.05

Peterborough £425 £142 £444 £146 1.04 1.03 2.99 Southend-on-Sea £481 £152 £405 £153 0.84 1.01 3.16 Thurrock £486 £150 £474 £138 0.97 0.92 3.24 Cambridgeshire £528 £153 £508 £151 0.96 0.99 3.45 Essex £540 £147 £480 £143 0.89 0.97 3.67 Hertfordshire £586 £166 £545 £160 0.93 0.96 3.53 Norfolk £414 £136 £413 £138 1.00 1.01 3.04 Suffolk £452 £133 £423 £137 0.94 1.03 3.40

Ratios higher than 1.0 indicate workplace earnings are higher than residents earnings Source: OCSI 2005 (from Annual Business Inquiry, 2003) 1.1.251 There is a wide variation between full-time residents earnings across the County and four Districts, with average weekly earnings in Luton £100 less than in Mid-Bedfordshire. Bedfordshire County shows earnings close to the region as a whole, slightly above that of England but well below Cambridgeshire, Essex and Hertfordshire. Suffolk residential earnings are well below that of Bedfordshire but comparable to Luton, with Norfolk showing the lowest residential earnings across the region. 1.1.252 A different picture is seen with full-time workplace earnings, with Luton, Bedford and South Bedfordshire showing similar earnings levels. However Mid Bedfordshire workplace earnings are again significantly higher, around £100 per week above those in the other three Districts. Again Norfolk and Suffolk show the lowest earnings levels 1.1.253 The ratio between the residents and workplace full-time earnings is an indication of the strength of the local job economy in relation to the local skill level – areas with residents earnings significantly greater than workplace earnings (those areas with a ratio less than one) are likely to be areas of high out-commuting. By contrast those areas with residents earnings significantly less than workplace earnings are likely to be areas of high in-commuting. 1.1.254 The region as a whole is seen to have residents full-time earnings higher than workplace earnings, likely to be commuting to the London area and seen most strongly in Southend, Essex, Hertfordshire. Of the Bedfordshire and Luton area, Luton and interestingly Mid- Bedfordshire are highlighted as potential in-commuters, with Bedford and South-Bedfordshire showing out-commuter patterns (resident earnings higher than workplace earnings). In addition to those commuting to London, it is likely that a high proportion of South- Bedfordshire residents work in Luton. The in-commuting seen in Mid-Bedfordshire may be linked to evidence below that the District has the highest levels of enterprise across the area, with a number of Bedford residents commuting out to the area. 1.1.255 The above is supported by analysis of travel patterns from the Census78, where net out- commuting across the region was just under 200,000 people, with 283,000 commuting to London. Bedfordshire as a whole is suggested as a net out-commuter from earnings ratios, which is also seen in Census travel patterns with nearly 30,000 Bedfordshire residents commuting to Hertfordshire (against 11,000 going the other way), and nearly 40,000 commuting outside the region (against 24,000 going the other way), mainly consisting of 17,500 to London and 17,000 to the South-East (likely to be mainly the Milton Keynes area). 1.1.256 The full picture is more complicated, as travel patterns tend to be different across different groups and areas – there is evidence that Luton experiences both an out-flow of residents in professional occupations, and an in-flow of workers in professional occupations, with fewer Luton residents working in professional occupations actually in Luton79. This is a strong indication of a mismatch between labour force skills and job market requirements.

78 East of England Commuting Patterns, EEDA / EERA, 2005. 79 Luton Travel To Work Patterns, Luton BC, 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 71 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.257 The part-time earnings ratio is similarly an indication of the strength of the local part-time job economy in relation to the local skill level. The picture across the region shows that workplace and residents part-time earnings are very similar, not surprisingly fewer part-time workers are likely to commute out of the region. In the three Bedfordshire Districts, part-time residents earnings are higher than workplace earnings – significantly so in the case of South- Bedfordshire. It appears that a relatively large number of part-time workers travel into Luton from South Bedfordshire, likely from the Dunstable area. This may be due to a lack of suitable part-time work in South Bedfordshire, or high demand in Luton for part-time work in retail, airport and other industries. Part-time workers are less likely to have use of their own transport, and 24-hour businesses such as Luton airport may be difficult to access using public transport throughout the day. 1.1.258 This needs further examination, but a potential area for IiC involvement would be in facilitating transport issues likely to be faced by part-time (and full-time) workers commuting to Luton jobs, particularly those working in lower skill occupations (part-time or full-time). This could be extended to include workers from the most disadvantaged areas across Luton itself, predominately located in the West and North-West areas (Error: Reference source not found on page Error: Reference source not found shows the Index of Deprivation 2004 across Bedfordshire and Luton) There is clear scope for collaborating with local businesses, as larger employers in the area would have an interest in improving public transport links.

8.4 Entrepreneurship and business support 1.1.259 Bedfordshire and Luton shows slightly above national (and well above regional) levels for “enterprise” evaluated on business formation rates, business density and self-employed rates80. However this is mainly driven by good performance in the smaller economies of Mid- Bedfordshire and South-Bedfordshire, with the weakest performance seen in Luton. In other words, entrepreneurial levels are lowest in the District with the biggest overall economy. This is partly a reflection of the traditional large manufacturing base across Luton, however there is likely to be potential for boosting local entrepreneurial activity across Luton. Table 32 Growth in business stock Area Annual % Registrations Deregistrations 3-year survival growth in rate (%) stock United Kingdom 1.1 10.4 9.3 65.2 East of England 1.2 10.2 8.9 67.2 Bedfordshire and Luton 1.3 10.7 9.4 65.4 Bedfordshire 1.4 10.3 8.9 n.a. Luton 0.9 11.9 11.0 n.a. Hertfordshire 1.7 11.2 9.5 67.8 Cambridgeshire and 1.4 9.7 8.2 68.5 Peterborough Peterborough 2.2 11.5 9.2 n.a. Buckinghamshire and 2.0 11.0 9.0 69.1 Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire 1.5 10.3 8.8 n.a. Milton Keynes 3.6 13.4 9.8 n.a. Northamptonshire 1.7 10.5 8.8 66.3

Registrations and Deregistrations are 10 year averages as a percentage of stock Source: Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005 (from EBS) 1.1.260 32 shows VAT registrations and deregistrations over the period 1994-2004. The low annual growth in stock for Luton is seen as a consequence not of a low levels of business registration, but of high levels of deregistration. Although this may be affected by including

80 The Range and Scope of the Bedfordshire Rural Economy, Bedfordshire Rural Business Support, 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 72 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. time-periods of very high unemployment in Luton during the mid-1990s, where deregistrations might be expected to be high, it is an indication that the major problems facing Luton entrepreneurs are not in starting up, but in keeping going. 1.1.261 The recent Businesses in Disadvantaged Areas study recommended specific attention be paid to providing additional support to both individuals and businesses for BME groups across Luton81. The study further linked individual career counselling to increasing opportunities for self-employment – with the high proportions of BME groups in the most deprived areas (particularly Pakistani and Bangladeshi) this would be an important step towards tackling the low levels of enterprise across Luton. Particular programmes were “singled out for limitations in meeting the aspirations of young and unemployed people”. It seems that a possible role for IiC programmes would be to help target existing programmes towards increasing levels of enterprise in specific BME groups across Luton, particularly in terms of increasing business survival rates. 1.1.262 Recent EEDA work has highlighted the size of the social economy, with an estimated turnover of £3 Billion across the region per year and growing82, approximately 1.6% of the turnover of all businesses in the region. The sector provides services and employment opportunities often in areas of high levels of deprivation and low employment (indeed many social businesses comment how difficult it is to find staff in areas with high employment rates and high wages), giving relatively high levels of staff training and development, and promoting high levels of entrepreneurial and management skills. However, few Voluntary and Community Sector businesses seek advice from mainstream business agencies, and specialist agencies such as co-operative support organisations are under-resourced. 1.1.263 A second report from the same consultants, focusing on social enterprise across Bedfordshire and Luton83, found that most of the support available for social enterprises was more directed towards start-up social enterprises than with growth and other development processes, and that those organisations which did plan to grow felt local support agencies were not able to provide sufficient help. They also found that few social enterprises had identified growth opportunities. 1.1.264 Linked with the potential target to increase business survival rates across Luton, there is an opportunity for IiC programme to work with the social enterprises, in terms of providing business support and training in order to help businesses in the sector identify and take advantage of growth opportunities. 1.1.265 Finally in the area of business support, the low economic activity of particular BME groups including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis is likely to be a factor of low economic activity in Pakistani and Bangladeshi women (Section 5.3). Increasing the engagement of these groups with the economy is clearly an issue of sensitivity, but could lead to wide reduction in poverty and deprivation in the most deprived areas and communities across Bedfordshire and Luton. We recommend that the IiC explore how best to collaborate with current programmes on increasing women’s enterprise across the region84, in order to reach these groups.

8.5 Private sector investment 1.1.266 Although there is encouraging evidence of an upwards trend over the period 1997 – 2004 in terms of recent investment into Bedfordshire and Luton, the County is well below that of a number of comparison Counties including Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire85. Investments have also tended to be in a narrow range of sectors including automotive, electronics and business sectors.

81 Businesses in Disadvantaged Areas, BLEDP,2004. 82 Mapping the Social Economy in the East of England, EEDA, 2001. This figure is an estimate derived from postal questionnaires, with major components of Housing Associations (£1 billion) and Regional Co-ops (£600 million). 83 Social Enterprise in Bedfordshire and Luton, Guild, 2004. 84 Women’s Enterprise Strategic Framework, East of England Business Links, 2005 (Draft). 85 Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 73 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. 1.1.267 A role could potentially be played by IiC in terms of developing increased inward investment into deprived areas with high BME communities, particularly Luton and Bedford town. The Businesses in Disadvantaged Areas study highlighted that BME groups are often active in overseas markets, with a strong record of bringing in overseas investment. Again, providing business support for these activities, or setting up more formal links with overseas areas having strong community links to those in Bedfordshire and Luton, would be a potential method of targeting low levels of inward investment across the area.

8.6 Skills and training (matching skills to jobs) 1.1.268 Skill levels in an area are one of the most important determinants (some studies argue the most important determinant) of employers willingness to invest in an area. 1.1.269 This study has highlighted the issue both the region and Bedfordshire and Luton have in terms of attracting and retaining graduates (rather than with producing future graduates), with lower proportions of students, lower proportions of people with higher level qualifications and much lower proportions of younger adults (those aged 25-24) with higher level qualifications than across England as a whole (Section 5.2). 1.1.270 Levels of qualifications are also low in specific BME groups across Bedfordshire and Luton, likely to be driven by low skills and economic activity of particular groups such as Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. We recommend that the IiC explore funding skills and training for these communities, potentially through supporting existing social enterprise organisations such as the Ethnic Minority Training Resource Centre.

8.7 Physical infrastructure – transport and space 1.1.271 The Regional Economic Strategy and EEDA Corporate Plan both highlight as key themes the need to address transport infrastructure constraints. But despite the excellent location of Bedfordshire and Luton in terms of road-distance to the rest of the country and access to international airports and shipping terminals, many businesses highlight transport difficulties as priority issues in terms of development86. 1.1.272 This is supported by the Sub-Regional Strategy for the Luton – Dunstable - Houghton Regis area, where major growth in predicted in the airport sector (passenger numbers proposed to increase to 30 million per year by 2030) with a corresponding need for good transport links between workers and the airport and associated industries which are likely to be based around the periphery of the town. The priorities for Luton town centre include enhancing accessibility by public transport87. 1.1.273 Particular issues highlighted by local businesses are not the major motorway and rail links, which are generally seen as good, but access to urban areas across the County, including congestion in smaller areas such as Bedford and Leighton Buzzard. 1.1.274 Rural businesses also identified public transport problems as key to enterprise in rural areas, with problems being exacerbated by the removal of tax incentives to companies to provide transport to workers. Combined with a lack of nearby affordable housing for workers, especially in lower paid occupations, rural businesses may face real hurdles in recruiting employees where transport links are poor. 1.1.275 With transport issues highlighted as a major issue for businesses in urban and rural areas, as well as potential difficulties faced by part-time and low paid workers discussed above, it would appear that a major role for IiC programmes across Bedfordshire and Luton could be in supporting and developing public transport links for the most disadvantaged. 1.1.276 Clearly any IiC involvement will need to fit in with the current Bedfordshire and Luton Local Transport Plan and strategy, so further examination of what value IiC could add would be

86 Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005 and The Range and Scope of the Bedfordshire Rural Economy, Bedfordshire Rural Business Support, 2005. 87 Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, GO-SE, GO-East, GO-EM, March 2005.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 74 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. needed. However from discussion with Luton Transport Planning88, there is particular difficulty with contacting and engaging local businesses and the local chamber of commerce. Potential areas suitable for IiC support would be in helping build engagement with local businesses, and in identifying and working with those businesses employing groups from the most disadvantaged areas and communities. 1.1.277 A second major issue in physical infrastructure is suitable commercial space and offices, with the Sub-Regional Strategy identifying that “difficulties in achieving structural changes have held back growth in other centres, particularly Bedford … and Luton”89. The growth in retail and office space across Bedfordshire and Luton has been well below that of neighbouring areas over recent years90, presumably a factor in why the Sub-Regional Strategy identifies Bedford – Kempston as an urban priority area with support for Priory Park Innovation Centre and Bedford Enterprise Hub, as well as a pilot area for Business Improvement Districts. 1.1.278 Rural businesses also highlighted difficulty in finding suitable local business premises as a serious limiting factor to business start up or expansion processes. Typically, available properties were judged as either too expensive and / or inappropriate for small enterprise requirements, and many conversion schemes in particular were judged as simply too costly91. 1.1.279 Although regenerating the urban centres across Bedfordshire and Luton is likely to have a major impact on local enterprise and innovation across the entire sub-region, funding for the Sub-Regional Strategy is of a different magnitude to potential IiC resources, and it is not immediately apparent how to tie this in with the IiC agenda. One potential avenue would be helping ensure that the incoming businesses maximise use of the local workforce, working with businesses and local communities to match the skills base to the economic growth. This would link in with recommendations that BLEDP develop business training schemes in conjunction with the Learning and Skills Council to increase awareness of need for individual training schemes92.

8.8 Businesses and deprived areas 1.1.280 Recent studies have estimated that around £225 million per year is spent in the region on sustainable economic development programmes, excluding mainstream spending. This is made up from EEDA regeneration funds (£81 million per year), the National Lottery (£74 million per year), central government Area Based Initiatives (£17 million per year) and European programmes (£5 million per year)93. 1.1.281 33 shows deprivation levels across the four Districts against the strength of the economy94. The high levels of deprivation seen in Luton and Bedford translate into sizeable resources spent on Luton in particular, and to a lesser extent Bedford. Of these, Luton receives £37 per head of population per year through EEDA, £55 per head per annum from Area Based Initiatives (a major part of which will be the Marsh Farm New Deal for the Communities) and £24 per head per year of European funding. From the EEDA regeneration funding and ABI funding programmes, Luton receives more than twice as much per head as the next authority (Great Yarmouth). Bedford is also in the top ten Districts across the region in terms of resources received from government ABIs, Lottery spending and Community Fund spending. Table 33 Economic strength and deprivation levels Strong economy Weak economy 88 Discussions with Andrew Spencer, Team Leader Transportation Planning and Public Transport co- ordination, Luton Borough. 89 Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, GO-SE, GO-East, GO-EM, March 2005. 90 Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005. 91 The Range and Scope of the Bedfordshire Rural Economy, Bedfordshire Rural Business Support, 2005. 92 Businesses in Disadvantaged Areas, BLEDP,2004. 93 Urban and Rural Prioritisation in the East of England, EEDA, EERA, GO-East, 2002. 94 Although three of the four Districts are identified as strong economic performers in the context of the region, their scores are close to zero (with zero the average across the region), so are only just in the “strong economy” category, similarly South Bedfordshire is only just in the “weak economy” category.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 75 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. High deprivation levels Luton Bedford

Low deprivation levels Mid Bedfordshire South Bedfordshire

Source: Urban and Rural Prioritisation in the East of England, EEDA, EERA, GO-East, 2002 1.1.282 However, lottery and community funding across Luton show very low levels, below that of Bedford (and not even registered in the top 10 authorities across the region on either measure). This is likely to be a result of a number of factors, but indicates strongly that across Luton, social enterprises and other bodies likely to received funding under these schemes are not well developed, at least in terms of engaging with funding bodies. This is at slight variance with the Guild study on social enterprise in Bedfordshire and Luton, where most financial support was seen to be aimed at grant and funding applications, however it shows that there may be need for specific advice in the context of Lottery and Community Funding bids. 1.1.283 Providing support and advice to local groups in terms of lottery applications would seem an ideal arena for potential intervention and support from the IiC programme. The clear starting points would be to focus on specific community groups and social enterprises across Luton who may face issues such as language barriers in terms of making funding applications. Matching this to more detailed analysis of the social enterprises and support networks across Luton would be of real benefit.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 76 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix A Key Theme Recommendations

Employability “personal factors that impact upon people’s potential in the labour market, which can act as barriers to gaining and retaining employment and which can be directly improved through intervention” Enterprise and Innovation “business development factors that can act to reduce efficiency and productivity and therefore limit growth potential and sustainability” Liveability “socio-environmental factors that can act to disadvantage people and businesses irrespective of labour market conditions” Inclusion “personal and neighbourhood factors which can act to disadvantage people in the labour market but which are not necessarily forms of deprivation in their own right”

A.1 Introduction A.1.1 This Appendix reviews national, regional and local strategies and policies with a view to recommending a set of strategic priority themes for the Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities (IiC) Partnership. Four such themes are put forward for consideration by the IiC Steering Group (see box above).

A.2 National Strategies/Policies A.2.1 The Government’s central economic and social objectives are “to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment”95 whilst simultaneously “tackling the causes and consequences of poverty and social exclusion and…promoting a fairer and more inclusive society in which nobody is held back by disadvantage or lack of opportunity”96. A.2.2 There is clear evidence within the national literature that the Government’s strategies for meeting its economic and social objectives are centred on fostering increased levels of employment. Employment is seen as the means by which individuals can fulfil their own potential and increase their own standard of living whilst also contributing to the local and wider economies. A.2.3 There is, however, clear recognition that in order for individuals to find employment – and to subsequently retain employment – a number of barriers must be overcome. These barriers to obtaining and retaining employment can relate to the individual, the family or the local neighbourhood. A.2.4 Individual factors may include such things as age, sex, ethnic background, poor education and skills, and poor health and disability. Family factors may include such things as presence and number of children, presence of partner, and responsibility as a carer. Neighbourhood factors may include such things as poor housing and physical environment, poor access to housing and services, and high crime and anti-social behaviour. A.2.5 Each of these barriers reduces the likelihood of an individual obtaining employment, retaining employment, and subsequently progressing to improved employment. As such, each factor acts as a form of disadvantage in the labour market. Therefore, any strategy aimed at increasing people’s contribution to the economy and to society through increased employment must focus on tackling the multitude of factors that disadvantage people, both in the labour market and in society more broadly. A.2.6 While some of the factors mentioned above are forms of deprivation in their own right (for example, crime and poor housing affect people regardless of labour market involvement), others are more labour-market oriented (for example, having a young child is not a form of

95 Enterprise and economic opportunity in deprived areas: A consultation on proposals for a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, HM Treasury, Small Business Service and ODPM, 2005, p.1 96 (Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, ODPM, 2004, p.11)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 77 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. deprivation in its own right but it may become a source of negative discrimination in the labour market). Those that are forms of deprivation in their own right must be tackled directly whilst those that are specific to the labour market must be addressed through tackling the discrimination that accompanies them in the labour market. A.2.7 There is an appreciation within Government now that people can be disadvantaged in many different ways and that the negative effects of these various forms of deprivation can be cumulative. It is also accepted that certain people are at greater risk of experiencing ‘multiple deprivation’ than others and that multiply deprived people are often geographically concentrated within certain neighbourhoods. A.2.8 The problems identified above can be compounded by weak personal, family and community networks. ‘Social exclusion’ is an extension of multiple deprivation, covering factors listed above plus issues such as discrimination and family breakdown97. As for those factors contributing to multiple deprivation, the factors leading to social exclusion “are linked and mutually reinforcing so they can create a vicious cycle in people’s lives”98. Such cycles further reduce deprived people’s capacity to find employment, improve their skills, maintain their health, and contribute to a safe and clean environment. The Government recognised that in order to meet its objectives of sustained growth and employment and tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion, resources must be targeted at the needs of the more severely or multiply disadvantaged people, as “In many areas where progress has been made, those who have fewer or less severe problems have often been the ones to benefit from policies, leaving behind those who are relatively more disadvantaged”99. A.2.9 In Breaking the Cycle, by the Social Exclusion Unit, a number of causes and risks associated with poverty and social exclusion are defined100. These eight issues provide a good base from which to assess the literature on national, regional and local strategies and policies aimed at addressing the Government’s key economic and social objectives:  Poverty and low income  Being out of work and economic activity  Poor educational attainment and negative experiences of school  Poor mental or physical health  Family breakdown or disruption and poor parenting  Poor housing and homelessness  Crime and fear of crime  Living in a disadvantaged area A.2.10 The Government recognises that people on low incomes are at greatest risk of experiencing other forms of disadvantage and exclusion and at greatest risk of suffering multiple deprivation. The Government states that “People on low incomes should not have to suffer conditions and services that are failing and so different to from what the rest of the population receives”101. There is, therefore, an appreciation that the key means of achieving the Government’s objective must be through improving people’s financial status. However, it is also made clear that income deprivation and other forms of deprivation are often intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing. A.2.11 While recognising that income deprivation increases the likelihood of suffering additional forms of deprivation, the Government also highlights multiple deprivation as a major barrier to people escaping from income deprivation: “Multiple deprivation blocks the routes out of poverty, as having had a poor education or coming from an area with a bad reputation makes it harder to get a job”102. If left unchecked, income deprivation and multiple deprivation can 97 (Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, ODPM, 2004, p.3) 98 (Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, ODPM, 2004, p.3) 99 (Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, ODPM, 2004, p.6) 100 Breaking the Cycle, p.16 101 (A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan, Social Exclusion Unit, 2001, p.8) 102 (New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan, Social Exclusion Unit, 2001, p.17)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 78 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. therefore result in a vicious cycle from which an individual may have difficulty in breaking free. As noted above, this cycle does not have only a direct impact on the deprived individual, it also “deprives the economy of workers, customers, entrepreneurs and taxpayers, and costs society dear in terms of higher unemployment, poor health and high crime rates”103. A.2.12 In its Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report 2004 publication, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) clearly states that “for many, the best route out of poverty will be work”104. However, it also recognises that certain sections of the population are unable to work; either because they are too young, too old, or suffering from work-limiting illness. To achieve its goals of tackling poverty and social exclusion, the DWP has developed three life-cycle strategies:  Child poverty strategy  Working age strategy  Older people strategy A.2.13 The life-cycle approach recognises that in order to address the forms of disadvantage that lead to income deprivation and subsequently to multiple deprivation it is necessary to implement a continuum of support from birth through to death. Cutting across the three life- cycle strategies is a particular emphasis on people living in deprived areas. This emphasis on particular neighbourhoods shows an appreciation that such areas contain the highest concentrations of deprivation and therefore require more intensive support. A.2.14 The remainder of this section on national strategies and policies considers each of these stages in the life cycle separately and then gives particular consideration to area-based disadvantage.

Children and young people A.2.15 The objective of abolishing child poverty by 2020 is a joint strategy between HM Treasury and DWP. The motivation for addressing child poverty is set out in the Child Poverty Review by HM Treasury which states “an infant who…grows up in a poor family is less likely to stay on in school, or even to attend school regularly, less likely to get qualifications and go to college, more likely to get trapped in the worst job or no job at all, more likely to be trapped in a cycle of deprivation that is lifelong, unable to reach their full potential”105. There is therefore a clear recognition that to foster sustained growth in the economy requires a broader set of policies than simply attempting to get people of working age into paid employment; it is necessary to intervene to tackle poverty and deprivation at an early age so that young people have an increased chance of breaking the cycle and fulfilling their potential. A.2.16 Within the Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report 2004 publication, three main themes of aims are presented towards tackling child poverty:  Worklessness  Financial support  Breaking cycles of deprivation A.2.17 ‘Worklessness’ includes the aims of increasing childcare provision and encouraging flexible working environments. ‘Financial support’ includes aims of assisting families through the Child Tax Credit, Child Trust Fund and Child Support reform. ‘Breaking cycles of deprivation’ includes supporting early years intervention such as Sure Start and the Children’s Fund, improving educational opportunities in early years, primary and secondary education, and supporting young people through such means as Connexions, Education Maintenance Allowance and issues around teenage pregnancy A.2.18 The clear message from Opportunity for all is that in order to tackle child poverty it is necessary to (a) support parents and guardians in finding work - and continue to support

103 (New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan, Social Exclusion Unit, 2001, p.17) 104 (Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004, p.1) 105 (Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004, p.3)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 79 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. them as they work - so that they can support their children, and (b) support children by implementing a continuum of services from birth through to early adulthood. DWP’s child poverty strategy is based upon evidence collected and presented in the Child Poverty Review. A.2.19 The Child Poverty Review identifies three key themes for reducing child poverty. The review highlights the critical role of public services in supporting children and families and tackling the barriers to employment that lead to worklessness and low income:  Work for those who can and financial support for families  Tackling material deprivation  Improving life chances for poor children A.2.20 ‘Work for those who can and financial support for families’ addresses issues of disadvantage in the labour market. A variety of support mechanisms are identified to help disadvantaged parents find work and retain work. Three key groups of people are specified for special attention: lone parents, disabled people, and people from ethnic minorities. A number of factors are listed as acting as barriers to low employment amongst these groups and amongst the population more broadly:  Health problems  Low skills  Discrimination  Lack of support in the workplace  Problems accessing childcare  Other care responsibilities  Limited access to key public services such as transport A.2.21 The positive outcomes of employment are also regarded as being transferable across generations: “Employment offers each individual the chance to fulfil his or her full potential. It empowers people and builds self-respect, independence and confidence, and – by benefiting both individuals and families – it delivers these benefits across generations”106. A.2.22 ‘Tackling material deprivation’ includes issues such as homelessness, housing supply and housing decency, while also addressing the issue of financial inclusion, which covers such factors as access to financial services and affordable credit. A.2.23 ‘Improving life chances for poor children’ focuses specifically on services for children. Issues identified include:  Early years support  School education  Parenting  Health  Transport  Families at risk, child crime and anti-social behaviour107. A.2.24 The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has primary responsibility for early years support and school education, but it also has a role to play in improving parenting, health and transport, supporting families at risk, and reducing child crime and anti-social behaviour. Working in partnership with other government departments, the key objectives are “to help all children and young people stay safe, be healthy, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution to society and achieve economic well-being”108. A.2.25 Within the DfES Five year strategy for children and learners, education, training and skills are clearly recognised as vital factors in labour market opportunity. There is an understanding within the strategy that it is important to build employers much more closely into the process of designing and delivering education and training. Indeed, an overall objective of the strategy

106 Jobs and Enterprise in Deprived Areas, ODPM, 2004, p.13 107 Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004 108 Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Department for Education and Skills, 2004, p.13

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 80 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. is to ensure that “every young person – whatever route they take – is given the skills and experience that employers require”109. In appreciation of the importance of employers needs in shaping education and training programmes, the DfES has adopted the theme of ‘employability’. A.2.26 In the Government’s White Paper on 14-19 Education and Skills110 it sets out its strategy for both strengthening the secondary education system and for developing more vocational options for young people. A key element of the White Paper is ‘engaging all young people’. Emphasis is placed on helping all young people to gain either academic qualifications or employment-based training (i.e. apprenticeships) to give them a strong skill base and therefore improve their employability. A.2.27 The Learning and Skills Council further identifies ‘Skills’ as a major driver behind growth and employment, stating that “The evidence of a positive link between skills, earnings and productivity provides a central plank in any strategy to address the perceived weakness of the [UK] economy in terms of its relatively poor productivity compared with competitor countries111. ‘Skills’ are defined as “those characteristics or capabilities that allow people to enter and progress through the labour market”112. A.2.28 The various strategies referenced above demonstrate a clear understanding within Government that in order to give future generations the opportunity to reach their full potential it is necessary to offer a wide range of support to children and their families from birth through to adulthood.

People of working age A.2.29 The DWP’s strategy for tackling poverty in working age is based around creating employment opportunity for all, whilst supporting those people who are unable to work due to ill health or responsibility as a carer. Again, the fulfilment of personal potential through employment (or self-employment) is identified as a key goal. A.2.30 In 2003, HM Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) published a joint strategy entitled Full employment in every region113. This document set out the Government’s strategy to achieve full employment by specifically “tackling areas of disadvantage and concentrations of worklessness”114. There is an understanding within the document that despite experiencing considerable success in increasing employment and reducing unemployment at both national and regional levels, “the benefits of this improvement have not been felt by all groups or across all areas to the same degree, and, at local level, there remain severe concentrations of worklessness”115. A.2.31 The Full employment in every region strategy identifies employment as the main mechanism through which to tackle deprivation and social exclusion and to enable people to fulfil their potential. A key facilitator to achieving this goal was identified as improving levels of education, skills and training. The direct positive effects on the individual and the resulting positive effects on the economy of increased levels of education, skills and training are recognised: “The quantity and quality of skilled labour are important determinants of economic performance. Increasing the skills and qualification levels of the population increases the earning potential of individuals and the range of jobs they can do. In turn, an increasingly skilled, flexible workforce raises the productivity potential of the economy as firms produce a more diverse and better range of products and services”116.

109 Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Department for Education and Skills, 2004, p.70 110 14-19 Education and Skills DfES, 2005 111 Skills in England 2004 Learning and Skills Council, 2005, Vol 1, p.5 112 Skills in England 2004 Learning and Skills Council, 2005, Vol 1, p.3 113 (Full employment in every region HM Treasury and DWP , 2003) 114 (Full employment in every region HM Treasury and DWP , 2003, p.1) 115 (Full employment in every region HM Treasury and DWP , 2003, p.2) 116 (Full employment in every region HM Treasury and DWP , 2003)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 81 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. A.2.32 The strategy highlights a number of key priorities for action that need to be addressed in order to tackle the barriers to employment opportunity for all:  Living with multiple deprivation  People with health conditions or disabilities  Lone parents and workless households  Ethnic minorities  Those aged 50 and over  The low skilled  Those in low quality housing A.2.33 Being part of any of these groups increases the disadvantage experienced in the labour market and therefore subsequently increases the likelihood of income deprivation and other forms of deprivation. A.2.34 The Opportunity for all strategy also recognises that certain groups of working age people are disadvantaged in the labour market and that policies need to accommodate these groups if the objective of full employment opportunity for all is to be achieved. Gender is identified as a discriminator in the labour market, with the benefits of increasing female participation being concentrated in those households where the male partner is already in work. A further discriminator is identified as illness and disability, as “fewer than one in two working-age people [with health conditions or disabilities] are in employment”117. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are also recognised as being disadvantaged in the labour market, as are people living in areas of high multiple deprivation. A.2.35 With regard to people from ethnic minority backgrounds, the National Employment Panel study Enterprising People, Enterprising Places, reports that “There are significant variations between ethnic minority groups but, on average, there is a 15 percent gap in the employment rate of ethnic minorities (60%) and that of the overall population (at 75%); the employment rate is even lower for Bangladeshis (44%), Pakistanis (45%) and Black Africans (57%)”118. A.2.36 To improve employment opportunity amongst particular disadvantaged groups the DWP developed its New Deal programme. New Deal aims to give people claiming benefits the help and support they need to look for work, including training and job preparation. The programme contains a number of different strands:  New Deal for Young People (18 to 24)  New Deal 25 plus  New Deal 50 plus  New Deal for Disabled People  New Deal for Lone Parents  New Deal for Partners  New Deal: Self employed  New Deal for Musicians A.2.37 As noted above, in the context of the DWP’s objectives, skills are very important in the labour market as they are part of the ‘human capital’ that determines an individual’s ability to get a job, the wage they can command and their ability to progress over time. The DWP therefore recently announced a ‘New Deal for Skills’, which will focus specifically on tackling the long- standing barriers between welfare and workforce development. A.2.38 In the report by the National Employment Panel, Welfare to Workforce Development, ‘Basic Skills’ is identified as the most fundamental determinant of employability119. Indeed, the NEP states the “One third of the 5 million people on working age benefits lack basic skills. Some 40% on inactive benefits have no qualifications at all. This puts them at a disadvantage in the

117 Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004, p.57 118 Enterprising People Enterprising Places: Measures to increase ethnic minority employment and business growth, National Employment Panel, 2005, p.16 119 Welfare to Workforce Development, National Employment Panel, 2004, p.3

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 82 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. labour market where they are less likely to find work; less likely to find jobs that pay well; less likely to be hired by employers that train”120. A.2.39 In The Work Foundation’s report for DfES, Where are the Gaps?, ‘comprehensive lifelong learning’ is identified as the main requirement for sustained growth and employment. A strategy to develop comprehensive life-long learning should have four particular priorities: (1) raise labour market participation, (2) reduce unemployment, (3) accelerate technological change, and (4) enable people to work later in their careers121. A.2.40 In the Government White Paper, Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on in Work, there is explicit recognition of the importance of adopting a more demand-led approach to developing skills in the labour market122. There is also a focus on creating opportunities for people to help themselves. A.2.41 Health is recognised as a factor that also impacts on people’s employability. Equally, a person’s employment status can have a major impact on their health status. In the recent Government White Paper, Choosing Health, there is an appreciation that “Work, and the rewards it brings with it, allows full participation in our society. It also leads to better health, particularly mental health. On the other hand, being out of work leads to poorer health and a shorter life”123. A.2.42 In the UK, more people are now out of work due to work-limiting illness than are unemployed and actively seeking work. The likelihood of people with work-limiting illness leaving benefits and entering employment is much lower than the likelihood of unemployed people leaving benefits and entering employment124. Therefore, efforts to support people with work-limiting illness and offer suitable opportunities to work, if they are able to work, will have positive effects on the overall efficiency of the economy and will benefit the individuals themselves. A.2.43 The Choosing Health report summarises the advantages to individuals, employers and the Government of investment in health: “There are strong links between employment, individual health and the health of local communities…Income from employment increases the potential for people to make healthy choices; employees can benefit from being in a healthy workplace; for the employer, their workforce is their most important resource and society benefits from high employment and a fit and productive workforce”125.

Older people A.2.44 While children are at increased risk of suffering poverty and social exclusion, partly due to their inability to work, so too are people of pensionable age. The Opportunity for all strategy appreciates that, in addition to helping today’s pensioners who are suffering deprivation and exclusion, it is important to pro-actively encourage tomorrow’s pensioners to plan ahead for their retirement. A further priority is identified as enabling older people who choose to remain in work to do so. The extension of the working lifetime is seen to both benefit the older person individually and lead to greater contribution to the economy and society as a whole.

Area disadvantage A.2.45 As noted above, disadvantaged people tend to be concentrated geographically, so particular neighbourhoods contain high levels of deprivation and multiple deprivation. While multiply deprived areas may contain a greater number of and problems and more severe problems,

120 Welfare to Workforce Development, National Employment Panel, 2004, p.11 121 Where are the Gaps: An analysis of UK Skills and Education Strategy in the light of the Kok Group and European Commission Midterm Review of the Lisbon Goals, The Work Foundation, 2005, p.16. 122 Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work DfES 2005– part 2, p.3 123 Choosing Health: Making healthier choices easier, Department of Health, 2004, p.153 124 Changing Fortunes : geographic patterns of Income Deprivation in the late 1990s DTLR and SEU 2001, Growing together or growing apart? Geographic patterns of Income Support and income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants in England between 1995 and 2000 Martin Evans et al 2002, National Evaluation NDC NRU, 2004) 125 Choosing Health: Making healthier choices easier, Department of Health, 2004, p.171

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 83 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. they also hold the greatest potential for improvement. Thus there is an increasing emphasis within Government on focusing resources on the most severely deprived neighbourhoods and on developing strategies and policies specifically aimed at tackling the problems of such areas. A.2.46 Multiply deprived neighbourhoods are typically characterised by high levels of income deprivation. With employment being the primary means of alleviating income deprivation and therefore enabling people to reduce the other forms of deprivation afflicting their lives, tackling worklessness is often a key priority for improving conditions in multiply deprived areas. A.2.47 The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 for England (IMD 2004) represents the Government’s primary means of identifying those neighbourhoods containing the most extreme levels of multiple deprivation. The IMD 2004 is a composite measure formed by combining seven key dimensions or ‘domains’ of deprivation that impact on people’s quality of life:  Income deprivation  Employment deprivation  Health deprivation and disability  Education, training and skills deprivation  Barriers to housing and services  Physical environment  Crime A.2.48 Together, these seven domains of deprivation, the IMD 2004, and a number of associated indicators, form the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004). The two domains allocated the greatest weights in the overall IMD 2004 are income deprivation and employment deprivation, on the basis that income is recognised as the key driver of multiple deprivation and employment is identified as the key mechanism through which to alleviate income deprivation. A.2.49 The ID 2004 are a major part of the evidence base for the Government’s National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (NSNR), coordinated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). The NSNR aims to “narrow the gap on [key] measures between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country”126. These key measures are identified as:  Lower worklessness  Lower crime  Better health  Better skills  Better housing and physical environment A.2.50 There is clearly considerable overlap between the objectives of the NSNR and the domains of deprivation measured in the ID 2004. However, income deprivation is notable for its absence as a theme in the NSNR. This is likely because, whilst income deprivation is the key driver of multiple deprivation and therefore must be an integral part of any measurement of multiple deprivation, the Government’s strategy to reduce multiple deprivation focuses on enabling those who can work to find work while supporting those people who are unable to work. In other words, the strategy regards a reduction in income deprivation as a positive result generated by increased employment which is itself a positive result generated by reductions in other forms of disadvantage. A.2.51 The Opportunity for all strategy also places considerable emphasis on the tackling geographical concentrations of worklessness, deprivation and exclusion. As with other Government policies and strategies, there is an appreciation of the importance of involving local communities in the processing of identifying and combating local problems127. Three overarching themes are highlighted:

126 (A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan, Social Exclusion Unit, 2001, p.17) 127 Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004, p.91

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 84 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Economy  Location  A better environment A.2.52 These three themes cover the issues of employability, enterprise and investment, transport and infrastructure, housing and the physical environment, and crime and disorder. To complement the people-based New Deal schemes referenced above, the Government has launched a ‘New Deal for Communities’ aimed specifically at addressing the key NSNR objectives in 39 of the country’s most deprived neighbourhoods128. A.2.53 In the Social Exclusion Unit’s recent publication, Jobs and Enterprise in Deprived Areas, the extreme inequalities in concentrations of worklessness are identified: “worklessness is 23 times higher in the worst tenth of streets than in the best. 30 per cent of adults are out of work and on benefits in the worst tenth compared to just 1.3 per cent in the best”129. The research also highlights the potential problem of ‘area effects’. Area effects are said to refer to “the effects (independent of a person’s characteristics) that living in an area with many other people out of work has on individuals’ outcomes – such as their chances of getting a job or leaving poverty”. A.2.54 The Social Exclusion Unit identifies a number of barriers that people living in concentrations of high worklessness are likely to experience130:  Poor health  Lack of qualifications and skills  Dependent children  Caring responsibilities  Poor Transport A.2.55 Also identified as characteristics that can act as barriers in the labour market are ‘household composition’, ‘ethnicity’ and ‘religion’. A.2.56 Poor transport and/or geographical isolation can add significantly to other forms of deprivation experienced, with regard to both labour market participation and social inclusion more broadly. People particularly at risk of being isolated served by poor transport links are those living in rural communities. In the Government’s Opportunity for all strategy, deprived rural communities are identified as requiring slightly different interventions to urban neighbourhoods due to the dispersed nature of rural deprivation131. A.2.57 In the joint report by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and the ODPM, Improving the prospects of people living in areas of multiple deprivation in England, three key themes are identified as routes to tackling poverty and deprivation132:  Revitalising local economies  Improving housing and the local environment  Stabilising communities  Improving the delivery of public services and targeted support to deprived areas A.2.58 ‘Revitalising local economies’ encompasses the removal of both supply side barriers to employment (e.g. improving skills, employment support, improved childcare, improved mobility and access to transport etc) and demand side barriers (e.g. increasing private sector investment, improving links between businesses and deprived areas, increasing enterprise etc). ‘Improving housing and the local environment’ encompasses improvements to housing (and especially social housing) and improvements to housing allocation methods. ‘Stabilising communities’ involves tackling crime and disorder, poor local environments, drugs, alcohol and provision for young people. ‘Improving the delivery of public services and targeted

128 National Evaluation NDC NRU, 2004 129 Jobs and Enterprise in Deprived Areas, ODPM, 2004, p.12 130 Jobs and Enterprise in Deprived Areas, ODPM, 2004, p.25 131 Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004, p.92 132 Improving the prospects for people living in areas of multiple deprivation in England, Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, 2005, p.74

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 85 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. support to deprived areas’ includes using neighbourhood management approaches to deal with poor liveability. A.2.59 Tackling poverty and disadvantage may increase people’s employability (i.e. increase the supply of employable people in an area), if there are no local jobs to take (i.e. if there is no demand), then unemployment will remain high. It is therefore necessary to remove barriers to enterprise in deprived areas. In the report, Enterprise and economic development in deprived areas, jointly produced by HM Treasury, the Small Business Service and the ODPM, the key objective is identified as “releasing the productivity and economic potential of our most deprived areas through enterprise and investment – thereby boosting local incomes and employment opportunities”133. This objective is supported by three outcomes:  To increase total entrepreneurial activity among the population in deprived local areas  To support the sustainable growth – and reduce the failure rate – of locally-owned businesses in deprived areas  To attract appropriate inward investment and franchising into deprived areas, making use of local labour resources A.2.60 Six barriers to increased enterprise in deprived areas are identified134:  Access to finance  Business support and advice  Enterprise culture  Institutional and administrative barriers  The business environment A.2.61 There is recognition that deprived areas often hold considerable problems for enterprise but that these areas also hold the greatest potential for improvement: “social attitudes, the business environment and specific market failures can present significantly higher barriers to enterprise within England’s most deprived area. Yet it is often the case that it is in these areas that the benefits of enterprise may have the greatest social impact and where there is economic potential lying unrealised”135. A.2.62 The links between enterprise, productivity, economic gain and social inclusion are further recognised in the Government’s Productivity in the UK reports. Here, four major themes are identified136:  Enterprise and innovation  Competition  Investment  Skills A.2.63 Separate Productivity in the UK reports focus on national productivity, regional productivity and local productivity. The last of these looks at analysing economic performance at the local level and identifies a number of key themes:  Income and living standards  Employment  Unemployment  Productivity  Skills  Investment

133 Enterprise and economic opportunity in deprived areas: A consultation on proposals for a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, HM Treasury, Small Business Service and ODPM, 2005, p.3 134 Enterprise and economic opportunity in deprived areas: A consultation on proposals for a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, HM Treasury, Small Business Service and ODPM, 2005, p.29 135 Enterprise and economic opportunity in deprived areas: A consultation on proposals for a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, HM Treasury, Small Business Service and ODPM, 2005, p.28 136 Productivity in the UK: The Regional Dimension HM Treasury and Department for Trade and Industry, 2001

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 86 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Enterprise  Competition  Innovation A.2.64 These nine factors are seen as the key themes requiring attention in order to foster high and sustained levels of economic growth in local areas. A.2.65 The role of social enterprise in strengthening the economy and society is well recognised. The Department Trade and Industry has recently published a national social enterprise strategy137 in which the benefits of social enterprise are set out, along with the barriers facing such operations and the priorities for removing these barriers. It is stated that successful social enterprises can play an important role in helping to deliver the government’s key policy objectives by:  Helping to drive up productivity and competitiveness  Contributing to socially inclusive wealth creation  Enabling individuals and communities to work towards regenerating their local neighbourhoods  Showing new ways to deliver and reform public services  Helping to develop an inclusive society and active citizenship A.2.66 It is clear, therefore, that social enterprises are regarded as valuable assets to both the economy and to society and can be vehicles for delivering change in all areas of the country.

Summary of national strategies and policies A.2.67 In summary, there is a great deal of literature evidencing the Government’s appreciation of the need to tackle the array of barriers that act to disadvantage people in the labour market and in society more broadly. There are barriers relating to individuals, families and neighbourhoods. There are supply-side barriers to increased employment but also demand- side barriers, and often these two forms of labour market disadvantage are manifested in the same local areas, leading to cumulative deprivation. The following sections build upon the national literature by assessing strategies and policies in the East of England Region and in sub-regional areas within the region.

A.3 Regional Strategies/Policies A.3.1 There are a number of key agencies and organisations operating at regional level across the East of England. As was observed in the national literature, some regional bodies have the specific tasks of improving economic development and reducing deprivation and exclusion whilst others address these issues indirectly. A.3.2 The Government Office for the East of England (GO-East)138, the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA)139 and the East of England Development Agency (EEDA)140 work closely together with the aim of securing sustainable economic growth and regeneration for the East of England region.

137 Social Enterprise: a strategy for success, Department of Trade and Industry, 2002 138 The Government Office for the East of England (GO-East) is the Government’s vehicle for devolving centralised strategies to the regions. It brings together into a single operation the varied regional activities of a range of Government departments with the aim of making the region a better place to live and work in. 139 The East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) exists to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of the region. It consists of a partnership of elected representatives from the 54 local authorities in the East of England and appointed representatives from social, economic and environmental interests (Community Stakeholders). 140 The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) is a government-funded organisation sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). It is one of nine regional development agencies (RDAs) created in 1999 to transform England’s regions through sustainable economic development.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 87 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. A.3.3 In its regional economic strategy, A Shared Vision, EEDA and its partners set out their priorities for achieving the central economic goals of the region. A number of key themes are identified141:  Skills  Entrepreneurship  Innovation, science, technology and research  High quality places  Social inclusion  International gateways and transport corridors  A leading information society  Efficient use of resources A.3.4 These priorities address both supply-side and demand side barriers to increased and sustained growth and employment. There is clearly a high degree of synergy between these regional priorities and the national priorities reviewed in the previous section. A.3.5 The regional economic strategy recognises that the East of England has a number of attributes that must be exploited if the region is to fully maximise its economic and social potential. However, it is also recognised that a number of barriers exist to achieving the stated objectives and that these must be addressed in parallel to the exploitation of positive attributes. A.3.6 Strong economic growth and low unemployment over recent decades are recognised as major strengths of the East of England Region. However, there is an appreciation that the region’s skills provision needs to be more responsive to business needs, young people must be offered wider career choices and greater flexibility in vocational qualifications, and stronger links between business and education must be developed. Specific attention is afforded to deprived areas as a source of untapped potential growth. These assertions fit within the recommended theme of employability as they relate to improving people’s labour market potential, especially for those living in areas of disadvantage and multiple deprivation. A.3.7 A strong focus on research and development (R&D) in the East of England region is identified as a key attribute, with the region exhibiting a higher proportion of regional ‘gross value added’ spent on R&D than any other region, a higher proportion of employees engaged in R&D than any other region, and research strengths in many sectors. However, the proportion of young people in the region entering university is well below the national average and the region is a net exporter of undergraduates and graduates to other regions. This net out migration of highly qualified and skilled people may act as a contributory factor to the recognised shortage of higher level business skills in the region142. These factors suggest that, although levels of enterprise and innovation are high in the region, efforts should be focused on supporting local people to maximise their potential and encouraging them to remain within the region rather than migrate out. These statements support the recommended theme of enterprise and innovation as they relate to the managerial and technical leadership and entrepreneurship required to develop a strong demand for labour. A.3.8 A further key attribute of the East of England region is its proximity to London and its air and sea port capacity. There is a recognition that local businesses need support in order to exploit these sources of market access and that the region’s transport infrastructure must be developed to enable growth to continue. Such issues also fit under the theme of enterprise and innovation as they relate to the removal of barriers to market exploitation. Also fitting under this recommended theme is the need to raise business knowledge about developments in information and communications technology. Such developments can facilitate both enhanced R&D and better and more efficient use to extended markets. The efficient use of resources and the development of environmentally sustainable economic practices also contribute to this theme as the strategy stresses that sustainability must be a key feature of economic and employment growth. 141 Shared Vision: The regional economic strategy for the East of England, EEDA, 2004 142 Shared Vision: The regional economic strategy for the East of England, EEDA, 2004: National Policy Makers supplement

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 88 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. A.3.9 In addition to addressing the transport infrastructure of the region to enable more efficient transfer of labour, goods and services, a number of other physical and socio-environmental factors can act as either bridges or barriers to growth and employment. People seldom want to live or work and businesses seldom want to operate in areas of poor physical environment or high crime and disorder. Such factors act to discourage business start up and to disadvantage residents living in areas suffering these problems. These issues fit within the theme of liveability as they reduce people’s quality of life both in terms of labour market disadvantage and in the broader sense. A.3.10 Population growth in the East of England is higher than the national average which generates a greater potential labour force and greater potential local markets. However, the lack of affordable housing in the region has implications for the sustainability of this growth, as key workers often experience problems in accessing owner-occupation in areas close to their place of work. Difficulty in purchasing affordable homes is a form of deprivation affecting many people, but especially those on low incomes. Therefore, this issue also fits neatly under the suggested theme of liveability due to its impact on people’s ability to live in suitable neighbourhoods. A.3.11 Throughout the strategy there is a recognition that despite being relatively less deprived compared to other regions, there remain pockets of deprivation and multiple deprivation scattered across the East of England region. As noted in the national literature review above, people living in areas of multiple deprivation often experience a number of different forms of disadvantage which can have cumulative negative effect on people’s quality of life. Multiple deprivation can lead to exclusion from the labour market and from society more broadly. Certain population groups are identified as being at particular risk of suffer social exclusion, and the strategy highlights these groups for specific consideration. Young people, disabled people, the over 50s, women and carers are identified as those most at risk of labour market isolation. People in rural areas are also highlighted as potentially experiencing geographical isolation from labour markets and broader social networks. People of ethnic minority backgrounds are another group at risk of employment disadvantage and social exclusion. The strategy advocates the promotion of equality and diversity across the region, and these issues thus fit well under the recommended theme of inclusion. A.3.12 In summary, the regional economic strategy recognises the importance of tackling both the supply-side and demand-side barriers to labour market potential as well as the need to focus on particular disadvantaged neighbourhoods and population groups. The priorities identified within the strategy fit neatly within the recommended themes of employability; enterprise and innovation; liveability; and inclusion. A.3.13 The regional economic strategy is one of a number of regional strategies in operation (or in development) across the East of England region which together constitute the Integrated Regional Strategy:  regional economic strategy143  regional spatial strategy144  regional housing strategy145  regional environmental strategy146  regional social strategy147  regional cultural strategy148

143 Shared Vision: The regional economic strategy for the East of England, EEDA, 2004 144 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004 145 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004 146 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004 147 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 89 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  regional health strategy149 A.3.14 In the draft regional spatial strategy, titled the East of England Plan, EERA sets out a draft statutory framework to guide local authorities in their drawing up of more detailed local development plans and local transport plans for their areas150. The vision statement of the report states “The spatial planning vision for the East of England is to sustain and improve the quality of life for all people who live in, work in, or visit the region, by developing a more sustainable, prosperous and outward-looking region, while respecting its diversity and enhancing its assets”151. A.3.15 The regional spatial strategy was aligned with the regional economic strategy to ensure that the two worked in synergy to support business growth and development in the East of England. The spatial strategy aims to facilitate the physical infrastructure that is required to enable businesses to start up and be sustainable. It addresses issues such as: human resource development, which would fall under the suggested theme of employability; provision of strategic employment sites, approach to employment land distribution, facilitation of competition clusters, development of regional transport, and environmental sustainability, all of which would fall under the suggested theme of enterprise and innovation; housing provision, with particular emphasis on affordable housing, which would fall under the recommended theme of liveability; and cultural development and awareness, which would fall under the theme of inclusion. In summary, therefore, the regional spatial strategy addresses many of the physical environment needs of economic growth and increased employment, and links in closely with the regional economic strategy. A.3.16 The regional social strategy sets out the objectives and the means for achieving a fair and inclusive society in the East of England. The strategy is structured under eight broad headings152:  To tackle poverty and reduce income inequalities  To promote access to work, tackle low pay and improve conditions of work  To improve the life chances of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and support vulnerable young people in the transition to adulthood  To improve the life chances of adults through earning and skills development  To support development of sustainable communities  To improve access to services, especially for disadvantaged groups  To develop social networks, community assets and promote community cohesion A.3.17 The objectives of tackling poverty and reducing income inequalities may be regarded as the ‘end results’ that are brought about by addressing the other issues. Promoting access to work and improving the life chances of children and adults through cross-cutting support, including education and training, fit well under the recommended key theme of employability, while tackling low pay and improving work conditions can be brought about by investment in enterprise and innovation. The development of sustainable communities is another cross- cutting issue, but has particular resonance with the suggested theme of liveability, especially concerning the provision of affordable housing. Finally, the improvement of access to services and development of social networks and community cohesion, especially in deprived areas and for disadvantaged groups, fits neatly under the recommended theme of inclusion. A.3.18 The regional spatial strategy proceeds to identify eight key barriers to escaping poverty and social exclusion through work:  Caring responsibilities

148 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004 149 forthcoming 150 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004 151 East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004, p.11 152 Regional Social Strategy, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 90 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Quality of work and low pay  Access to transport  Sickness or disability  Availability of childcare  A lack of skills and qualifications  English language profligacy  Discrimination A.3.19 These eight barriers can be categorised under the four recommended theme headings. Sickness or disability, lack of education and qualifications and English language profligacy can all be regarded as factors in a person’s employability. Quality of work and level of pay are issues relating to enterprise and innovation as they influence the demand for labour. Access to transport, caring responsibilities, availability of childcare and discrimination are all factors relating to inclusion as they present barriers to accessing potential employment. A.3.20 It is clear that the priorities highlighted within the various regional strategies often overlap and are often complementary. This shows an appreciation of the intrinsic links between these key themes and the importance of taking a holistic approach to achieving the region’s economic and social goals. A.3.21 In addition to the regional strategies detailed above, there exists a sizeable body of further regional literature which has relevance to the goals of achieving and sustaining economic growth and social equity. One such strategy is the East of England Framework for Employment Skills Action (FRESA), published by EEDA in collaboration with the East of England Observatory153. Twenty-one key issues are identified as requiring action, and these are grouped into priority bands: top, high, medium, low. A.3.22 The issues regarded as being of top priority largely relate to employability (increasing participation in higher education; skills for employability; workforce development; and young people and career choices) but also include an element of enterprise and innovation (response to redundancies). A.3.23 Those issues regarded as being high priority have a wider scope, including employability (future labour force; higher level skills; and under-exploited sources of labour), enterprise and innovation (increase the take-up of training by small and medium-sized enterprises; inward investment; and sector skills), and liveability (impact of housing on skills shortages). A.3.24 Issues regarded as being medium priority also cover a broad scope, including employability (increasing employment rates; labour market mismatches; access to learning and ICT), enterprise and innovation (business investment; enterprise; ICT; innovation), and inclusion (access to ICT; aging workforce). The single issue regarded as being of low priority is migration, which is a cross-cutting issue that can fit into all of the four recommended themes. A.3.25 In summary, the FRESA document shows an appreciation of the varied issues impacting upon the region’s employment and growth and prioritises these issues for action. It is notable that of the top priority issues, five out of six fall under the theme of employability while the other falls under enterprise and innovation. This clearly indicates that the FRESA strategy sees the supply-side element of the labour market to be the most important to target. A.3.26 The Regional Centre of Excellence for Regeneration, Renewal and Renaissance in the East of England aims to facilitate the physical renewal of places in a way that fosters and sustains communities, by improving skills, identifying and sharing best practice, and using information in a way that can also inform future policy154. Its primary role is in achieving environmental improvement, and thus improved liveability, which will enable the economy and society to grow in a sustainable manner.

153 East of England Observatory website http://www.regionalobservatories.org.uk/east.html 154 Business Plan East of England Regional Centre of Excellence for Regeneration, Renewal and Renaissance 2004, p.1

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 91 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. A.3.27 Liveability is the key theme of the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan. The plan is particularly relevant to the East of England as it addresses the issue of housing availability, and particularly access to affordable housing. The aim is to offer “The home you want, in the place you want it”155. A.3.28 Housing is a key feature of the sustainable communities strategies. The Regional Housing Strategy identifies a number of challenges facing the East of England Region in terms of housing stresses, including: high and rising house prices; shortages of accommodation for Key Workers; inability of those on low incomes to rent or buy a house; pockets of deprivation masked by surrounding areas of relative affluence; homelessness; and even some pockets of low demand. Each of these issues may be regarded as contributing to liveability as each impact on people’s willingness and ability to live in particular neighbourhoods156. A.3.29 Within the Regional Housing Strategy, specific consideration is given to the problems of access to housing in rural areas157. The issues of access to housing and to services more broadly are often identified as being particularly problematic in rural areas. Whilst living in rural areas is clearly not a form of deprivation in its own right, the problems of geographical access to services can certainly act to disadvantage people in the labour market (i.e. inclusion) whilst access to affordable housing in rural areas can be a problem of liveability. A.3.30 In the report by the New Policy Institute for the Countryside Agency, Indicators of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Rural England: 2002, a number of key indicators are presented under the life cycle headings of children, young adults, working age adults and older people, plus a section focusing on rural communities158. In addition to looking at measures of low income, the report selects indicators of wider social deprivation and exclusion. These, again, can be categorised into the four recommended theme headings. A.3.31 The New Policy Institute supplemented the national level report with a separate document focusing specifically on rural communities in the East of England159. Here, the issue of low income is accompanied by problems of employability (poor educational attainment and ill health), enterprise and innovation (lack of work and low pay), liveability (poor housing and crime) and inclusion (availability of services).

Summary of regional strategies and policies A.3.32 In summary, there is a high degree of synergy between the regional strategies and policies reviewed here and the national literature reviewed in the preceding section. On the whole, the regional documentation takes the national priorities and tailors them to the particular attributes of the East of England Region and the particular problems of the region. It is clear, however, that the four recommended themes of employability, enterprise and innovation, liveability and inclusion are all addressed by the regional strategies and policies.

155 Creating Sustainable Communities in the East of England, ODPM, 2005, p.7 156 Regional Housing Strategy 2003-2006, East of England Regional Housing Forum, p.10 157 Regional Housing Strategy 2003-2006, East of England Regional Housing Forum, p.17 158 Indicators of poverty and social exclusion in rural England: 2002, New Policy Institute, 2002 159 Poverty and Social Exclusion in rural East of England, New Policy Institute, 2004

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 92 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. A.4 Local Strategies and plans A.4.1 The Bedfordshire & Luton Economic Partnership Joint Economic Development Strategy sets out the vision for the area160. A primary aim is to foster successful businesses providing sufficient jobs of a range, quality and income for all local people seeking work. In other words, there is recognition of the importance of enterprise and innovation in generating and sustaining economic growth and stability. Also key to sustainability is the adoption of environmentally sound business practices. Employability is also highlighted as a key factor, with the goal being to develop a quality education and training infrastructure equipping local people with the skills required to obtain satisfying work and developing an increasingly skilled workforce that is satisfying to employers. In terms of liveability and inclusion, transport, cultural, social and other support services that add to the area’s attractiveness and enable all local communities to participate are identified as being vital to sustainability. A.4.2 In the Bedfordshire County Council Community Plan 2003-2013, a broad range of economic, social and environment factors are highlighted as long-term priorities for the area161. Issues of liveability include the promotion of community safety, the provision of suitable housing, improvements to the environment, and the creation of better transport networks. Employability also features strongly, with improvements to health and opportunities for education and skills being highlighted as key issues. The importance of strengthening the economy through business development is further identified as a major aim, thus demonstrating an appreciation of the role that enterprise and innovation plays in sustainable development. The importance of inclusion of all sectors of society and geographical areas is also highlighted as underpinning the entire strategy. A.4.3 At sub-county level, both the Bedford Community Plan162 and the Mid Bedfordshire Community Plan163 adopt the same priorities as identified within the Bedfordshire County Council Community Plan 2003-2013. This shows an appreciation of the importance of synergy across different administrative levels of strategy and policy making. A.4.4 The South Bedfordshire Council Plan164 also exhibits a high degree of synergy with the County Council plan. Liveability is identified as a key goal, with specific objectives including the creation of a safer district, where there is less crime and less fear of crime, and a cleaner and more valued district, where people have a pride in where they live, and providing more housing opportunities in the district thereby supporting those in need today and planning for the future. Also falling under the heading of liveability is the objective of creating greater opportunities for leisure activities, thus increasing the attributes of an area and increasing people’s willingness to move to and remain in an area. The importance of developing enterprise and innovation in order to create greater opportunities for employment is also stated as a major goal. One element of enterprise and innovation is the removal of administrative barriers to business start up and operation. The plan sets out the aim of increasing the management and efficiency of the council thereby supporting businesses and supporting residents. A.4.5 Within the Luton Community Strategy165, the aim of developing a dynamic and creative town is identified as a key goal, thus showing an appreciation of the role of enterprise and innovation in sustainable community development. The need to simultaneously increase the employability of residents in order to maximise their potential is demonstrated in the key aims of improving learning, skills, employment history and health. The strategy recognises that in order to keep local skilled people in the area and attract new inward migration of skilled people the council must develop the liveability, such as reducing crime, improving the quality of the local physical environment and improving transport. Access to services is also highlighted as crucial for ensuring inclusion of all population groups and neighbourhoods.

160 Joint Economic Development Strategy, The Bedfordshire & Luton Economic Partnership 161 Community Plan 2003-2013, Bedfordshire County Council 162 Bedford Community Plan, Bedford Borough Council 163 Mid Bedfordshire Community Plan, Mid Bedfordshire District Council 164 South Bedfordshire Plan, South Bedfordshire District Council 165 Luton Borough Community Strategy. Luton Borough Council

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 93 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. A.4.6 Neighbourhood regeneration in Bedfordshire is afforded specific attention in the Bedfordshire County Council Regeneration Annual Report. Within this document,  Community regeneration  Economic development  Sustainable business  Tourism  External funding A.4.7 Deprived people and communities in Bedford are afforded specific attention in the Bedford Anti-poverty Strategy166. Here, particular groups of vulnerable people are identified for targeting interventions. Like observed in the DWP’s Opportunity for All strategy discussed above, this local strategy partly adopts a life-cycle approach. Children and young people, people of working age (especially those who are unemployed), and older people are considered separately. These age groups are accompanied by specific consideration of people of Black and ethnic minority background.

Summary of local strategies and policies A.4.8 In summary, the local strategies and policies discussed here tend to adhere to the general principals adopted in the national and regional documentation, but also tend to tailor the guidance to the local problems and local needs of the particular local areas. There is recognition of the importance of adopting a holistic approach to tacking the barriers to sustained economic growth and employment. The key priorities that form the substance of the local strategies and policies do support the four recommended themes of employability, enterprise and innovation, liveability and inclusion.

166 Bedford Anti-Poverty Strategy, Bedford Borough Council

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 94 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix B Maps

Reading the maps in this report

Areas and boundaries The maps in this report are based on the 2003 ward definitions - these are the same ward definitions on which the 2001 Census data is released. Older ward boundaries may not be the same, although the Districts have not changed since 1998. This means that the wards shown in the maps in this report may not be the same as the wards in other reports, such as those used in the 1991 Census or the Indices of Deprivation 2000. Even where a ward has the same name it may not have the same boundaries – sometimes the shape of the ward has changed, but the name stays the same. Because they are not the same size, wards that have changed are hard to compare between different points in time. In addition, some maps show information by Census Super Output Areas, which are smaller than wards. Only some information is available for these areas, for example 2001 Census data and the Indices of Deprivation 2004. For more information on the different types of area see E.

Area size and area information The maps show the areas as they are geographically, so some areas are much larger than others. But this does not show how many people live there, and it does not reflect any figures. For example, one very small ward could contain a large number of residents, by contrast a much larger ward may have only a small number of residents. Area information such as proportion of older people, or the proportion of children living in low income households, is represented by the colour that the area is shaded on the map, but not by the size of the area. Typically rural areas, with lower population densities, are larger than urban wards.

Colour Coding The maps throughout the report are colour coded, that is, each area is shaded with a different colour which represents the information being presented. The map colours range from dark blue, for areas which have the highest or “most deprived” proportions for the information being shown, to light yellow for areas with the lowest or “least deprived” proportions 167. In every map the areas are grouped into ‘deciles’, or 10% groups. Each indicator is mapped in a number ways (each producing a separate map), depending on how the 10% groups are defined:  Based on the “national decile” distribution, where the 10% decile groups are calculated across all of the areas in England  Based on the “regional decile” distribution, where the 10% decile groups are calculated across the areas in the East of England region  Based on the “Bedfordshire and Luton” distribution, where the 10% decile groups are calculated across all of the areas in Bedfordshire and Luton. The map title and map key show which of these distributions is shown, additionally the map title shows the information being mapped and at what geographical area the data is mapped across (wards or Super Output Areas).

167 There are certain exceptions, for example maps showing the proportions of pupils achieving five or more GCSE passes graded A*-C show the areas with the lowest levels of such passes shaded blue, i.e. those areas with highest levels of educational deprivation on this measure.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 95 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 96 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 97 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 98 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 99 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 100 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 101 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 102 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 103 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 104 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 105 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 106 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 107 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 108 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 109 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 110 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 111 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 112 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 113 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 114 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 115 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 116 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 117 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 118 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix C Dataset definitions

The Government and other agencies are in the process of developing and releasing a wealth of small area statistics. Government sources releasing data include Department for Work and Pensions, Home Office; Department of Health; Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, Countryside Agency; National Assembly for Wales; Office for National Statistics; Census 2001; Valuation Office Agency; and the Land Registry. Much of the information is available through the Office for National Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics website (http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/) and / or NOMIS Labour Market statistics website (http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/). In addition, OCSI obtains data directly from a number of sources, including the Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills, and the Department for Work and Pensions.

Data sources by theme The data sources listed here are available at small area level, either ward level, Census Output Area level or Census Super Output level. See the data descriptions by source below for details at which small area levels the information is released. Where relevant, datasets may be shown in more than one theme.

Population Structure  Population Counts (Census 2001; Mid Year Estimates)  Small-Area Population Estimates (OCSI Derived Statistics)  Age (Census 2001)  Gender (Census 2001)  Ethnicity (Census 2001)  Population Density (Census 2001)

Multiple deprivation  Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ODPM 2004)

Worklessness  ID 2004 Employment Domain (ODPM 2004)  Jobseeker’s Allowance Claimants (DWP)  Incapacity Benefit Claimants (DWP)  Severe Disablement Allowance Claimants (DWP)  Worklessness Counts and Rates (OCSI Derived Statistics)

Living on a low income  ID 2004 Income Domain (ODPM 2004)  Jobseeker’s Allowance Income-based Claimants (DWP)  Income Support Claimants (DWP)  Income Deprived Counts and Rates (OCSI Derived Statistics)

Children living in low income households  ID 2004 Income Deprivation Affecting Children (ODPM 2004)  Income Support Claimants (DWP)  Jobseeker’s Allowance Income-based Claimants (DWP)  Child Benefit Claimants (DWP)  Children Living in Low Income Households Counts and Rates (OCSI Derived Statistics)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 119 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Health, sickness and disability  ID 2004 Health Deprivation and Disability Domain (ODPM 2004)  Attendance Allowance Claimants (DWP)  Disability Living Allowance Claimants (DWP)  Permanently Sick and Disabled (Census 2001)  Unpaid Carers (Census 2001)  Limiting Long-Term Illness (Census 2001)  People in “Not Good Health” (Census 2001)  People Needing Care (OCSI Derived Statistics)  People Needing Mobility Assistance (OCSI Derived Statistics)

Education and skills  ID 2004 Education Skills and Training Domain (ODPM 2004)  Pupils Achieving 5 or more A*-C GCSE Levels (Pupil Level Annual School Census PLASC, DFES)  Pupils Eligible for Free School Meals (Pupil Level Annual School Census PLASC, DFES)  Child Benefit Claimants (DWP)  Adults with No Qualifications (Census 2001)  Staying on at School Estimated Counts and Rates (OCSI Derived Statistics)

Housing and households  Overcrowded Households (Census 2001)  Households Lacking Amenities (Census 2001)  Households Lacking Central Heating (Census 2001)  Social Rented Households (Census 2001)  Household Type (Census 2001)  Empty Households (Census 2001)

Crime  ID 2004 Crime and Disorder Domain (ODPM 2004)  Recorded Offences (Home Office)

Other Information ( Living Environment)  ID 2004 Living Environment Domain (ODPM 2004)

Data descriptions by source

Census 2001 (Office for National Statistics) The 2001 Census was held on 29 April 2001. It provides essential statistical information, enabling the planning and funding of public services, including education, health and transport. Results also support research and business. Information is available from the national level down to Census Output Area level.

Mid Year Estimates (Office for National Statistics) The Office for National Statistics publishes annual estimates of the population at District level and upwards. The estimates are available at local authority / health area level by 5-year age group and sex, including additional selected age groups. The estimated resident population of an area includes all people who usually live there, whatever their nationality. Members of HM and US Armed Forces in England and Wales are included on a residential basis wherever possible. HM Forces stationed outside England and Wales are not included. Students are taken to be resident at their term time address.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 120 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Information is available from the national level down to District level.

Pupil Level Annual School Census PLASC (Department for Education and Skills) Since January 2002 it has been a statutory requirement for all maintained primary, middle, secondary and special schools to provide an electronic pupil level school census return. This process is called the pupil level annual school census (PLASC). From January 2003, information was also collected on independent special schools. Pupil level data collected via PLASC each year is matched by DfES to Key Stage attainment data and used to produce statistical analyses of performance by pupils to help school improvement strategies. No data at pupil level is published by schools, LEAs or the DfES and all data is held under the strictest security arrangements. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Child Benefit (Department for Work and Pensions) Child Benefit was introduced in 1977. It replaced Family Allowance which was a benefit payable to families with 2 or more children. Child Benefit bought all children into the scheme. The benefit is designed to help with the extra costs of bringing up a child. It is a universal benefit payable to all parents/guardians in Great Britain. The benefit is not income related, is not taxable and is not based on National Insurance Contributions. Child Benefit is payable to the parents or guardians of all children under 16 years of age, normally the mother. If a child, over 16, is in full-time education, the benefit may be paid until they reach 19. Child benefit is also paid for a short period to 16 or 17 year olds who have just left school and are registered for work or work based training. There is a higher payment for the eldest child and a lower rate for all subsequent children. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Income Support (Department for Work and Pensions) Income Support (IS) is a non-contributory benefit. From October 1996, the Jobseeker's Allowance replaced IS for unemployed people. In general IS is now only available to people who are not required to be available for work such as pensioners, lone parents, sick and disabled people. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Department for Work and Pensions) Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) replaced Unemployment Benefit and Income Support for unemployed people in October 1996. It is payable to people under pensionable age who are available for, and actively seeking, work of at least 40 hours a week. Certain groups of people may be able to restrict their availability to less than 40 hours depending upon their personal circumstances. There are contribution-based and income-based routes of entry to JSA, which is paid at standard rates. Those who have paid sufficient National Insurance contributions receive contribution-based JSA for up to six months. Those who do not qualify for, or whose needs are not met by, contribution-based JSA, may qualify for income-based help for themselves and their dependants. There is the additional condition for income-based JSA that if a person has a working partner then that partner must work less than 24 hours a week on average. This help will continue for as long as it is needed, provided that the qualifying conditions continue to be met. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Attendance Allowance (Department for Work and Pensions) Attendance Allowance, introduced in December 1971, is a weekly benefit for people aged 65 or over, who need help with personal care because of illness or disability. For example, a person may qualify for Attendance Allowance if they have difficulty with washing, dressing or similar tasks. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 121 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Disability Living Allowance (Department for Work and Pensions) Disability Living Allowance (DLA) replaced and extended Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance in April 1992. It is paid to people who become disabled before the age of 65. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Incapacity Benefit (Department for Work and Pensions) Incapacity Benefit replaced Invalidity and Sickness Benefit in April 1995. It is paid to people who are assessed as being incapable of work and who meet the appropriate contribution conditions. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Severe Disablement Allowance (Department for Work and Pensions) Severe Disablement Allowance was introduced in November 1984 to replace the non-contributory Invalidity Pension and Housewives non-contributory Invalidity Pension. It is paid to those who cannot work because of a severe illness or disability but do not satisfy the contribution conditions for Incapacity Benefit. However, a person cannot claim Severe Disablement Allowance if they already get Incapacity Benefit. The benefit is not income related, is not taxable and is not based on National Insurance contributions. Claimants must have been aged between 16 and 65 when they made their claim, though there is no upper limit for receiving the allowance once it is awarded. New claimants have not been able to claim Severe Disablement Allowance since 2002 so numbers of claimants are falling; for that reason Severe Disablement Allowance statistics are now combined with Incapacity Benefit statistics by the Department for Work and Pensions. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Recorded Offences (Home Office) Notifiable offences recorded by the police. The crime rates are based on resident population and therefore may give a misleading impression in areas where numbers of non-residents, such as commuters and visitors are significant. Information is available at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level up to national level.

Indices of Deprivation 2004 (Office for the Deputy Prime Minister / Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford) See D for full details.

OCSI derived statistics

Worklessness Counts and Rates People workless through sickness are those in receipt of Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance. People workless through unemployment are those in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance. All workless people are those in receipt of Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance or Jobseeker’s Allowance. Rates are calculated using the relevant counts and the relevant small-area population estimates. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Income Deprived Counts and Rates People living on a low income, or income deprived, are those in receipt of Income Support or Income Based Jobseeker’s Allowance. People aged 60 and over who are in receipt of Income Support receive the Minimum Income Guarantee. Rates are calculated using the relevant counts and the relevant small-area population estimates.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 122 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Children Living in Low Income Households Counts and Rates Children living in low income households are dependents of people in receipt of Income Support (no information is currently available from Department for Work and Pensions on dependents of children in receipt of Income Based Jobseekers Allowance). Rates are calculated using the relevant counts and the relevant Child Benefit counts. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

People Needing Care People needing care are those in receipt of Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance Care component. People needing higher rate of care are those in receipt of Attendance Allowance Higher rate or Disability Living Allowance Higher Rate Care component. Rates are calculated using the relevant counts and the relevant small-area population estimates. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

People Needing Mobility Assistance People needing mobility assistance are those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance Mobility component. People with special mobility needs are those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance Mobility Higher Rate component. Rates are calculated using the relevant counts and the relevant small-area population estimates. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level.

Staying on at School Estimated Counts and Rates All dependent children remaining in full-time non-advanced education past the age of 16 receive Child Benefit (CB) until the age of 19. Levels of take-up for CB are high, and a fairly robust estimate of the numbers and proportions of pupils staying on in education can be calculated by comparing the total number of children aged 16-18 receiving CB for the post compulsory period with a similar cohort (aged 11-15) at the end of the compulsory stage. This is more accurate than using the resident 16-18 population in the area as the population denominator, as this will include any people who have moved to the area, for example giving very low estimates for staying on rates in areas with large student populations. The estimated rate of pupils staying on at school is the numbers of children aged 16 and over receiving CB divided by the numbers of children aged 11-15 receiving CB, multiplied by 5/3 factor to give equal weight to each year group. Information is available from the national level down to 2003 ward level

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 123 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix D The Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2004

Introduction The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004)168 is the most up-to-date and comprehensive measure of multiple deprivation available across England. It is an update and extension of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 (IMD 2000), with new information included alongside more recent data.

What is the Index used for? The government has used the IMD 2000 and IMD 2004 extensively for allocating funding, including the Single Regeneration Budget, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, New Deal for Communities and Neighbourhood Management schemes. Additionally, Regional Development Agencies, Learning and Skills Council and the National Lottery have allocated funding for a range of programmes using the IMD 2000. Exemption from stamp duty on property purchases is also available for properties in the most deprived areas. Additionally, large numbers of local and regional government programmes have been targeted using the IMD 2000.

The seven domains of deprivation The IMD 2004 is based on the idea of multiple deprivation, with different forms of deprivation measurable in different ways. The IMD 2004 is based around seven domains of deprivation; each domain contains a number of individual measures or indicators, with the entire IMD 2004 based on 37 indicators. The seven domains of deprivation are:  Employment deprivation  Income deprivation  Health deprivation and disability  Education, skills and training deprivation  Crime  Living environment deprivation  Barriers to housing and services Within each domain the indicators are combined to create a domain-level score, which measures the levels of deprivation in an area. Ranking the scores across England enables comparisons to be drawn on the level of deprivation between different areas. To produce the overall IMD 2004, the scores of all seven domains are combined169.

The full Indices of Deprivation 2004 The Indices of Deprivation 2004 consist of the main IMD 2004, as well as separate scores for the seven domains of deprivation, two additional indices of income deprivation in children and older people, and six District and county level summary scores. Taken together, the indices are referred to as the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004). For full details of the ID 2004 measures see below.

168 The Indices of Deprivation 2004 were developed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre team at Oxford University for the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, with the revised versions released in June 2004. 169 The scores are combined to minimise cancellation, so that for example an area with relatively high levels of employment deprivation but relatively low levels of health deprivation is scored as being more deprived than an area that has relatively average levels of deprivation in both employment and health deprivation. See “The English Indices of Deprivation 2004” ODPM report for full details.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 124 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. The IMD 2004 Geography The IMD 2004 has been created at Census Super Output Area (SOA) lower layer level. SOAs are a new type of geographical area created for the 2001 Census, intended to be the standard area unit at which information is released in future. Lower layer SOAs have an average population of 1,500 people. This detailed small area level geography enables pockets of deprivation to be identified that can be obscured by measurements at county, District, or even ward level (the IMD 2000 was released at ward level). In particular, deprived areas that are part of larger more affluent wards can now be identified. In addition to the lower layer SOA information, the IMD 2004 scores have been released as District and county level summaries. These detail a number of summary scores, including the average scores and ranks of the SOAs within each District and county, and the proportion of the local population living in the most deprived 10% of all SOAs across the country.

What information is available? The Office for the Deputy Prime Minister has published the full IMD 2004 along with the seven domains and six sub-domains (three of the domains are split into two sub-domains). The children and older people affected by income deprivation indices, and the District and county level summaries have also been published. The ODPM intends to release the 37 indicators underlying the IMD 2004, but these are not yet available. The Primary Care Trust level summaries are also not yet available.

The domains and summary measures

Employment Deprivation  Measures: The proportion of the working age population who are involuntarily excluded from the labour market  Weight: 22.5% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: The unemployed claimant count; claimants of Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance who are below pensionable age; participants in New Deal for 18- 24s and New Deal for 25+ who are not included in the claimant count; participants in New Deal for Lone Parents  Change from IMD 2000: Now includes participants in New Deal for Lone Parents

Income Deprivation  Measures: The proportion of the population who are income deprived  Weight: 22.5% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: People who are living in households in which one or more adults are in receipt of Income Support or Income Based Job Seeker’s Allowance; people living in households receiving Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) or Disabled Person’s Tax Credit (DPTC) whose equivalised income is below 60% of the median (excluding housing benefit and before housing costs); asylum seekers who are in receipt of subsistence and accommodation support from the National Asylum Support Service  Change from IMD 2000: Now includes people living in WFTC and DPTC households according to their equivalised income (these are new tax credits introduced since the IMD 2000 was published). Now includes asylum seekers

Health Deprivation and Disability  Measures: Higher than expected levels of premature mortality or greater than expected concentrations of people experiencing poor health  Weight: 13.5% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: Years of potential life lost; comparative illness and disability ratio; measures of emergency hospital admissions (all age and sex standardised rates); proportion of adults aged 18-60 who are suffering from mood or anxiety disorders, measured by hospital episode, suicide, prescription and health benefits data

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 125 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Change from IMD 2000: Now includes hospital admissions data and a measure of mental illness. Uses improved techniques for measuring standardised rates for death, illness and disability at small area level

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation  Measures: Divided into two ‘sub-domains’. The first measures educational deprivation in children and young people, the second sub-domain measures the level of qualifications in the adult population  Weight: 13.5% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: Average point score of children at Key Stages 2, 3, and 4; secondary school absence rate; proportion of young people not staying on in school over age 16; the proportion of young people aged under 21 who are not entering higher education; proportion of working age adults who have no or low qualifications  Change from IMD 2000: Now includes individual pupil level Key Stage data and individual level Census 2001 data for adult qualifications, where ID 2000 used modelled estimates.

Crime  Measures: Reported crime at detailed small area level  Weight: 9.3% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: Reported incidents to the police of four major crime types – burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence. These four themes include 33 types of offences  Change from IMD 2000: The Crime domain is new in the IMD 2004, as data was not available for the IMD 2000. The data used in the IMD 2004 is the first small-area level measure of crime across the country. A number of techniques were used to improve the accuracy of reported Crime data.

Living Environment Deprivation  Measures: Deprivation relating to physical characteristics of the living environment. Split into two sub-domains measuring ‘indoors’ and ‘outdoors’ living environments  Weight: 9.3% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: Housing quality; housing without central heating; air quality; pedestrian and cyclists casualties resulting from road traffic accidents  Change from IMD 2000: The Living Environment deprivation domain is new to the IMD 2004, comprising new indicators of deprivation in the ‘outdoors’ living environment and aspects of the Housing Deprivation domain from the IMD 2000

Barriers to Housing and Services  Measures: Difficulty of access to housing and local services. Split into two sub-domains measuring wider barriers and geographical barriers  Weight: 9.3% of the IMD 2004  Indicators: household overcrowding; homeless households; affordable housing; road distances to nearest services - GP premises, supermarkets / convenience stores, primary schools and Post Offices  Change from IMD 2000: The Barriers domain is new to the IMD 2004, comprising information from the ID 2000 Access to Services domain and the ID 2000 Housing domain

Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDAC)  Measures: Supplement to the Income domain above, measuring proportion of young population who are income deprived  Weight: Children are already included in the Income deprivation domain  Indicators: Proportion of children aged under 16 who are living in families receiving Income Support, Income Based Job Seeker’s Allowance, or Working Families Tax Credit or Disabled Person’s Tax Credit whose income is below 60% of the median

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 126 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Change from IMD 2000: Now includes children of people living in WFTC and DPTC households according to their equivalised income (these are new tax credits introduced since the IMD 2000 was published)

Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOP)  Measures: Supplement to the Income domain above, measuring proportion of older population who are income deprived  Weight: Older people are already included in the Income deprivation domain  Indicators: Proportion of the 60 and over population who are receiving Income Support or Income Based Job Seeker’s Allowance or are the partners of people who receive these benefits  Change from IMD 2000: None

Summary scores at District and county level  Average SOA score: The mean IMD 2004 score across all SOAs in the District, giving an overall measure of deprivation across the area  Average SOA rank: The mean IMD 2004 rank across all SOAs in the District, giving an overall measure of deprivation across the area. Reduces the impact of extremely high or low SOA scores that may be seen in the Average SOA score  Local concentration: The mean IMD 2004 rank of the most deprived small areas containing exactly 10% of people across the District. Gives an overall measure of the most deprived hotspots in the area  Extent score: The proportion of people in the area living in the most deprived small areas in England, counting all people in the worst 10% areas on IMD and those in the 11%-29% worst areas on a sliding scale  Income scale: The number of income deprived people in the area (see Income Deprivation above)  Employment scale: The number of employment deprived people in the area (see Employment Deprivation above)

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 127 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix E Geographies in this report

Administrative datasets such as Census 2001 information are typically presented in an aggregated form at small area levels. The important small area levels are Wards, Census Super Output Areas (SOA) and Census Output Areas (OA), see below for further details. The smallest area at which Census 2001 data is released is at OA level, while the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 is released at SOA level. For completeness, this Appendix details all the major administrative and statistical area levels at which data is typically made available, from the smallest OA level up to Regional level.

Census Output Areas (OAs) 2001 Census Output Areas (OAs) are the primary new geography created for the purpose of presenting 2001 Census results. OAs are built from clusters of adjacent unit postcodes and therefore represent the smallest Census geography; they are essentially the building block at which all Census data are collected. Census statistics for higher level geographies, such as SOAs, 2003 wards, Districts and regions and so on, are created by aggregating the constituent OAs. OAs are designed to have similar population sizes and be as socially homogenous as possible (based on tenure of household and dwelling type). Wherever possible, urban/rural mixes are avoided (i.e. postcodes in an OA should be either all urban or all rural). OAs usually have approximately regular shapes and they are usually constrained by boundaries such as major roads. In order to ensure the confidentiality of data, OAs are required to have a specified minimum population size. The Office for National Statistics set the minimum OA size at 40 resident households and 100 resident persons but the recommended size is actually rather larger at 125 households. These size thresholds mean that unusually small wards and parishes are incorporated into larger OAs. OAs nest within SOAs, 2003 wards, Districts, Counties and regions

Census Super Output Areas (SOAs) Census Super Output Areas (SOAs) are a new statistical geography created for the purpose of presenting the 2001 Census, the Indices of Deprivation 2004, and other neighbourhood statistics. There are three layers to the SOA geography: ‘lower layer’; ‘middle layer’; and ‘upper layer’. The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 is released at ‘lower layer’ SOA boundaries, - it is intended that Census 2001 data will be released at all SOA levels. See the Office for National Statistics website for further details of the different SOA layers -http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/default.asp. Unlike wards, SOAs are designed to produce areas of approximately equal population size, with the mean population of lower layer SOAs being approximately 1500 people. Although there remains a degree of variation around this mean of 1500 persons (the smallest lower layer SOA population in England is just under 1000 whilst the highest population is over 6000), the large majority of lower layer SOAs have populations close to 1500. This standardised population size makes the lower layer SOA geography well suited to identifying smaller pockets of deprivation that may be averaged out over large wards. There are 32,482 lower layer SOAs in England. Lower layer SOAs nest perfectly within the Census Standard Table wards. Although the majority of lower layer SOAs do nest within the CAS wards, this is not true in every case. For more information on how lower layer SOAs relate to Census wards, please refer to the 2001 Census website referenced above.

Wards Wards are essentially units of electoral administration and their boundaries therefore change relatively frequently (compared to higher level geographies such as Districts). This makes the ward geography difficult to use when attempting to monitor change over time. To reduce this problem of ward boundary changes, the 2001 Census defined two sets of ward boundaries, constructed from smaller Census Output Areas (discussed above): ‘Census Area Statistics’ (CAS) wards; and ‘Standard Table’ (ST) wards. The 2001 Census website contains a wealth

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 128 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. of useful explanation regarding the differences between the two sets of Census wards - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/default.asp. CAS wards represent the electoral ward boundaries as at the beginning of 2003 (with a small number of wards merged together in order not to disclose information that might be used to identify individuals). For this reason, they are often referred to as ‘2003 wards’. Information based on 2003 wards (i.e. CAS wards) may not be the same as information based on earlier wards, such as those used in the 1991 Census and the Indices of Deprivation 2000. Even where a ward has the same name, it may not have the same boundaries – sometimes the shape of a ward will change whilst the name stays the same. The average population size of 2003 wards in England is just under 6,000 people, with a minimum population of just over 100 people and a maximum of over 35,000 people. The number of 2003 wards across England is 7,969.

Districts There are 354 Districts in England (including Unitary Authorities, Metropolitan and London Boroughs). The geographical boundaries of the Districts in England have remained stable since 1998. Districts nest within regions and Counties.

Counties There are 35 Shire Counties in England, as well as 6 metropolitan Counties (Greater London is an ‘administrative area’, and is now a region in its own right). The geographical boundaries of the Counties in England have remained stable since 1998, and Counties nest within regions.

Regions There are nine regions in England: North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East, London, South-East, and South West. Each region has its own Government Office which represents central government in the region. The geographical boundaries of the regions have remained stable since 1998.

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 129 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix F Additional research

F.1 National  14-19 Education and Skills Department for Education and Skills, 2005.  A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan, Social Exclusion Unit, 2001  Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future, ODPM, 2004  Building on New Deal: Local solutions meeting individual needs. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004.  Changing Fortunes: geographic patterns of Income Deprivation in the late 1990s DTLR and SEU 2001  Child Poverty Review. HM Treasury 2004  Choosing Health: Making healthier choices easier, Department of Health, 2004  Enterprise and economic opportunity in deprived areas: A consultation on proposals for a Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, HM Treasury, Small Business Service and ODPM, 2005  Enterprising People Enterprising Places: Measures to increase ethnic minority employment and business growth, National Employment Panel, 2005  Every Child Matters. HM Treasury 2003  Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Department for Education and Skills, 2004  Full employment in every region HM Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, 2003  Growing together or growing apart? Geographic patterns of Income Support and income- based Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants in England between 1995 and 2000. Martin Evans et al 2002  Improving the prospects of people living in areas of multiple deprivation in England, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and ODPM, 2005  Indicators of poverty and social exclusion in rural England, New Policy Institute, 2002  Jobs and Enterprise in Deprived Areas, ODPM, 2004  Making it happen in neighbourhoods: The national strategy for neighbourhood renewal – four years on, ODPM, 2005  National Evaluation of New Deal for Communities. NRU, ODPM, 2004  Opportunity for all: Sixth Annual Report,. Department for Work and Pensions, 2004  Planning for sustainable rural economic development: Good practice advice for local planning authorities, Countryside Agency, 2004  Policy Action Team 18: Better information, Social Exclusion Unit 2000  Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge, HM Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry, 2001  Productivity in the UK: The Local Dimension, HM Treasury and ODPM,2003  Productivity in the UK: The Regional Dimension HM Treasury and Department for Trade and Industry, 2001  Public Service Agreement for 2005-2008 Department for Work and Pensions 2005  Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work, Department for Education and Skills 2005  Skills for productivity Department for Education and Skills and Department of Trade and Industry, 2005  Skills in England 2004, Learning and Skills Council, 2005  Social Enterprise: a strategy for success, Department of Trade and Industry, 2002  Tackling the low skills equilibrium, DTI, 2003  The State of the Countryside, Countryside Agency, 2004  United Kingdom National Action Plan on Social Inclusion, 2003-05  Welfare to Workforce Development, National Employment Panel, 2004

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 130 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  Where are the Gaps: An analysis of UK Skills and Education Strategy in the light of the Kok Group and European Commission Midterm Review of the Lisbon Goals, The Work Foundation, 2005

F.2 Regional  Awareness and Perceptions of the East of England Region for EEDA, MORI, 2003  Business Plan, East of England Regional Centre of Excellence for Regeneration, Renewal and Renaissance 2004  Culture: a catalyst for change. A strategy for cultural development for the East of England. Living East  Data and information sources relating to deprivation at ward level. EEDA Policy Briefing. East of England Development Agency, 2003  Deprived wards in the East of England. EEDA Policy Briefing, EEDA, 2003  Disadvantage, and Multiple Disadvantage, in the East of England, EEDA, 2003  East of England Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action, EEDA  East of England Plan: Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004  East of England Observatory website http://www.regionalobservatories.org.uk/east.html  Economy and Labour Market Background Paper: Paper prepared for SFSG meeting, 13th April 2005. EEDA, 2005  EEDA’s New Investing in Communities Programme: Framework Document  Faith in Action, EEDA, 2003  Focusing on growth areas in the East of England. Supporting document to A Shared Vision: The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, EEDA  Focusing on rural communities in the East of England. Supporting document to A Shared Vision: The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, EEDA  Investing in Communities Business Plan 2004-07: Towards a 10 year programme. Greater Cambridge Partnership, 2004  Investing in Communities: News. EEDA, 2004  Investing in Communities: Research and Development Programme, EEDA  Investing in Communities: Strategic solutions to address local needs, EEDA  Migrant workers in the East of England, EEDA, 2005 (Draft report, preliminary findings only)  Our Environment, Our Future: The regional environment strategy for the East of England. East of England Regional Assembly and East of England Environment Forum, 2003  Poverty and Social Exclusion in Rural East of England, Observatories Social Exclusion Partnership, 2002  Poverty and Social Exclusion in rural East of England, New Policy Institute, 2004  Regional Housing Strategy 2003-2006, East of England Regional Housing Forum  Regional Social Strategy, East of England Regional Assembly, 2004  Research and Development Programme of Investing in Communities: Consultation Framework, EEDA, 2004  Research to inform the Investing in Communities Programme. DTZ Pieda Consulting 2003  Rural Action East Policy Statement: Social Enterprise, Rural Action East, 2003  Shared Vision: The regional economic strategy for the East of England, EEDA, 2004  Social Exclusion in the East of England. Observatories Social Exclusion Partnership Creating Sustainable Communities in the East of England, ODPM, 2005  Skills for Life: Capability Review in the East of England, Parsons, DJ. And Foster, P. 2005  The Bulletin: Business, policy and research news, EEDA, 2005  Understanding Hertfordshire’s Communities: Appreciating the needs of Hertfordshire’s communities. Hertfordshire Prosperity 2004  Urban and Rural Prioritisation in the East of England, EEDA, EERA, GO-East, 2002

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 131 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.  What the regional economic strategy means to businesses and employers. Supporting document to A Shared Vision: The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, EEDA  What the regional economic strategy means to the community and voluntary sector. Supporting document to A Shared Vision: The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, EEDA  What the regional economic strategy means to national policy makers. Supporting document to A Shared Vision: The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England. EEDA  Women’s Enterprise Strategic Framework: East of England, 2005 (Draft)

F.3 Sub-Regional  Bedford Anti-Poverty Strategy, Bedford Borough Council  Bedford Community Plan, Bedford Borough Council  Bedfordshire & Luton 16-18 Year Old Survey, Bedfordshire and Luton LSC, 2003  Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Study, Bone Wells, BLEDP, 2005  Bedfordshire and Luton Employment Support Programme Evaluation Final Report  Businesses in Disadvantaged Areas, BLEDP, 2004  Community Plan 2003-2013, Bedfordshire County Council  Individual Skills Audit, Bedfordshire and Luton LSC, 2003  Joint Economic Development Strategy, The Bedfordshire & Luton Economic Partnership  Luton Borough Community Strategy. Luton Borough Council  Mapping Skills for Life Provision in Bedfordshire and Luton, Bedfordshire and Luton LSC, 2004  Mid Bedfordshire Community Plan. Mid Bedfordshire District Council  Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, GO-SE, GO-East, GO-EM, March 2005  Partnership Working Model, Luton HAZ, 2003  Population and Forecasts Bedfordshire County Council and Luton Borough Council 2004  Regeneration Annual Report, Bedfordshire County Council  South Bedfordshire Plan, South Bedfordshire District Council.  The Change in Health Experience of the Luton Population, Luton HAZ, 2003  The Range and Scope of the Bedfordshire Rural Economy, Bedfordshire Rural Business Support, 2005  Understanding Bedfordshire and Luton – Local Economy Assessment 2004, Bedfordshire and Luton Prosperity, 2004

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 132 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474. Appendix G Additional thanks

We would like to thank the many people and groups across Bedfordshire and Luton who contributed to this project.

Steering Group  Paul Barton, Luton Borough Council  Jon Billington, Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Development Partnership  Helen Wiltshire, Bedfordshire County Council  Sarah Hughes, Bedfordshire County Council

Other contributors  Vanda Bailey, The Learning Partnership - Bedfordshire and Luton  Chris Barnes, Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Development Partnership  Kate Carmichael, Bedford PCT  Nadia Cockar, Luton Borough Council  Wendy Fowle, Bedfordshire and Luton LSC  Alex Francis, Bedfordshire and Luton Economic Development Partnership  John Gelder, Action South Bedfordshire  Susan Gill, Bedfordshire County Council  Philip Green, Bedfordshire County Council  Ian Jefferson, Luton Borough Council  Kate McFarlane, EEDA  Jane Markham, Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity  Graham Moores, Bedfordshire and Luton LSC  Alan Pease, Bedfordshire County Council  Sean Perera, Learning and Skills Council  Giles Probert, Bedfordshire County Council

Bedfordshire and Luton Investing in Communities Evidence Base, 2005 133 Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, www.ocsi.co.uk, [email protected], 0870 240 1474.