Demographic Profile of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

Home , Demography of Leicester, Hinckley and Bosworth, Leicestershire, Rutland

Equality and Human Rights Team

Local, Unitary, and District Authority Areas

2017 Mid-Year Estimates and 2011 Census

Equality and Human Rights Team

Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Age and Gender ...... 2 England Benchmark ...... 2 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 3 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 3 Leicester City ...... 4 Leicestershire County ...... 5 Rutland ...... 6 Within Leicestershire County...... 7 Blaby ...... 7 Charnwood ...... 8 Harborough...... 9 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 10 Melton ...... 11 North West Leicestershire ...... 12 Oadby and Wigston ...... 13 Disability ...... 14 England Benchmark ...... 14 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 14 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 14 Leicester City ...... 15 Leicestershire County ...... 15 Rutland ...... 16 Within Leicestershire County...... 16 Blaby ...... 16 Charnwood ...... 17 Harborough...... 17 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 18 Melton ...... 18 North West Leicestershire ...... 19 Oadby and Wigston ...... 19 Ethnicity ...... 20 England Benchmark ...... 20 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 20 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 20 Leicester City ...... 21 Leicestershire County ...... 21 Rutland ...... 22 Within Leicestershire County...... 22 Blaby ...... 22 Charnwood ...... 23 Harborough...... 23 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 24 Melton ...... 24 North West Leicestershire ...... 25 Oadby and Wigston ...... 25

Equality and Human Rights Team

Religion or Belief ...... 26 England Benchmark ...... 26 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 26 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 26 Leicester City ...... 27 Leicestershire County ...... 27 Rutland ...... 28 Within Leicestershire County...... 28 Blaby ...... 28 Charnwood ...... 29 Harborough...... 29 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 30 Melton ...... 30 North West Leicestershire ...... 31 Oadby and Wigston ...... 31 Language ...... 32 England Benchmark ...... 32 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 32 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 32 Leicester City ...... 33 Leicestershire County ...... 33 Rutland ...... 34 Within Leicestershire County...... 34 Blaby ...... 34 Charnwood ...... 34 Harborough...... 35 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 35 Melton ...... 35 North West Leicestershire ...... 36 Oadby and Wigston ...... 36 Marital Status ...... 37 England Benchmark ...... 37 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 37 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 37 Leicester City ...... 38 Leicestershire County ...... 38 Rutland ...... 39 Within Leicestershire County...... 39 Blaby ...... 39 Charnwood ...... 40 Harborough...... 40 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 41 Melton ...... 41 North West Leicestershire ...... 42 Oadby and Wigston ...... 42 Unpaid Care ...... 43 England Benchmark ...... 43 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland ...... 43 Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall ...... 43 Leicester City ...... 44

Equality and Human Rights Team

Leicestershire County ...... 44 Rutland ...... 45 Within Leicestershire County...... 45 Blaby ...... 45 Charnwood ...... 46 Harborough...... 46 Hinckley and Bosworth ...... 47 Melton ...... 47 North West Leicestershire ...... 48 Oadby and Wigston ...... 48 Sexual Identity ...... 49 England Benchmark ...... 49 East Midlands Region ...... 49 Appendix: Graphical Summary of Analyses ...... 50 Age and Gender...... 50 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 50 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 51 Disability ...... 52 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 52 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 53 Ethnicity ...... 54 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 54 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 55 Religion or Belief ...... 56 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 56 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 57 Language ...... 58 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 58 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 59 Marital Status ...... 60 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 60 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 61 Unpaid Care ...... 62 Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 62 District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark ...... 63 Sexual Identity ...... 64 East Midlands Region alongside the England Benchmark ...... 64

Introduction

At June 2017, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had an estimated population of 1,083,226 people, with England’s overall population estimated at 55,619,430.

This report looks at the population demographics of Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, overall, at county and unitary authority level, as well as at the level of the individual district authorities within Leicestershire. The population is analysed in terms of age, gender, disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, language, marital status, the provision of unpaid care, and sexual identity. For each area, and each characteristic, the figures are benchmarked relative to the overall profile of England.

Population estimates for age and gender are based on Office for National Statistics mid-year estimates to June 2017. Population estimates for disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, language, marital status, and the provision of unpaid care are based on the 2011 UK Census. Figures for sexual identity come from the Office for National Statistics Annual Population Survey 2016. Each represents the latest available information at the time of writing.

Information on age, gender, disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, and the provision of unpaid care reflects the usual resident population. Information on language reflects the usual resident population aged three years old and above. Information on marital status reflects the usual resident population aged sixteen years old and above. Information on sexual identity reflects respondents to the Annual Population Survey aged sixteen years old and above.

A graphical summary of these analyses is available in the appendix at the end of this document.

Population estimates for England overall, and Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, overall, at county and unitary authority level, as well as at the level of the individual district authorities within Leicestershire County (Office for National Statistics mid-year estimates to June 2017)

All Persons Gender

Females Males England 55619430 28138377 27481053

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall 1083226 544713 538513 Leicester City 353540 176720 176820

Rutland Leicestershire County Overall 690212 348694 341518

Leicester, Leicester, and and

Leicestershire, Leicestershire, Rutland 39474 19299 20175 Blaby 98977 50690 48287 Charnwood 180387 89446 90941

Harborough 91461 46225 45236 Hinckley and Bosworth 111370 56551 54819

County Melton 50873 25888 24985

North West Leicestershire 100109 50564 49545 Within Leicestershire Within

Oadby and Wigston 57035 29330 27705

Age and Gender

Population estimates for age and gender were based on ONS 2017 mid-year estimates.

England Benchmark

Within the England benchmark, the population was weighted towards people aged sixty years old and under, with higher proportions of people amongst children aged ten and under, people in their late twenties and early thirties, and people in their late forties and early fifties. There was also a peak at ages 69 and 70, and a trough at ages 14 to 16 years old.

3.0% England, n = 55619430 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

0 3 6 9

21 57 12 15 18 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year) ○England, n=55619430

Age profiles were similar for females and males. 90+ England, Males, n = 27481053 85 England, Females, n = 28138377 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35 Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population ○England, Males, n=27481053 ○England, Females, n=28138377

There were increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above in the England benchmark.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin 0%

0 3 6 9

27 39 51 12 15 18 21 24 30 33 36 42 45 48 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year) 2

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had higher proportions of people in their late teens and early twenties, and lower proportions of children under the age of ten, people in their thirties to fifties, and people in their seventies and above. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, n = 1083226

Age profiles were similar for females and males. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population ○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, Males, n = 538513 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, Females, n = 544713

There were increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above in Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

3 0 6 9

42 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had higher proportions of people under the age of forty, especially people in their late teens and twenties, and lower proportions of people in their forties and above. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Leicester, n = 353540

Age profiles were similar for females and males. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Leicester, Males, n = 176820 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Leicester, Females, n = 176720

Leicester City had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

0 3 6 9

27 39 51 12 15 18 21 24 30 33 36 42 45 48 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had higher proportions of people in their late teens to early twenties, and people in their late forties and above, and lower proportions of children under the age of ten as well as people in their mid-twenties to early forties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Leicestershire, n = 690212

The overrepresentation of people in their late teens to early twenties was noted particularly amongst men. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Leicestershire, Males, n = 341518 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Leicestershire, Females, n = 348694

Leicestershire County had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

3 0 6 9

42 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had higher proportions of people in their mid-teens as well as people in their late fifties and above, and lower proportions of children under the age of ten as well as people in their twenties to early forties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Rutland, n = 39474

The underrepresentation of people in their twenties to early thirties was especially marked amongst women. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Rutland, Males, n = 20175 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Rutland, Females, n = 19299

Rutland had higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

3 0 6 9

42 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had higher proportions of people in their late forties to early eighties, and lower proportions of children under the age of five, as well as people in their late teens and twenties to thirties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Blaby, n = 98977

The underrepresentation of children under the age of five was noted particularly amongst girls, and whilst both men and women in the twenties were underrepresented, the underrepresentation of people in their thirties was especially marked amongst men. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Blaby, Males, n = 48287 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Blaby, Females, n = 50690

Blaby had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

3 0 6 9

42 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Charnwood

Compared to the England benchmark, Charnwood had higher proportions of people in their late teens and early twenties, and lower proportions of children under the age of fifteen, as well as people in their thirties to early fifties. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Charnwood, n = 180387

The overrepresentation of people in their late teens to early twenties was especially marked amongst men. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Charnwood, Males, n = 90941 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Charnwood, Females, n = 89446

Charnwood had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

0 3 6 9

27 39 51 12 15 18 21 24 30 33 36 42 45 48 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had higher proportions of people in their early and mid-teens, as well as people in their mid to late forties and above, and lower proportions of younger children under the age of five, and people in their twenties to thirties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Harborough, n = 91461

Women in particular were overrepresented amongst those in their late eighties and above. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Harborough, Males, n = 45236 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Harborough, Females, n = 46225

Harborough had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their eighties and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

3 0 6 9

42 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had higher proportions of people in their mid to late forties to eighties, and lower proportions of children under the age of five, and people in their late teens to thirties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Hinckley and Bosworth, n = 111370

Age profiles were similar for females and males. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Hinckley and Bosworth, Males, n = 54819 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Hinckley and Bosworth, Females, n = 56551

Hinckley and Bosworth had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their late seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

0 3 6 9

27 39 51 12 15 18 21 24 30 33 36 42 45 48 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had higher proportions of people in their late forties to early eighties, and lower proportions of children under the age of ten, and people in their twenties to thirties. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Melton, n = 50873

Age profiles were similar for females and males. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Melton, Males, n = 24985 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Melton, Females, n = 25888

Melton had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their eighties and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single single yearof age

% gender % balancewithin

0 3 6 9

30 12 15 18 21 24 27 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had higher proportions of people in their late forties to early seventies, and lower proportions of children under the age of ten, and people in their twenties and thirties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●North West Leicestershire, n = 100109

Age profiles were similar for females and males. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●North West Leicestershire, Males, n = 49545 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●North West Leicestershire, Females, n = 50564

North West Leicestershire had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their eighties and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single year of age

% % gender balance within

0 3 6 9

27 39 51 12 15 18 21 24 30 33 36 42 45 48 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark, Oadby and Wigston had higher proportions of people in their late teens and early twenties, late fifties, and seventies and above, and lower proportions of children under the age of ten, and people in their late twenties to early forties.

3.0%

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0%

% of % Population 0.5%

0.0%

3 0 6 9

36 66 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

○England, n=55619430 ●Oadby and Wigston, n = 57035

The underrepresentation of people in their late twenties to early thirties was especially marked amongst men. 90+ 85 80 75 70 65

60 55 50 45 40 35

Age Age (single year) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population

○England, Males, n=27481053 ●Oadby and Wigston, Males, n = 27705 ○England, Females, n=28138377 ●Oadby and Wigston, Females, n = 29330

Oadby and Wigston had increasingly higher proportions of women relative to men amongst people in their seventies and above.

100%

80% 60% 40%

20% single year of age

% % gender balance within

6 0 3 9

30 12 15 18 21 24 27 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90+ Age (single year)

Disability

Population estimates for disability were based on the UK 2011 Census.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark 9.3% of people reported that their day-to-day activities were limited a little, and a further 8.3% reported that their day-to-day activities were limited a lot. There were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot 8.3% 60%

Day-to-day band activities 40% not limited 82.4% 20%

Day-to-day of % Persons within age activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.3% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had a higher proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were not limited. Within Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, as in the England benchmark, there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot Day-to-day 60%

7.4% activities band not limited 40%

83.5% Persons within age 20%

Day-to-day % of activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.1% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had a lower proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little. As in the England benchmark, within Leicester City there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot 8.4% 60%

Day-to-day band activities 40%

not limited Persons Persons within age 82.7% 20%

Day-to-day % of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.0% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had a higher proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were not limited. As in the England benchmark, within Leicestershire County there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

100% Day-to-day activities 80%

limited a

lot 60% 7.0% Day-to-day activities band 40%

not limited Persons Persons within age 83.8% 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.2% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had a higher proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were not limited. Within Rutland there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot 6.1% Day-to-day 60%

activities band not limited 40%

84.5% Persons within age 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.4% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had a higher proportion of people whose day- to-day activities were not limited. Within Blaby there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old, and higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot 6.9% Day-to-day 60%

activities band not limited 40%

84.2% Persons within age 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 8.9% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Charnwood

Compared to the England benchmark, Charnwood had a higher proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were not limited. Within Charnwood there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80% lot 6.7% Day-to-day 60%

activities band not limited 40%

84.4% Persons within age 20%

Day-to-day % of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 8.9% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had a higher proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were not limited. As in the England benchmark, within Harborough there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and those aged 65 years old and over.

100% Day-to-day activities 80%

limited a

lot Day-to-day 60%

5.9% activities band not limited 40%

85.4% Persons within age 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 8.6% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had a lower proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a lot. Within Hinckley and Bosworth there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old, and higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot 7.5% Day-to-day 60%

activities band not limited 40% 83.0% Persons within age Day-to-day 20% activities of % 0% limited a little 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and 9.5% 24 34 49 64 over Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had a higher proportion of people whose day- to-day activities were not limited. As in the England benchmark, within Melton there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot 6.3% Day-to-day 60%

activities band not limited 40%

84.4% Persons within age 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.3% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had a higher proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little. As in the England benchmark, within North West Leicestershire there were higher proportions of people whose day-to- day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and those aged 65 years old and over.

100% Day-to-day activities 80%

limited a lot 60% Day-to-day 8.4% band activities 40%

not limited Persons Persons within age 81.9% 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.7% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark, Oadby and Wigston had a lower proportion of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a lot. Within Oadby and Wigston there were higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old, and higher proportions of people whose day-to-day activities were limited a little or limited a lot amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Day-to-day 100% activities limited a 80%

lot

7.7% 60%

Day-to-day band activities 40%

not limited Persons Persons within age 82.7% 20%

Day-to-day of % activities 0% limited a 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and little 24 34 49 64 over 9.6% Age Band (years) ●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Ethnicity

Population estimates for ethnicity were based on the UK 2011 Census.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark 14.6% of people were from a BME background. There were higher proportions of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Mixed Other 100% 2.3% 1.0%

80%

60% band Black 40% British White

3.5% 85.4% 20% % of % Persons within age 0% Asian 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and British over 7.8% Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had higher proportions of Asian British people and people from “other” ethnic groups. As in the England benchmark, within Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland there were higher proportions of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other 100% 1.1% 80%

Mixed

2.0% 60%

White band Black 78.4% 40% British 2.4%

of of Persons within age 20% % % Asian 0% British 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and 16.1% over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had higher proportions of Asian British, Black British, and Mixed Race people and people from “other” ethnic groups. Within Leicester City there were higher proportions of people from White and Asian British backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other White 100% 2.6% 50.5% Mixed 80% 3.5%

60% band Black 40% British 20% 6.2% of Persons within age % % 0% Asian 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and British over 37.1% Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. As in the England benchmark, within Leicestershire County there were higher proportions of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other 100% 0.4% 80%

Mixed

1.3% 60% band Black 40% British 0.6%

White of Persons within age 20%

91.4% % Asian 0% British 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and 6.3% over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. Within Rutland there were lower proportions of people from Asian British, Black British, and Mixed Race backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Mixed Other 100% 1.0% 0.2% 80%

Black 60%

British band 0.7% 40% Asian

of of Persons within age 20% British

White % 1.0% 97.1% 0% 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. As in the England benchmark, within Blaby there were higher proportions of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other 100% Mixed 0.4%

1.6% 80%

Black 60% British band 40% 1.0% White of of Persons within age 20% 91.0% Asian % British 0% 6.1% 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Charnwood

Compared the England benchmark, Charnwood had higher proportions of people from White and Asian British backgrounds. As in the England benchmark, within Charnwood there were higher proportions of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other 100% 0.6% Mixed 80%

1.6%

60% band Black 40% British White 0.8%

87.4% of Persons within age 20% % % Asian 0% British 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and 9.7% over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. Within Harborough, there was a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other 100% 0.2% Mixed

1.1% 80%

Black 60%

British band 0.4% 40%

of of Persons within age 20%

Asian White % % British 95.2% 3.0% 0% 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. Within Hinckley and Bosworth, there was a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Other Mixed 100% 0.2% 1.0%

80%

Black 60%

British band 0.2% 40%

Asian

of of Persons within age 20% British White % 2.1% 96.5% 0% 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. Within Melton, there was a lower proportion of Asian British people amongst those age 65 years old and over and lower proportions of Mixed Race people amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Mixed Other 100% 0.8% 0.1% 80%

Black British 60%

0.2% band 40% Asian

British of Persons within age 20%

1.0% White % 97.9% 0% 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had a higher proportion of people from White backgrounds. Within North West Leicestershire, there were lower proportions of Asian British and Mixed Race people amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over; and there were lower proportions of Black British people and people of “other” ethnic groups amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Mixed Other 100% 0.9% 0.1% 80%

Black British 60%

0.2% band 40% Asian

British of Persons within age 20%

1.1% White % 97.6% 0% 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and over Age Band (years) ●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark, Oadby and Wigston had higher proportions of Asian British people and people from “other” ethnic groups. As in the England benchmark, within Oadby and Wigston there were higher proportions of people from White backgrounds amongst those aged 50 to 64 years old and amongst those aged 65 years old and over.

Mixed Other 100% 2.1% 1.4% 80%

Black 60% British White

1.2% 73.0% band 40% 20%

of of Persons within age 0% Asian % 0 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 and British over 22.3% Age Band (years)

●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Religion or Belief

Population estimates for religion or belief were based on the UK 2011 Census, with percentages calculated out of the total number of people who disclosed their religion or belief.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark 64.0% of people were Christian, with those of No Religion constituting the next largest belief group at 26.7%. Broadly, people from most minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians and Jews at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 26.7% 0.5%

Other 80%

religion within age 60%

0.5% band Sikh 40% 0.9% 20%

Muslim of % Persons 5.4% Christian 0% 64.0% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Jewish Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and over 0.5% 1.6% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 7.2% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had higher proportions of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and those of No Religion. Within Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 27.2% 0.3% Other 80% religion

0.5% 60% band Sikh 40% 2.4% Christian 20% Muslim of Persons within age 55.0% 7.4% % 0% Jewish 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 0.1% Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and over 7.2% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.2% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had higher proportions of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and those of “other” religions. Within Leicester City, broadly, people from most minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians, Hindus, and Jews at older age bands.

Buddhist 100% No religion 0.4%

24.2% 80%

Other Christian 60% religion 34.3% 0.6% band 40%

Sikh 20% 4.6% of Persons within age % % 0% Muslim 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 19.7% Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and Jewish 16.1% over 0.1% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 5.6% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had higher proportions of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and those of No Religion. Within Leicestershire County, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 28.9% 0.3% 80%

Other religion 60% 0.4% band 40% Sikh

1.3% 20% of of Persons within age

Muslim % 1.5% 0% Christian 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Jewish Hindu 64.5% 15 24 34 49 64 74 and 0.1% over 3.0% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.5% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had a higher proportion of Christians. Within Rutland, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there was a higher proportion of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 25.1% 0.3% Other 80% religion

0.4% 60% band Sikh 40% 0.1% 20%

Muslim of Persons within age % % 0.4% 0% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Jewish Christian 15 24 34 49 64 74 and 0.2% Hindu 73.3% over 0.2% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 7.0% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had higher proportions of Hindus, Sikhs, and those of No Religion. Within Blaby, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 31.2% 0.2%

80%

60% Other religion band 40% 0.4% 20% Sikh of Persons within age

2.1% % Christian 0% Muslim 62.3% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 0.8% 15 24 34 49 64 74 and Jewish Hindu over 0.1% 2.9% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.7% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Charnwood

Compared to the England benchmark, Charnwood had higher proportions of Hindus and those of No Religion. Within Charnwood, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 31.2% 0.4%

80%

60%

Other band religion 40% 0.4% Christian 20% Sikh 59.3% of Persons within age

0.8% % 0% Muslim 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 2.5% Jewish Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and over 0.1% 5.4% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.3% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had a higher proportion of Christians. Within Harborough, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

Buddhist 100% No religion 0.2%

26.4% 80%

Other 60%

religion band 0.3% 40% Sikh 20%

0.8% Christian of Persons within age % % Muslim 70.3% 0% 0.5% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Jewish Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and over 0.1% 1.4% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.9% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had higher proportions of Christians and those of No Religion. Within Hinckley and Bosworth, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

Buddhist 100% No religion 0.2% 28.7% 80%

Other religion 60%

0.4% band 40% Sikh

0.4% Christian of Persons within age 20%

68.8% % Muslim 0% 0.5% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Jewish Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and over 0.0% 0.9% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.5% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had a higher proportion of Christians. Within Melton, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 26.0% 0.2% Other 80% religion 0.4% 60% Sikh band 40% 0.1% 20% Muslim of Persons within age

0.1% Christian % 72.7% 0% Jewish 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 0.0% Hindu 15 24 34 49 64 74 and over 0.4% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.5% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had higher proportions of Christians and those of No Religion. Within North West Leicestershire, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

Buddhist 100% No religion 0.2%

29.3% 80%

Other 60% religion 0.5% band 40% Sikh 20% 0.1% of Persons within age Muslim % 0% 0.2% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Christian 15 24 34 49 64 74 and Jewish Hindu 69.2% over 0.0% 0.4% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.2% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark, Oadby and Wigston had higher proportions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Within Oadby and Wigston, broadly, people from minority religions and those of No Religion were concentrated at younger age bands, whilst there were higher proportions of Christians at older age bands.

No religion Buddhist 100% 24.6% 0.3% Other 80% religion 0.5% 60%

Christian band Sikh 40% 51.5% 6.9% 20%

Muslim of Persons within age % % 6.2% 0% 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 to 75 Jewish 15 24 34 49 64 74 and 0.3% Hindu over 9.7% Age Band (years) ●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief; 6.0% of all people chose not to disclose their religion or belief.)

Language

Population estimates for language were based on the UK 2011 Census for those aged three years old and above.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark the most widely spoken first language was English (92.0%), followed by Polish (1.0%), Punjabi (0.5%), Urdu (0.5%), Bengali (with Sylheti and Chatgaya) (0.4%), Gujarati (0.4%), and Arabic (0.3%). These languages covered over 95% of the population of England.

Arabic Other 0.3% 4.7% Gujarati 0.4%

Bengali (with Sylheti and Chatgaya) English 0.4% 92.0%

Urdu 0.5% Polish Punjabi 1.0% 0.5%

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had a lower proportion of people who spoke English as their first language. In Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland the most widely spoken first language was English (88.7%), followed by Gujarati (4.3%), Punjabi (1.0%), Polish (1.0%), and Urdu (0.4%). These languages covered over 95% of the population of Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland.

Other 4.7%

Urdu 0.4% English Polish 88.7% 1.0%

Punjabi 1.0% Gujarati 4.3%

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had a lower proportion of people who spoke English as their first language. In Leicester City the most widely spoken first language was English (72.5%), followed by Gujarati (11.5%), Punjabi (2.4%), Polish (2.0%), Urdu (1.1%), Somali (1.1%), All other South Asian Languages (1.0%), Arabic (0.8%), Chinese (other than Cantonese or Mandarin) (0.7%), Bengali (with Sylheti and Chatgaya) (0.6%), Portuguese (0.6%), Kurdish (0.5%), and Tamil (0.5%). These languages covered over 95% of the population of Leicester City.

Portuguese Kurdish Tamil Other 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 4.9% Bengali (with Sylheti and Chatgaya) 0.6% Chinese (other than Cantonese or Mandarin) English 0.7% 72.5% Arabic 0.8% All other South Asian Languages 1.0% Somali Urdu Polish Punjabi Gujarati 1.1% 1.1% 2.0% 2.4% 11.5%

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (96.2%).

Other 3.8%

English 96.2%

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (98.2%).

Other 1.8%

English 98.2%

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (96.6%).

Other 3.4% English 96.6%

Charnwood

Compared to the England benchmark, Charnwood had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language. In Charnwood the most widely spoken first language was English (93.6%), followed by Gujarati (1.8%). These languages covered over 95% of the population of Charnwood.

Other 4.6%

English Gujarati 93.6% 1.8%

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (98.0%).

Other 2.0%

English 98.0%

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (98.3%).

Other 1.7%

English 98.3%

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (97.8%).

Other 2.2%

English 97.8%

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language (98.2%).

Other 1.8%

English 98.2%

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark Oadby and Wigston had a higher proportion of people who spoke English as their first language. In Oadby and Wigston the most widely spoken first language was English (91.6%), followed by Gujarati (2.9%) and Punjabi (2.2%). These languages covered over 95% of the population of Oadby and Wigston.

Other 3.2%

Punjabi English 2.2% 91.6% Gujarati 2.9%

Marital Status

Population estimates for marital status were based on the UK 2011 Census for those aged sixteen years old and above.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark 34.6% of people were Single (never married or in a civil partnership), 46.6% of people were Married, 0.2% were in a Civil Partnership, 2.7% were Separated. 9.0% were Divorced, and 6.9% were Divorced. Broadly, there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a 100% civil partnership same-sex civil 6.9% partnership) 34.6% 80%

Divorced or formerly in a 60% same-sex civil within age partnership In a registered

which is now band 40% same-sex civil legally dissolved partnership 9.0% 0.2% 20% Separated (but still legally

married or still of % Persons 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.7% 46.6% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had a higher proportion of Married people. As in the England benchmark, within Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 6.8% partnership) 80% 33.6%

Divorced or 60% formerly in a same-sex civil

partnership In a registered band which is now same-sex civil 40% legally dissolved partnership 8.1% 0.2%

20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.5% 48.8% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had a higher proportion of Single people. Within Leicester City there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers, Married, and Divorced people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 6.1% partnership) 80%

41.5%

Divorced or 60% formerly in a

same-sex civil band partnership In a registered 40% which is now same-sex civil legally dissolved partnership

7.1% 0.2% 20% of of Persons within age

Separated (but % % still legally 0% married or still legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.7% 42.4% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had higher proportions of Married and Widowed people. As in the England benchmark, within Leicestershire County there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.1% partnership) 80% 30.1%

Divorced or formerly in a 60% same-sex civil partnership

In a registered band which is now same-sex civil 40% legally dissolved partnership 8.6%

0.2% 20% of of Persons within age

Separated (but % % still legally 0% married or still legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.4% 51.7% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had higher proportions of Married and Widowed people. As in the England benchmark, within Rutland there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.6% partnership) 80% 26.7%

In a registered

Divorced or same-sex civil 60% formerly in a partnership same-sex civil 0.2% partnership band 40% which is now legally dissolved 8.9%

20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.4% 54.2% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had a higher proportion of Married people. As in the England benchmark, within Blaby there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.0% partnership) 80% 28.6%

60% Divorced or formerly in a

same-sex civil In a registered band partnership same-sex civil 40% which is now partnership legally dissolved 0.2%

8.7% 20% of of Persons within age

Separated (but % % still legally 0% married or still legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil over partnership) Married 2.4% 53.2% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Charnwood

Compared to the England benchmark, Charnwood had a higher proportion of Single people. As in the England benchmark, within Charnwood there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 6.6% partnership) 80% 35.9%

Divorced or 60% formerly in a same-sex civil In a registered same-sex civil partnership band which is now partnership 40% legally dissolved 0.2% 8.0%

20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.3% 46.9% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had a higher proportion of Married people. As in the England benchmark, within Harborough there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 6.9% partnership) 80% 25.8%

Divorced or In a registered

formerly in a same-sex civil 60% same-sex civil partnership partnership 0.2% which is now band 40% legally dissolved 8.6%

20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.3% 56.2% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had a higher proportion of Married people. As in the England benchmark, within Hinckley and Bosworth there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.2% partnership) 80% 27.8% Divorced or formerly in a In a registered 60% same-sex civil same-sex civil partnership partnership which is now 0.2% band 40% legally dissolved 9.3%

20% of of Persons within age

Separated (but % % still legally married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.7% 52.9% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had higher proportions of Married and Widowed people. As in the England benchmark, within Melton there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.4% partnership) 80% 27.3%

In a registered

Divorced or same-sex civil 60% formerly in a partnership same-sex civil 0.2% partnership band 40% which is now legally dissolved

9.2% 20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.6% 53.4% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had higher proportions of Married, Divorced and Widowed people. As in the England benchmark, within North West Leicestershire there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, in a Civil Partnership, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.2% partnership) 80% 28.3%

In a registered 60% Divorced or same-sex civil formerly in a partnership

same-sex civil 0.2% band partnership 40% which is now legally dissolved

9.4% 20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.5% 52.4% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark, Oadby and Wigston had higher proportions of Married and Widowed people. Within Oadby and Wigston there were higher proportions of Single people at younger age bands, those who were Married, Separated or Divorced tended to be older than Single people, and there were high proportions of Widowers and Married people in the oldest age band.

Widowed or Single (never 100% surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 8.0% partnership) 80% 31.2% In a registered

Divorced or same-sex civil 60% formerly in a partnership same-sex civil 0.1%

partnership band which is now 40% legally dissolved 7.0%

20% of of Persons within age Separated (but still legally % married or still 0% legally in a same- 16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 and sex civil partnership) Married over 2.0% 51.7% Age Band (years) ●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Unpaid Care

Population estimates for unpaid carers were based on the UK 2011 Census.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark 89.8% of people provided no unpaid care, 6.5% provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week, 1.4% provided 20 to 49 hours of unpaid care a week, and 2.4% provided 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week. Those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 100% or more hours unpaid 80% care a week 2.4%

60% within age Provides 20 to 49 hours Provides no

band 40% unpaid care a unpaid care 89.8% week 20% 1.4%

Provides 1 to of % Persons 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 6.5% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland

Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland overall

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week and a lower proportion of people who provided 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

2.2%

60%

Provides 20 band to 49 hours Provides no 40% unpaid care a unpaid care week 89.6%

1.4% of Persons within age 20% % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 6.8% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Leicester City

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicester City had a higher proportion of people who provided no unpaid care, a lower proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week, and a higher proportion of people who provided 20 to 49 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Leicester City those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

2.4%

60%

Provides 20 band to 49 hours Provides no 40% unpaid care a unpaid care week 90.6%

1.7% of Persons within age 20% % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 5.3% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Leicestershire County

Compared to the England benchmark, Leicestershire County had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Leicestershire County those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

2.2%

60% Provides 20 Provides no band to 49 hours unpaid care 40% unpaid care a 89.1% week

1.2% of Persons within age 20% % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a week 24 34 49 64 over 7.5% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Rutland

Compared to the England benchmark, Rutland had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Rutland those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

1.8%

60%

Provides 20 Provides no band to 49 hours unpaid care 40% unpaid care a 89.8% week

1.0% of Persons within age 20% % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 7.4% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Within Leicestershire County

Blaby

Compared to the England benchmark, Blaby had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Blaby those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

2.2%

60% Provides no

Provides 20 band to 49 hours unpaid care 40% unpaid care a 88.8% week 20%

1.3% of Persons within age % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 7.7% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Charnwood

Compared to the England benchmark, Charnwood had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Charnwood those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

2.0%

60%

Provides 20 Provides no band to 49 hours unpaid care 40% unpaid care a 89.7% week 20%

1.1% of Persons within age % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 7.2% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Harborough

Compared to the England benchmark, Harborough had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Harborough those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

1.8%

60% Provides no

Provides 20 unpaid care band to 49 hours 89.5% 40% unpaid care a week 20%

1.1% of Persons within age % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 7.7% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Hinckley and Bosworth

Compared to the England benchmark, Hinckley and Bosworth had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Hinckley and Bosworth those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80%

2.4%

60%

Provides no band Provides 20 unpaid care 40% to 49 hours 88.8% unpaid care a

week 20% of of Persons within age

1.3% % % Provides 1 to 0% 19 hours 0 to 15 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 24 34 49 64 over week 7.6% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Melton

Compared to the England benchmark, Melton had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within Melton those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80% 2.0%

Provides no 60% Provides 20 unpaid care to 49 hours 89.5% 40% unpaid care a band week 20%

1.1% of of Persons within age

Provides 1 to 0% % % 19 hours 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 15 24 34 49 64 over week 7.4% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

North West Leicestershire

Compared to the England benchmark, North West Leicestershire had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within North West Leicestershire those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80% 2.5%

Provides no 60% Provides 20 unpaid care to 49 hours 88.6% 40% unpaid care a band week 20%

1.4% of of Persons within age

Provides 1 to 0% % % 19 hours 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 15 24 34 49 64 over week 7.5% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Oadby and Wigston

Compared to the England benchmark, Oadby and Wigston had a higher proportion of people who provided 1 to 19 hours of unpaid care a week. As in the England benchmark, within North West Leicestershire those in older age bands were more likely to provide unpaid care, with those aged 50 to 64 years old most likely to provide at least some unpaid care and those aged 65 years old and over most likely to provide 50 or more hours of unpaid care a week.

Provides 50 or more 100% hours unpaid care a week 80% 2.4% Provides no

60% unpaid care Provides 20 88.7% to 49 hours 40% unpaid care a band week 1.3% 20% of of Persons within age 0%

Provides 1 to % 19 hours 0 to 16 to 25 to 35 to 50 to 65 and unpaid care a 15 24 34 49 64 over week 7.6% Age Band (years) ●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Sexual Identity

Population estimates for sexual identity were based on the 2016 ONS Annual Population Survey for those aged sixteen years old and above.

England Benchmark

In the England benchmark 2.6% of those who gave their sexual identity, identified as LGBO; 1.3% gay or lesbian, 0.8% bisexual, and 0.6% other.

Other 0.6%

Bisexual 0.8% Heterosexual or straight 97.4% Gay or lesbian 1.3%

●Heterosexual or straight ●Gay or lesbian ●Bisexual ● Other

East Midlands Region

Compared to the England benchmark, the East Midlands Region had a similar proportion of LGBO people overall, but had a higher proportion of people who identified as “other.”

Other 0.9%

Bisexual 0.6% Heterosexual or straight Gay or 97.4% lesbian 1.0%

●Heterosexual or straight ●Gay or lesbian ●Bisexual ● Other

Appendix: Graphical Summary of Analyses

Age and Gender

Population estimates for age and gender were based on ONS 2017 mid-year estimates.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

● Females ● Males

90+ 90+

80 80

70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40

30 30 Age Age (single year) Age Age (single year) 20 20 10 10 0 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population % of Population England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

90+ 90+

80 80

70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40

30 30 Age (single Age year) (single 20 Age (single year) 20 10 10 0 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population % of Population Leicester City Leicestershire County

90+

70 60 50 40 30

Age Age (single year) 20 10 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

● Females ● Males

90+ 90+

80 80

70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30

Age Age (single year) 20

Age Age (single year) 20 10 10 0 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population % of Population England Blaby

90+ 90+

80 80

70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40

30 30 Age Age (single year) Age Age (single year) 20 20 10 10 0 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population % of Population Charnwood Harborough

90+ 90+

80 80

70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40

30 30 Age Age (single year) Age Age (single year) 20 20 10 10 0 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population % of Population Hinckley and Bosworth Melton

90+ 90+

80 80

70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40

30 30 Age Age (single year) Age Age (single year) 20 20 10 10 0 0 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% % of Population % of Population North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston

Disability

Population estimates for disability were based on the UK 2011 Census.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a lot lot Day-to-day 8.3% 7.4% Day-to-day activities activities not limited not limited 83.5% 82.4% Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a little little 9.3% 9.1% England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a lot lot 8.4% Day-to-day 7.0% Day-to-day activities activities not limited not limited 82.7% 83.8% Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a little little 9.0% 9.2% Leicester City Leicestershire County

Day-to-day activities limited a lot 6.1% Day-to-day activities not limited 84.5%

Day-to-day activities limited a little 9.4% Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

●Day-to-day activities not limited ●Day-to-day activities limited a little ●Day-to-day activities limited a lot

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a lot lot 8.3% 6.9% Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities not limited not limited 84.2% 82.4% Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a little little 9.3% 8.9% England Blaby

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a lot lot Day-to-day 6.7% Day-to-day activities 5.9% activities not limited not limited 84.4% 85.4%

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a little little 8.9% 8.6% Charnwood Harborough

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a lot lot 7.5% Day-to-day 6.3% Day-to-day activities activities not limited not limited 83.0% 84.4% Day-to-day activities Day-to-day limited a activities little limited a 9.5% little 9.3% Hinckley and Bosworth Melton

Day-to-day Day-to-day activities limited a activities limited a lot 7.7% lot Day-to-day Day-to-day 8.4% activities activities not limited not limited 81.9% 82.7% Day-to-day Day-to-day activities activities limited a limited a little little 9.7% 9.6% North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston

Ethnicity

Population estimates for ethnicity were based on the UK 2011 Census.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other

Mixed Other Other 2.3% 1.0% 1.1% Mixed 2.0% White Black Black 78.4% British White British 3.5% 85.4% 2.4%

Asian Asian British British 7.8% 16.1%

England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

Other White Other 2.6% 50.5% 0.4% Mixed Mixed 3.5% 1.3%

Black Black British British 0.6% 6.2% White 91.4% Asian Asian British British 6.3% 37.1%

Leicester City Leicestershire County

Mixed Other 1.0% 0.2%

Black British 0.7%

Asian British White 1.0% 97.1%

Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

●White ●Asian British ●Black British ●Mixed ●Other Mixed Other Other 2.3% 1.0% Mixed 0.4% 1.6%

Black Black British British White 1.0% 3.5% 85.4% White Asian 91.0% British Asian 6.1% British 7.8%

England Blaby

Other Other 0.2% 0.6% Mixed Mixed 1.1% 1.6% Black British Black 0.4% British White 0.8% 87.4% Asian White British 95.2% Asian 3.0% British 9.7%

Charnwood Harborough

Other Mixed Other Mixed 0.2% 0.8% 0.1% 1.0% Black Black British British 0.2% 0.2% Asian Asian British British White 1.0% White 2.1% 96.5% 97.9%

Hinckley and Bosworth Melton

Mixed Other Mixed Other 0.9% 0.1% 2.1% 1.4%

Black Black British British White 0.2% 1.2% 73.0%

Asian British 1.1% White Asian 97.6% British 22.3%

North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston 55

Religion or Belief

Population estimates for religion or belief were based on the UK 2011 Census, with percentages calculated out of the total number of people who disclosed their religion or belief.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief)

No religion Buddhist No religion Buddhist 26.7% 0.5% 27.2% 0.3%

Other Other religion religion 0.5% 0.5% Sikh Sikh 2.4% 0.9% Christian Muslim 55.0% Muslim 7.4% 5.4% Christian 64.0% Jewish Jewish Hindu 0.1% Hindu 0.5% 1.6% 7.2% England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

Buddhist No religion Buddhist No religion 0.4% 28.9% 0.3% 24.2% Other Christian Other religion 34.3% religion 0.4% 0.6% Sikh Sikh 1.3% 4.6% Muslim Muslim 1.5% Christian 19.7% Hindu Jewish Jewish Hindu 64.5% 16.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.0% Leicester City Leicestershire County

No religion Buddhist 25.1% 0.3% Other religion 0.4% Sikh 0.1% Muslim 0.4%

Jewish Christian 0.2% Hindu 73.3% 0.2% Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

●Buddhist ●Christian ●Hindu ●Jewish ●Muslim ●Sikh ●Other (%’s calculated out of the total number who disclosed their religion or belief)

No religion Buddhist No religion Buddhist 26.7% 0.5% 31.2% 0.2% Other religion 0.5% Other religion Sikh 0.4% 0.9% Sikh Muslim 2.1% 5.4% Christian Christian 64.0% Muslim 62.3% 0.8% Jewish Hindu Jewish Hindu 0.5% 1.6% 0.1% 2.9% England Blaby

No religion Buddhist Buddhist 31.2% 0.4% No religion 0.2% 26.4% Other Other religion religion 0.3% 0.4% Christian Sikh Sikh 59.3% 0.8% Christian 0.8% Muslim 70.3% Muslim 0.5% 2.5% Jewish Hindu Jewish Hindu 0.1% 5.4% 0.1% 1.4% Charnwood Harborough

Buddhist No religion Buddhist No religion 0.2% 26.0% 0.2% 28.7% Other Other religion religion 0.4% 0.4% Sikh Sikh 0.1% 0.4% Christian Muslim Christian Muslim 68.8% 0.1% 72.7% 0.5% Jewish 0.0% Jewish Hindu Hindu 0.0% 0.9% 0.4% Hinckley and Bosworth Melton

Buddhist No religion Buddhist No religion 0.2% 24.6% 0.3% 29.3% Other Other religion religion 0.5% Christian 0.5% Sikh 51.5% Sikh 6.9% 0.1% Muslim Muslim 6.2% 0.2% Christian Jewish Jewish Hindu 69.2% 0.3% Hindu 0.0% 0.4% 9.7% North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston

Language

Population estimates for language were based on the UK 2011 Census for those aged three years old and above.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

Arabic Other 0.3% 4.7% Other Gujarati 4.7% 0.4% Urdu Bengali 0.4% (with English English Sylheti and 92.0% Polish 88.7% Chatgaya) 1.0% 0.4% Urdu Punjabi 0.5% 1.0% Gujarati Punjabi Polish 4.3% 0.5% 1.0% England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

Other Other 1.8% 3.8%

English English 96.2% 98.2%

Leicestershire County Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

Arabic Other 0.3% 4.7% Gujarati 0.4%

Bengali Other (with English 3.4% Sylheti and 92.0% Chatgaya) English 0.4% 96.6% Urdu 0.5% Punjabi Polish 0.5% 1.0% England Blaby

Other Other 4.6% 2.0%

English Gujarati 93.6% English 1.8% 98.0%

Charnwood Harborough

Other Other 1.7% 2.2%

English English 98.3% 97.8%

Hinckley and Bosworth Melton

Other Other 3.2% 1.8% Punjabi English English 2.2% 91.6% 98.2% Gujarati 2.9%

North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston

Marital Status

Population estimates for marital status were based on the UK 2011 Census for those aged sixteen years old and above.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

●Single (never married or never registered a same-sex civil partnership) ●In a same sex civil partnership ●Married ●Separated (but still legally married or still in a same-sex civil partnership) ●Divorced ●Widowed or surviving partner from a same-sex civil partnership

Divorced or Divorced or formerly in a formerly in a same-sex civil same-sex civil partnership In a registered partnership In a registered which is now same-sex civil which is now same-sex civil legally dissolved partnership legally dissolved partnership 8.1% 0.2% 9.0% 0.2%

Separated (but Separated (but still legally still legally married or still married or still legally in a same- legally in a same- sex civil sex civil partnership) Married partnership) Married 2.7% 46.6% 2.5% 48.8% England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

Widowed or Single (never Widowed or Single (never surviving partner married or never surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil civil partnership same-sex civil 6.1% partnership) 7.1% partnership) 41.5% 30.1% Divorced or Divorced or formerly in a formerly in a same-sex civil same-sex civil partnership In a registered partnership which is now In a registered same-sex civil which is now legally dissolved same-sex civil partnership legally dissolved 8.6% partnership 0.2% 7.1% 0.2%

Separated (but Separated (but still legally still legally married or still married or still legally in a same- legally in a same- sex civil sex civil partnership) Married partnership) Married 2.7% 42.4% 2.4% 51.7% Leicester City Leicestershire County

Widowed or Single (never surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil 7.6% partnership) 26.7%

In a registered Divorced or same-sex civil formerly in a partnership same-sex civil 0.2% partnership which is now legally dissolved 8.9%

Separated (but still legally married or still legally in a same- sex civil partnership) Married 2.4% 54.2% Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

Divorced or Divorced or formerly in a formerly in a same-sex civil same-sex civil In a registered partnership same-sex civil In a registered partnership which is now partnership same-sex civil which is now legally dissolved 0.2% partnership legally dissolved 9.0% 0.2% 8.7%

Widowed or Single (never Widowed or Single (never surviving partner married or never surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil civil partnership same-sex civil 6.6% partnership) 6.9% partnership) 35.9% 25.8% Divorced or In a registered Divorced or formerly in a same-sex civil formerly in a same-sex civil partnership In a registered same-sex civil partnership 0.2% same-sex civil partnership which is now partnership which is now legally dissolved 0.2% legally dissolved 8.6% 8.0%

Widowed or Single (never Widowed or Single (never surviving partner married or never surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil civil partnership same-sex civil 7.2% partnership) 7.4% partnership) 27.8% 27.3% Divorced or In a registered formerly in a In a registered Divorced or same-sex civil same-sex civil same-sex civil formerly in a partnership partnership partnership same-sex civil 0.2% which is now 0.2% partnership legally dissolved which is now 9.3% legally dissolved 9.2%

Widowed or Single (never Widowed or Single (never surviving partner married or never surviving partner married or never from a same-sex registered a from a same-sex registered a civil partnership same-sex civil civil partnership same-sex civil 7.2% partnership) 8.0% partnership) 28.3% 31.2% In a registered In a registered Divorced or same-sex civil Divorced or same-sex civil formerly in a partnership formerly in a partnership same-sex civil 0.1% same-sex civil 0.2% partnership partnership which is now which is now legally dissolved legally dissolved 7.0% 9.4%

Separated (but Separated (but still legally still legally married or still married or still legally in a same- legally in a same- sex civil sex civil partnership) Married partnership) Married 2.5% 52.4% 2.0% 51.7% North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston

Unpaid Care

Population estimates for unpaid carers were based on the UK 2011 Census.

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, alongside the England Benchmark

●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Provides 50 Provides 50 or more or more hours unpaid hours unpaid care a week care a week 2.2% 2.4%

Provides 20 Provides 20 to 49 hours Provides no to 49 hours Provides no unpaid care a unpaid care unpaid care a unpaid care week 89.8% week 89.6% 1.4% 1.4%

Provides 1 to Provides 1 to 19 hours 19 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 6.5% 6.8% England Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland Overall

Provides 50 Provides 50 or more or more hours unpaid hours unpaid care a week care a week 2.4% 2.2%

Provides 20 Provides 20 Provides no to 49 hours to 49 hours Provides no unpaid care unpaid care a unpaid care a unpaid care 89.1% week 90.6% week 1.7% 1.2%

Provides 1 to Provides 1 to 19 hours 19 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 5.3% 7.5% Leicester City Leicestershire County

Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week 1.8%

Provides 20 Provides no to 49 hours unpaid care unpaid care a 89.8% week 1.0%

Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week 7.4% Rutland

District Authorities within Leicestershire County, alongside the England Benchmark

●Provides no unpaid care ●Provides 1 to 19 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 20 to 49 hours unpaid care a week ● Provides 50 or more hours unpaid care a week

Provides 50 Provides 50 or more or more hours unpaid hours unpaid care a week care a week 2.2% 2.4%

Provides 20 Provides 20 Provides no to 49 hours Provides no to 49 hours unpaid care unpaid care a unpaid care unpaid care a 88.8% week 89.8% week 1.4% 1.3%

Provides 1 to Provides 1 to 19 hours 19 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 6.5% 7.7% England Blaby

Provides 50 Provides 50 or more or more hours unpaid hours unpaid care a week care a week 2.0% 1.8%

Provides no Provides 20 Provides no Provides 20 unpaid care to 49 hours unpaid care to 49 hours 89.5% unpaid care a 89.7% unpaid care a week week 1.1% 1.1%

Provides 1 to Provides 1 to 19 hours 19 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 7.2% 7.7% Charnwood Harborough

Provides 50 Provides 50 or more or more hours unpaid hours unpaid care a week care a week 2.4% 2.0% Provides no Provides no Provides 20 unpaid care Provides 20 unpaid care to 49 hours 89.5% to 49 hours 88.8% unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 1.1% 1.3% Provides 1 to Provides 1 to 19 hours 19 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 7.6% 7.4% Hinckley and Bosworth Melton

Provides 50 Provides 50 or more or more hours unpaid hours unpaid care a week care a week 2.5% 2.4% Provides no Provides no unpaid care unpaid care Provides 20 Provides 20 88.7% to 49 hours 88.6% to 49 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 1.4% 1.3%

Provides 1 to Provides 1 to 19 hours 19 hours unpaid care a unpaid care a week week 7.5% 7.6% North West Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston

Sexual Identity

Population estimates for sexual identity were based on the 2016 ONS Annual Population Survey for those aged sixteen years old and above.

East Midlands Region alongside the England Benchmark

●Heterosexual or straight ●Gay or lesbian ●Bisexual ● Other

Other 0.6% Other 0.9%

Bisexual Bisexual 0.8% Heterosexual 0.6% Heterosexual or straight or straight 97.4% Gay or 97.4% Gay or lesbian lesbian 1.0% 1.3%

England East Midlands Region