DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Northumberland's Performance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Northumberland's Performance 41 A ssessing Northumberland’s performance Results of the Place Survey 2008/09 for August 2009 Northumberland County Council and partners Contents 1. Summary of key findings ....................................................... 1 2. Overview.................................................................................. 8 3. Methodology for data collection.......................................... 13 4. Key trends ............................................................................. 16 5. About the local area.............................................................. 20 6. Community safety................................................................. 34 7. Community cohesion ........................................................... 48 8. Helping out and getting involved......................................... 61 9. Local decision-making ......................................................... 68 10. Information provision.......................................................... 76 11. Health .................................................................................... 83 12. Local public services............................................................ 87 13. Council services ................................................................... 99 Appendices ................................................................................ 115 Appendix 1: Methodology ......................................................... 116 Appendix 2: Guide to statistical reliability ............................... 125 Appendix 3: Council service satisfaction – trend and comparator analysis .................................................................. 127 Appendix 4: Marked up questionnaire ..................................... 133 1 1. Summary of key findings This report presents the findings from the 2008 Place Survey conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Northumberland County Council. The survey was conducted via a postal self-completion approach, as prescribed by the Audit Commission and the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG). Fieldwork was carried out from 29 September to 19 December 2008. A total of 8,861 responses were achieved and data has been weighted to ensure results are reflective of the wider population in the county, and to account for non-response bias. General This survey was carried out at a time of change for the county as the move to unitary status approached in April 2009. Therefore, the debate locally might have influenced opinions. Additionally, the normative data used within the report should be seen as indicative only (as, for example, the Met/ Unitary averages are made up of authorities who have been unitary authorities for some time). About the local area Four fifths of residents (81%) are satisfied with their local area as a place to live (NI5), a rise of six percentage points since 2006/7. This rating is in line with the national average and above the North East and Met/Unitary averages. This is a trend seen nationally however as the next chart illustrates. © 2009 Ipsos MORI. Contains Ipsos MORI confidential and proprietary information Not to be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos MORI. 2 Satisfaction w ith area Q Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live? Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 85% 82% 80% 80% 80% n 77% o i t 77% c 75% a 75% f 75% s i t a 71% 73% S 70% 70% 69% 66% 65% 2006 Year surveyed 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI Additionally, nine in ten residents (90%) are satisfied with their home as a place to live. More than four in five (85%) of older residents (aged 65 or above) say they are satisfied with the local area and with their home as a place to live (combined measure NI138). More than a third (36%) of residents agree that older people in their local area are able to get the services and support they need to continue to live at home for as long as they want to (NI139). This is above the Met/Unitary and national averages but in line with the North East average. Activities for teenagers and road and pavement repairs are the most important areas for change locally, followed by job prospects and public transport. Affordable housing, clean streets, and the level of crime are general priorities. Community safety The overwhelming majority of Northumberland residents (91%) say they feel safe outside in their local area during the day, and two thirds (65%) feel safe outside after dark. © 2009 Ipsos MORI. Contains Ipsos MORI confidential and proprietary information Not to be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos MORI. 3 Looking at issues of anti-social behaviour, the biggest concerns for local residents remain teenagers hanging round the streets, followed by rubbish and litter lying around and vandalism and graffiti. On almost all measures, perceptions of anti-social behaviour have improved – although as the following chart shows, this is a national trend. ASB historical data Q Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think each of the following are… 7 strand ASB index Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 45% 45% 43% 42% 41% 38% 35% 36% 30% 29% 27% 28% 26% 27% 25% 26% 23% 23% 21% 20% 19% 15% 2003 Year surveyed 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 an d 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI People using or dealing drugs (NI41) and people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces (NI42) are seen as specific problems by less than three in ten residents. Overall, around one in six respondents perceive anti-social behaviours aspects as problems in the area (NI7), compared to one in five nationally. About a third of Northumberland residents agree that the police and other local public services seek people’s views and are successfully dealing with the above issues in their local area (NI27 and NI21 scores respectively). On both measures, the authority scores are above the Ipsos MORI District and Met/Unitary averages. © 2009 Ipsos MORI. Contains Ipsos MORI confidential and proprietary information Not to be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos MORI. 4 Community cohesion Four in five residents (81%) say that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together (NI1), which is higher than the Met/Unitary average (73%), the North East average (74%) and the national average (76%). Around seven in ten residents (68%) say they feel they belong very or fairly strongly to their immediate neighbourhood (NI2). This perception is again significantly higher than how people feel on this issue on average. Just above one in four Northumberland residents say that people not treating each other with respect and consideration (NI23) is a problem in their area. Similarly, more residents in Northumberland agree that parents take responsibility for the behaviour of their children (NI22) than those in other Met/Unitary and North Eastern authorities. Helping out and getting involved One in six residents (17%) say they have taken part in any civic participation activities (NI3) and a quarter of residents participate in regular volunteering (NI6). In terms of engaging with the local community, around three in ten residents (28%) say that they feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area (NI4). The score on the above three indicators are in line with the performance of the other Met/Unitary and North Eastern authorities. Information provision About two in five residents say they feel informed about local public services, which is in line with the Ipsos MORI average. One in six residents say they feel informed about what to do in the event of a large- scale emergency (NI37). This is in line with awareness levels in other results nationally. © 2009 Ipsos MORI. Contains Ipsos MORI confidential and proprietary information Not to be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos MORI. 5 Health Three in four residents rate their health as good or very good (NI119), similar to the Ipsos MORI District and Met/Unitary averages. More than four in five Northumberland residents say they are very or fairly satisfied with their life as a whole. Local public services Three in four residents think that their local public services treat all types of people fairly, and two in three agree that local services are working to make the area safer and cleaner and greener. However, less than half feel that public services act on the concerns of local residents or promote their interests. This is line with the respective Ipsos MORI averages. When looking at satisfaction with local public services, health services achieve the highest ratings in Northumberland. More than four in five are happy with their GP, and seven in ten are satisfied with their hospital. Around three in five are satisfied with their dentist, Northumberland Fire and Rescue Service, and Northumbria Police. Three in four residents say that they have been treated with respect and consideration by their local public services (NI140). This performance is in line with the Ipsos MORI District and Met/Unitary averages. © 2009 Ipsos MORI. Contains Ipsos MORI confidential and proprietary information Not to be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos MORI. 6 The Council and services Around a third (36%) are satisfied with how
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chilterns Ancient Woodland Survey Appendix: South Bucks District
    Ancient Woodland Inventory for the Chilterns Appendix - South Bucks District Chiltern Woodlands CONSERVATION BOARD Project Chiltern District Council WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 1. Introduction his appendix summarises results from the Chilterns Ancient Woodland Survey for the whole of South Bucks District in the County of Buckinghamshire (see map 1 for details). For more information on the project and Tits methodology, please refer to the main report, 1which can be downloaded from www.chilternsaonb.org The Chilterns Ancient Woodland Survey area includes parts of Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire. The extent of the project area included, but was not confined to, the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 2 The work follows on from previous revisions in the South East. The Chilterns survey was hosted by the Chilterns Conservation Board with support from the Chiltern Woodlands Project, Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) and Surrey Biodiversity Information Centre (SBIC). The work was funded by Buckinghamshire County Council, Chilterns Conservation Board, Chiltern District Council, Dacorum Borough Council, Forestry Commission, Hertfordshire County Council, Natural England and Wycombe District Council. Map 1: Project aims The Survey Area, showing Local Authority areas covered and the Chilterns AONB The primary aim of the County Boundaries survey was to revise and Chilterns AONB update the Ancient Entire Districts Woodland Inventory and Chiltern District
    [Show full text]
  • Town and Parish Councils in Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe District Council Areas
    Town and Parish Councils in Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe District Council areas. Dear Town or Parish Council, Creation of Parish Charter You will no doubt be aware that contrary to published expectations there was no announcement from DCLG about a reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire in March. We have now been informed that, in the light of the General Election, the current government will make no decision in relation to the unitary question. There will need to be a formal consideration of the submissions that have been made by the new government. Whilst we are disappointed that this Government has not yet announced support for our proposals, we remain confident that a new Government will recognise the merits of the District Council proposal and create two new unitaries in Buckinghamshire. In the meantime you will be aware that the County Council has launched an online survey for anyone to indicate their views and express support for their preferred unitary option. Obviously we welcome your support in completing the survey in favour of two unitaries and the District proposal but recognise that surveys are not everyone’s cup of tea and it is very much up to you. The link is below if you would like to do so. http://futurebucks.co.uk/yourviews/ In the meantime we are keen to ensure that we do not lose momentum in taking forward some of the ideas in our proposals which we feel do not require a decision from government. In particular we suggested that a Town and Parish Charter would enable us to develop an understanding with parishes about how we want to work together moving forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Coverage and Outreach
    Global Carbon Project – Future Earth Carbon Budget 2017 Published 13 November 2017 Coverage and Outreach News agency promo-poster in Melbourne, Australia, 14 Nov. 2017 This document gives an overview of the coverage and outreach of the Global Carbon Budget 2017 release and associated publications and activities. It is intended to inform the team on how their work was reported and perceived worldwide. It is not exhaustive but still provides much detail to guide future outreach efforts. PRODUCTS 13 NOV 2018 1. Three papers (ESSD-CorinneL, NatureCC-GlenP, ERL-RobJ) 2. Data and ppt 3. GCP carbon budget webpage updates 4. Global Carbon Atlas updates 5. One Infographic 6. One Video (English, Spanish) 7. Two blogs (The Conversation-Pep, CarbonBrief-Glen) 8. Seven press releases (UEA, CICERO, Stanford University, CSIR-South Africa, China-Fundan University, Future Earth, European Climate Foundation) 9. Multiple Twitter and Facebook feeds. 10. Key Messages document (internal) SUMMARY OF COVERAGE AND OUTREACH • Media outlet coverage within the first week after publication (print and online; based on Meltwater searches on “Global Carbon Project”, “Global Carbon Budget”, “Global Carbon Budget 2017” and “2017 Global Carbon Budget” run by European Climate Foundation): Global coverage in 99 countries with a total of 2,792 media items (this count doesn’t include UK media), in 27 different languages. • OECD dominates coverage (particularly USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada, and Australia), but almost equally large coverage in China, India and Brazil (a great leap forward over previous years). South east Asia and Central/South America (except Brazil) some coverage too. Key to this success was working for the first time with the Climate Change Foundation facilitated by Future Earth (Owen, Alistair).
    [Show full text]
  • Inequalities in Britain, Sociology Review, 21, 1, 15-19
    Dorling, D. and Thomas, B. (2011) Mapping Inequalities in Britain, Sociology Review, 21, 1, 15-19. Inequalities in Britain Danny Dorling and Bethan Thomas This paper draws on three of the key topics we discuss in our new atlas, Bankrupt Britain: An atlas of social change (Dorling and Thomas 2011). 1. Public sector cuts: local and national implications In June 2010 the Department for Communities and Local Government published what is likely to become one of the most infamous documents of the economic recession, titled Local government contribution to efficiencies in 2010/11 (DCLG 2010). This document set out what many have argued are some of the most unfairly distributed cuts ever to be imposed on local government in England. The poor and the poorest areas of the country appeared to have been targeted to receive the deepest and most sustained cuts. This mirrored the effects of the national budget of that month that was also found, on examination by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (2010), to be highly regressive (taking more from the poor as a proportion of their income than from the rich). It may well not have been a coincidence that almost all of the areas to suffer the greatest service cuts contained a large majority of people who had voted against the two parties that had come to form the new coalition government. Map 1 shows where the main cuts will, from April 2011, hit most, least, and not at all. These are the first relatively modest local government cuts, of 'just' £6 billion. However, not a penny of that £6 billion is to be saved by the citizens of generally well-heeled districts such as Chiltern, South Bucks, most of Devon, Christchurch, most of Dorset, Cheltenham, the Cotswolds, Winchester, Broxbourne, most of Hertfordshire, Tunbridge Wells, Harrogate, most of Oxfordshire (but not Oxford), all of Surrey, the Malvern Hills and another hundred or so generally 'leafy' and mostly 'Tory' or 'Liberal Democrat' areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Lead Area Local Authorities Covered by Funding Provisional 2020/21
    Lead area Local authorities covered by funding Provisional 2020/21 funding allocation Adur and Worthing £421,578.00 Arun £318,817.00 Ashford £257,000.00 Babergh Babergh and Mid Suffolk (lead) £163,498.00 West Suffolk Barking and Dagenham £184,703.00 Barnet £636,845.00 Barnsley £102,900.00 Basildon £474,871.00 Basingstoke and Deane £199,850.00 Bath and North East Somerset £417,151.00 Bedford £986,915.00 Birmingham £684,666.00 Blackburn with Darwen Hyndburn BC £184,000.00 Ribble Valley BC Burnley BC Pendle BC Rossendale BC Blackpool £200,000.00 Bolton £124,997.00 Boston £385,451.00 Bournemouth, Christchurch and £1,401,333.00 Poole Bracknell Forest £356,141.00 Bradford £461,320.00 Breckland £106,500.00 Brent £827,422.00 Brighton and Hove £2,042,637.00 Bristol, City of £2,814,768.00 Bromley £103,654.00 Broxbourne £119,380.00 Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vale £576,500.00 Wycombe Chiltern South Bucks Bury £40,000.00 Calderdale £253,945.00 Cambridge £486,457.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £229,500.00 Camden £1,327,000.00 Canterbury £584,739.00 Carlisle (lead for all Cumbrian Allerdale Borough Council £416,340.00 authorities) Barrow Borough Council Carlisle City Council Copeland Borough Council Cumbria County Council Eden District Council South Lakeland District Council Central Bedfordshire £329,938.00 Cheshire East £438,329.30 Cheshire West and Chester £731,034.00 Chichester £230,465.00 City of London £590,300.00 Colchester £296,144.00 Corby East Northamptonshire £113,000.00 Kettering Wellingborough Cornwall £1,696,467.00 County Durham £269,128.35
    [Show full text]
  • Local Development Scheme
    Local Development Scheme December 2020 – December 2023 Last updated: December 2020 Version: 1.0 Online version: https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/insert-link-to-policy Contents 1. Summary 3 2. Introduction and context 5 3. Our current Plans and documents 6 4. Plans we will work on 8 4.1. Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 8 4.2. Buckinghamshire Local Plan 9 5. Background and supporting information 11 6. Neighbourhood Development Plans 13 6.1. ‘Made’ NDPs 13 6.2. NDPs under preparation 14 Buckinghamshire Council: Local Development Scheme 2 1. Summary What is the Local Development Scheme? The Buckinghamshire Local Development Scheme (LDS) sets out our work programme for the main planning policy documents we aim to prepare over the next three years. These documents form part of the Development Plan for Buckinghamshire. The LDS explains: what local plans we will work on what will be in the plans and where they will apply how long it will take us to prepare the plans what kind of plans they are The development plan for Buckinghamshire The Development Plan for Buckinghamshire currently includes all current Local Plans and Core Strategies; the Minerals and Waste Local Plan; and any ‘made’ Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs). In Buckinghamshire there are a number of NDPs already ‘made’, and there are some NDPs in preparation. These are listed below. Our work programme These are the plans we intend to work on: We will begin work on the Buckinghamshire Local Plan We will complete the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) process The time table for these plans is summarised below.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Delivery Test: 2019 Measurement
    Housing Delivery Test: 2019 measurement Local Planning Authorities Housing Delivery Housing Delivery Number of homes required Total number of Number of homes delivered Total number of ONS code Area name Test: 2019 Test: 2019 homes required homes delivered measurement consequence 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 E07000223 Adur 177 177 177 532 64 114 122 300 56% Buffer E07000026 Allerdale 125 108 118 351 250 480 337 1,067 304% None E07000032 Amber Valley 383 363 388 1,134 563 654 594 1,811 160% None E07000224 Arun 866 947 1,121 2,934 618 704 675 1,997 68% Buffer E07000170 Ashfield 426 471 502 1,399 582 401 344 1,327 95% None E07000105 Ashford 688 753 1,016 2,456 701 591 881 2,173 88% Action plan E07000004 Aylesbury Vale 944 1,055 1,450 3,449 1,323 1,414 1,758 4,495 130% None E07000200 Babergh 292 300 334 926 226 331 579 1,136 123% None E09000002 Barking and Dagenham 1,236 1,236 1,236 3,708 583 413 906 1,902 51% Buffer E09000003 Barnet 2,200 2,283 2,349 6,832 1,793 2,125 2,221 6,139 90% Action plan E08000016 Barnsley 821 874 905 2,600 850 1,009 988 2,847 110% None E07000027 Barrow-in-Furness 24 -65 0 0 108 105 122 335 NA None E07000066 Basildon 657 773 1,076 2,506 412 341 340 1,093 44% Presumption E07000084 Basingstoke and Deane 850 753 850 2,453 555 828 1,204 2,587 105% None E07000171 Bassetlaw 332 281 306 919 459 551 434 1,444 157% None E06000022 Bath and North East Somerset 449 449 657 1,555 1,192 1,439 1,179 3,810 245% None E06000055 Bedford 891 995 1,319 3,206 1,255 1,371 1,371 3,996 125% None E09000004 Bexley 347 446
    [Show full text]
  • Locality Profile 2016
    Locality Profile 2016 Locality Profile Southern Locality Chapters Map of the locality Demographics and Public Health Data Changes over the last 5 years Local Plan Key Communities Who's Who Dr Conan Hassim Transport and Employment Clinical Locality Lead, Southern Locality GP at Threeways Surgery, Stoke Poges Patient Services used, CQC Mrs Helen Ellis Nurse Locality Lead, Southern Locality Community assets, Practice Nurse at Misbourne Surgery Pharmacies Locality GP Practices Dentists Burnham Health Centre Opticians Denham Medical Centre Learning Disability Centers Southmead Surgery Children Centers The Allan Practice Social Care The Hall Practice The Ivers Practice Voluntary sector services The Misbourne Practice Threeways Surgery Prisons, Universities, colleges, Private hospitals, Schools etc. Next 5 Years SWOT Analysis Locality Profile 2016 Demographics and Public Health Data1 Specific issues to consider in the Southern locality The Southern Locality’s population size in 2016 is around 84,033 people around 25% of the total Bucks population. Around 20% of the population is aged 65+ higher than the CCCG average of 18% and Bucks average of 17%. 23% of the population is aged <19 compared to 24% in CCCG and Bucks. The deprivation levels and proportion of ethnic minority population are less than the CCG and Buckinghamshire average as a whole. Life expectancy is better than the national average and similar to Bucks average but there is a difference of 3 years in life expectancy between males and females in South Bucks District Council, compared to a difference of 3.5 years in Bucks. The population of Southern locality experiences similar or worse health outcomes in some areas compared to the Buckinghamshire population.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Road Safety Casualties
    Appendix 1: Average annual child casualties per 10,000 resident children, 2010-2014, by Local Authority (by rank) Rank based on Local Authority Average annual Total number of Average annual average annual child (0-15 years) child (0-15 child (0-15) child casualties casualties per years) casualties per 10,000 10,000 resident casualties resident children children 1 Blackpool 30.84 393 79 2 Hyndburn 29.83 246 49 3 Blackburn with Darwen 28.69 491 98 4 Burnley 28.66 248 50 5 North East Lincolnshire 28.30 429 86 6 East Lindsey 28.06 295 59 7 Boston 26.86 156 31 8 Ceredigion 26.80 149 30 9 Preston 26.78 361 72 10 Liverpool 26.63 1047 209 11 Dartford 25.69 262 52 12 Runnymede 25.08 178 36 13 Allerdale 24.91 201 40 14 Ryedale 24.57 104 21 15 Doncaster 23.81 684 137 16 Thanet 23.70 306 61 17 Denbighshire 23.03 196 39 18 North Warwickshire 23.00 125 25 19 Pendle 22.83 210 42 20 Kingston upon Hull, City of 22.82 556 111 21 Copeland 22.76 135 27 22 Chorley 22.62 225 45 23 South Staffordshire 22.44 197 39 24 Conwy 22.17 211 42 25 Lincoln 22.13 173 35 26 West Lancashire 22.09 219 44 27 Portsmouth 21.92 416 83 28 South Ribble 21.61 214 43 29 Knowsley 21.58 308 62 30 Tandridge 21.37 172 34 31 North Lincolnshire 21.31 333 67 32 Gateshead 21.27 375 75 33 County Durham 21.21 936 187 34 West Lindsey 21.21 165 33 35 Barnsley 21.16 458 92 36 Oldham 20.91 530 106 37 Bradford 20.84 1282 256 38 Lancaster 20.83 241 48 1 39 Carlisle 20.78 192 38 40 Shepway 20.69 197 39 41 Lichfield 20.60 181 36 42 Stoke-on-Trent 20.60 504 101 43 Weymouth and Portland 20.55 111 22 44 West Dorset 20.50 161 32 45 Manchester 20.46 1019 204 46 Wyre 20.46 176 35 47 Rotherham 20.46 507 101 48 Nottingham 20.35 574 115 49 Isle of Wight 20.28 228 46 50 Ashford 20.23 252 50 51 Rother 20.22 143 29 52 East Riding of Yorkshire 20.18 561 112 53 Wakefield 20.15 610 122 54 Salford 20.01 460 92 55 Swale 19.98 276 55 56 Leicester 19.93 701 140 57 North Devon 19.81 160 32 58 East Staffordshire 19.68 216 43 59 Gwynedd 19.48 204 41 60 Rossendale 19.37 129 26 61 Sunderland 19.32 465 93 62 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authority District Codes
    UK Data Archive Study Number 6028 - British Household Panel Survey, Waves 1-18, 1991-2009: Conditional Access, Local Authority District Codes British Household Panel Survey, waves 1-18 (1991-2009) User Documentation: Local Authority District Codes (LADISTC) 05 November 2008 For more information contact: Birgitta Rabe [email protected] ++44-1206-874594 Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex Wivenhoe Park Colchester Essex CO4 3SQ Local Authority District Codes (wLADISTC) The local authority districts within the database are aggregated if their population falls below 120,000. This aggregation is on the same basis as that for the Census Sample of Anonymised (Individual) Records, and the codes used are the same as those given in Marsh, C. and Teague, A. 'Samples of anonymised records from the 1991 Census', Population Trends, 69, 17-26, 1992. Note that, for wLADISTC, only codes up to 278 are relevant. 1: City; Westminster 53: Newcastle upon Tyne 2: Camden 54: North Tyneside 3: Hackney 55: South Tyneside 4: Hammersmith & Fulham 56: Sunderland 5: Haringey 57: Birmingham 6: Islington 58: Coventry 7: Kensington & Chelsea 59: Dudley 8: Lambeth 60: Sandwell 9: Lewisham 61: Solihull 10: Newham 62: Walsall 11: Southwark 63: Wolverhampton 12: Tower Hamlets 64: Bradford 13: Wandsworth 65: Calderdale 14: Barking and Dagenham 66: Kirklees 15: Barnet 67: Leeds 16: Bexley 68: Wakefield 17: Brent 69: Bath; Kingswood; Wansdyke 18: Bromley 70: Bristol 19: Croydon 71: Northavon 20: Ealing 72: Woodspring 21: Enfield 73: Luton 22: Greenwich
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Mobility Index
    The Social Mobility Index 1 Contents Foreword 3 What is the Social Mobility Index? 5 Summary 5 Methodology 6 Geographical variation in the Social Mobility Index 9 Analysing performance against the Social Mobility Index 18 Key Headlines 21 Early Years 28 School 31 Youth 34 Adulthood 37 2 Foreword On the morning after the election, the Prime Minister set a One Nation agenda for this Parliament. Britain, he said, should be “a place where a good life is in reach for everyone who is willing to work and do the right thing”. His would be a Government that offered opportunity to all, no matter where they came from. These are welcome commitments but in this report we examine the very real challenges facing the Government in creating a One Nation Britain. For the first time it identifies the most and the least socially mobile areas of the country. It does so by examining in detail the chances available to young people from poorer backgrounds in each of the 324 local authority areas in England to get the educational qualifications they need to succeed in life, and the opportunities in the local area to convert those qualifications into a good job and a decent standard of living. The Social Mobility Index uncovers a new geography of disadvantage in England. For decades the conventional wisdom has been that geographical inequalities in social mobility are drawn across simple boundaries: the North versus the South; rich areas versus poor areas; town versus country. Our analysis suggests that some of this is right – there are worrying signs, for example, that London and its commuter belt is pulling away from the rest of the country when it comes to the chances of youngsters getting into good schools and good jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • Car Ownership Rates Per Local Authority in England and Wales
    Car ownership rates per local authority in England and Wales Source: 2001 Census and 2011 Census Date: 26th December 2012 % of % of Cars/vans % households % households % per 1000 change with change with 4+ change people since car/van since cars/vans since Rank Local Authority (2011) 2001 (2011) 2001 (2011) 2001 1 East Dorset 694 9 89.7 1.4 4.4 48 2 South Northamptonshire 685 9.6 90.7 2.8 4.4 47 3 Stratford-on-Avon 674 6.6 87.2 1.0 4.2 39 4 Cotswold 670 8.7 87.4 1.7 3.8 37 5 Maldon 669 8.5 87.4 1.4 4.7 29 6 Hart 667 3.7 92 0.9 4.5 24 7 South Bucks 666 3 89.8 1.0 5.3 31 8 Malvern Hills 665 10.5 86.5 1.7 4.2 47 9 East Hampshire 664 8.7 88.8 1.3 4.6 46 10 Uttlesford 663 4.6 89.9 2.4 5.1 29 11 Mid Suffolk 661 10.1 88.7 2.1 4.1 43 13 Wychavon 660 8.6 87.1 1.8 4.2 45 12 Wealden 660 7.9 87.6 2.0 4.4 46 14 Mole Valley 657 3.4 87.7 0.9 4.2 22 15 Surrey Heath 654 1.6 90 0.5 4.6 26 16 South Hams 653 14 86.7 2.1 3.4 67 17 Horsham 653 5.5 88.2 0.7 4.0 32 18 New Forest 650 9.2 86.7 1.1 3.6 44 19 Chiltern 649 3.7 89.1 1.1 4.2 19 21 Daventry 646 8.5 88 1.8 4.1 48 20 Stroud 646 10.7 86.1 2.8 3.8 45 22 South Norfolk 643 8.7 88.3 2.0 3.3 39 23 Eden 642 11.3 86.1 1.7 3.3 38 24 Wokingham 642 5 91 0.3 3.7 24 25 Bromsgrove 641 8.1 87.5 1.0 3.8 35 26 Harborough 641 6.6 88.2 0.9 3.5 40 27 Waverley 640 4.4 88.1 2.1 4.0 27 29 Derbyshire Dales 635 11.9 85.2 2.4 3.5 62 28 Babergh 635 8.4 85.9 2.0 3.6 33 29 South Oxfordshire 635 4.7 88.4 1.3 4.1 47 31 Powys 635 14.9 85 3.0 3.6 80 33 Forest of Dean 634 11.3 85.6 2.2 4.0 47 32 North Dorset 634 11.9 88 2.4 3.6 51 36 West
    [Show full text]