Health and social profile of Hillingdon population

Census 2001: Health and Society in Hillingdon (Health Information Report 2003)

For Further information: Dr Heema Shukla Public Health Information and Policy Manager Public Health Directorate Hillingdon PCT Kirk House 97-107 High Street Yiewlsey West Drayton UB7 7HJ Tel: 01895 452005 Email: [email protected] 25th Sept 2003 The primary source of the data in this report is The Office for The National Statistics. ©Crown Copyright material is reproduced by permission with the permission of the Controller of HMSO

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ................................................................................................

1

1.

Demography .....................................................................................

2

1.1 Resident population .....................................................................

2

1.2 Age structure................................................................................

2

1.3 Ethnic communities in Hillingdon ...............................................

4

2. Health Indicators ..................................................................................

6

2.1 Limiting long term illness............................................................

6

2.2 General Health .............................................................................

8

2.3 Provision of unpaid care ..............................................................

8

2.4 Permanently sick or disabled population .....................................

9

2.5 Health indicators by localities and ward......................................

11

3. Social Indicators.....................................................................................

12

3.1 Single pensioner households........................................................

12

3.2 Lone parent households with dependent children........................

14

3.3 Housing ........................................................................................

16

3.4 Household deprivation .................................................................

18

Overcrowding ........................................................................

18

Access to car/van ...................................................................

20

3.5 Educational attainment.................................................................

22

3.6 Economic activity and unemployment.........................................

24

Conclusions ................................................................................................

29

References

................................................................................................

29

Appendices

................................................................................................

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1

Change in population 1991 to2001...................................................... 2

Table 1.2

Difference between 1991 and 2001 Census based 2001 MYE ........... 2

Table1.3

Total population in the three localities ................................................ 2

Table1.4

Wards in the top and bottom quartiles of age groups .......................... 4

Table 1.5

Ethnic communities in Hillingdon....................................................... 5

Table 2.1

Proportion of population reporting LLTI ............................................ 7

Table 2.2

Health indicators by localities ............................................................. 12

Table 2.3

Wards in the top and bottom quartiles of health.................................. 12

Table 3.1

Wards in the top and bottom quartile of pensioner household ............ 15

Table 3.2

Proportion of dependent children by household type .......................... 15

Table 3.3

Wards in the top and bottom quartile of dependent children............... 17

Table 3.4

Lack of central heating according to self-reported health ................... 17

Table 3.5

Wards in the top and bottom quartile of lack of central heating ......... 19

Table 3.6

Wards in the top and bottom quartile of overcrowding....................... 21

Table 3.7

Proportion of people without access to car/van................................... 21

Table 3.8

No access to car/van by self-reported heath ........................................ 22

Table 3.9

Wards in the top and bottom quartile of no access to car.................... 23

Table 3.10 Educational attainment ........................................................................ 23 Table 3.11 Wards in the top and bottom quartile of educational deprivation ....... 25 Table 3.12 Economic activity by gender ............................................................... 25 Table 3.13 Full-time students by age and gender .................................................. 27 Table 3.14 Educational attainment among unemployed and permanently ill........ 27 Table 3.15 Wards in the top and bottom quartile of unemployment ..................... 28

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Ward map of Hillingdon (2002) ................................................................................1 Figure 1.1 Age structure of Hillingdon population, 2001 and 1991 ........................3 Figure 1.2 Age structure of population by localities................................................4 Figure 1.3 Ethnic communities in localities of Hillingdon ......................................5 Figure 1.4 Distribution of ethnic communities among localities.............................6 Figure 1.5 Proportion of white and non-white communities in wards.....................6 Figure 2.1 Limiting long-term illness by age...........................................................8 Figure 2.2 Limiting long-term illness by tenure type ..............................................8 Figure 2.3 Limiting long-term illness by age and ethnicity .....................................9 Figure 2.4 Provision of unpaid care ........................................................................10 Figure 2.5 Proportion of permanently sick/disabled by age and gender..................11 Figure 2.6 Proportion of permanently sick/disabled by ethnicity ............................11 Figure 3.1 Age distribution of single pensioner households....................................13 Figure 3.2 Male to female ratio of single pensioner household by age ...................14 Figure 3.3 Pensioner and lone pensioner households by locality ............................14 Figure 3.4 Dependent children and lone parents households by ethnicity...............16 Figure 3.5 Household type of dependent children by locality .................................16 Figure 3.6 Lack of central heating by tenure type ...................................................18 Figure 3.7 Lack of central heating by age................................................................18 Figure 3.8 Overcrowding by age..............................................................................20 Figure 3.9 Overcrowding by ethnicity .....................................................................20 Figure 3.10 No access to car/van by economic activity.............................................21 Figure 3.11 No access to car/van by ethnicity ...........................................................22 Figure 3.12 Educational deprivation by age groups...................................................24 Figure 3.13 Educational deprivation by ethnicity ......................................................24 Figure 3.14 Economic activity by education in Hillingdon .......................................26 Figure 3.15 Unemployment by age and gender .........................................................26 Figure 3.16 Unemployment by ethnicity ...................................................................27 Figure 3.17 Dependent Children HH with no adult employment by ethnicity ..........28

APPENDICES Appendix A................................................................................................................ i Resident population of Hillingdon Appendix B ................................................................................................................iv Ethnic communities of Hillingdon Appendix C ................................................................................................................vii Health indicators in Hillingdon Appendix D................................................................................................................ix Social indicators in Hillingdon

Introduction: This report describes the health and social profile of the Hillingdon population based on the 2001 Census data. The primary source of this data is the Office for the National Statistics (ONS). The information collected by the Census can be broadly classified into seven categories, namely, demographic, cultural, health related, education, labour market, transport and household type and accommodation.1 This report does not intend to give an exhaustive analysis of all the information collected during the Census, but rather aims to describe the profile of the resident population of Hillingdon using the key demographic, health, social and economic indicators. 1991-2001 Comparison: The 2001 Census was quite different from the 1991 Census because new methodologies were introduced to improve quality and take into account end-user requirements.2 New questions were introduced and some of the 1991 questions were expanded. There were some changes to the definitions used in the 1991 Census. All these impact on the level of comparability, although efforts were made to make the 2001 Census broadly comparable to the 1991 Census. In this report where possible comparisons are made but caution may have to be applied to the interpretation of these comparisons. At ward level direct comparison was not possible as new boundaries were introduced in 2002 to the wards of Hillingdon. 29 wards were restructured to 22 wards. The ward map of the Borough of Hillingdon with the new ward boundaries is given below. The three parliamentary constituencies have remained the same, namely, Ruislip and Northwood, Uxbridge, and Hayes and Harlington.

1

1. Demography 1.1 Resident Population The population count for Hillingdon on the Census day in April 2001 was 243000. Based on the 2001 Census, the 2001 mid-year estimate (MYE) for resident population of Hillingdon was 245900. There was a 4.9% (11,500) increase in the resident population of Hillingdon between 1991 MYE and 2001 MYE (Table 1.1). 3 However, the definition of resident population differs between 1991 and 2001. One main difference was the residency allocation of children and students studying away from home. In the 2001 Census, students were counted at their term-time address while in 1991 they were counted at their vacation address. Table 1.1 Change in population in Hillingdon compared to outer London and England & Wales

Revised MYE 1991 (000s) MYE 2001 (000s) Change % Change

Hillingdon 234.4 245.9 11.5 4.9%

Outer London 4230.0 4416.4 186.1 5.7%

England & Wales 50,784.00 52,277.1 1493.1 2.9%

Table 1.2 shows the differences in 2001 MYE based on 1991 Census and 2001 Census. The overall difference between the 1991 Census based mid-year estimates (MYE) and 2001 Census based MYE for 2001 was 4.7% (7.3% for males and 2.2% for females, respectively) for Hillingdon.3 Table 1.2: Difference between 2001 MYE based on 1991 and 2001 based Census Persons Male Female Hillingdon 4.7% 7.3% 2.2% Outer London 2.2% 5.4% -0.8% London 15% 2.6% 0.5% England & Wales 3.4% 6.3% 0.2% Overall the figures for 2001 Census were 4.2% less than that estimated for 2001 by the London Research Centre. 4 Table 1.3 shows the total population for the three localities. Each locality had roughly one third of the Hillingdon population residing within their boundaries. Table 1.3 Total populations in the three localities Ruilsip & Northwood Total population 83100 Locality population as 34.2% % of Total Hillingdon population

Uxbridge 78200 32.2%

Hayes and Harlington 81700 33.6%

The distribution of the Hillingdon population within the 22 wards was fairly uniform (45% of total population residing in each ward except for Harefield. The population of Harefield accounted for 3% of the total Hillingdon population.

2

1.2. Age structure Figure 1.1 shows the 2001 population pyramid superimposed on the 1991 population pyramid. The Hillingdon population was younger in 2001 compared with 1991. For both men and women, there was a proportional increase in the age bands 5-15 and 25-64 years and 85+ years. There was a proportional decrease in the age bands 0-4, 15-24, 65-74 and 75-84 years in both the genders.

Figure 1.1: Comparison of the age structure of the 1991 and 2001 resident population of Hillingdon 85+

Females

Males

75-84

A ge group

65-74 45-64 25-44 15-24 5-14 0-4 40%

30%

Revised 1991MYE Male %

20%

10%

Revised 1991MYE Female%

10%

20%

MYE 2001 Male %

30%

40%

MYE 2001 Female %

The observed decrease in the proportion of young men in Hillingdon has been found in other boroughs throughout the country. UK has 800,000 fewer younger men than previously thought.5 This has principally been attributed to emigration. For Hillingdon, the difference between the rolled out MYE and 2001 Census based MYE for 2001 for males aged 20-24 years and 25-29 years was about 35% and 29%, respectively. There were differences in the age profile of the population both within and between localities. Figure 1.2 shows the age structure of the resident population of the three localities in Hillingdon. It demonstrates a north to south age gradient in the population residing in Hillingdon. A greater proportion of the population of Hayes & Harlington (South Hillingdon) is younger compared to the other two localities. On the other hand, a greater proportion of the population of Ruislip and Northwood (North Hillingdon) locality is older compared to the other two localities.

3

Figure 1.2: Age structure of Localities 45

% of locality population

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-19

20-44

45-64

65+

Locality

Ruislip & Northwood

Uxbridge

Hayes & Harlington

Table 1.1 shows the wards in top and bottom quartile of four broad age bands. The figures in the brackets are the proportion of the population in the given age band in the ward. Nearly a third of the population of all the wards in Hayes and Harlington except Heathrow villages and Yiewsley are 19 years or under. Heathrow villages and Yiewsley are in the top quartile of the young adults (20-44 years). Similarly Hillingdon East in Uxbridge locality and South Ruislip in the Ruislip and Northwood locality have a different age profile compared with other wards within the locality. All the wards except Ickenham in the top quartile of 65 years or above are from the Ruislip & Northwood locality. These wards feature in the top quartile of 45-64 year age group. Table 1.4: Wards in the top and bottom quartile of age groups 0-19 years

20-44 years

45-64 years

≥ 65 years

Uxbridge South (45.8%) Yeading (44.1%) Yiewsley (43.6%) Heathrow Villages (43.3%) South Ruislip (39.5%)

Eastcote & Ruislip (28.2%) Ickenham (27.0%) Northwood (24.2%) Northwood Hills (24.2%) Uxbridge North (23.9%)

Ickenham (20.3%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (18.8%) Northwood (18.0%) Northwood Hills (17.8%) Harefield (16.8%) West Ruislip (16.3%)

Northwood (35.6%) Cavendish (35.0%) Northwood Hills (34.6%) Ickenham (29.6%) Eastcote & Ruislip (28.7%)

Botwell (20%) Pinkwell(20%) Townfield (20%) Barnhill (20%) Yiewsley (19%) Uxbridge South(19%) Yeading (18%)

Barnhill (11.3%) Botwell (11.3%) Yiewsley (11.2%) Pinkwell (10.3%) Yeading (7.5%)

Top quartile Yeading (30.7%) Pinkwell (30.5%) Barnhill (30.5%) Townfield (29.2%) Botwell (29.0%) Hillingdon East (28.8%)

Bottom quartile West Ruislip (23.5%) Northwood Hills (23.4%) Ickenham (23.1%) Heathrow Villages (22.8%) Northwood (20.9%)

4

1.3 Ethnic communities in Hillingdon In the 2001 Census, each person's self-perceived ethnicity and cultural background were classified into sixteen groups under five main categories. This was more detailed than the 1991 Census classification. Table 2 shows the proportion of the Hillingdon population from these 16 communities. The proportion of residents from the non-white ethnic minority communities increased from 12% in 1991 to 21% in 2002. Overall, this was slightly higher than 1991 Census based MYE of 19%. However, the 2001 Census figure for the Black African community was twice the estimated figures. The Asian Indian, the largest ethnic community, both in 1991 and 2001 Census, currently constitutes nearly 10% of the population. The greatest proportional increase was observed in the Black African community (400%, from 900 in 1991 to 4200 in 2001). Table 1.5: Ethnic communities in Hillingdon White (79.1%)

Mixed (2.3%)

British (72.5%) White & Black Caribbean Irish (2.8%) (0.6%) Other (3.7%) White & Black African (0.3%) White & Asian(0.8%) Other Mixed (0.6%)

Asian and Asian British (13.6%) Indian (9.6%) Pakistani (1.6%) Bangladeshi (0.6%) Other Asian (1.9%)

Black & Black British (3.3%) Caribbean (1.3%) African (1.7%) Other Black (0.2%)

Chinese & other Ethnic Group (1.7%) Chinese (0.8%) Other Ethnic (1.0%)

Figure 1.3 shows the ethnic communities resident in the localities of Hillingdon. The localities of Ruislip & Northwood and Uxbridge have a similar ethnic profile. Hayes and Harlington had a significantly different ethnic profile. About a quarter of the population in Hayes and Harlington locality was Asian and Asian British. Figure 1.3 Ethnic communities in Localities of Hillingdon 100.0

% of locality population

90.0 80.0 70.0

W hite Mixed Asian Black Chinese

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Ruislip & Northwood

Uxbridge

Hayes & Harlington

W hite

87.0

84.9

65.4

Mixed

2.0

2.1

2.8

Asian

7.6

8.9

24.2

Black

1.7

2.4

5.7

Chinese

1.7

1.7

1.8

5

Figure1.4 shows the distribution of the different communities among the three localities. Greater proportions (~ 60%) of the Asian and Black ethnic communities reside in the Hayes and Harlington locality. Interestingly, more than 50% of the Bangladeshi community resides in the Uxbridge locality. Less than 30% of the White British reside in the Hayes and Harlington locality. The Chinese community is fairly well dispersed within Hillingdon

% of ethnic community residing in Hillingdon

Figure 1.4: Distribution of communities among the three localities 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

White

Mixed

Asian

Black

Chinese

Ruislip & Northwood

37.6

29.6

19.1

18.1

33.6

Uxbridge

34.6

29.4

21.1

23.3

31.2

Hayes & Harlington

27.8

41.0

59.8

58.5

35.2

Figure 1.5 shows the proportion of population from white and non-white ethnic communities in the wards of Hillingdon.

Figure 1.5: Proportion of White community and non-white ethnic communities by wards hil Barn e w k Pin g in d a Ye ld e fi n Tow el Botw Villag hrow He a t wo o h t Nor gdo n li Hil Sou idge Uxbr Hi wo o d North arville Ch e Brun le s Yiew l Ruis South o N r idge Uxbr Ea gdon Hillin to y a t Dr W es is d n Ca v e li t Ruis W es o M an cote East

Ru East m and a h n e Ick field e r a H

0

Hillingdon Average

White community non-white ethnic communities

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6

The ethnic minority communities in Hillingdon are younger in age and make up a larger proportion (31%) of the population aged below 50 years. On the other hand, 91% of the 75 year + population in Hillingdon are from the White communities. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the wards in the upper quartile of the age band 0-19 years in Table 1.1 (except Hillingdon East) have a higher proportion of the population from the non-white ethnic communities. 2. Health indicators for Hillingdon Four self-reported indicators of health were used in the 2001 Census. Hence these should be seen as subjective assessment of the population health. These were limiting long term illness, general health, provision of unpaid care and permanently sick or disabled persons. All persons were asked questions related to the first three indicators. The question for the last indicator was applied only to persons aged 16-74 year old. Nationally (England and Wales), Hillingdon ranks 107 highest amongst 376 local authorities (LAs) in the rank of average health. Amongst, the 33 Greater London boroughs, it is the 11th best ranking borough.6 2.1 Limiting Long-term illness (LLTI) This is an indicator of any condition of health, disability or age that limits the daily activities or work. In 2001, some 15% of the total population and 11% of the working age population reported having LLTI. This is lower than the national figure of 18% and 14% but similar to the London figure of 16% and 12% for prevalence of LLTI in the total population and working age population (16-64 for males and 16-59 for females), respectively. At household level, the rate of LLTI in Hillingdon was similar to that of Greater London (30%) but lower than England and Wales average (34%). Table 2.1 Proportion of population reporting LLTI All people Working age Hillingdon 14.9% 11.0% London 15.5% 11.9% England & Wales 18.2% 13.6%

Increase in all people 50.2% 41.4% 45.6%

There was a 50% increase in LLTI from 1991 to 2001 (36,162 compared to 24,080). This is higher than the average increase for both, London (41%) and England and Wales (46%). Caution should be applied when interpreting the trend in LLTI. The 2001 question was differently worded compared to the 1991 Census question. In 1991 the question on LLTI used the word 'handicap' while the 2001 Census question used the word 'disability'. LLTI was associated with age, housing tenure and ethnicity. The prevalence of LLTI in the population aged 5 to 35 years of age is around 5% (Figure 2.1). After age 30-34 years, there is an increase in the prevalence of LLTI with age.

7

Figure 2.1: Limiting long-term illness by age 70

% of age-specific population

65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30

Average for Hillingdon

25 20 15 10 5 0

0

to

4 5

to

9 10

to

14 15

to

19 20

to

24 25

to

29 30

to

34 35

to

39 40

to

44 45

to

49 50

to

54 55

to

59 60

to

64 65

to

69 70

to

74 75

to

79 80

to

84 85

to

89 90

d an

er ov

age-groups

Figure 2.2 shows that the population that rent their accommodation from the London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) (n=25659) had the highest rate (26 %) while the population that rented the accommodation from private landlords or lived rent free (n=24,780) had the lowest prevalence (9%) of LLTI. Figure 2.2: Limitng long-term illness by type of housing tenure 32

% of population with long-term illness

28

Average for Hillingdon

24

20

16

12

8

4

0

Owned

Rented from council

Other social rented

Private rented or living rent free

Housing tenure type

Figure 2.3 shows that the prevalence of LLTI was higher in the British Asian communities compared to other ethnic minority communities or the British White community.

8

Figure 2.3: Limiting long-term illness by age and ethnicity % of ethnic population with longterm illness

70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

ot he r

C hi ne se

Br it i sh

sh

Pa ki st an i Ba ng la de Br sh it r i is h C ar ib Br be iti an sh Bl ac k Af ric an

In di an

Br iti

Iri

sh

sh Br iti

hi te W

W

hi te

Br it

is h

0

Ethnic group

0-15

16-49

50-64

65 and over

2.2 General Health This question was asked for the first time in 2001. This was a self-reported subjective close-ended (good, fairly good, not good) general health (over previous 12 months) question. Hence, it may be viewed as ' perceived health of one's self'. Some 71% of the Hillingdon population reported that their health was good, 22% fairly good and 7% not good. This was similar to the average for London and England and Wales. This indicator was age-dependent. More than 85% of population below 19 years was in good health, while only 25% of population aged over 85 years were in good health. In the population below 40 years, around 5% reported that their general health was not good. Understandably, general health was associated with LLTI. 40% of those with LLTI reported general health as not good while only 2% without LLTI reported their general health as not good and conversely, 18% of people with LLTI reported general health as good compared to 81% without LLTI. 2.3 Provision of unpaid care This question was introduced in the 2001 Census. This was related to the care of family members, friends, neighbours or others because of long-term physical or mental ill health, disability or old age. Some 10% of the population in Hillingdon provides unpaid care. This is similar to the national average of 10% and slightly higher than London average of 8%. Figure 2.4 compares unpaid care provided by working population (16-74 years) in Hillingdon with that provided nationally and regionally.

9

20.0%

20.0%

18.0%

18.0%

16.0%

16.0%

14.0%

13.9%

13.2%

12.5%

12.0%

12.0%

11.5%

10.0%

14.0%

10.0%

9.9%

8.0%

8.0%

6.0%

6.0%

4.0%

4.0%

2.0%

2.0%

% of population aged 1675years

% of population aged 16-75 years

Figure 2.4: Provision of unpaid care in Hillingdon compared with London and England

0.0%

0.0% Hillingdon

All London

Inner London

Outer London

England

Area

1-19 hr/week

20-49hr/week

50+ hr/week

Total unpaid carers

Of all the care providers, 70% provided unpaid care for 1-19 hours per week, 11% provided care for 20-49 hours per week and 19% for 50+hours per week. Overall, the population aged 35-44 years was the largest provider of unpaid care. They accounted for 20% of all unpaid care. At household level, 17% of all households had one or more care provider. LLTI within the household was closely associated with caring. 12% of households without any residents with LLTI had one or more person providing unpaid care. This figure increased to 23% with one resident with LLTI and 50% with two or more residents with LLTI. Some 41% of households that had a dependent child (0-15 years) with LLTI had one or more carer. Data on ethnicity of care provider is not yet available. 2.4. Permanently sick or disabled This question is asked of people aged 16-74 years. It measures the number of people who are unable to work because they are permanently sick or disabled. The prevalence of permanently sick or disabled people in Hillingdon is 3.8% (3.9% for males and 3.6% for females, respectively). This is lower than the London average of 4.6% and the England and Wales average of 5.5%. Figure 2.5 and 2.6 shows that the proportion of permanently sick or disabled people varied by age, gender and ethnicity In Hillingdon, the highest prevalence in males is among the 60-64 years population while in females the highest prevalence is amongst the 55-59 years population. It then drops in the elderly. This may be either a cohort effect or issues around life expectancy in the permanently sick or disabled people.

10

Figure 2.5 Proportion of permanently sick/disabled by age and gender 14.0 12.0

% of age group

10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 16

17

18

19

20

2 to

4

29 34 44 49 39 54 59 74 64 69 to to to to to to to to to to 25 30 40 45 50 35 55 65 70 60

Age group

Males

Females

The Asian Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities had the highest proportion and the Chinese community has the least proportion of permanently sick/disabled women. Among men, the Asian Bangladeshi, Pakistani and White Irish have higher than average proportion of permanently sick/disabled men. In some communities (Asian and Black African) more women are sick/disabled compared with men while in other communities (White Irish, White British and Chinese communities) more men are sick/disabled compared with women.

Figure 2.6: Proportion of people permanently sick/disabled in ethnic communities by gender (25-74 years) Hillingdon Average

male female

As i

an

or A As sia n ia Br n iti or As sh: Ba As ia n ia Br ngl n ad M iti or ix es As sh: ed Pa hi : W ian k Br hi is te ta i ni an tish :I d n Bl d ia ac As n k ia Af n r ic or W M Bl a n ix As ac ed hite ia k :I :O n or r B is t Bl h ac ritis her h: M k Br ix O ed th iti sh e :B rA s la H ck ian Bl illi ac A ng k do fric or a n Bl Av n ac er W k ag hi Br Bl te e iti ac :B M sh k i xe rit :O or is d th Bl h er ac : W hi k Bl t Br e ac C an iti k hi sh d ne :B As se i la W C ot ck a n hi hi O ne t C ar se the e: O ... rE th or er th O ni W th c er hi G te Et r hn oup :. ic . G ro . up :. ..

% of community

9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

Ethnic communities

11

2.5. Health indicators by localities and wards Table 2.2 compares the health indicators for the three localities. Although the locality of Ruislip and Uxbridge had a higher proportion of older population, it had a lower proportion of people with LLTI and with permanent sickness/disability. The population of the locality of Hayes and Harlington was younger compared to the other two localities but had a higher proportion of people with self-reported ill health. A higher proportion of ethnic minority communities in this locality may partly explain this. On the other hand ethnicity may be a confounding factor. Although provision of care is higher in Ruislip and Northwood, a higher proportion of carers in Hayes and Harlington provide care for 50+ hours. Table 2.2 Proportion of people reporting LLTI and providing care in Localities Indicator Ruislip & Northwood Limiting long term illness All people 14.8 16-74 year old persons 8.1 Persons providing of unpaid care All care 10.0 Persons providing care as % of all care providers 1-19 hours 74.7 20-49 hours 9.0 50+ hours 16.3 Health not good Permanently sick or disabled persons

Uxbridge

Hayes & Harlington

Hillingdon

15.1 9.7

14.9 10.8

14.9 9.5

9.4

9.1

9.5

70.6 10.3 19.1

64.8 14.1 21.1

70.2 11.1 18.7

6.7

7.4

8.0

7.4

2.8

3.9

4.5

3.7

Table 2.3 gives the wards in the top and bottom quartiles of the health indicators. The communities of West Drayton and Townfield are in the top quartile of all the three indicators of ill health, namely, LLTI, permanently sick or disabled and general health 'not good'. Ickenham and Eastcote & Ruislip both have the highest provision of unpaid care although they are in the bottom quartile of the three indicators of ill health. These two wards fall in the top quartile of age above 65 years (Table 1). So it is most likely that the communities in these wards are apparently healthy elderly who are being cared for. Table 2.3: Wards in the top and bottom quartile of health indicators LLTI

General Health Not Good

Provision Unpaid care

Permanently Sick or disabled

Townfield (9.7%) West Drayton (9.0%) Barnhill (8.4%) Harefield (8.3%) Botwell (8.3%)

Ickenham (11.6%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (11.6%) Northwood Hills (10.6%) Northwood (10.2%) Cavendish (10.2%) Uxbridge North (10.0%)

Townfield (5.5%0 West Drayton (5.1%) Barnhill (5.0%) Botwell (5.0%) Yeading (4.9%)

West Ruislip (6.6%) Cavendish (6.2%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (6.1%) Manor (5.8%) Ickenham (5.6%)

Brunel (8.9%) Heathrow villages (8.9%) Botwell (8.4%) Yiewsley (8.4%) Uxbridge South (8.4%) Yeading (7.9%)

Northwood (2.9%) West Ruislip (2.8%) Cavendish (2.7%) Ickenham (2.3) Eastcote and East Ruislip (2.2%) Manor (2.1)

Top Quartile West Drayton (17.3%) Townfield (17%) Harefield (16.3%) Northwood Hills (16.0%)

Bottom Quartile Heathrow villages (14.3%) Ickenham (14.3%) Cavendish (14.3%) Uxbridge North (13.8%) Yeading (13.7%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (13.5%) Charville (13.5%) Manor (13.3%)

12

3. Social indicators for Hillingdon Data collected by the Census has routinely been used to construct deprivation indicators for describing the social profile of populations at regional to enumeration district level.7 The most comprehensive of these indicators, the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) will be updated to the Census 2001 data later this year (personal communication). In this report some of the components used in the IMD that are applicable to the themes for the department of Health's programme8 on tackling health inequalities are used to describe the social profile of the population of Hillingdon. 3.1 Single Pensioner Households (SPHH) In 2001, the National Service Framework for older people was published. 7 The Census collects data on pensioners (shorthand for persons of pensionable age, males over 65 years and females over 60 years). Pensioners are a vulnerable section of the population, particularly pensioners living alone. Of the 9643 households (HH) in Hillingdon, about 30% had at least one resident pensioner. Among these households, 72% were pensioner only households. Pensioner only HH accounted for 21% of all households. This was lower than the national average of 24% but higher than the London figure of 18% and similar to 21% for outer London. From the pensioner only HH, 62% were single pensioner households (SPHH) 37% were pensioner family households and 2% other PHH. In Hillingdon, SPHH accounted for about 46% of all lone person HH and 13.2% of all HH. Figure 3.1 shows the age distribution of the SPHH. Proportionally the largest group of pensioner HH was the 65-74 year olds for both the genders. Figure 3.2 shows that there were proportionally more women LPHH compared with men in all age groups and the ratio increased with age. Figure 3.1: Age distribution of lone pensioner HH by gender 60

50

48.7 44.2

% of gender

40

37.2

36

30

18.7

20

15.3

10

0

male

female Gender 65-74

75-84

85+

13

Figure 3.2 M ale to fem ale ratio of lone pensioner HH by age 90 80

80

76.4

75

% of age group

70 60 50 40 30

25

22.6

20

20 10 0 65-74

75-84

85+

Age groups

m ale

fem ale

The greatest proportion of PHH were White British (25%), White Irish (22%) followed by mixed White and Asian (11.8%), other White (11%) and mixed other (10%). In the other communities, PHH were below 5%. Because of low numbers in some communities a comparison of LPHH could not be done. Broadly there were a greater proportion of SPHH in the Black African followed by White and lowest in the Asian communities. Figure 3.3 shows pensioner HH (as % of all HH, the line graph) and SPHH (as % of all PHH, bar graph) by localities. It is not surprising that the locality of Ruislip and Northwood had the highest proportion of pensioner households (25%) while Hayes and Harlington had the lowest (17%). However, what is interesting is that there is an inverse relation between PHH and SPHH. A higher proportion of PHH in Hayes and Harlington are SPHH (64%) compared to Ruislip and Northwood (60%). Figure 3.3 Pensioner and lone pensioner households by locality 30

65

64

25

63

LPHH(% of pensioner HH) PHH (% of all HH)

62 15 61 10 60

5

% of pensioner HH

% of all HH

20

59

0

58

Ruislip & Northwood

Uxbridge

Hayes & Harlington

Locality

14

All the wards in the top quartile of PHH except Ickenham are in Ruislip and Northwood locality and all the wards in the bottom quartile except Yeading are in the Hayes and Harlington locality (Table 3.1). In Uxbridge South, nearly two thirds of the pensioner households are SPHH while in Ickenham (lowest) nearly half of all PHH are SPHH. Table 3.1: Top and bottom quartile for PHH PHH (% of all HH) Top Quartile Bottom Quartile

SPHH (% of all PHH) Top Quartile Bottom Quartile

Ickenham (31.1%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (30.0%) Northwood (27.2%) Northwood Hills (26.6%) Manor (24.4%) Cavendish (24.0%)

Uxbridge South (74.1%) Townfield (68.3%) Yeading (68.2%) Yiewsley (66.8%) Botwell (66.4%)

Botwell (18.2%) Heathrow villages (18.1%) Barnhill (17.9%) Yiewsley (16.8%) Pinkwell (16.2% Yeading (11.9%)

Cavendsih (59.8% Brunel (59.6%) Harefield (58.7%) Eastcote & Ruislip (53.7%) Ickenham (49.9%)

3.2 Lone Parent Households (LPHH) with dependent children The IMD also uses lone parent as one of the indices. Dependent children in lone parent households may be considered as vulnerable households. Table 3.2 compares the proportion and distribution of dependent children in Hillingdon with regional and national figures. Some 32% of the HH in Hillingdon had dependent children. This was slightly higher than the regional and national figures of 29% and 30% respectively. Hillingdon had a similar proportion of dependent children in married couple HH and lone parent HH as England & Wales. Nationally there were more dependent children in cohabiting couple HH compared with London and Hillingdon. London had a higher proportion of lone parent families HH with dependent children Table 3.2 Proportion of dependent children by HH type for Hillingdon, London and England % Wales Hillingdon Greater London England & Wales Area → 2001 2001 2001 Year → HH with dependent children 31.9 28.9 29.5 (% of all HH) Dependent children by HH type (% of dependent children HH) Married couple 60.1 52.5 Cohabiting couple 8.7 8.7 Lone parent 21.5 26.3 Other 9.8 12.6

59.5 11.0 21.9 7.6

Figure 3.4 shows the proportion of HH with dependent children (line graph, primary axis) and lone parent with dependent children HH (as % of dependent Children HH, bar graph, secondary axis) for different ethnic communities. The Asian communities had the greatest proportion of HH with dependent children. Over two thirds of the Asian Bangladeshi HH had dependent children. The White British and White Irish had the lowest proportion of dependent children HH. However the proportion of lone parent with dependent children HH was lower in the Asian communities. About half the mixed White and Black Caribbean dependent children were in lone parent HH. In the Black African and

15

Caribbean communities the proportion was about 39% and 40% respectively. In the White communities it was about 20-23%. Figure 3.4 Dependent Children HH and Lone parent with dependent children HH by ethnicity

% of all HH

Average for Hillingdon

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

de

% of dependent Children HH

60.0

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

0.0

i e p i d h e n n n n h sh ia a n sian can ica ea ro u lack ixe ea n nes hit sia PLE itis Iris i r b b : de nd st ri fr W la h : I aki er A Af k A ar ib ic G e r B er M rib Ch er nd A PEO e: B ite g n t is : P t h c k it Wh c a L th C th Ca p: hn th Ba Br i ish : O Bla Bla ck r Et : O : O ck rou : O ite AL Wh h la e sh ed : h: n d G ite la r it sh ir tis sia n B r iti itish an d B Oth riti Mix h: B n ic Wh d : W n B A ia n B Br B h te : s ia ixe n or hi te a u p ck itis Et k M Br er sia ian or A As lac : W hi Gro Bla k h A d t s W r r ac r O or A ian n o o r B ixe d : n ic k o l B o n M ixe th ac As sia ck ia o r se M er E Bl A B la k As e ac h in l th B C O or e es in Ch

Lone parent with dependent children HH Dependent children HH

Ethnic community

Some 30% of HH in the localities of Ruislip & Northwood and Uxbridge and some 32% of HH in the locality of Hayes & Harlington had dependent children. Figure 3.5 shows the distribution of dependent children by HH type for the three localities. Only about half were in married couple HH in Hayes and Harlington while a quarter of the dependent children lived in lone parent HH. On the other hand in Ruislip and Northwood two-thirds of the dependent children lived in married couple HH. Figure 3.5 Household type of dependent children in Hillingdon by locality 100%

% of dependent children

80%

7.7 17.1

8.5

12.6

22.1 25.1

8.1 9.4 60%

8.6

40%

67.1

60

other lone parent cohabiting couple married couple

53.7

20%

0% Ruislip & Northwood

Uxbridge

Hayes & Harlington

Locality

16

Table 3.3 gives the top and bottom quartile of wards for dependent children HH and lone parent HH with dependent children. Except for Hillingdon East all the wards in the top quartile of the dependent children HH are in Hayes and Harlington. Within Hayes and Harlington, Heathrow Villages is in the bottom quartile. Pinkwell is in the top quartile of both dependent children HH and lone parent dependent children HH. There is a variation within localities. For example, Yeading in Hayes & Harlington and Yiewlsey in Uxbridge have twice the proportion of lone parent dependent children HH compared with Charville and Uxbridge North in the same localities, respectively. Table 3.3 Top and bottom quartile for all dependent children and in lone parent households Dependent children HH (% of all households)

Dependent children in lone parent HH (% of dependent children HH

Top quartile

Bottom quartile

Top quartile

Bottom quartile

Yeading (40.8%) Pinkwell (40.1%) Barnhill (40.0%) Hillingdon East (37.1%) Charville (36.0%) Botwell (35.8%)

Northwood Hills (28.5%) Harefield (28.3%) West Ruslip (28.1%) Heathrow Villages (26.6%) Northwood (25.1%) Uxbridge South (23.7%)

Yeading (30.8%) Yiewsley (30.0%) West Drayton (28.0%) Townfield (27.9%) Pinkwell (26.0%)

Cavendish (15.9%) Charville (15.8%) Uxbridge North (15.0% Manor (13.4%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (10.5%) Ickenham (8.6%)

3.3 Housing Housing is one of the areas for addressing the underlying determinants of health. The type and tenure of accommodation reflect the socio-economic position. Lack of basic amenities like central heating and sole use of shower & toilet may be viewed as deprivation at housing level. Type of tenure and living in non-self contained accommodation are indicators used in the housing domain of the index of multiple deprivation. In Hillingdon, some 5% of households lacked central heating. Nationally some 9% and regionally some 8% of HH did not have central heating. Less than 0.5% did not have use of sole shower and toilet. Health was associated with central heating as shown in Table 3.4. A higher proportion of people with ill health lacked central heating. Table 3.4. Lack of central heating according to self-reported health Health % without Central heating Good Health 2.9% Fairly Good Health 4.6% Not Good 5.7% All people 3.5% Limiting Long term % without Central illness heating Without LLTI 3.2% With LLTI 5.7% With LLTI and not 5.8% good health All people 3.5%

17

Two of the action points in the Tackling Health Inequalities programme state: ' ensure that between 2003-04 and 2005-06, vulnerable households in the private sector will have been helped to make their homes decent'. 'tackle some of the causes of ill-health associated with living in poorly insulated homes and reduce excess winter deaths Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7 show shows the proportion of HH that lacked central heating by tenure type and with age, respectively In Hillingdon, the proportion of HH without central heating was highest in houses that were rented from private landlords (three times higher than average). The lowest proportion was in houses rented from the Council. The proportion of HH with at least one resident pensioner that lacked central heating was about 7%. This increased to some 12% and 16% for lone female and male pensioners aged over 85 years, respectively. Figure 3.6: Lack of central heating by tenure type 16.0 14.0 12.0

Average for Hillingdon

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Owned: Owns outright

Owned: Owns Owned: Shared with a mortgage ownership or loan

Social rented: Rented from council

Social rented: Other social rented

Private rented

Living rent free

Tenure type

Figure 3.7: Lack of central heating by age groups 8.0 7.0 6.0

% of people

% of HH

10.0

Average for Hillingdon

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 to 4

5 to 15

16 to 17

18 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 44

45 to 59

60 to 64

65 to 74

75+

Age group (years)

18

There was some variation in the indicator by ethnic community type. However the figure was less than 5% for all communities except the mixed White and Black African (8% of people) and the Black African communities (5.7% of all people). Interestingly the figure was lowest for the Black other communities (0.8%). Some 2% of dependent children were living in HH without central heating. About 5% of dependent children from the Black African communities were living in HH without central heating. At locality level, Ruislip & Northwood had the lowest HH without central heating (about 4%), Uxbridge (5%) and Hayes and Harlington the highest (6%). Across the wards the proportion ranged from 1.6% (Ickenham) to 7% (Heathrow villages). The wards in the top and bottom quartile of the indicator are given in Table 3.5. Table 3.5: Top and bottom quartile of proportion of houses that lack central heating Top quartile Bottom quartile West Ruislip (3.6%) Heathrow villages (7.0%) Cavendish (3.2%) South Ruislip (6.4%) Uxbridge North (2.8%) Hillingdon East (6.4%) Eastcote and East Ruislip (2.7%) Barnhill (6.2%) Northwood (2.6%) Pinkwell (5.9%) Ickenham (1.6%)

3.4 Household deprivation At household level, overcrowding, adult unemployment, level of educational attainment and car ownership may influence the quality of life. These indicators can be used to derive household deprivation. The office of the national statistics will be publishing later in the year a table on household deprivation based on these and other indicators from the Census. Overcrowding The occupancy rating from the Census provides a measure of under occupancy and overcrowding. Occupancy rating is the difference between the actual number of rooms available to the household and the ‘required’ number of rooms according to the size of the household. The indicator for overcrowding is an occupancy rate of -1 or less. In Hillingdon, about 11% of the HH were overcrowded. This was higher compared with the national figure of 7% but lower compared with the regional figure of 17%. There was an increasing trend nationally in overcrowding and Hillingdon was no exception. There was a wide variation in overcrowding in owned and rented tenure. In rented tenure the overcrowding was three times higher compared with owned tenure (23% compared with 7%). Within rented tenure the gradient was other social>private>council (20%, 22% and 26%, respectively). Figure 3.8 shows overcrowding by age. The younger population had a higher proportion of people living in overcrowded accommodation compared to the elderly population. About 19% of the persons aged less than 15 years were living in unshared accommodation with an occupancy rating of -1 or less. Nearly a quarter of those in their late teenage years (16-17) year olds and the young adults (18-24 years) live in overcrowded accommodation. The higher proportion of overcrowding in these age groups could not be explained by tenure type. 19

F ig ure 3.8 P rop rtio n of p eop le living in acco m oda tion w ith oc cup ancy rating o f -1 by a ge 30.0 26.9 24.8

25.0 19.2

18.9

20.0

%

A ve ra ge for H illin gd o n

22.1

14.2

15.0

9.4

10.0

6.0 5.0

5.7

4.5

0.0 0 to 4

5 to 1 5

1 6 to 1 7

1 8 to 1 9

2 0 to 2 4

2 5 to 4 4

4 5 to 5 9

6 0 to 6 4

6 5 to 7 4

75+

age (years)

Interestingly people who live in overcrowded HH reported less ill health. Age may be a confounding factor in this relation as a higher proportion of the younger population lived in overcrowded HH. Figure 3.9 shows the variation in overcrowding across ethnic communities. In most communities, overcrowding is higher in the dependent children HH compared with average for the community. The least overcrowding was in the White communities and highest in the Bangladeshi and Black African communities. There was variation within the broader categories of ethnic communities. For example, overcrowding was twice as high in the Asian Bangladeshi and Black African communities compared with Asian Indian and Black Caribbean communities, respectively. Figure 3.9: Proportion of people (all ages) and dependent children in accomodation with occupancy rating -1 or less in different ethnic communities 60.0

% of people

50.0

Average for Hillingdon

40.0

All ages dependent children

30.0 20.0 10.0

Bl

As ia

n

or

As ia As ack n B r ia o r B itish n : l C or As ack Ba hi ne n ia B se n r it g l a As or Bri ish ... ot tish : A ia n he fr : or r e Ot ica M h n A t ix ed sia hni er A :W nB cg ... ro ri hi te tish up an : P :... d ak A Bl is Bl sia ac n Mix ack tan or ed k Af i o ric r B As : O M an i ix ed lac an the r B k : m C r W B i t hi i ne hite ritis ish: xed s an h: B I nd Bl e o ac r o d B lac ian k l k t or her ack oth Bl er et C h n ar ac ib k i ... Br c g r it i sh oup : C :.. W ar . h M ib ix i t e : be ed O an : W th hi er W te an hit e d As ia Al n lp W eop hi le W te: I hi te rish :B rit is h

0.0

Ethnic Community

20

Across the three localities, the gradient was Ruislip & Northwood (7%)< Uxbridge (11%) < Hayes & Harlington (16%). Wards in top and bottom quartile for this indicator are given in Table 3.6. A higher proportion of younger or the elderly population may explain partly the distribution of wards in the top and bottom quartile of this indicator. Table 3.6 Top and bottom quartile of occupancy rating -1 or less Top quartile Heathrow villages (18.0%) Barnhill (17.9%) Yeading (17.7%) Uxbridge South (17.0%) Pinkwell (16.7%)

Bottom quartile South Ruislip (7.7%) Uxbridge North (6.5%) Cavendish (4.5%) Manor (4.2%) Ickenham (3.7%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (3.0%)

Access to car or van The Census collects data on access to car/van rather than ownership. Having no car/van is used as an indicator of HH deprivation. The report on transport and social exclusion by the Social Exclusion Unit found that people without access to a car found it more difficult to access to work, learning, healthcare, food shops (supermarkets), social, cultural and sporting activities compared with the population overall.9 There has been some concern regarding the use of car as an indicator of affluence, particularly in the rural areas of England. In Hillingdon the indicator was directly associated with economic activity and tenure type as shown in Table 3.7 and Figure 3.10 Table 3.7 Proportion of people (16-74 years) in HH without access to car/van Tenure % Owned 6.2% Rented from Council 39.6% Rented from other social Landlords 32.1% Rented from Private Landlords or living rent free 24.0% Figure 3.10: No access to car or van by economic activity (People aged 16-74 years living in HH) 35.0

32.2

Average for Hillingdon

30.0 25.0

23.7

22.2 17.9

%

20.0

25.0

15.0

13.2

10.0

7.8

5.0

3.0

0.0 Economically Economically Economically Economically Economically Economically Economically Economically inactive: inactive: active: inactive: inactive: active: Fullactive: active: Self Looking after Permanently Unemployed Retired Student time student Employee employed home/family sick or disabled

Type of economic activity

21

About one third of the people who were looking after house/family did not have access to car/van. About a quarter of people who were permanently ill/sick or unemployed did not have access to car/van. The retired population was the other group where the proportion of people without access to car/van was high. Those who were employed had the lowest proportion of this indicator. Hence in Hillingdon, this indicator may be applicable as an indicator of HH deprivation. About 22% of the HH in Hillingdon did not have access to car/van compared with 27% nationally and 38% regionally. Among all HH, two thirds of lone pensioner HH (66%) and nearly half pensioner HH (49%) did not have access to car/van. In case of HH with dependant children, only 12% did not have access to car; however 35% of lone parent with dependent children HH did not have access to car/van Access to a car/van was less among the population with ill health compared with those who reported no ill health as shown in table 3.8. Nearly a third of the population with LLTI did not have access to car. A higher proportion of people who reported that their health was not good did not have access to car even among the population who did not have LLTI. This may have important implications for access to health and other services for people with LLTI or those who health was not good over the past one year. Table 3.8: No access to car/van according to self-reported health. General Health All Without LLTI With LLTI Good 10.8 10.3 24.9 Fairly Good 21.4 17.7 30.4 Not good 31.9 20.7 34.5 All 14.8 11.8 31.1

Figure 3.11 shows this indicator in the different ethnic communities.

Figure 3.11: Proportion of people (16-74 year in HH) without access to car/van by ethnicity of the household reference person 40.0

Average for Hillingdon

35.0 30.0

%

25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 n n k d n n n h n e h ni sh ian ta es ou ca ca ea ea hi t es sia itis l ac ixe dia Ir i fr i fri As M In Gr r W Br kis ad hin :A ibb ibb e: rB l A A : r t r r d r a : i c e C g i h e e a e k k h n h he th an :P Ca p: hn Oth hit ac ac itis W e kC Ot Ba Ot k: :O Et ou ish Bl Bl W : Br hit d: h: l ac rit d n sh sh lac h: Gr er hite i s i e n i W t B t B a s h i t i x i B i c i i a r d n d: h W rit ni Br Ot M e As Br an kB th n sia n itis ixe p: hi t or kB M ite lac rE W sia Br rA n ou sia ac r h e : l B o a A k i A h d r G W or ac rB As or Ot ian ic ixe d: ko n Bl n ko M or hn As lac ixe or sia e sia ac Et l B A s k M A r B ac ine he Bl Ot Ch or se i ne Ch

Ethnicity of HRP

22

Across the localities, the gradient was Ruislip & Northwood (19%) < Uxbridge (22%) < Hayes and Harlington (24%). 38% of the total cars in Hillingdon were in Ruislip & Northwood, 32% in Uxbridge and 30% in Hayes and Harlington. The wards in the top and bottom quartile of this indicator are given in Table 3.9 Table 3.9: Top and bottom quartile of HH without access to car/van Top quartile Uxbridge South (31.0%) Townfield (30.8%) Botwell (27%) Yiewsley (25.7%) Pinkwell (24.2% Heathrow villages (24.2%)

Bottom quartile Charville (18.1%) Manor (17.9%) Cavendish (17.7%) Uxbridge North (17.5%) Eastcote & East Ruislip (13.9%) Ickenham (12.3%)

3.5 Educational attainment Level of educational attainment is universally associated with quality of health and employment. Educational attainment is therefore universally applied as a proxy for deprivation. For England and Wales, deprivation in education is defined as not having attained level 2 education (at least 5 GCSEs, A-C, or equivalent) Overall the level of educational attainment in Hillingdon is lower compared with the regional population. 20% have higher level qualification (College/University qualification) compared to 31% in London. Table 3.10: Highest educational attainment (16-74 years) in Hillingdon compared to National and London profile Area No Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 Level qualifications unknown/ other ENGLAND 28.9% 16.6% 19.4% 8.3% 19.9% 6.9% LONDON 23.7% 13.0% 17.1% 9.8% 31.0% 5.4% Inner London 22.7% 9.8% 13.9% 10.4% 38.6% 4.6% Outer London 24.4% 15.1% 19.1% 9.4% 26.0% 6.0% Hillingdon 25.0% 18.0% 20.9% 9.6% 20.0% 6.5% Explanation of level of educational attainment 10 LEVEL 1 = 1+ 'O' level passes; 1+ CSE/GCSE any grades; NVQ level 1; Foundation GNVQ. LEVEL 2 = 5+ 'O' level passes; 5+ CSEs (grade 1's); 5+ GCSEs (grades A-C); School Certificate; 1+ 'A' levels/'AS' levels; NVQ level 2; Intermediate GNVQ. LEVEL 3 = 2+ 'A' levels; 4+ AS levels; Higher School Certificate; NVQ level 3; Advanced GNVQ LEVEL 4/5 = First degree; Higher degree; NVQ levels 4 and 5; HNC; HND; Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Medical Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; Health Visitor.

In Hillingdon, 43% of the 16-74 year old had not attained level 2 education. The figure for London was 37% (inner London 33%, Outer London 40%) and for England the figure was 46%. When calculating the deprivation in this dimension, among males aged 20-64 years and females aged 20-59 years, about 40% had not attained level 2 education. It increased with

23

age as shown in figure 3.12. What is of concern is that nearly 25% of the 18-19 year olds had not attained level 2 education. About 9% of 18-19 year old had no qualifications. Educational attainment among the different communities is shown in figure 3.13. About half of the Bangladeshi community and a third of the British White and Irish communities had not attained level 2 education. The Chinese, Pakistani, Indian and Black Caribbean nearly a quarter lacked level 2 education attainment. The communities with the lowest deprivation in this dimension had about 18% not attaining level 2 educational attainment

Figure 3.12: Proportion of people who have not attained level 2 education by age groups 70

% of age group

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 18 to 19 years

20 to 24 years

25 to 29 years

30 to 34 years

35 to 39 years

40 to 44 years

45 to 49 years

50 to 54 years

55 to 59 years

60 to 64 years

Age

Male

Female

60.0

Average for Hillngdon

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

sh

hi te :I

Bl ac ris k h M C C ix a hi ed rib ne : b se W ea AL hi n or L te P O EO an th d er PL Bl Et E ac hn k ic Af G ric ro an up :O th e. .. Pa ki st an i Bl In ac di an k C ar ib be an O th er As Bl ia n ac C M k hi ix ne Af e ric d: se M an O ix or th e O d: er th W M er hi ix Et ed te hn an ic d G As ro ia up n :C hi ne se O th W er hi Bl te ac :O k th er W hi te

M

ix

ed :

W hi te

an d

W

:B rit i

hi te

W

gl ad

es h

i

0.0

Ba n

% of community type

Figure 3.13 Educational attainment less than level 2 by communitiy type (1659 year old)

Community

24

Across the localities the trend was Hayes and Harlington (48%)> Uxbridge (42%)> Northwood & Ruislip (38%). The top and bottom quartiles for this indicator are given in table 3.11 (NOTE: For localities and wards this has been calculated for 16-74 year age) Table 3.11 Top and bottom quartile of deprivation in education Top quartile Bottom quartile Uxbridge North (38%) West Drayton (52%) Northwood Hills (37%) Townfield (51%) West Ruislip (36%) Botwell (50%) Uxbridge South (35%) Charville (49%) Ickenham (34%) Pinkwell (49%) Eastcote and East Ruislip (33%) Yiewsley (48%) Northwood (26%)

3.5 Economic activity and unemployment The social indicators in this dimension are % of people aged 16-74 years that are economically active.10 The definition of economic activity is those who are in paid work or are seeking paid work in the week before Census . The deprivation in this dimension is those that are unemployed in this group. Economic inactive are those that are retired or not in work and not seeking work. The economic activity for both males and females in Hillingdon was better compared with regional (London) and national (England & Wales) profile. 78% of males and 62% of females were economically active of which the majority (72% of males and 58% of females) was in full-time employment. The unemployment figure of 4.3% for males and 3.5% for females was lower than the regional and national figures. Retirement was the greatest factor for economic inactivity in both males (45%) and females (35%) while the second largest factor in females was looking after home/family. Overall, the economic profile from 1991 to 2001 did not change among males while more females (7% increase) became economically active. Table 3.12 Proportion of 16-74 year population for some of the indicators of (detailed table in on economic activity in appendix) Economic active Economic inactive Activity→ % population Unemployed (% of Retired economic active) (16-74 years) Male Female Male Female Male Female Area↓ Hillingdon 77.6 62.4 4.3 3.5 45.0 35.3 London 75.0 60.5 7.3 5.5 34.0 27.9 England and 74.2 59.8 5.8 4.1 44.9 38.3 Wales

economic activity Looking after family Male 3.7 4.2 3.5

Female 33.5 32.8 29.7

Looking at who are unemployed in Hillingdon may be useful. A quantitative analysis on multiple disadvantages in employment sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation11 found that the people with following characteristics are at higher risk of unemployment: • Having low levels of qualifications and skills • Age over 50, lone parent, • Having an impairment • Belonging to Black, Asian and other minorities ethnicity

25

Hence in this report unemployment in these groups is described. Figure 3.14 shows economic activity by education level. Just about half of the people without any qualifications were economically active. There was not much difference between those that had achieved lower and higher qualifications. Figure 3.15 shows unemployment among the economically active by age and gender. Unemployment is higher among the younger age groups compared to the 50+ age group except in men aged 60-64 and 70 to 74 years of age. Women have lower unemployment compared to men at all ages except 30-39 years. Table 3.13 shows the proportion of full time students in ages 16 to 24. Those leaving full time education at younger age may be at higher risk of unemployment because of lower educational attainment. Again the proportion leaving full time education is higher among males compared to females. Figure 3.14 Economic activity by education in Hillingdon 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0

%

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 No qualifications or level unknown

Lower qualifications

Higher Qualifications

educational level Economically Active: Total

Economically Inactive: Total

Figure 3.15 Unemployment by age and gender among the economically active population 14.0

% of economic active

12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 16

17

18

19

20

2 to

4

t 25

9 o2

30

34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 to to to to to to to to to 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Age group

Males

Females

26

Table 3.13: Full time students by age and gender (%) 16 years Age → Gender ↓ Males 87.1 Females 92.2

17 years

18 years

64.3 73.8

19 years

53.6 61.7

20-24 years 27.2 27.0

45.8 51.1

Table 3.14 shows educational attainment among those who were economic active but unemployed and those who were economically inactive because of a permanent illness. Among those that were unemployed over two thirds had no qualifications or lower qualifications. A very high proportion of people who were permanently sick/disabled had no qualifications. Table 3. 14: Educational attainment among unemployed and permanently ill/sick Educational attainment Unemployed Permanently ill/sick (economic active) (economically inactive) No qualifications 32% 64% Lower qualifications 50% 27% Higher qualifications 18% 9%

Figure 3.16 shows unemployment in different ethnic communities by two age groups. There was some variation by age but the trend was that Black Africans had the highest unemployment. Figure 3.16 Unemployment in different ethnic communities

te

n

hi er

d

th :O te

hi W

M

ix e

d:

W

As

di In

an te

W

hi

Br n ia As

or

or

As

ia

n

ia

an

is h h: it i s

hi W

ro G ic

hn Et er th

O

rit

se hi

:B

ne

ta

:C up

h: it i s

Br n

ia As

or n ia

te

n ia

k is Pa

er th O

h: i t is Br

ia As

or

As

n

Ch

in

es

e

As

ia

As

be rib Ca

k ac n

itis Br k

ac Bl

or k ac

Bl

Bl h:

itis Br k ac Bl or k ac

an

an r ic Af k

ac Bl h:

d:

ix e

ni

h r is

d

:I te

O

W

th

hi

er

ic .

M

..

i xe

i Et er th :O

M Bl

er th O ot

Ch

in

es

e

hn

la up ro G

ic hn Et

or n ia

As

de

be

ng Ba

h: itis Br

n ia As

hi W

sh

an

an

rib Ca k

ac Bl d

te

hi M

ix e

d:

ix e

d:

W

k ac Bl M

or k ac Bl

an

te

Br

an

itis

d

h:

Bl

O

ac

th

k

er

Af

Bl

ric

ac

k

% of economically active

20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

community type 16-24

25+

27

Figure 3.17 shows the proportion of dependent children in HH with no adult in employment. Figure 3.17: Proportion of dependent children HH with no adult in employment by community type 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

African White and Black Caribbean White and Black African Other ethnic group

Community type

Other mixed Pakistani Bangladeshi Irish Black other Caribbean White and Asian British

Average for Hillingdon

Other Asian Other White Indian Chinese

% of dependent children HH

For localities the order was Northwood & Ruilsip (3.3%) < Uxbridge (3.6%) < Hayes and Harlington (5.0%). Wards in the top and bottom quartile of unemployment are given in table 3.15 Table 3.15 Top and Bottom quartile for unemployment Top Quartile Bottom Quartile Hillingdon East 3.2 % Townfield 5.8 % Cavendish 3.2 % Pinkwell 5.5 % Uxbridge North 3.1 % Yeading 5.5 % West Ruislip 3.0 % Barnhill 5.3 % Manor 3.0 % Botwell 5.0 % Eastcote and East Ruislip 2.6 % West Drayton 4.4 % Ickenham 2.4 %

28

Conclusions The descriptive analysis of the Census data for Hillingdon shows that on average the people of Hillingdon have a health and social profile that is similar or slightly better compared with national and regional profiles. But, this level of good health in not enjoyed by all sections of the society in Hillingdon. This inequality in health is not unique to Hillingdon but is a common feature in local authorities across the country. The well established broader social determinants of health (lower educational attainment, unemployment, lone parent or single pensioner to mention a few) contribute to ill-health in Hillingdon as elsewhere. On average the prevalence of these determinants are higher in the Hayes and Harlington locality as compared with Uxbridge or Ruislip and Northwood localities. These inequalities do not stop at locality level but contribute to inequalities in health both between and within wards in a locality. Preliminary analysis done at a subward level has shown the existence of health inequalities within wards. . Further analyses at sub-ward level will be useful to understand the social determinants of health inequalities that are perhaps more important at local level. References 1. Moss, C. Selection of topics and questions for the 2001 Census. Population Trends Autumn, 1999, ONS 2. Teague A. New methodologies for the 2001 Census in England and Wales, ONS 3. Office of the National Statistics, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product/Census 4. London Research Centre, 1998 Round-Based LRC Projections 5. Office of the National Statistics, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/Census2001/implications 6. Piggott G. 2001 Census Key Statistics: Health Indicators. DMAG Briefing, GLA , June 2003 7. The London Health Observatory. Composite deprivation scores http://www.lho.org.uk/meth/depr.httm#cjtc 8. Department of Health. Tacking Health Inequalities. A Programme for Action July 2003 9. Social Exclusion Unit. Making the Connections. Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. February 2003 http://www.socailexclusionunit.gov.uk/publications/report 10. Office of the National Statistics. Glossary and classifications, Census 2001 http://www.staitsics.gov.uk/Census2001

11. Berthoud R. Multiple disadvantages in employment: A quantitative analysis. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2003 http://www.jrf.org.uk

29

Appendix A Mid-Year Estimates for 1991, 2001 and 2002 for Hillingdon LA (thousands) Age Groups

0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ All Ages

Revised 1991MYE Final Revised MYE2001 Males Female Persons Males Female Persons Males 1.7 1.8 3.5 1.6 1.5 3.1 1.6 6.7 6.4 13.1 6.8 6.2 13 6.5 7.5 7.0 14.5 8.5 7.9 16.3 8.5 6.8 6.5 13.3 8.1 8.0 16.1 8.2 7.1 6.7 13.8 7.7 7.5 15.2 8.1 9.8 9.6 19.4 8.0 8.5 16.5 8.2 11.0 11.4 22.4 9.1 9.4 18.5 8.6 9.7 9.4 19.1 11.0 11.0 22.0 10.7 8.0 7.7 15.7 10.4 10.7 21.1 10.6 8.3 8.2 16.5 8.9 8.5 17.4 9.1 6.9 6.9 13.8 7.7 7.6 15.3 7.9 6.2 6.2 12.4 7.4 7.7 15.0 7.1 5.9 5.9 11.8 6.0 6.2 12.1 6.4 5.4 5.6 11.0 5.0 5.5 10.5 4.8 4.6 5.5 10.1 4.6 5.0 9.6 4.6 3.6 4.8 8.4 3.8 4.6 8.4 3.8 2.9 4.5 7.4 2.8 4.1 6.9 2.8 1.7 3.2 4.9 1.7 3 4.8 1.9 0.8 2.4 3.2 1.2 3 4.2 1.2 114.6 119.8 234.4 120.2 125.8 245.9 120.6

MYE2002

Female

Persons

1.6 6.0 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.6 9.1 10.7 10.8 8.9 7.7 7.2 6.6 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.0 3.1 2.9 126.0

3.2 12.5 16.3 16.2 15.9 16.8 17.7 21.4 21.5 18 15.6 14.4 13 10.2 9.6 8.4 6.8 5 4.1 246.5

i

Resident Population of localities of Hillingdon (Census 2001) Locality ↓

Age →

0-4

5-14

15-24

25-44

45-64

65-74

75-84

85+

Total

Ruislip & Northwood Locality Total % of locality population

5192 6.2

10342 12.4

8748 10.5

25447 30.6

19578 23.6

7049 8.5

4816 5.8

1937 2.3

83109 100.0

Uxbridge Locality Total % of locality population

4876 6.2

9934 12.7

11240 14.4

24324 31.1

16887 21.6

5836 7.5

3839 4.9

1260 1.6

78196 100.0

Hayes and Harlington Locality Total % of locality population

6107 7.5

12074 14.8

11439 14.0

26754 32.7

16293 19.9

5027 6.2

2985 3.7

1022 1.3

81701 100.0

16175

32350

31427

76525

52758

17912

11640

4219

243006

Locality population as % of Hillingdon population Ruislip & Northwood 32.1 32.0 Uxbridge 30.1 30.7 Hayes & Harlington 37.8 37.3

27.8 35.8 36.4

33.3 31.8 35.0

37.1 32.0 30.9

39.4 32.6 28.1

41.4 33.0 25.6

45.9 29.9 24.2

34.2 32.2 33.6

Hillingdon Total

ii

Resident population for the wards in Hillingdon (Census 2001) Age in years → Ward Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

All people 11728 12432 10631 11239 11429 11480

0-4

5-7

895 895 657 808 767 585

566 556 372 499 493 395

7090 484 10217 663 11878 831 9933 502 10902 743 10559 557 10833 677 12346 979 10823 715 11626 830 11671 653 11438 669 11589 760 10183 623 11923 1078 11056 804 243006 16175

256 357 508 358 426 337 365 631 424 518 412 335 504 374 603 460 9749

8-9 372 384 249 297 337 310

10-14

15 16 - 17 18 - 19

916 879 626 772 842 777

158 179 113 164 158 164

319 351 210 287 318 289

350 361 617 221 288 268

188 394 207 548 377 939 230 667 302 650 210 541 270 662 402 944 285 709 347 881 276 781 226 518 329 765 288 611 412 879 309 693 6607 15994

76 99 160 118 105 109 130 167 134 163 146 88 128 120 150 148 2977

140 235 340 210 235 250 241 354 255 338 298 204 275 207 281 260 5897

148 217 267 210 203 208 188 293 216 321 283 698 245 168 258 249 6277

20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 - 89 90 & over 873 1007 929 476 688 569

919 960 814 585 726 474

2809 2927 2411 2876 2893 2255

1777 2069 1729 2031 1933 2581

350 528 867 987 735 727 478 404 545 745 657 750 515 700 877 938 608 861 882 882 761 796 1450 1069 766 818 502 765 887 1115 854 1057 16276 17620

1832 2566 2953 2055 2809 2357 2538 3050 2808 2725 2795 2716 2801 2564 3257 2908 58905

1224 1760 2024 2126 1906 2153 2073 1947 1848 1820 2221 1740 1979 1870 1719 1658 42188

443 465 475 505 548 657

733 718 814 894 835 1107

448 503 472 624 438 799

101 126 107 144 100 177

49 52 36 56 65 73

282 642 373 468 732 382 487 809 520 556 1086 737 498 913 560 528 928 632 549 1019 654 490 659 478 437 786 531 469 790 475 563 935 543 386 682 482 520 894 625 436 760 643 385 560 261 423 616 460 10570 17912 11640

112 102 156 138 178 210 166 94 142 124 148 126 114 171 54 109 2899

61 27 45 58 84 132 86 43 64 61 60 49 66 81 24 48 1320

iii

Appendix B Ethnic communities in Hillingdon Ethnicity White Black Caribbean

1991 2001 estimated* Numbers % of Total Numbers % 203100 87.7 206200 81.4

2001 census Numbers % 192100 79.1

2100

0.9

3100

1.2

3300

1.4

Black African

900

0.4

2800

1.1

4200

1.7

Black other

800

0.3

1500

0.6

500

0.2

15400

6.6

23000

9.1

23200

9.5

2000

0.9

3800

1.5

3800

1.6

900

0.4

2200

0.9

1500

0.6

Chinese

1200

0.5

1700

0.7

1900

0.8

Other Asian

2500

1.1

3500

1.4

4500

1.9

other

2600

1.1

5500

2.2

7900

3.3

Total

231600

100

253300

100

243000

Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

100

*London Research Centre, 1999 round-based demographic projections

iv

Size of different communities in Localities of Hillingdon (Census 2001) Community type → Locality ↓

All people

White British Irish White White and Black Caribbean

Mixed White and White Black and African Asian

Other Mixed

Indian

Asian and British Asian Black and British Black Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Asian Caribbean African Other Black

Chinese Chinese Other Chinese

Ruislip & Northwood Locality Total 83110 66341 % of locality 100.0 79.8 population

2293 2.8

3635 4.4

388 0.5

184 0.2

595 0.7

487 0.6

4614 5.6

563 0.7

200 0.2

930 1.1

705 0.8

629 0.8

119 0.1

747 0.9

680 0.8

Uxbridge Locality Total % of locality population

78196 61582 100.0 78.8

2068 2.6

2744 3.5

418 0.5

184 0.2

595 0.8

446 0.6

4413 5.6

872 1.1

758 1.0

923 1.2

700 0.9

1047 1.3

122 0.2

690 0.9

634 0.8

Hayes and Harlington Locality Total 81701 48321 % of locality 100.0 59.1 population

2550 3.1

2586 3.2

621 0.8

326 0.4

793 1.0

551 0.7

14207 17.4

2381 2.9

501 0.6

2686 3.3

1870 2.3

2551 3.1

264 0.3

446 0.5

1047 1.3

6911

8965

1427

694

1983

1484

23234

3816

1459

4539

3275

4227

505

1883

2361

37.6

33.2

40.5

27.2

26.5

30.0

32.8

19.9

14.8

13.7

20.5

21.5

14.9

23.6

39.7

28.8

34.9 27.4

29.9 36.9

30.6 28.8

29.3 43.5

26.5 47.0

30.0 40.0

30.1 37.1

19.0 61.1

22.9 62.4

52.0 34.3

20.3 59.2

21.4 57.1

24.8 60.4

24.2 52.3

36.6 23.7

26.9 44.3

Hillingdon Total

243007 176244

Locality % of Hillingdon Ruislip & 34.2 Northwood Uxbridge 32.2 Hayes & 33.6 Harlington

v

Size of different communities in wards of Hillingdon (Census 2001) Community type All people →

White British

White Irish

Other White

Wards ↓ Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

Mixed White and Black Caribbean

Mixed White and Black African

Mixed White and Asian

Mixed Other Mixed

British Indian

British British British Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Asian

British British British Black Black Other Caribbean African Black

ethnic Chinese group Other Chinese Ethnic Group

11728 12432 10631 11239 11429 11480

5774 7643 8175 9331 8702 9515

366 456 286 331 399 298

277 377 390 323 265 498

87 110 64 42 82 42

35 54 36 21 25 14

101 112 90 78 90 63

64 80 85 57 77 52

3000 1826 586 520 751 541

384 352 154 69 173 72

75 113 93 13 32 25

585 396 142 104 235 51

334 281 113 106 237 69

374 402 214 46 231 78

57 40 23 14 56 8

63 50 74 106 11 78

152 140 106 78 63 76

7091 10217

6279 6642

138 256

259 548

29 47

15 46

29 87

19 75

139 1376

10 274

0 39

37 203

40 117

30 200

3 10

27 91

37 206

11878 9933 10902 10559 10833 12346 10823 11626 11671 11438 11589 10183 11923 11056 243007

9493 8404 9100 7293 8015 6327 8498 6861 9262 8197 9278 8310 6372 8773 176244

400 226 401 216 244 343 382 410 314 271 321 283 320 250 6911

281 299 288 792 564 339 361 361 411 663 338 550 419 362 8965

75 20 45 37 73 87 74 88 63 71 58 46 120 67 1427

22 6 26 19 23 50 31 46 20 30 40 35 70 30 694

90 61 89 98 87 130 82 128 98 95 82 69 145 79 1983

69 45 67 95 61 63 70 80 64 76 61 66 112 46 1484

686 496 366 1129 992 3227 558 1811 711 698 652 369 2216 584 23234

100 37 35 130 113 425 104 410 79 208 136 30 363 158 3816

57 9 41 39 42 62 26 105 113 256 80 14 75 150 1459

158 89 95 233 192 403 124 346 124 162 130 94 518 118 4539

109 25 116 55 93 266 181 263 91 132 118 45 372 112 3275

93 31 67 113 86 411 129 494 112 272 144 80 439 181 4227

24 9 8 18 7 20 25 32 20 17 17 36 49 12 505

120 106 80 145 132 55 105 40 128 150 70 74 136 42 1883

101 70 78 147 109 138 73 151 61 140 64 82 197 92 2361

vi

Appendix C Health indicators in different wards of Hillingdon (number of people) Variables

Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

Limiting long-term illness All people All people people of Good working age

Self-reported health Fairly good Not good

11728 12432 10631 11239 11429 11480

1788 1960 1649 1599 1545 1554

903 1034 795 639 728 590

8209 8547 7497 8353 8280 8597

2531 2847 2304 2191 2382 2182

988 1038 830 695 767 701

7090 10217 11878 9933 10902 10559 10833 12346 10823 11626 11671 11438 11589 10183 11923 11056 243006

1155 1464 1725 1423 1454 1572 1733 1800 1590 1982 1608 1679 2002 1494 1633 1753 36162

437 747 800 531 549 628 733 944 683 991 711 895 926 584 950 920 16718

4989 7001 8490 7447 8090 7732 7770 8686 7716 7848 8583 8201 7858 7473 8419 7568 173354

1509 2415 2562 1931 2177 2091 2322 2728 2318 2656 2311 2371 2686 2038 2615 2600 51767

592 801 826 555 635 736 741 932 789 1122 777 866 1045 672 889 888 17885

Provision of unpaid care All people who All people who All people who provide unpaid provide unpaid provide unpaid care care: 1-19 hours care: 20-49 hours a week a week 1132 729 158 1103 720 141 956 670 106 1142 843 102 1071 743 125 1331 1032 110 665 912 1078 1155 1023 1078 1147 1148 987 1120 1163 960 1119 954 940 934 23118

445 610 731 906 760 860 852 746 711 687 831 703 755 719 577 601 16231

76 136 120 85 83 99 99 156 91 165 131 99 111 90 166 109 2558

All people who provide unpaid care : 50+ hours a week 245 242 180 197 203 189 144 166 227 164 180 119 196 246 185 268 201 158 253 145 197 224 4329

vii

Health indicators in different wards of Hillingdon (%) Variables

Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

Limiting long-term illness All people All people people of Good working age

Self-reported health Fairly good Not good

Provision of unpaid care All people who All people who All people who provide unpaid provide unpaid provide unpaid care care: 1-19 hours care: 20-49 hours a week a week

All people who provide unpaid care : 50+ hours a week

11728 12432 10631 11239 11429 11480

15.2 15.8 15.5 14.2 13.5 13.5

11.0 11.7 9.9 8.1 8.8 7.2

70.0 68.8 70.5 74.3 72.4 74.9

21.6 22.9 21.7 19.5 20.8 19.0

8.4 8.3 7.8 6.2 6.7 6.1

9.7 8.9 9.0 10.2 9.4 11.6

64.4 65.3 70.1 73.8 69.4 77.5

1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0

21.6 21.9 18.8 17.3 19.0 14.2

7090 10217 11878 9933 10902 10559 10833 12346 10823 11626 11671 11438 11589 10183 11923 11056 243006

16.3 14.3 14.5 14.3 13.3 14.9 16.0 14.6 14.7 17.0 13.8 14.7 17.3 14.7 13.7 15.9 14.9

8.5 9.5 9.6 7.5 7.0 8.0 9.4 11.0 8.7 12.0 8.2 10.0 11.2 8.0 11.2 11.5 9.5

70.4 68.5 71.5 75.0 74.2 73.2 71.7 70.4 71.3 67.5 73.5 71.7 67.8 73.4 70.6 68.5 71.3

21.3 23.6 21.6 19.4 20.0 19.8 21.4 22.1 21.4 22.8 19.8 20.7 23.2 20.0 21.9 23.5 21.3

8.3 7.8 7.0 5.6 5.8 7.0 6.8 7.5 7.3 9.7 6.7 7.6 9.0 6.6 7.5 8.0 7.4

9.4 8.9 9.1 11.6 9.4 10.2 10.6 9.3 9.1 9.6 10.0 8.4 9.7 9.4 7.9 8.4 9.5

66.9 66.9 67.8 78.4 74.3 79.8 74.3 65.0 72.0 61.3 71.5 73.2 67.5 75.4 61.4 64.3 70.2

1.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.1

21.7 18.2 21.1 14.2 17.6 11.0 17.1 21.4 18.7 23.9 17.3 16.5 22.6 15.2 21.0 24.0 18.7

viii

Appendix D Household type in the different wards of Hillingdon (Census 2001) Numbers and % of total Households Dependent children Household type → All Households households

Lone parent households

Ward ↓ Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

Numbers % 510 621 459 412 411 277

4151 4647 4098 4419 4302 4552 2949 4371 4488 3914 4414 4550 4641 4482 4398 4446 4557 4829 4707 4429 4612 4687 96643

Numbers % 1661 1664 1210 1534 1550 1321 836 1163 1665 1145 1384 1142 1325 1799 1384 1528 1418 1144 1434 1246 1881 1434 30868

40.0 35.8 29.5 34.7 36.0 29.0 28.3 26.6 37.1 29.3 31.4 25.1 28.5 40.1 31.5 34.4 31.1 23.7 30.5 28.1 40.8 30.6 31.9

320 404 531 200 319 337 431 691 418 601 337 411 593 330 747 590 9950

Lone parent with dependent children households Numbers % 12.3 364 13.4 431 11.2 303 9.3 244 9.6 245 6.1 139 10.9 9.2 11.8 5.1 7.2 7.4 9.3 15.4 9.5 13.5 7.4 8.5 12.6 7.5 16.2 12.6 10.3

217 290 352 99 185 205 248 485 270 427 212 291 401 230 580 430 6648

Pensioner households Single pensioner households

8.8 9.3 7.4 5.5 5.7 3.1

7.4 6.6 7.8 2.5 4.2 4.5 5.3 10.8 6.1 9.6 4.7 6.0 8.5 5.2 12.6 9.2 6.9

Numbers % 741 847 872 1062 849 1367 659 791 896 1218 1079 1236 1236 725 950 864 1033 948 953 1036 548 789 20699

% 17.9 18.2 21.3 24.0 19.7 30.0

455 562 520 635 498 734

11.0 12.1 12.7 14.4 11.6 16.1

22.3 18.1 20.0 31.1 24.4 27.2 26.6 16.2 21.6 19.4 22.7 19.6 20.2 23.4 11.9 16.8 21.4

387 505 552 608 658 787 770 456 602 590 629 702 586 629 374 527 12766

13.1 11.6 12.3 15.5 14.9 17.3 16.6 10.2 13.7 13.3 13.8 14.5 12.4 14.2 8.1 11.2 13.2

ix

Housing deprivation in the different wards of Hillingdon Housing deprivation indicator → Wards ↓ Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

All Not owner occupied Overcrowding households (occupancy rating less than 1) Numbers % Numbers % 4151 4647 4098 4420 4302 4552 2949 4371 4488 3914 4414 4550 4641 4482 4398 4446 4557 4829 4707 4428 4612 4687 96643

1308 1759 1324 699 829 625 937 1508 1170 481 589 1505 1314 1399 1031 2010 1361 2006 1601 1250 1665 1920 28291

31.5 37.9 32.3 15.8 19.3 13.7 31.8 34.5 26.1 12.3 13.3 33.1 28.3 31.2 23.4 45.2 29.9 41.5 34.0 28.2 36.1 41.0 29.3

741 742 484 201 474 136 266 788 398 143 186 424 365 749 339 729 294 820 544 377 818 701 10719

17.9 16.0 11.8 4.5 11.0 3.0 9.0 18.0 8.9 3.7 4.2 9.3 7.9 16.7 7.7 16.4 6.5 17.0 11.6 8.5 17.7 15.0 11.1

Households with no Households without central heating sole use of bath/shower toilet Numbers % Numbers % 257 271 211 142 251 124 137 305 285 61 214 120 170 266 280 208 129 251 241 158 246 258 4585

6.2 5.8 5.1 3.2 5.8 2.7 4.6 7.0 6.4 1.6 4.8 2.6 3.7 5.9 6.4 4.7 2.8 5.2 5.1 3.6 5.3 5.5 4.7

22 18 23 5 20 7 19 20 9 8 6 7 26 37 10 20 6 20 7 8 20 18 336

0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3

x

Access to car and all cars in Hillingdon Indicator → Ward ↓ Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

HH without access to car/van Numbers % 991 1257 984 781 779 635 543 1056 902 480 789 885 1007 1086 927 1369 799 1497 1135 823 1041 1206 20972

23.9 27.0 24.0 17.7 18.1 13.9 18.4 24.2 20.1 12.3 17.9 19.5 21.7 24.2 21.1 30.8 17.5 31.0 24.1 18.6 22.6 25.7 21.7

All cars in the area Numbers 4874 5044 4805 5711 5720 6553 3952 4822 5665 5975 5599 5888 5649 5150 5267 4465 6177 4790 5345 5539 5268 5040 117298

% of all cars 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.9 4.9 5.6 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.1 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.5 3.8 5.3 4.1 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.3 100.0

xi

Highest attained level of educational attainment (proportion of 16-74 year population) ward

no qualifications

level 1

level 2

level 3

level 4/5

Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

28.1 31.2 27.0 22.3 27.8 17.0 28.8 27.2 26.7 19.3 20.9 14.9 21.9 29.5 24.5 33.2 21.0 20.3 32.4 18.4 26.3 29.6 25.0

18.0 18.5 17.3 19.8 21.2 16.2 18.5 19.2 20.8 15.2 20.2 11.1 14.8 19.5 20.9 17.7 16.7 15.0 19.5 17.9 19.6 18.5 18.0

20.0 19.7 18.5 23.7 21.8 24.3 20.6 20.6 21.9 23.1 22.0 20.9 20.7 20.5 22.0 19.1 22.4 18.2 18.2 22.8 21.0 18.5 20.9

9.8 8.8 13.6 8.2 7.4 9.8 7.5 8.9 7.6 9.7 9.1 11.5 9.6 8.8 8.2 8.3 10.1 16.9 8.3 9.6 9.2 10.1 9.6

18.0 15.2 17.1 19.2 13.9 26.2 18.4 17.4 16.1 25.8 20.4 37.0 26.8 15.0 17.7 15.4 23.7 24.3 14.7 25.1 17.5 17.1 20.0

Other FT Students not attained qualifications/ 16-17 level 2 level unknown 6.1 81.5 46.1 6.6 75.2 49.7 6.4 71.0 44.4 6.8 78.4 42.2 7.9 74.8 49.0 6.5 85.8 33.1 6.2 70.7 47.3 6.7 77.0 46.4 7.0 77.1 47.5 7.0 88.1 34.4 7.5 82.1 41.0 4.6 93.6 25.9 6.2 81.7 36.7 6.7 78.8 49.0 6.6 75.7 45.5 6.2 72.5 51.0 6.1 81.5 37.7 5.3 77.0 35.4 6.9 64.7 51.9 6.2 86.5 36.3 6.5 82.9 45.9 6.2 68.5 48.1 6.5 78.3 43.0

xii

Economic activity among males (16-74 year) in Hillingdon Economically active Economically inactive Economic activity All Employees Employees SelfUnemployed FullAll Retired Student Looking after Permanently Other → economic Part -time Full-time employed time inactive home/family sick/disabled active student % of % of economically active population % of % of economically inactive population Ward ↓ population Barnhill 75.5 3.7 73.2 12.7 5.6 4.8 24.5 35.0 25.9 4.5 20.9 13.6 Botwell 75.3 4.0 71.8 14.0 5.5 4.7 24.7 31.2 28.7 4.5 20.9 14.8 Brunel 74.4 3.3 69.6 14.8 4.5 7.8 25.6 38.3 32.2 3.6 17.6 8.3 Cavendish 80.1 3.8 71.7 17.8 3.5 3.2 19.9 59.3 14.8 3.6 14.8 7.4 Charville 79.8 3.7 73.4 15.2 4.2 3.5 20.2 47.9 19.1 4.4 16.2 12.5 Eastcote and East 76.3 3.8 66.7 23.1 3.3 3.2 23.7 64.1 18.0 2.4 8.0 7.4 Ruislip Harefield 79.0 3.6 72.0 18.8 3.9 1.7 21.0 54.8 13.8 5.6 16.5 9.3 Heathrow Villages 80.1 3.4 77.4 12.7 3.8 2.7 19.9 45.6 20.4 2.9 17.9 13.2 Hillingdon East 79.7 3.7 72.8 15.8 3.5 4.2 20.3 45.9 22.9 2.9 18.1 10.2 Ickenham 76.5 3.5 68.5 22.2 2.8 3.0 23.5 66.8 14.0 1.7 10.3 7.2 Manor 80.9 3.3 73.1 17.3 3.3 3.0 19.1 61.1 15.2 3.3 10.6 9.8 Northwood 76.4 3.6 65.6 24.5 3.8 2.6 23.6 47.1 26.8 2.2 13.2 10.7 Northwood Hills 76.5 3.7 68.0 22.1 4.1 2.1 23.5 52.6 16.6 4.1 16.7 10.0 Pinkwell 77.2 3.5 74.4 12.2 5.5 4.5 22.8 34.3 24.7 6.1 19.8 15.1 South Ruislip 81.0 3.4 73.5 15.9 3.9 3.2 19.0 52.5 16.2 3.4 16.5 11.3 Townfield 74.6 4.4 73.3 11.5 6.3 4.4 25.4 37.3 22.6 3.9 22.6 13.7 Uxbridge North 79.5 3.4 73.4 17.5 3.1 2.6 20.5 50.7 19.9 2.5 16.8 10.1 Uxbridge South 72.3 2.9 69.9 12.7 4.2 10.2 27.7 25.9 48.4 1.9 15.8 8.1 West Drayton 75.8 3.5 74.4 14.5 5.0 2.6 24.2 43.8 14.4 5.0 23.9 12.9 West Ruislip 80.9 3.1 73.5 17.9 3.1 2.4 19.1 56.3 12.8 4.2 17.0 9.7 Yeading 78.0 3.7 72.4 13.7 5.9 4.4 22.0 29.9 25.4 5.6 24.3 14.9 Yiewsley 79.2 3.3 77.3 12.0 4.5 3.0 20.8 36.0 22.5 3.5 24.1 13.9 Hillingdon 77.6 3.6 72.2 16.2 4.3 3.9 22.4 45.0 22.6 3.7 17.5 11.2

xiii

Economic activity among females (16-74 year) in Hillingdon Economic activity → Ward ↓ Barnhill Botwell Brunel Cavendish Charville Eastcote and East Ruislip Harefield Heathrow Villages Hillingdon East Ickenham Manor Northwood Northwood Hills Pinkwell South Ruislip Townfield Uxbridge North Uxbridge South West Drayton West Ruislip Yeading Yiewsley Hillingdon

Economically active All Economic Employees Employees : SelfUnemployed Full-time active Part-time Full-time employed student % of population 59.8 60.7 60.6 64.0 65.5 59.8

% of economically active population 26.0 28.3 25.2 33.3 32.1 33.8

57.5 58.0 56.2 53.5 56.1 50.4

3.7 3.3 4.6 6.2 3.9 9.8

5.0 4.4 2.8 2.8 3.1 1.7

64.0 65.9

26.5 22.5

60.8 65.5

6.2 3.8

64.5 60.8 65.0 59.2 60.1

33.3 34.8 30.6 23.6 27.2

54.1 50.5 57.3 57.1 55.9

62.0 65.3 58.4 62.9 61.1 61.9 66.8 62.3 64.4 62.4

27.9 27.6 24.6 28.9 22.9 27.3 28.6 23.6 27.3 28.0

57.8 60.4 59.8 56.5 56.8 60.1 58.2 61.2 60.6 57.5

Economically inactive Retired Student Looking after Permanently home/family sick/disabled

Other

7.8 6.0 11.2 4.2 4.8 4.3

% of population 40.2 39.3 39.4 36.0 34.5 40.2

% of economically active population 27.0 26.6 33.1 43.1 39.8 45.1

17.4 13.4 19.0 7.3 10.4 9.4

31.4 36.0 29.6 35.5 31.1 33.4

12.1 12.1 11.0 6.6 9.5 6.4

12.1 11.9 7.3 7.4 9.2 5.7

3.3 4.1

3.3 4.1

36.0 34.1

43.8 35.7

7.2 10.7

32.7 31.1

9.2 10.8

7.0 11.7

4.6 8.7 5.9 12.2 10.0

2.9 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.2

5.1 4.2 3.5 3.7 3.7

35.5 39.2 35.0 40.8 39.9

36.1 50.7 44.3 35.1 41.7

11.0 8.6 8.8 17.3 9.5

35.6 29.8 34.2 32.2 32.2

10.0 5.5 6.1 6.7 9.1

7.3 5.3 6.6 8.8 7.5

2.7 5.6 3.4 6.1 3.9 4.3 6.1 4.5 3.6 5.5

5.6 3.0 5.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.0 5.1 3.3 3.5

6.0 3.5 7.0 5.3 12.8 4.7 4.1 5.6 5.2 5.5

38.0 34.7 41.6 37.1 38.9 38.1 33.2 37.7 35.6 37.6

27.7 38.6 28.8 39.6 26.9 37.1 40.7 22.9 28.3 35.5

14.4 8.8 13.3 12.5 32.5 9.4 10.1 13.8 11.9 12.9

35.8 35.6 34.9 31.3 24.5 32.9 34.4 40.0 37.9 33.3

11.3 9.4 12.8 7.9 7.9 11.6 7.0 11.8 12.6 9.5

10.8 7.6 10.1 8.6 8.3 9.0 7.8 11.6 9.3 8.8

xiv