Download
Source: data.gov.uk (2019-01-22)

Equality Taskforce Evidence Base. Includes: the approach to data analysis; demographics; income inequality; cost of living; deprivation; and the life-stages.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

1
Camden Equality Taskforce
Evidence Base

Table of Contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 2
1.
Approach to data analysis .............................................................................................. 7
2.
Overall demographics: a snapshot of Camden ............................................................. 12
3.
Income inequality in Camden ....................................................................................... 13
4.
The cost of living in Camden ........................................................................................ 18
5.
Deprivation ................................................................................................................... 19
6.
Life stage 1: children and their families ........................................................................ 20
To live in safety and security ........................................................................................... 20
To be healthy................................................................................................................... 22
To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society ................................ 23
To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security ..................... 29
To engage in productive and valued activities ................................................................. 34
To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence ......................................... 35
To enjoy individual, family and social life ......................................................................... 35
7.
Life stage 2: young people (16-24) ............................................................................... 35
To live in safety and security ........................................................................................... 35
To be healthy................................................................................................................... 36
To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society ................................ 36
To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security ..................... 39
To engage in productive and valued activities ................................................................. 40
To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence ......................................... 41
To enjoy individual, family and social life ......................................................................... 41
8.
Life stage 3: working age adults and/or whole population ............................................ 41
To live in safety and security ........................................................................................... 41
To be healthy................................................................................................................... 43
To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society ................................ 49
To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security ..................... 50
To engage in productive and valued activities ................................................................. 55
To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence ......................................... 61
To enjoy individual, family and social life ......................................................................... 62
9.
Life stage 4: older people ............................................................................................. 63
To live in safety and security ........................................................................................... 64
To be healthy................................................................................................................... 64
To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society ................................ 65
To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security ..................... 65
To engage in productive and valued activities ................................................................. 68
To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence ......................................... 68
To enjoy individual, family and social life ......................................................................... 68

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

2

Executive summary

This section outlines key points from the evidence base firstly by life stage group, then by
protected group (for those groups where data is available) and by area of the borough.

E1.
Demographics of the borough

E1.1. Camden is a densely populated borough with a very large working age population
and correspondingly small populations of children and older people. Its Black and
Minority Ethnic (BME) population is smaller than London as a whole but it has a large
“White Other” population. Population churn is very high with a quarter of the
population entering or leaving the borough every year, due in part to Camden having
London’s largest student population. The total population is projected to grow by 7%
between 2012 and 2022 and the population aged 65 and over by 18%. 14.4% of the
population have a long term health problem or disability and around 5% receive the
Disability Living Allowance benefit1.

E2.
Overall income inequality and deprivation

E2.1. The median household income in Camden is relatively high at £32,625 but the
borough has a high level of income inequality and is the sixth most unequal borough
in London. A quarter of households have an annual income of £20,000 or less2.

E2.2. Housing costs are extremely high. The average house price is £625,250, 19 times
the median annual household income in Camden. The average weekly rent for the
borough is £463, equivalent to 71% of the median weekly household income in the
borough3.

E2.3. Camden has one of the highest proportions of social rented households in London4.
Social housing allows low income households to live in the borough, counteracting
the high cost of housing, and thus explains much of the income inequality found in
the borough.

E2.4. The correlation between social housing and deprivation is clear from the evidence
base but the nature of the relationship is complex. Living in social housing is not
intrinsically a sign of deprivation but occupants of social housing typically have
poorer outcomes across a range of domains. The supply of social housing is very
restricted – just 1,100 council properties are let each year and a quarter of those are
to existing tenants5.

E3.
Inequality issues for each life stage

Children and their families

E3.1. The most striking feature of this life stage in Camden is the high level of child
poverty. 34% of the borough’s children live in poverty according to the current

12011 Census; GLA 2011 Round of Demographic Projections 'Camden Development'; ONS Local Migration
Indicators; DWP
2 CACI Paycheck 2012
3 Land Registry; Valuations Office Agency; LBC calculation
42011 Census
5 Unpublished LBC data

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

3
government measure. This is higher than the national and London figure and the
seventh highest of the London boroughs. Over two thirds of these children live in lone
parent households6.

E3.2. Camden’s primary schools have the third highest proportion of children eligible for
free school meals in the country. Black African, Black Caribbean/Mixed White and
Black Caribbean, Black Other children and those with SEN are much more likely to
be eligible for free school meals7.

E3.3. Housing is a particular problem for low income families. Families with children,
particularly lone parent families, find it harder to access and sustain suitable,
affordable accommodation in the borough, of which social housing is an important
although often scarce source. This is why families make up a relatively high
proportion of households in social housing, in overcrowded accommodation and in
temporary accommodation. BME families are more likely to be overcrowded.
Families make up 80% of the households who will be affected by the overall cap on
benefits to be introduced in April 20138.

E3.4. Obesity is one of the biggest health issues facing children in Camden. Nearly a
quarter of Year 6 children are obese, higher than the national level. Boys, BME
children and children from deprived areas are most likely to be obese9.

E3.5. Attainment by children attending Camden schools is in line with or slightly above the
national average. Across the Foundation Stage Profile, Key Stage 2 and GCSE/Key
Stage 4, many of the same groups of children perform below the overall Camden
figure - children eligible for free school meals, particularly White British children,
children with special educational needs, Black African children (especially Somali
and Congolese) and looked after children. In some cases e.g. for children eligible for
free school meals, the attainment gap is narrower than nationally. Furthermore, the
results for most underachieving groups have improved in recent years, especially for
Bangladeshi children. However Bangladeshi children still underperformed
considerably at GCSE both compared with the overall Camden figure and the
national figure for Bangladeshi children10.

E3.6. The school system in Inner London is characterised by large cross-borough
boundary flows – 42% of children attending Camden secondary schools are from
another borough. The performance of Camden resident children at GCSE is lower
than that of children attending Camden schools and one of the lowest in London11.
This is connected to the high proportion of children in poverty in the borough.

E3.7. There is a sufficient number of childcare places in the borough but there is evidence
that they are not affordable or flexible enough to allow parents to work on low
incomes12.

E3.8. High housing and childcare costs mean that couples or lone parents with children
need very high salaries to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living in the
borough without the support of means-tested benefits. They would need to earn

6Child Poverty Statistics (HMRC)
7 Unpublished LBC data
8Camden Housing Strategy Evidence Base 2011; Impacts of welfare reform (LBC)
9Camden’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for Health and Social Care
10Report Of Achievement And Standards Of Camden's Children And Young People 2011 and the accompanying
Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables.(both LBC, February 2012)
11 Unpublished LBC analysis
12Camden Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2011

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

4
between £40,000 and £70,000 depending on household type, which is above the 80th
percentile of household income in Camden13.

Young people aged 16-24

E3.9. Attainment at A level is lower than the national average for both Camden resident
young people and young people attending Camden schools. Attainment is lower for
young men and for Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean young people14.

E3.10. Although Camden has a relatively high level of young people aged 16-19 not in
education, employment or training (NEET) compared with other Central London
boroughs, it also has the highest rate of young people who are in education,
employment or training. This is because Camden has more rigorous tracking
mechanisms in place and consequently fewer young people with unknown
destinations15.

E3.11. A similar proportion of young people go on to university from Camden schools as
nationally although the universities they attend are polarised between institutions with
very high employment rates and those with very low employment rates. This appears
to be reflected in a relatively low employment rate for graduates who had previously
attended Camden schools16.

E3.12. The unemployment claimant count rate for young people in Camden is considerably
higher than the overall rate, as is the case nationally. It is lower than the London and
national rates and falling, although long term unemployment is increasing. BME
young people are more likely to be unemployed than their White counterparts17.

Adults of working age and/or whole population18

E3.13. Camden has one of the highest recorded crime rates of the London boroughs, but
this is more due to its central London location than the nature of its population. Crime
is falling over the long term as is the proportion of residents concerned about crime.
There is little local data on the characteristics of victims or perpetrators of crime but
Camden has relatively high numbers of offences that by their nature tend to affect
particular groups – sexual offences and hate crime19.

E3.14. 12,350 people in the borough or 5.6% of the population report their health as bad or
very bad. Life expectancy in Camden is similar to England for men and higher for
women. It is much improved in recent years, particularly for men. However there is
an 11.6 year gap in life expectancy between male residents living in the 10% least
and most deprived areas in Camden, the third highest gap in London20.

E3.15. Camden has the second highest serious mental illness prevalence and fifth highest
depression prevalence in London. Bangladeshi women are more vulnerable to

13 Calculating a Minimum Income Standard for Camden: a working paper (unpublished, LBC 2012). We have
taken the socially acceptable standard of living from the Joseph Roundtree Foundation and it is defined by
members of the public.
14Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables op cit.
15 Unpublished LBC analysis
16 Unpublished LBC analysis; Hidden talents: a statistical review of destinations of young graduates (LGA 2012)
17 Unpublished LBC analysis using data from www.nomisweb.co.uk
18 This section includes data for the whole population that cannot be disaggregated by age.
19 LBC analysis of data from www.met.police.uk/crimefigures
202011 Census; Camden’s JSNA

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

5
depression than other women but under-represented in treatment, whereas Black
populations are over-represented21.

E3.16. Cardio-vascular disease is the leading cause of death in Camden. The mortality rate
is higher than national although falling. Rates are higher for men and people in the
most deprived areas of Camden22.

E3.17. Generally Camden does not have particularly high unemployment rate and it has
stabilised after large increases in 2008-9. Rates are higher for BME groups and have
risen rapidly since the recession. Unemployment among older women is also rising
rapidly, albeit from a low base23.

E3.18. However the employment rate is lower in Camden than in London and the UK due to
the large number of students in the borough. As is the case nationally, the
employment rate is lower for women and national data shows that rates are
particularly low for women from most BME groups and for people with disabilities24.

E3.19. A third of households in Camden receive housing benefit, a higher proportion than
London. Over 80% of claimants live in the social rented sector,30% are families with
children and 16% are in work. A high proportion of council tenants receive means-
tested benefits. 67% of council tenants claim housing benefit. 36% claim Income
Support or income-based Job Seeker’s Allowance, although the total proportion not
in work is likely to be higher25.

E3.20. Fuel poverty is lower in Camden than England, and similar to London26. However as
elsewhere, it is rising rapidly in line with rising fuel bills.

Older people

E3.21. Camden ranks eighth of the London boroughs on the income deprivation affecting
older people index so although Camden has a relatively small older population, it is
relatively more deprived than other London boroughs27. Older people in Camden are
more likely to be affected by fuel poverty and more likely to be a social tenant than
the population as a whole.

E4.
Inequality issues for protected groups

E4.1. The patterns of inequality within the protected groups of sex, ethnicity and disability
are by no means unique to Camden and, in some cases, are less acute in Camden
than elsewhere.

Sex

E4.2. Women in Camden are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than men, less
likely to exercise, tend to earn less and are less likely to be in employment. The

21ibid.
22ibid.
23 Unpublished LBC analysis using data from www.nomisweb.co.uk
242011 Census; Unpublished LBC analysis using data from www.nomisweb.co.uk
25 Unpublished LBC analysis
26 Unpublished LBC briefing on fuel poverty, 2010 data
27Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Older People (GLA, Feb 2012), p.5

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

6
median annual salary in Camden for women is 23% less than for men compared with
15% less in London as a whole28.

E4.3. Boys are more likely than girls to be obese in primary school, perform lower than girls
at GCSE (although the gap has narrowed considerably in recent years) and have a
higher rate of absence at secondary school. Young men make up the majority of
young offenders and have higher rates of unemployment than young women29.

E4.4. Men in Camden have a lower life expectancy than women although it has improved
to the point where it is similar to the national rate for men. They are more likely to
abuse alcohol or drugs and more likely to die prematurely from cardio-vascular
disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The male unemployment rate is
higher than the female rate30.

Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups

E4.5. BME groups as a whole tend to have poorer outcomes across many of the domains
of life. Rates of breastfeeding are lower and BME children are more likely to be
obese. BME households are more likely to be overcrowded. For adults, diabetes
prevalence is higher and BME people are less likely to exercise than their White
counterparts. Unemployment rates are higher for BME adults and BME women are
more likely to be a carer than their white counterparts. They are less likely to attempt
to solve a local problem through formal means31.

E4.6. Issues for specific BME groups include:
•
Bangladeshi children perform below the average at GCSE and A level and
Bangladeshi women are more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
Nationally, Bangladeshi households have among the lowest incomes of any
ethnic group.
•
Black people of all backgrounds perform lower than average at GCSE. Black
African children are more likely to have special education needs and more likely
to be eligible for free school meals. Black African adults are more likely to be
receiving compulsory mental health treatment. Nationally Black people of all
backgrounds have the lowest levels of life satisfaction of all ethnic groups.
•
Most local ethnicity data is collected following the government’s broad ethnic
group categorisation. However for schools data, there is a finer grained
categorisation. Across the school system, Somali and Congolese children are
markedly lower achieving (although the latter are a small cohort). One of the
lowest achieving groups are White working class children (White British children
who are eligible for free school meals)32.

Disability

E4.7. Although there is a lack of local data in many cases, national data shows that people
with disabilities have poorer outcomes than non-disabled people across most

28Camden’s JSNA; unpublished LBC analysis using data from www.nomisweb.co.uk
29Camden’s JSNA; Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables; unpublished LBC analysis
30Camden’s JSNA
31Camden’s JSNA; unpublished LBC analyses; Camden Residents’ Survey 2010
32 Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables; Camden’s JSNA; www.poverty.org.uk; Annual
Population Survey Subjective Well-being Experimental dataset, ONS

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

7
domains of life. They are much more likely to be in low income households, to be
economically inactive and to be less satisfied with life33.

E5.
Inequality issues by place

E5.1. The five most deprived wards in Camden are St Pancras & Somers Town, Kilburn,
Haverstock, Regent’s Park and Gospel Oak, according to the government’s Indices
of Deprivation. It is no coincidence that these wards also have among the highest
proportions of social housing34.

E5.2. Similar wards crop up across the domains of life wherever ward or lower level data is
available (with a few exceptions such as fuel poverty). The four wards which have
poor outcomes across the largest number of measures are in descending order - St
Pancras & Somers Town, Kilburn, Haverstock and King’s Cross – in areas such as
the proportion of children with special education needs, unemployment, out of work
benefit claimants, life expectancy, voter turnout and pension credit claimants35.

E5.3. In terms of health, people in the most deprived areas of Camden are more likely to
smoke, die prematurely from cardio-vascular disease or chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and suffer from mental health problem.

1.
Approach to data analysis

1.1.
The evidence for the Equality Taskforce seeks to answer three questions:
•
What are the main issues of inequality in the borough and which of these
problems are getting worse or better?
•
Which groups of people in Camden are most likely to be affected by inequality?
•
What are the key characteristics of the groups, how many people do they contain
and where do they live?
This section sets out our approach to answering them.

1.2.
The principal measure of inequality is income, on which any analysis of inequality in
Camden must focus. However there are both theoretical and practical reasons why
we cannot just look at income. On a theoretical level, there is a broad political
consensus that an excessive focus on income inequality can produce perverse policy
responses and that it represents only one factor that contributes to individual well-
being and happiness. On a practical level, income data is only available spatially for
Camden and thus tells us nothing about the characteristics of individuals and
households on low income.

1.3.
We can add to the spatial picture of inequality through deprivation and lifestyle data
but to build up a detailed picture of inequality in the borough, we must look across a
range of outcomes for different groups. We do so using a framework adapted from
the UN Human Rights Framework by the 2007 Equalities Review. This framework
provides an internationally recognised standard of what a “good life” looks like. We
have selected seven domains from the Framework which we feel are relevant for life
in a mature democracy with a developed economy such as the UK:
•
To live in safety and security
•
To be healthy
•
To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society

33www.poverty.org.uk; Annual Population Survey Subjective Well-being Experimental dataset, ONS
34 Unpublished LBC analysis
35 Unpublished LBC analysis

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

8
•
To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security
•
To engage in productive and valued activities
•
To enjoy individual, family and social life
•
To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence36.

1.4.
We have chosen to adopt the life course approach used by the Social Exclusion Unit
set up by the Cabinet Office under the last government and in Fair Society, Healthy
Lives, Sir Michael Marmot’s 2010 review of health inequalities, the rationale being
that:

From the time of birth, the individual is exposed to a wide range of
experiences – social, economic, psychological and environmental – and
these change as they progress through the different stages of life – pre-
school, school, employment/training, family-building and retirement37.

1.5.
Consequently we have structured the evidence base primarily around four life stage
groups:
•
Children and their families
•
Young people (aged 16-24)
•
Working age people
•
Older people

1.6.
For each of these four groups, we look at inequality within the seven domains and
the characteristics of the individuals and households which experience it, using the
Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics as a guide. The framework is summarised
in Figure 1.

36Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review (The Equalities Review, 2007); see Annex D
for details of the domains.
37Fair Society, Healthy LivesMain Report, p. 40

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

9

Figure 1: Camden Equality Taskforce – analytical framework

1.7.
For each life stage and for each domain of life, we determine as far as the available
local data allows:
•
How Camden compares with London as a whole, the country and/or other
boroughs?
•
Has there been change over time in Camden?
•
Which protected groups experience worse outcomes within the life stage
group?( although generally there is little local data apart from sex, ethnicity and
age).
•
Which wards or neighbourhoods experience worse outcomes?
•
Which life stage groups experience worse outcomes compared with other life
stage groups38?

38 In a few cases where there is insufficient local data and where appropriate e.g. for disabled people, we have
drawn on national data.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

10
1.8.
Our analysis then seeks to draw conclusions about which groups are most affected
by inequality across the different domains (see the Executive Summary above).
Inevitably decisions about which inequalities are most significant are to some extent
based on interpretation and qualitative judgment.

1.9.
The data presented in this report is drawn from a range of sources – national
statistics, other government statistics, service and survey data from the London
Borough of Camden and its partners, both published and unpublished, research and
analysis commissioned and/or produced by the council, and analysis of commercial
datasets such as Paycheck and Mosaic.

1.10. The data available at a local level does not give us a complete picture across our
analytical framework for a number of reasons:
•
Often data is collected for operational purposes rather than to measure
inequality and/or its effects so is at best a proxy. An example is the number of
child protection plans which can be influenced by a number of other factors than
pure risk to children. Sections 6.1-6.3 show that actually it is a poor indicator of
the effects of inequality. Furthermore, operational data does not tend to capture
protected characteristics beyond sex, ethnicity, age and sometimes disability.
•
Some of the domains of life are about how people feel and surveys and other
qualitative methods are the only way to capture this information. Whether local
(Residents’ Survey) or national (Annual Population Survey), surveys at a local
authority level are inevitably small scale and often have large confidence
intervals, particularly when comparing different sections of the population (e.g.
ward, ethnicity). The council lacks resources to test public opinion on a large
scale or very frequently.
•
More generally, there is an absence of data especially in the more subjective
domains such as enjoying individual, family and social life, but also in other
areas such as safety and security where a lot of information about types and
locations of crimes is available but little about the victims or perpetrators.
•
Detailed data from the 2011 Census will be published in the next six months but
the timescales of the Taskforce mean that this data is not available to us. We
have included data which has already been published. Similarly, only the
headlines from the Council’s 2012 Residents’ Survey were available when the
report went to press.
•
We only have access to statistical data not individual data items even for data
originating from the council and its local partners (due to data sharing
restrictions). This means that outcomes for individual people or households
across different domains cannot be identified e.g. we cannot identify individual
children who live in a low income household, are doing badly at school and
have been a victim of crime. The best that can be done is to show where poor
outcomes are common to particular groups or areas of the borough. This is a
major barrier to tackling inequality and one the council is seeking to overcome,
for example through its work with complex families.

Table 1 summarises the availability of data by life stage and domain of life.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

11
Life Stage
Household
income
To live in
safety and
security
To be healthy
To be knowledgeable
and to have the skills
to participate in
society
To enjoy a comfortable standard of
living, with independence and
security
To engage in
productive and valued
activities
To
participate
in decision-
making,
have a
voice and
influence
To enjoy
individual, family
and social life
Children and their
families
Household
income
Housing
costs
Cost of living
Deprivation

Child protection
Child road
injuries
Discrimination
Obesity
Attitudes to exercise
and diet
Teenage pregnancy
Immunisation
Alcohol consumption
Mental health
Special educational
needs
Attainment at
Foundation Stage, Key
Stage 2 and GCSE.
Attendance
Access to internet
Housing tenure
Fuel poverty
Energy
efficiency
Homelessness
Repossessions/
insolvency
Second
addresses
Access to
transport, parks
and culture
(included in
working age
adults section)
Child poverty
Overcrowding
Welfare reform
Childcare
Complex families
Youth services
Young carers
Participation in hobbies
etc
Action to
solve a local
problem
Looked after
children
Attitudes to
neighbourhood
16 – 24 year olds
Violence victims
attended by an
ambulance
Personal safety
perception
Healthy lifestyles
Drug treatment
Alcohol misuse
Sexual health
Abortion
NEETs
Care leavers in EET
A level attainment
Progression to
university
Tenure
Benefit claimants
Unemployment
Employment of
graduates permanently
resident in Camden
Young offenders
Apprenticeships

Working age adults
Recorded crime
Perceptions of
personal safety
Discrimination
Disability
Life expectancy
Causes of death
Smoking
Excess winter
deaths
Physical activity
Alcohol and drug
misuse
Major disease
Mental health
Learning disabilities
Air pollution
Qualifications
Internet use

Salaries
Low income earners
Employment rates
Jobs in Camden
Unemployment
Out of work benefits
Economic inactivity
Carers
Volunteering
Adult social care clients
time spent on valued
activities
Turnout at
2010
elections
Action to
solve a local
problem
Perceived
ability to
influence
decisions

Life satisfaction
(Inner London
only)
Satisfaction with
Camden
Know people in
neighbourhood
Adult social care
clients social
contact

Older People
Perceptions of
personal safety
(adult social
care clients and
general
population)
Older people’s
health compared
with younger adults
Dementia
Income deprivation
affecting older people
Pension credit
Fuel poverty
Inheritance tax paying
estates
Housing tenure
Carers

Trust in local
neighbourhood
Adult social care
clients social
contact

Table 1: Summary of dataconsidered in this evidence base (sources given throughout the document)

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

12
2.
Overall demographics: a snapshot of Camden

2.1.
According to the 2011 Census, the population of Camden is 220,338. This makes it
one of the smaller boroughs in London in population terms. However it is also a small
borough in terms of area, which makes it the 8th most densely populated borough39.
The population grew by 9% between 2001 and 2011, compared with 12% in London
and 7% in England and Wales. According to current projections, the population will
grow by another 7% between 2012 and 202240.

2.2.
The ratio of men to women is 95.9 to 100, which is average for local authorities in
England and Wales. The proportion of men to women has fallen slightly since 2001,
meaning there are more women compared to men than 10 years ago.

2.3.
Nearly three quarters of the population are of working age, meaning it has one of the
largest working age populations (16-64) in England and Wales (10th of over 350 local
authorities) and in London (9th of 33). Under 16s make up about a fifth of the
population which is one of the smallest proportions of young people in London and in
England and Wales. Equally, 10.9% of the population are aged 65 and over, which is
one of the smallest proportions in the England and Wales (ranked 330th) although
Camden ranks 17th of 33 in London. The age proportions have changed little since
2001. While the under 16 population has grown strongly over the past 10 years, it is
projected to peak in the next couple of years.

2.4.
According to current projections, the population aged 65 and over is expected to
grow by 18% between 2012 and 2022. The population aged 85 and over will grow by
20% to 3,40041.

2.5.
42.5% of Camden’s population were born outside the UK compared with 36.7% for
London as a whole and 13.4% for England and Wales. 14% of the population have
lived in the UK for less than five years, one of the highest proportions in the
country42.

2.6.
At 33.8%, the proportion of Camden’s population from a Black or Minority Ethnic
(BME) group is relatively small for London (40.1%) but much larger than England and
Wales (14.1%). However another 19.0% of the population are from a “White Other”
background (including Europe and Anglophone countries) compared with 12.6% for
London and 4.4% for England and Wales43.

2.7.
Camden’s ethnic profile is characterised by:
•
The sixth largest Bangladeshi population of English and Welsh local authorities at
5.7% of the population. Bengali/Sylheti continues to be, by far, the largest home
language of pupils in Camden schools after English (19.3%)44.
•
The fourth largest Chinese population in the country, albeit relatively small at
2.9% of the population.

xx-xxxx-xxxx Census First Results for Camden.The household response rate for the 2011 Census in Camden was
89%, a major improvement over the 2011 Census. Although Camden’s response rate was one of the lowest in
the country, Camden is a particularly difficult place to count, with its large number of students and other transient
residents, large number of houses of multiple occupation etc.
40GLA 2011 Round of Demographic Projections 'Camden Development'
41Ibid.
422011 Census
43Ibid.
44ibid. and Camden Schools Language Survey 2010-11

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

13
•
Other relatively large, well-established but very deprived BME communities often
of refugee origin e.g. Somali, Congolese. Camden has the fourth largest
proportion of the population born in Somalia in the country (1.3% of the
population).
•
Mobile, predominantly younger adult, well-educated ‘White Other’ population:
o 10,390 overseas students (around 5% of the population but concentrated
in the southern wards of the borough)
o Camden is in the top 10 of English and Welsh local authorities for
proportions of the population born in France, USA, Australia, South Africa
and Italy among others45.

2.8.
The latter group in particular account for the very high level of population churn in
Camden, the seventh highest of UK local authorities.18% of the population either
enter or leave the borough from other parts of the country each year and another 8%
enter or leave from abroad. This means that a quarter of Camden’s population turns
over every year46.

2.9.
34.0% of the population are Christian, 12.1% Muslim and 4.5% Jewish. Camden has
the fifth largest Jewish population of English and Welsh local authorities. However
25.5% of the population have no religion and 20.5% did not state their religion.

2.10. According to the 2011 Census,31,831 Camden residents or 14.4% of the population
have a long term health problem or disability which limit day-to-day life a lot or a little.
Around 10,400 people of all ages receive the Disability Living Allowance, a means-
tested benefit for disabled people, approximately 5% of the population47. More detail
on disability is included under each life stage.

2.11. 1,575 people in Camden are in a same-sex civil partnership, 0.9% of the population
and the fourth highest proportion of English and Welsh local authorities.

3.
Income inequality in Camden

3.1.
The median household annual income in Camden is £32,625, slightly more than the
London figure £31,522 and considerably more than the GB figure of £27,58048.
However this overall figure conceals large differentials. A quarter of Camden
households have an annual income of £20,000 or less whereas another quarter of
households have an annual income of over £50,000 (similar to proportions for
London, but a third and a fifth respectively nationally) – see Figure 2.

45 2011 Census
46Source: ONS Local Area Migration Indicators 2010
47
48 Source: CACI Paycheck 2012. Household income is gross income including benefits and is equivalised i.e.
adjusted for household size.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

14

Figure 2: Income distribution across Camden households by bands, 2012

3.2.
A standard measure of poverty is 60% of national median income – this is currently
equivalent to about £16,500. This means about 18,000-20,000 households in
Camden (15%-20%) are in poverty by this measure.

3.3.
Approximately 30% of households fit into the national “squeezed middle” category of
income of between £15,000 and £30,000 as defined by the Guardian and the IFS
having incomes between the 31st and 70th national percentiles49. Using this
definition applied to local income data, the Camden “squeezed middle” would have
incomes in the approximate range of £20,000 to £45,000.

3.4.
The median income for the wealthiest ward, Frognal and Fitzjohns is £41,257, nearly
twice as much as that of the poorest ward, St Pancras and Somers Town (£22,743).
In St Pancras and Somers Town, 44% of households have an income of £20,000 or
less. Figure 3 shows median income by postcode.

49 See Household incomes: how do you compare? Our guide explained (Guardian June 2012).

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

15

Figure 3: Equivalised Median Annual Household Income by postcode, 2012

3.5.
A standard international measure of inequality is the Gini co-efficient. It is most
frequently used to measure
differences in income inequality
between countries but it is
possible to calculate Gini co-
efficients for all the London
boroughs using household
income data. This has not been
done before and the
methodology is not perfect (see
Box 1). The results are shown in
Figure 4.

3.6.
By this measure Camden is the
sixth most unequal borough in
London. As one would expect,
there is a strong correlation
between deprivation and
inequality. The most unequal
boroughs are in Inner London
and are deprived overall but with
significant pockets of wealth –
Tower Hamlets, Southwark,
Haringey, Hackney, Greenwich
and Camden. However Camden and to a lesser degree Southwark are interesting
because while they are highly unequal, they are not as severely deprived (as
measured by the Indices of Deprivation) as the other highly unequal boroughs.

3.7.
The most equal boroughs are largely the least deprived (and with low proportions of
social housing) – City of London, Richmond, Kingston and Wandsworth. It is also
The formula used for calculating the Gini co-efficient is:

Where k is the number of income intervals, Y is the cumulative share
of total income, and X is the cumulative share of total population.
There are many different equations for the Gini coefficient, and many
data sources. As such, it is not advisable to cross-compare figures
shown here with those from other sources, as they may not be
directly comparable.
Paycheck data provides the number of households with an income in
each £5k band, eg £5-£10k. The mid-value of each band has been
assumed for calculation purposes.
The methodology is taken from Briefing Note: Income inequality and
low income in Oldham using this online tool.
Figures in brackets are
numbers of postcodes
where median income is
in that band
Box 1: Methodology for calculating Gini co-efficients for London
boroughs

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

16
worth noting that larger geographical units are more unequal – only Tower Hamlets is
more unequal than Great Britain. This intuitively makes sense when one considers
the range of household incomes nationally. However within London the size of
borough does not seem to influence the Gini co-efficient.

Figure 4: Gini co-efficients for London boroughs and comparators, 2012

3.8.
There is some evidence that Camden has become more unequal over time. The
proportion of households with an income of less than £25,000 increased from 35.7%
to 37.4% between 2005 and 2012.However looking at earnings, the lower quartile
annual pay for full-time work increased by 17% between 2003 and 2011, exactly the
same increase as the median pay, suggesting no widening of the gap between the
low paid and the middle paid. However the increases in lower quartile and median
pay in Camden have been less than across London as a whole. It is possible that the
decrease in household income for lower income households may be accounted for
by the increases in unemployment and part-time work described elsewhere in this
report.

3.9.
There is little local data on household or personal income available by characteristics
such as ethnicity and disability. The subject is not covered in the Census and the
sample size of surveys with local data such as the Annual Population Survey are too
small. However national data shows that:
•
Around two-fifths of people from BME groups live in low-income households,
twice the rate for White people. Within this, there are big variations by ethnic
group. More specifically, the proportion of people who live in low-income
households is:
o 20% for White people
o 30% for Indians and Black Caribbeans
o 50% for Black Africans
o 60% for Pakistanis

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

17
o 70% for Bangladeshis
•
Around a third of all disabled adults aged 25 to retirement are living in low-income
households. This is twice the rate of that for non-disabled adults, as it has been
throughout the last decade50.
It seems likely that the national patterns are reproduced at a local level.

3.10. The 2012 Camden Residents’ Survey asked respondents which financial issues
were concerning them at present. The top three answers from a list were paying for
heating and electricity (35%), paying rent/mortgage (33%) and paying other bills
(33%). There was a significant increase in residents’ concerns about all issues from
the 2010 Survey. Respondents were also asked an open question about areas of
financial concern – the top three answers were general bills (10%), benefit changes
(10%) and childcare (7%)51.

3.11. Respondents to the 2012 Camden Residents’ Survey were also asked what they
thought would happen to their personal financial circumstances over the next few
months. 16% thought they would improve, 57% stay the same and 20% get worse.
Residents appear to be getting more pessimistic, the proportion who thought they
would get worse has increased considerably since 201052.

3.12. Housing costs, whether rent or mortgage repayments, are one of the largest
expenditure items for households in the UK, and particularly in London. In October
2012, the average property price in Camden was £625,250, 1.7 times higher than
the London average and 3.9 times higher than the England and Wales average.
Prices in Camden are now higher than in 2008 unlike London as a whole and the
country as a whole. The average property costs 19 times the median annual
household income in Camden (£32,625).

3.13. Rents in the private sector are also very high and rising. The median weekly rent
for a 2 bedroom property in Camden between June 2011 and June 2012 was £445
compared with £284 for London and £132 for England. The equivalent figure for June
2010-June 2011 was £433, a 3% increase. This is equivalent to 71% of the median
household income in the borough. There is considerable variation within the borough
– the median rent in the WC1H postcode is £453 whereas in NW6 it is £380.53

3.14. A time series for this data before June 2010 is not easily available however in April
2008, the average weekly rent for a 2 bedroom property south of the Euston Road
was £495 and £320 north of the Euston Road54. The average council rent for a 2
bedroom flat is £102 a week in 2012, less than a quarter of the private sector
median.

3.15. As a result, the affordability of housing is the major reason for the income distribution
found in Camden. At 36%, Camden has one of the highest proportions of social
rented households in London and they form the majority of low income households in
the borough, alongside a smaller and decreasing (due to welfare reform) number of

50 Households Below Average Income 2010 dataset, DWP via www.poverty.org.uk. Low income is defined as
60% or less than the national median household income.
51Camden Residents’ Survey 2012 (forthcoming)
52ibid.
53Valuations Office Agency 2012
54Camden Housing Strategy Evidence Base 2011p. 43

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

18
households in the private rented sector claiming housing benefits. This issue is
explored further in the section 8 below.

4.
The cost of living in Camden

4.1.
We have sought to explore further the relationship between income, housing and
standard of living further by trying to answer the following question – how much do
you need to earn to live in Camden?

4.2.
We have calculated socially acceptable incomes for four household types based on
the national Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Minimum Income Standard (MIS)
adjusted for Camden in key expenditure areas of housing, childcare and travel. It
assumes that parents work full-time and has been calculated separately for private
rented and council housing costs to reflect the large disparities between the two in
the borough. A couple with two young children need £1,040 a week to achieve a
socially acceptable income while working full-time and renting privately in Camden
and a lone parent with one child aged under 1 would need £775. This is 50% more
than the national Minimum Income Standard. See Table 2 for details.

4.3.
We have also calculated the gross annual income from employment (or a private
pension) needed to achieve the MIS in Camden, after universal benefits. In the
private rented sector, a couple with two young children would need to earn £69,000a
year and a lone parent with one child aged under 1 £56,000. The national figures
would be £34,000 and £25,000 respectively, about half the amount. The level of
income needed in Camden would mean that the families wouldn’t qualify for housing
benefit and it is far higher than the actual median household income in Camden
(£32,625). In fact, both household types would need to be above the 80th percentile
of household income in Camden to achieve the MIS.

4.4.
Furthermore the incomes needed for the two household types with children to live in
council accommodation are still higher than the median household income. This is
because while housing costs are clearly much lower in council properties (about a
quarter of the market rate for a 2 bed flat), full-time childcare costs are another major
expense. Childcare is discussed in section 6 below.

55 Source: CACI Paycheck 2012 data
Household type
National
MIS
Camden MIS -
private rent
Camden MIS -
council rent
Gross
annual
income
from
employment
needed to
achieve the
MIS in
private
rented
sector (after
universal
benefits)
Gross
annual
income
from
employment
needed to
achieve the
MIS in
council
property
(after
universal
benefits)
Median
household
income in
Camden
201255
Single working
age
£262.25
£327.74
£246.66
£17,042.40
£12,785.65
£32,625
Couple
£308.91
£561.59
£306.97
£4,288.72
-£1,099.28

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

19

Table 2: Minimum income standard for Camden for four household types and the income needed to
achieve it

4.5.
The Minimum Income Standard is indicative of the costs of living in Camden,
particularly housing and childcare costs, rather than an empirical description of
Camden households. Its purpose is to demonstrate the financial imperatives behind
the distinctive demographics of the population of Camden, in essence that because
the income from employment needed to bring up children and work full-time is high
even for council tenants, residents of Camden tend to be:
•
Very wealthy or
•
Partially or completely reliant on benefits or
•
Childless, largely young and transient

4.6.
This tripartite typology of Camden residents is reflected in the Mosaic segmentation
of the borough. Mosaic is a proprietary dataset developed by the Experian company
based on a large number of variables from across the public and private sectors,
many of which relate to housing, income and consumer behaviour. It divides up the
population of Camden as follows:
•
“Wealthy people living in the most sought after neighbourhoods” - 7.1% of
Camden households
•
“People renting flats in high density social housing” - 28.5%
•
“Well-educated city dwellers” - 59.0%
•
Other groups - 5.5%

5.
Deprivation

5.1.
The government produces a standard measure of deprivation, the Indices of
Deprivation56. It consists of a basket of indicators across a similar range of domains
to those covered by this paper and allows us to identify the most deprived
neighbourhoods in Camden. However it is a spatial measure only, so tells us where
people affected by inequality live but nothing about their characteristics.

5.2.
Taken as a whole, Camden is a moderately deprived borough. It ranks 15th of the 33
London boroughs and 74th of the 354 English local authorities (in the most deprived
quartile – although local authorities range in population size considerably). However
there are some very deprived areas within Camden. We saw above that Camden is a
very unequal borough and in terms of deprivation to some extent rich and poor
cancel each other out resulting in an average picture for the borough as a whole. The
five most deprived wards in Camden are St Pancras & Somers Town, Kilburn,
Haverstock, Regent’s Park and Gospel Oak. The three most deprived
neighbourhoods are in Gospel Oak (the area around Lismore Circus, Bacton and
Weedington Road north of Queen’s Crescent) and Regent’s Park(the area around

56 See the CLG website for full explanation of methodology.
pensioner
Couple, 2
children (1 aged
2–4; 1 primary
school age)
£685.04
£1,037.96
£695.04
£69,350.28
£41,925.01
Lone parent, 1
child aged 0-1
£502.80
£775.75
£521.14
£56,057.81
£33,050.89

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

20
Harrington Street) wards and are within the 10% most deprived in the country (see
Figure 5).

Figure 5: Deprivation in Camden at Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) level57

5.3.
The government has produced comparable Indices of Deprivation since 2004 and the
borough appears to have become less deprived over time. In 2004, Camden was
ranked 7th in London and 19th nationally, falling 8 and 55 places respectively.

6.
Life stage 1: children and their families

A relatively large amount of local data is available for children and their families, as
many public services and state benefits are targeted at this life stage, particularly
education.

To live in safety and security

6.1.
Child protection is an activity undertaken to protect children who are suffering, or
likely to suffer, significant harm. At the end of 2011/12, 221 children in Camden were
subject to a child protection plan. Domestic violence is the most common reason for
children protection plans in Camden followed by parental mental ill-health. However
the number of child protection plans is only a proxy indicator of how safe children are
in a local area. It covers only a small number of extreme cases and a high number
does not necessarily mean that there is a larger underlying problem. It could mean
that a local authority’s social work service is more skilled and/or better resourced,
receives more referrals, or are more risk averse than its counterparts elsewhere.

57 The “lower super output area” is a unit of statistical geography equivalent to 1,000-3,000 households.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

21

6.2.
In 2010/11, Camden had a relatively high rate of child protection plans at 63 per
10,000 of the under 18 population compared with 39 nationally. The figure for
2011/12 was lower at 56 although there is no comparator data. There was a large
increase between 2007/8 and 2008/9 but since then rates have remained steady but
always well above the London rate. Bangladeshi and mixed race children are more
likely to be subject to a child protection plan than children of other ethnicities58. Rates
are higher than the borough average in deprived wards but the most deprived wards,
St Pancras and Somers Town and Kilburn, have average rates (see Figure 5).

6.3.
The correlation between the rate of child protection plans and deprivation as
measured by IDACI as shown in Figure 6 is actually quite weak. It is even weaker at
London borough level59. Therefore on balance, the rate of child protection plans per
10,000 population is not a good indicator of inequality, other factors are more
important.

Figure 5: Relationship between rate of child protection plans and deprivation as measured by
IDACI

6.4.
Child injuries (0-16 years) on Camden’s roads have dramatically fallen over the 10
year period 1999 to 2009, although there has been a slight increase in the last couple
of years60.

6.5.
The 2008 Social Capital Survey found that young people aged 13-17 were more
likely to report having experienced discrimination in the last 2 years than adults.

58 Children Schools And Families Social Work Service Full Year Performance Assessment Management
Information Report March 2012 pp 33-38
59 R2 is 0.35, which can be interpreted as meaning that deprivation can explain 35% of the rate of child protection
plans (0 is no relationship at all, 1 is perfect correlation). R2 for London boroughs is even lower at 0.22.
60Camden’s Transport Strategy August 2011 p.110

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

22
To be healthy

6.6.
One of the biggest health issues facing children in Camden is obesity. 11% of
reception pupils in Camden are obese and 23% of year 6 children, compared with
9% and 19% nationally (see Figure 6). Camden levels have been higher than
national for the past five years. Boys, BME children and children from deprived areas
(particularly parts of Haverstock, Kilburn, King’s Cross and Kentish Town wards) are
more likely to be obese. As is the case in London and nationally, the prevalence of
obesity is higher among children than among adults (although there are a number of
different estimates for the latter)61.

Figure 6: Year 6 obesity prevalence, Camden, London and England, 2006/7-2010/1162

6.7.
Attitudes to exercise and diet among teenage girls are another issue. The Health
Related Behaviours Survey 2010-11 showed that 28% of 14-15 year old girls had no
lunch on the day of the survey and 35% said they did not enjoy physical activity63.

6.8.
Teenage pregnancy is associated with poor outcomes in later life for both mother
and child. However Camden’s teenage conception rate is low and falling, below that
for London and England. Breastfeeding rates in Camden are relatively high
although rates are lower for younger mothers and mothers from BME groups or
deprived areas.

6.9.
Childhood immunisation rates are increasing year on year and are worse than
national but better than London – 61% of children had the MMR vaccination by their
5th birthday in 2010/11 up from 51% in 2008/9. Coverage is higher than the overall
figure for Asian children and for children from the most deprived areas.

6.10. The Camden JSNA showed that overall alcohol consumption among children and
young people is low (in line with the national picture) but those that are drinking are
doing so at higher levels, particularly amongst girls. The Health Related Behaviours
Survey 2010-11 showed that 29% of boys in Year 10 and 30% of girls in Year 10 had
drunk at least one unit of alcohol in the week prior to the survey. In 2008/09 there
were a total of 83 alcohol-specific hospital admissions among under 18 years old. A

61Ibid. Chapter 10
62Source: National Childhood Measurement Programme 2012, Analysis by NHS North Central London Health
Intelligence Team, Camden
63 Camden Children and Young People’s Plan Profile 2012 (draft)

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

23
higher proportion of girls were admitted and the peak age for admissions was 1564.
Alcohol and substance misuse are covered in more detail in the young people
chapter below.

6.11. Based on national prevalence data, it is estimated that approximately 2,300 children
in Camden aged 5-16 have some type of mental health problem. In 2011/12 there
were a total of 1,738 cases seen by Camden’s community child and adolescent
mental health services (CAMHS). These figures suggest that local services have
made good progress in reaching a significant number of Camden’s estimated
population of children with mental health needs.

6.12. 2,617 children resident in Camden have been identified as having special
educational needs (SEN), about 5% of the under 18 population. Of these 1,417
have a high level of need and the most common form of need is “communication and
interaction”. Boys are twice as likely to be identified as having SEN as girls. 40% are
White, 17% Black African and 14% Bangladeshi. Compared with the overall 0-19
population, Black African children are overrepresented and White children
underrepresented65. The highest numbers of children with a high level of SEN are in
St Pancras and Somers Town, Haverstock and Kilburn. As a proportion of the whole
under 18 population, the top three wards are Holborn and Covent Garden, Kilburn
and West Hampstead. This data is taken from an internal snapshot prepared by
council officers, so there is no London or national comparator66.

To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society

6.13. There is a wealth of data available about the attainment of children attending
Camden schools67. However there is much less information about the attainment of
children resident in Camden. The difference between the two is significant as 24% of
pupils attending Camden schools come from outside the borough, rising to 42% for
secondary schools.

6.14. In 2011 58% of children in maintained or private, voluntary or independent settings in
Camden achieved a “good” level of development in the Foundation Stage
Profile (FSP) (an assessment of a child’s development at age 5). This is very close
to the national figure of 59% and an improvement on 2008 when it was 49%.

6.15. The results are broken down by various groups for the maintained sector only.
Groups that performed well below the overall Camden figure of 58% were:
•
Boys (50%)
•
Children eligible for free school meals (49%), particularly White British children
(45%)
•
Children with more serious levels of special educational needs (19%)68
•
Black African children (50%), especially Somali children (44%)
•
Children who were born in the summer term (47%)

64 Camden JSNA Chapter 12
65 Comparators from GLA 2011 round
66 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Virtual Register Analysis (LBC unpublished).
67 See the Report Of Achievement And Standards Of Camden's Children And Young People 2011 and the
accompanying Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables.
68 Defined as children with School Action Plus or a Statement, although numbers of children who have had been
assessed as having SEN in such a way are small at the Foundation Stage.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

24
6.16. The gap between all these groups and the overall Camden figure has narrowed in
the past two years, in most cases by between 5 and 10 percentage points, but only
marginally in the case of children with SEN and Somali children. Perhaps the most
striking progress has been for Bangladeshi children whose achievement is now in
line with the overall figure, compared with a 9 percentage point gap in 200969.

6.17. Some data is also available for the Foundation Stage Profile by borough of pupil
residency as well as by borough of the school’s location. 56% of Camden resident
pupils achieved a “good” level of development, slightly lower than the school-based
percentage. Similarly Asian and Black children (49% apiece), children eligible for free
school meals (44%) and boys (50%) all underperformed compared with the overall
rate.

6.18. The small difference between resident and school-based attainment measures is
reflected in an achievement gap within the cohort of children attending Camden
schools eligible for free school meals (FSM) between children resident in the
borough and non-residents. 49% of Camden-resident FSM eligible children achieve a
“good” level of development compared with 58% of non-resident FSM eligible
children (although the latter are small in number). This gap is more pronounced at
GCSE (see below).

6.19. At Key Stage 2, 78% of children attending Camden schools achieved Level 4+ in
English and Maths in 2011. This is an increase of 3 percentage points since 2009
and is higher than the national figure of 74%. Groups that performed well below the
overall Camden figure were:
•
Children eligible for free school meals (70%), particularly White British children
(65%)
•
Children with special educational needs whether without a statement (49%) or
with a statement (25%)
•
Black African children (71%), especially Congolese (62% - although it is a small
cohort) and Somali (67%)
•
Caribbean and Mixed White & Black Caribbean (70%)

6.20. As at the Foundation Stage, the achievement gap between underperforming groups
and the whole cohort has in most cases narrowed over the past three years. For
example, the gap for Bangladeshi children has narrowed from 9 percentage points to
2 in that period. Early indications from the 2012 results show that the gap has
narrowed for Somali children as well. However the gap has widened for some groups
- Caribbean and Mixed White & Black Caribbean and White British children eligible
for free school meals. It is worth noting that the gap in attainment between FSM and
non-FSM children is narrower in Camden than nationally and has been for some
years.

6.21. There is little difference between residence- and school-based attainment at Key
Stage 2 (KS2). 79% of Camden resident children achieved Level 4+ in English and
Maths in 2011, very similar to the schools-based figure and above the London and
national figures. However Black children underperform (71%), as do children eligible
for free school meals (71%).

69 All FSP data is taken from the Report Of Achievement And Standards Of Camden's Children And Young
People 2011 and the accompanying Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables.(both LBC,
February 2012)

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

25
6.22. This is unsurprising given 89% of children attending Camden primary schools are
residents. Although resident children perform slightly less well at KS2 than non-
resident children (a gap of 3 percentage points), the gap has been narrowing in
recent years. This issue is discussed in more detail below in the context of the
achievement gap between residents and non-residents at GCSE.

6.23. 60% of children attending Camden schools achieved 5 or more GCSEs at Grade
A*-C (including Maths & English) in 2010/11. This is slightly above the national figure,
higher than Islington and Haringey but lower than Westminster and Barnet. It is also
higher than the Camden residents figure. The contrast between attainment of
children resident in Camden and children attending Camden schools is shown in
Figure 7.

6.24. Table 3 shows that among children attending Camden schools, groups that perform
below the overall Camden figure are:
•
Children eligible for free school meals
Figure 7: GCSE attainment by borough of residence and borough of school attendance

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

26
•
In particular, White British children eligible for free school meals
•
Children with SEN, particularly if they have a statement
•
Bangladeshi children
•
Somali children
•
Congolese children
•
Looked after children

Performance has improved for almost all groups over the past two years with lower
attaining groups making the greatest improvements. Early indications from the 2012
results are that the gap has narrowed further for Bangladeshi and Somali children.

Group
% attaining 5 or more
GCSEs at Grade A*-C
(including Maths &
English)
(2011)
Percentage
point
difference from
Camden
overall
Percentage point
change between 2009
and 2011
Camden overall
60%
0
+7
National
58%
-2
+9
Boys
55%
-5
+12
Girls
64%
+4
+5
Eligible for free school
meals (FSM)
48%
-12
+12
SEN without statement
50%
-10
+27
SEN with statement*
9%
-51
-1
Bangladeshi
50%
-10
+9
Other Asian*
78%
+18
+14
Somali
53%
-7
+6
Congolese*
39%
-21
+21
Black African overall
(including Somali and
Congolese)
58%
-2
+8
Caribbean and mixed
Caribbean-White British
50%
-10
+14
White British FSM
33%
-27
+12
White British non-FSM
71%
+11
+11
Albanian/Kosovan
62%
+2
+25
Camden residents
55%
-5
+10
Non Camden residents
68%
+8
+8
* Small cohort, less than 100 pupils
Table 3: GCSE attainment at Camden schools by selected groups, 2011 (provisional results)70

6.25. In 2010/11, 56% of Camden resident children attending maintained schools
(including those attending schools outside of Camden) attained 5 or more GCSEs at
Grade A*-C (including Maths & English). This is considerably lower than the London
figure (62%) and Camden ranked 30th of 33 London authorities by this measure. It
was also lower than the national figure (58%). However it has increased since 2008/9
when the proportion was 49%71. Girls (58%) still performed better than boys (54%)
but the gap has narrowed between 2008/9 and 2010/11. However both girls and boys
underperformed compared with the London-wide figures (66% and 59%
respectively).

6.26. Data is available at ward level but is patchy –wards performing under the overall
Camden figure in 2010/11 were Cantelowes, Kilburn, Belsize, Gospel Oak, Highgate,
Regent’s Park and Swiss Cottage. Children of Black origin (47%) performed well

70Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables.
71 Data is taken from GCSE and Equivalent Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England (Department for
Education). Excludes independent schools but includes academies and CTCs.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

27
below the overall figure; all other BME groups performed at or above the overall
figure. However White (57%), Black and Asian (58%) children all performed well
below the London figure for their ethnic group. Finally, children eligible for free
schools residing in the borough well underperformed the overall figure (47%
compared with 56%) but did well compared with the national picture (12 percentage
points more than the national figure) and were very similar to the London figure72.

6.27. 8,678 children (28%) attending school in Camden attend an independent school,
compared with 11% for London as a whole73. Not all these children live in Camden
and the high proportion is due to the 32 independent schools located within the
borough’s boundaries –this is the joint third highest total of the London boroughs. By
contrast, Islington has only 8 independent schools. Comparable performance data for
independent schools at GCSE level is not easily available but there is no doubt that
they perform very highly, as is the case nationally. For example, 79% of exam entries
at University College School in Hampstead were graded at A or A* in 201174.

6.28. In summary, groups that underachieved throughout the Camden school system
in 2011 are:
•
Children eligible for free school meals especially White British children
•
Black African children, especially Congolese and Somali children
•
Children with special educational needs
•
Looked after children
However the underachievement of most of these groups is not solely a Camden
issue, as these groups underachieve nationally as well.

6.29. For other groups, there are differences between cohorts - Black Caribbean children
performed better at FSP than at other points, and Bangladeshi children were well
under overall at GCSE but not at FSP or KS2. Bangladeshi children also
underachieved compared with the national Bangladeshi figure at GCSE. Boys’
achievement was well below girls at FSP and KS4 but similar at KS2. It was higher
than the national percentage for boys at KS2 and in line with national at KS475.

6.30. The Council has begun to further explore the possible reasons for the attainment
gap between children attending Camden schools and children resident in
Camden which is largest at GCSE. There is large overlap between the two groups
and data exists to compare the attainment of residents and non-residents within
Camden schools. Analysis suggests the gap is due in part to poverty; 40% of
resident children attending Camden secondary schools are eligible for free school
meals (FSM) compared with 26% of non-resident children. Children eligible for FSM
attain below those not eligible for FSM throughout the Key Stages from Foundation
Stage onwards but the gap widens at secondary school. However the gap between
FSM eligible children and non-FSM eligible children in GCSE attainment in Camden
is considerably narrower than nationally.

6.31. However poverty is not the only factor at work. There is an attainment gap between
residents and non-residents at GCSE even among FSM eligible children - 46% of
resident FSM eligible children attained 5 or more GCSEs at Grade A*-C (including
Maths & English) in 2011 compared with 55% of non-resident FSM eligible children in
Camden schools. Furthermore, there is also a large gap in attainment between

72 Data from the ONS Neighbourhood Statistics website
73Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics, January 2012 (Department for Education)
74http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/8774990/GCSE-results-2011-independent-schools.html
75 For details, see Report Of Achievement And Standards Of Camden's Children And Young People 2011, p. 14

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

28
Camden resident and non-resident children who are not eligible for free school meals
(62% vs 72% respectively).

6.32. As mentioned above, the gap is also apparent at the Foundation Stage Profile (FSP)
where 49% of Camden-resident FSM eligible children achieve a “good” level of
development compared with 58% of non-resident FSM eligible children.

6.33. However the resident/non-resident attainment gap in Camden schools has been
narrowing at Key Stage 2 (KS2). Looking back five years to the KS2 attainment of the
2011 GCSE cohort described above, there was a 12 percentage point gap between
residents and non-residents for the percentage of children attaining a Level 4 or more
in English and Maths in 2006. The gap for children at KS2 in Camden primary
schools was 9 percentage points. However in 2011 the resident/non-resident gap in
Camden primary schools was just 3 percentage points, and Camden-resident FSM
eligible children actually out-attained their non-resident counterparts (though there
are small numbers of non-residents in Camden primary schools).

6.34. Table 4 shows the percentage gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils at KS2 in
Camden schools over the last 5 years. This shows that the gap is narrowing and has
been for the last four years. The gap was 9% in 2012 following another large
increase in attainment in 2012. The national gap was 20% in 2011, so the gap in
Camden is much smaller than nationally.

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Camden
-15
-18
-16
-15
-9
Camden residents
-15
-19
-16
-13
-9
National
-22
-22
-21
-20
NYA
KS2
% Gap between FSM and non-FSM
pupils (level 4 and above)
English and maths

Table 4: Attainment gap in Camden schools between children eligible for free school meals and
children not eligible for FSM
6.35. We would expect this narrowed gap at KS2 to lead to a narrowed gap at GCSE for
those of the 2011 cohort who go on to attend Camden secondary schools,
particularly because the percentage of children making the expected three levels of
progress in Camden secondary schools has improved over the past 3 years and the
gap between residents and non-residents has narrowed, especially in English.

6.36. Further work is needed to investigate the resident/non-resident attainment gap and
whether factors such as poverty and gender are a contributing factor, but the above
analysis shows that it is not just an issue at secondary school but has its roots in the
early years and at primary school.

6.37. Attendance figures for 11-16 year olds fell slightly in 2011 having improved in the
previous year. This overall fall was due to an increase in boys’ absence. Groups
which have higher absence rates than the average are boys, children eligible for free
school meals (especially White British), Bangladeshi, Congolese and children with
SEN76.

76Report Of Achievement And Standards Of Camden's Children And Young People 2011

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

29
6.38. There are an estimated 5,000 children with no home internet access in Camden
(about 10%)77.

To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security

6.39. The government is consulting on a new definition for child poverty but for the time
being the official definition remains children in families where the household income
is 60% or below the national median household income78. This data is not available
at a local level, so the previous government developed a proxy measure using tax
credit and benefit data79. According to the latest data from 2010, 34% of children
under 16 in Camden were in poverty. The figure for London was 29% and England
and Wales 21%. Camden has the 7th highest rate of child poverty of the London
boroughs. Over two thirds of children in poverty were in lone parent households and
nearly one fifth were in working households. The proportion of children in poverty has
decreased since 2006, when it was 42%.

6.40. There are a number of other indicators of child and family poverty available for
Camden. Table 5 below provides a summary.

6.41. According to the 2011 Census, there are 4,546 households in Camden with no adults
in employment and with dependent children. This accounts for 21.1% of all
households with dependent children. The figure for London is 18.3% and for England
and Wales it is 14.5%80.

6.42. Lone parent households account for 6,228 households or 28.9% of all households
with children in Camden, compared with 27.5% for London and 24.5% for England
and Wales. 51% of lone parents are not in employment, 26.3% in part-time
employment and 22.4% in full-time employment81.

6.43. Holborn & Covent Garden, Kentish Town, Kilburn, Kings Cross, and St Pancras and
Somers Town are the wards with the highest levels of child poverty according to the
Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index.

6.44. Rates of free school meal eligibility for children attending Camden schools are
among the highest in the country. Black African, Black Caribbean/Mixed White, Black
Caribbean and Black Other children and those with special educational needs (SEN)
are much more likely to be eligible for free school meals.

Indicator
Coverage
Key messages
Government’s
local proxy
indicator for child
poverty
Resident children in
households by lone
parent/couple status
and age of children
•
34% of children under 16 in Camden are in
poverty. The figure for London was 29% and
England and Wales 21%. Camden has the 7th
highest rate of child poverty of the London
boroughs.

77 LBC Draft Digital Strategy
78 The government proposes that the new measure should be multidimensional so it is not possible to say at this
stage what it would be for Camden. For more details, see Consultation on measuring child poverty (Department
for Education).
79 The definition is the number of children living in families in receipt of Child Tax Credits whose reported income
is less than 60 per cent of the median income or in receipt of Income Support or (Income-Based) Job Seekers
Allowance, divided by the total number of children in the area (determined by Child Benefit data).
80 2011 Census
81Ibid.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

30
•
18% of children in poverty are in working
families.
•
69% of children in poverty are in lone parent
households82.
2011 Census data
released in
December 2012
Resident households
Resident lone parent
households by
employment status
•
21.1% of households with children have no adult
in employment.
•
28.9% of households with children are lone
parent households of which 51% of lone parents
are not in employment, 26.3% in part-time
employment and 22.4% in full-time employment
Eligibility for free
school meals
Pupils attending
Camden schools
Characteristics such as
ethnicity, SEN status
London/national
comparator
•
38% of primary schools pupils on roll in Camden
schools are FSM eligible, compared to 18%
nationally – 3rd highest in the country
•
34% of secondary schools pupils on roll in
Camden schools are FSM eligible, compared to
15% nationally – 7th highest in the country
•
60% of Black African children attending Camden
schools (primary and secondary) are eligible for
free school meals. The figure for most other
ethnicities is below the average (38%).
Bangladeshi rate is 36%.
•
The rate for pupils with SEN is 51%, much higher
than the average (38%)83.
Households with
children claiming
housing benefit
Resident households
Lone parent/couple
28,077 households in Camden in receipt of Housing
Benefit (September 2012):
•
8482 (30%) were families (claimants with at least
1 dependent) of which two thirds are not in work
•
5396 (19%) of these were single parent claims
•
330 were single parents aged under 25 (cf. 265
in March 2010)
•
About 65% of households with children were not
in work, 35% were in work (see below)84
Children in low
income
households
Resident households
London/national
comparator
•
In 2009-10, the proportion of dependent children
living in either out-of work or in-work 'low income'
families in Camden was 55.6% ('low income'
families are those claiming either workless
benefits or both Working and Child Tax Credits).
This was 10.2 percentage points higher than the
figure for the UK and 4.2 percentage points
higher than that for London. Children in families
on out-of-work benefits make up 63.3% of

82Child Poverty Statistics (HMRC)
83 Draft Children and Young People’s Plan Profile; LBC unpublished analysis
84 LBC unpublished analysis

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

31
children classified as living on low incomes by
this measure (compared to 45.7% in the UK)85.
Children living in
families out-of-
work benefits
Resident households
Lone parent
London/national
comparator
•
In November 2010, the proportion of dependent
children in families receiving out-of-work benefits
in Camden was 25.6%. This was 10.2
percentage points higher than the proportion for
Great Britain, and 5.2 percentage points higher
than the proportion for London. In November
2010, the proportion of children in Camden living
in workless families was 8.9% lower than it was
four years previously (compared to a fall of 1.2%
in Great Britain)86.
•
2,400 Camden resident lone parents on
income support - 1.3% of the 16-64 age group
in Camden, lower than the proportion across
London at 2% and Great Britain 1.5%. 3 wards
with largest number of lone parents on income
support - St Pancras & Somers Town,
Haverstock, Kilburn87.
Working
households with
children claiming
benefits - Housing
Benefit, Working
Tax Credits (WTC),
Child tax credits
(CTC)
Resident families
Lone parents
Smaller areas
(WTC/CTC only)
London/national
comparator (WTC/CTC
only)
•
In July 2012, 2,744 households with children
were in work and claiming housing benefit, 35%
of the total households with children.
•
2010/11 4,200 families receiving both WTC and
CTC of which 2,500 were lone parents. They
have 8,100 children in total about 20% of all
children in the borough.
•
Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) with highest
number of WTC/CTC claimants (as of August
2010) are:
•
Around Prince of Wales Road and
Crogsland Road (Haverstock ward)
•
Around Amptill Square (St Pancras and
Somers Town ward)
•
Around Weedington Road and Athlone
Street, south of Queen’s Crescent
(Haverstock ward)
•
Portpool Lane and Baldwin's Gardens
(Holborn and Covent Garden ward)
Income
Deprivation
Affecting Children
Index (IDACI)
Ward and smaller areas
London/national
comparator
•
Most deprived wards: In five wards, Holborn &
Covent Garden, Kentish Town, Kilburn, Kings
Cross, and St Pancras and Somers Town, 100%
of LSOAs are in the 30% most deprived
nationally.
•
The most deprived LSOA in Camden is located

85 Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion Child Poverty Toolkit
86Ibid.
87 LBC analysis of Nomis data

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

32
in Regent's Park ward (around Munster Square
and Clarence Gardens), the 2nd is in Gospel
Oak (North of Queen’s Crescent around
Weedington Road and Grafton Road), and the
3rd is in King's Cross ward (north of Calthorpe
Street and east of Gray’s Inn Road).
•
Camden becoming less deprived over time88.

Table 5: Measures of child and family poverty

6.45. While most children in poverty are in non-working families on benefits, the data
shows that there are a significant number of children, about 20% of all children in the
borough, who are in low income working families supported by tax credits (see Figure
8). This data is now a couple of years old and recent changes to the tax credit
system may have influenced the numbers.
Figure 8: Children in low income families, 2009-1089

6.46. Households including children make up 22.1% of all households in Camden, but
form a disproportionately high percentage of social renters (31%); lone parent
families are more heavily represented (7% of all households and 14% of social
rented households). Lone parent households are over-represented in those needing
affordable housing (3 times the borough rate)90. Households that include children or
a pregnant woman account for almost four in five of the 670 households in temporary

88 LBC analysis of CLG IDACI data
89 Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion Child Poverty Toolkit
902011 Census; Source: Housing Needs Survey Update 2008

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

33
accommodation, in part because these groups are entitled to assistance from the
Council if facing homelessness. In summary, families, particularly lone parent
families, find it harder to access and sustain suitable, affordable accommodation of
which social housing is an important although often scarce source.

6.47. Households including children are inherently more likely to be overcrowded. There
are multiple definitions and therefore measures of overcrowding but all indicate that it
is a serious problem in Camden. One measure is the bedroom occupancy rating91.
By this measure, 12.5% of households (12,198 households) have a bedroom
occupancy rate of -1 or less and are considered overcrowded. This is higher than the
London figure (11.6%) and far higher than the national figure of 4.7% and places
Camden 14th highest of all English and Welsh local authorities.

6.48. A 2008 survey found that 5.7% of all households in Camden were overcrowded
(5,540 households).It is a particular issue for the social rented sector - more than two
fifths of Council and housing association homes are studio flats or have one bedroom
whereas much of the demand as noted above is from families. Welfare reform means
it is likely that overcrowding is increasing. Overcrowding disproportionately affects
BME households, and can affect health and educational attainment92.

6.49. Families with children make up a majority of the households which are being affected
by welfare reform. The cap to the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was introduced in
April 2011. About a third of the 3,384 households claiming LHA when the cap came
in had children. Of those 1,144 67% were still claiming LHA in Camden in September
2012, 14% had moved to social accommodation and 19% had stopped claiming in
the borough, either because the parents found a job or they have moved out of
Camden. More information on the impact of the LHA cap can be found in section 8.

6.50. An overall cap of £26,000 a year or £500 a week on the benefits that a couple
household or household with children can receive will be introduced in April 201393.
Families with children make up nearly 80% of households affected by the cap, an
estimated 598 families and 1887 children, about 4% of the total under 18 population
of the borough. Inevitably this overall cap will mostly affect large families and 58% of
the children live in families with 4 or more children. There is ethnicity data for some of
these families that have already made contact with the council’s housing services –
Somali, other Black African, Bangladeshi families are overrepresented compared with
the overall population.

6.51. The government’s rationale for the overall cap is the principle that households on
benefits should not have a greater income than the average national household
income. However the overall cap amount for couples/families of £26,000 a year or
£500 a week is about 80% of the average household income in Camden (£32,625).

6.52. Camden has approximately 40 childcare places for every 100 children aged under
five years. There has been a slight decrease since 2008. According to a review of
London borough Childcare Sufficiency Statements by the Daycare Trust, Camden is

91Source: 2011 Census. There are two measures of occupancy rating, one based on the number of rooms in a
household's accommodation, and one based on the number of bedrooms. The ages of the household members
and their relationships to each other are used to derive the number of rooms/bedrooms they require, based on a
standard formula. The number of rooms/bedrooms required is subtracted from the number of rooms/bedrooms in
the household's accommodation to obtain the occupancy rating. An occupancy rating of -1 implies that a
household has one fewer room/bedroom than required, whereas +1 implies that they have one more
room/bedroom than the standard requirement.
92Camden Housing Strategy Evidence Base 2011
93 For single people, the cap is £350 a week.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

34
among the majority of London boroughs that have sufficient childcare supply for all
age groups (children aged 0-2, children aged 3-4 and school age including breakfast,
after school and holiday clubs)94.

6.53. However there is also evidence in the Sufficiency Statements by the Daycare Trust
that the supply of childcare in the borough does not fully meet the stated needs of
parents, which is predominately to allow them to work (66% of parents who used
childcare said they did so in order to work). Affordability of childcare is an issue for
21% of survey respondents, particularly BME parents and parents of disabled
children and particularly for holiday provision. Another issue from the survey is the
flexibility of childcare for parents who work atypical hours. Indeed there is evidence
on the supply side that the supply may be too inflexible – 34% of places in the
borough were for the statutory 15 hours for 3 and 4 year olds only – or too expensive.
Childcare costs in London are already the highest in the country (an average of
£126.80 for 25 hours of nursery care for a child under two, compared with £102.05
nationally)95. Furthermore 36% of places in Camden are in private and independent
sector settings, which are more expensive than the state sector96.

6.54. Some of the most disadvantaged families in Camden have been identified as part of
the government’s complex families programme. They meet two or all of the
following criteria:
•
Youth Crime /anti-social behaviour
•
Education – truancy, exclusions
•
Worklessness - at least one adult in the house in receipt of workless benefit97

6.55. To date 255 complex families have been identified containing about 500 children and
young people:
•
65% attending a Camden school in January 2012
•
26% had a proven offence in the last year
•
82% known to safeguarding

6.56. They are quite evenly spread across the borough except the north –the wards with
the largest numbers of complex families are Gospel Oak and St Pancras and Somers
Town (27 apiece).

To engage in productive and valued activities

6.57. In 2011/12, youth services ‘reached’ 31% of young people aged 13-19 about 4,900
young people. Of these young people, 2,639 (54%) went on to participate in 5 or
more sessions of youth provision in Camden. This is a slight increase on the
previous year.

942012 London childcare report (Daycare Trust)
95Camden Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2011; 2012 London childcare report (Daycare Trust)
96 The average cost of 25 hours of nursery care for a child under two in London is on average £21 a week more
expensive in the private, voluntary and independent sector than the state sector.
97 Government guidance defines ‘troubled families’ as households who:
•
Are involved in crime and anti‐social behaviour (ASB);
•
Have children not in school;
•
Have an adult on out of work benefits;
•
Cause high costs to the public purse.
Camden’s approach to complex families includes its response to the government’s ‘troubled families’ programme,
but is not being led by it. The criteria specified by government will however form the basis of the cohort of
families that will be engaged and worked with, alongside additional filters identified as local priorities.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

35
6.58. 630 children and young people (1.7%) identified themselves as young carers in the
2001 ONS Census, similar to the national average of 1.6%.

6.59. The 2008 Social Capital Survey included a 250 person survey of young people aged
13-17. It found that they were much more likely to have participated in hobbies,
social clubs, sport etc than adults98.

To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence

6.60. The 2008 Social Capital Survey found that young people aged 13-17 were much less
likely than adults to have taken part in action to solve a local problem e.g. signing
a petition, attending a public meeting or responding to a consultation99.

To enjoy individual, family and social life

6.61. At the end of March 2012, there were 264 children and young people who were
being looked after by Camden, this represents 66 per 10,000 of the under 18
population (higher than national - 59 per 10,000 in 2010-11). 73% were from BME
backgrounds compared with 50% for the whole 0-19 population of the borough.

6.62. As with child protection plans, while looked after children often come from deprived
backgrounds, a relatively high number of looked after children is not in itself a sign
that Camden is more deprived than other boroughs, as other factors such as local
policies are more important.

6.63. The 2008 Social Capital Survey found that younger people were less likely to trust
other people than adults but more likely to feel positive about their
neighbourhood. They are more likely to know people in their local area and more
likely to mix with people from different ethnic and social backgrounds100.

7.
Life stage 2: young people (16-24)

7.1.
There is less information available for this life stage than for children and their
families although often data for children includes young people up to the age of 18.
Where this has happened, a judgment has been made as to the most appropriate life
stage for the data.

To live in safety and security

7.2.
Local data on the young victims of crime is scarce. However there has been an
increase in the number of violence victims aged under 25 who were attended by an
ambulance from 322 in 2003 to 452 in 2011101.

7.3.
Community Safety Partnership focus groups indicate that young people were
reluctant to go out at certain times of day. Also gang territoriality (even if they
themselves were not in a gang) meant that they couldn’t enjoy time out with their
families in certain areas. For students it was about staying in well-travelled areas
and changing their behaviour to look more confident than they felt102.

98Camden Social Capital Survey 2008
99ibid.
100ibid.
101 Data from safestats.org.uk
102Camden JSNA Chapter 6

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

36
To be healthy

7.4.
11% of children and young people reported that they used alcohol, 4% used drugs
and 3% smoked cigarettes. A local needs assessment from 2010-11 indicates that
the use of cannabis and alcohol is more common than other drugs amongst young
people, in line with the national picture. The use of primary Class A drugs is
historically low amongst young people in Camden103.

7.5.
Local data for Camden shows that people age 18-24 are less likely to access drug
treatment than older people. Those who come into contact with treatment are most
likely to attend treatment for cannabis, powder cocaine and other drugs (such as khat
and buprenorphine). Of the estimated opiate and crack users within the 18-24 age
group only 27% have accessed treatment, compared with 75% overall treatment
prevalence. This would indicate people are more likely to enter treatment when their
drug use has become more entrenched and their needs more complex. During 2011-
12 97 young people received Tier 2 substance misuse interventions (prevention and
early intervention) and a further 113 young people received a Tier 3 (intervention and
specialist treatment) intervention104.

7.6.
The age groups particularly at risk of alcohol misuse are under 16 years, females
(16-19 years), males (20-24 years) and students. They tend to drink with the intention
of getting drunk, and are at risk from accidents, assault and alcohol poisoning105.

7.7.
In 2011/12 Camden had the 11th lowest level of chlamydia screening coverage
amongst 31 London boroughs and the 6th lowest positivity rate and 7th lowest
diagnosis rate amongst the 15-24 year old groups. However its overall rate of
Chlamydia diagnosis for all ages is higher or similar to England and London
suggesting that there is unmet need in terms of screening and diagnosis rates in the
younger age group. Camden’s screening coverage is also similar to England yet its
positivity rate is lower which also suggests at risk groups are not being reached106.

7.8.
The abortion rate for under 18, 18-19 and 20-24 age groups in Camden are all well
below the national average107. Teenage pregnancy is low and falling– see the
Children and their Families section above.

To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society

7.9.
In November 2012, 8.4% of 16-18 year olds resident in the borough were not in
employment, education or training (NEET) whereas the Central London rate was
7.5%. However this does not tell the whole story. In all boroughs, there are a large
proportion of young people whose destination is unknown. However Camden has the
lowest proportion of “unknowns” (35.5%) of the Central London boroughs i.e. is more
rigorous in tracking the destinations of its young people. Perversely, poor tracking
can mean a lower proportion of NEETs.
7.10. An alternative measure is to look at the proportion of young people who are
confirmed as being in employment, education or training (EET). Camden has the
highest proportion of young people in EET in Central London (59.5% vs 41.1%)108.

103Camden JSNA chapter 12
104Camden JSNA Chapter 13
105Camden JSNA Chapter 12
106Camden JSNA Chapter 11
107Ibid.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

37
7.11. Work is currently underway on profiling the characteristics of long term NEETs (those
NEET for more than six months). This has identified approximately 300 young
people of which:
•
2 in 3 have a special educational need (compared to less than 1 in 3 of all
pupils).
•
2 in 5 were persistent absentees (compared to 1 in 10 of all pupils).
•
1 in 2 had a fixed term exclusions (compared to 1 in 5 of all pupils).
•
1 in 2 did not achieve level 4 + in English and maths at KS2 (compared to 1 in 3
of all pupils).
•
3 in 4 didn’t achieve 5+A*-C (compared to 1 in 4 of all pupils)109.

7.12. 66% of care leavers aged 19 were in education, employment or training at 31 March
2012 - a decrease on the previous year result of 77%. Those who were NEET had
complex needs and significant behavioural issues which made it difficult for them to
access and engage in sustained training or employment110.

7.13. One measure of A-level attainment is the average level 3 point score per student.
Camden resident young people taking A-levels at maintained schools scored an
average of 680.5 on this measure. This is lower than the averages for London and
England although Camden is improving at a faster rate (an improvement of 4% since
2008/9). The average score for girls is 5% higher than for boys111.

7.14. As for GCSEs, performance of students studying at Camden based institutions is
better than Camden residents – see Figure 9. The average Level 3 QCDA Point
Score per Student for Camden maintained schools and FE colleges in 2011 was
705.6112. However this was still slightly below the national average (728.3). The
average for pupils at the three Camden-based independent sector schools for which
there is data was 941.1 points113.

7.15. In 2011, the highest performing minority ethnic groups at A-level were Chinese (small
numbers) and White Other and the lowest performing Bangladeshi, Caribbean,
Albanian/Kosovan and Congolese (the latter two were very small cohorts)114.

7.16. In 2010, the latest data available, Bangladeshi pupils were underrepresented among
A-level candidates (making up 6.6% of candidates but 12% of the population) and
Black African pupils overrepresented, compared with the 15-19 population as a
whole115.

108 Source: Unpublished LBC data. NEET figures are difficult to interpret and fluctuate considerably over the year.
NEET figures are now based on residents, not school population as in the past, so direct comparisons over time
are not possible.
109Ibid.
110 Draft Children and Young People’s Profile 2012
111 A level data accessed through http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk
112 One A level grade is equivalent to 30 points.
113 Data from www.education.gov.uk
114Report Of Achievement And Standards Of Camden's Children And Young People 2011 and the accompanying
Achievement and Standards Report Performance Tables.(both LBC, February 2012)
115ibid.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

38

* 9 schools and entries through La Swap Sixth Form
** 3 schools
Figure 9: Average Level 3 Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA) Point
Score Per Student 2011

7.17. The Department of Education also produces statistics on the attainment of Level 2
and Level 3 by young people by the age of 19. Attainment of Level 2 equates to
achievement of 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C or equivalent qualifications, and
Level 3 equates to achievement of 2 or more A-levels or equivalent qualifications.

7.18. In 2011 58% of 19 year olds who had been studying in a Camden school aged 15
had a Level 2 qualification including English and Maths. This is slightly lower
than the London figure (61%) and the national average (60%). This is an increase of
9 percentage points(pp) since 2008, compared with 10 pp for London. The gap in
attainment between children eligible for free school meals and those not eligible was
12 percentage points, compared with 19 percentage points for London and 27%
nationally. The gap has narrowed from 20 percentage points in 2008116.

7.19. In 2011, 62% of 19 year olds who had been studying in a Camden school when
aged 15 had a Level 3 qualification. This remains above the London figure (59%)
but higher than the national average (55%). This is an increase of 7 percentage
points since 2008, compared with 8 pp for London. The free school meals attainment
gap was 11 percentage points, compared with 16% for London and 25% nationally.
The gap has narrowed from 17 percentage points in 2008117.

116Level 2 and 3 Attainment by Young People in England 2011 (DfE/BIS)
117Ibid.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

39
7.20. In 2010, 1016 young people, about three quarters of those attending sixth form in
Camden, went on to university. This proportion had not changed much since
2006118. Nationally comparable data shows that Camden has a similar proportion of
young people to the national average going from sixth form to university, and a
similar proportion (9% of all those leaving sixth form) going to Oxbridge or a Russell
Group university.

7.21. Table 6 shows the most popular universities for Camden domiciled students in
2010/11 and their employment/further study rate, now a standard measure of a
university’s performance. Domicile refers to their permanent home address as
opposed to their term time address so can be taken as a proxy for young people who
grew up in Camden. Discounting Birkbeck, the Open University and the Institute of
Education, most of whose students are mature students, there is a polarisation
between institutions with high employment rates (UCL, King’s, Oxford) and
institutions with lower employment rates (South Bank, UEL, Westminster).

Institution
Number of
students
domiciled in
Camden 2010/11
Institution
employment and
further study rate
2010/11
Birkbeck College
932
n/a
The Open University
758
n/a
London South Bank University
536
78.1
University College London
473
92.3
Middlesex University
457
83.3
The University of Westminster
443
81.4
King's College London
334
95.2
The University of East London
284
79.4
The City University
247
88.8
University of the Arts, London
220
84.4
Institute of Education
201
100.0
The University of Oxford
192
90.4
Queen Mary &Westfield
179
90.3
Kingston University
158
83.4
Imperial College
153
91.7
National average

90.3

Table 6: Top 15 universities for Camden "domiciled" students 2010/11119

7.22. Camden is home to the largest student population in London, with almost 24,000
domestic and foreign students attending higher education institutions in 2010/11.
Students account for 10.2% of the population compared with 4.7% for London as a
whole and 3.1% nationally120. Foreign students make up 42% of the total.

To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security

7.23. It would be difficult to identify households containing young people aged 16-24 where
they are not the head of the household, so it is not possible to say what proportion of
young people are living in poverty etc.

118http://www.camdendata.info/AddDocuments1/Destinations%20of%20Year%2013%20pupils.xls
119Higher Education Statistics Agency, LBC Corporate Strategy analysis; 2011 Census
120 Denominator is 2011 Census population estimates, numerator 2010/11 HESA statistics

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

40
7.24. People aged 16 to 24, who make up 12.4% of residents, form:
•
a disproportionately low percentage of those living in owner occupied homes
(8.6%)
•
a disproportionately high percentage of those living in privately rented
accommodation (18.3%)121
It is unsurprising that this should be the case for young people and not necessarily an
indicator of inequality.

7.25. 2,350 people aged under 25 were claiming benefits in Camden in February 2012.
This includes JSA and also non out-of-work benefits such as the Disability Living
Allowance. This equates to 1.3% of the population aged under 25, about half the
national rate (2.5%). The proportion for the population as a whole in Camden is
12.6%. The number of young people on benefits has decreased since February 2005
when it was 2,760 or 1.7% of the population aged under 25122.

To engage in productive and valued activities

7.26. See paragraph 6.53 above for information about the use of youth services by young
people in Camden – the service also caters for young people aged 16 and over.

7.27. 10.4% of 16-24 year olds (or 1,035 young people) were claiming Job Seekers
Allowance(JSA) in September 2012, this is lower than Inner London 11.8%, Greater
London 11.0% and England 11.7%. Rates are much lower for young women (7.4%)
than for young men (14.1%). The overall rate for Camden (all ages) was 5.1%123.

7.28. There are considerable variations in the JSA unemployment rate between ethnic
groups. In June 2012, the rate for white men aged 16-24 was 5%, compared with
19% for Pakistani/Bangladeshi men, 28% for Black African men and 37% for Black
Caribbean men. The figures for young women are lower but follow a similar
pattern124.

7.29. The unemployment claimant count for young people increased dramatically in the
period immediately following the beginning of the recession in 2008. However it has
since decreased considerably from a high of 1,425 or 21.8% in November 2009, a
decrease of a third, and rates are still lower than before the recession in 2005125.
However obviously this does not include young people out of work who are not
claiming JSA.

7.30. In September 2012, 150 young people had been claiming JSA for 12 months or more
equivalent to 0.5% of the economically active population aged 16-24 not in full-time
education. The number has increased significantly since September 2011, when the
figure was 55. The rate for London is 1.1%.

7.31. According to an analysis published by the Local Government Association, in 2010
40.1% of students aged 21-24 leaving higher education who lived in Camden

121Camden Housing Strategy Evidence Base 2011 using 2001 Census data
122Nomis data, LBC analysis
123 Source: Unemployment in Camden. Note: % rate based on the economically active population which does not
include the relatively high number of higher education students so the age group comparison should be used with
caution. Also 16 and 17 year olds can only claim benefits if in severe financial hardship and these are small in
number
124 GLA Calculated Experimental JSA Claimant Count Rates by Ethnic Group June 2012 (unpublished)
125 There are concerns about changes to the denominator (based on population estimates) which can change
quite dramatically for the 16-24 age group from year to year, causing fluctuations in the claimant count rate.
However it is clear that the absolute number have decreased considerably.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

41
before attending university were in full-time employment six months after
graduating126. This was considerably lower than the national figure of 51% and one of
the lowest proportions in London127. The proportion has decreased by 5.7% since
2003 although the absolute numbers of Camden graduates and those in employment
have risen.

7.32. The council has statutory responsibility for young offenders aged 13-19. There were
416 offences and 263 criminal justice outcomes in 2011-12. Both the number of
offences and criminal justice outcomes fell between 2010-11 and 2011-12. The
characteristics of young offenders in Camden are:
•
Predominantly male (87%) compared to 78% nationally (2010-11).
•
Majority aged 15-17 (same as nationally).
•
More diverse ethnic profile than nationally where majority are White.
•
More likely to live in NW1 or NW5

7.33. The number of first time entrants to the criminal justice system increased slightly in
2011, though this is still an overall downward trend over past 10 years.

7.34. There has been a large increase in the number of apprenticeships over the past 5
years, both programme starts (increase from 150 to 700 between 2005/6 and
2010/11) and “achievements” (increase from 60 to 250). The number of
achievements has not quite kept pace with the number of programme starts.
However Camden has seen a greater increase than London or nationally in both.

To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence

7.35. No data is available.

To enjoy individual, family and social life

7.36. No data is available.

8.
Life stage 3: working age adults and/or whole population

8.1.
Generally this section covers working age people, so in some instances covers the
population as a whole (including young people and older people)where further
disaggregation of the data by age is not possible. It of course also includes parents of
children where their status as parents is either not relevant or not identifiable through
the data.

To live in safety and security

8.2.
Camden has the third highest recorded crime rate compared to the London
boroughs, largely due to its central location128. However overall recorded crime fell by
34% between 2002/3 and 2011/12, a greater decrease than in London as a whole
and nationally129. Only a few categories of crime have increased significantly during
that time – drug offences by 65% and violence against the person with injury by 10%.

126Hidden talents: a statistical review of destinations of young graduates (LGA 2012)
127Although Westminster and K&C two of the wealthiest boroughs also have very low graduate employment
rates.
128Crime statistics: Annual trend and demographic tables 2011-12 - Crime in England and Wales, Quarterly First
Release to March 2012
129The “notifiable offences” category.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

42
8.3.
The wards with the largest number of recorded crimes in 2011/12 were by some way
Holborn and Covent Garden, Bloomsbury and Camden Town with Primrose Hill. The
latter is the only ward where crime has increased since 2003. Crime fell by the most
in Swiss Cottage and West Hampstead.

8.4.
Data about the type and location of recorded crimes is the only type of crime data
available at a local level and clearly there are influencing factors such as the
willingness of victims to report the crime, the accuracy of recording and the impact of
police initiatives. There is no published data at a local level about the characteristics
of either the victims or perpetrators of crime. However some crimes are
overwhelmingly perpetrated against certain groups in society so inequalities caused
by crime can be better understood by focusing on those crimes.

8.5.
National data from the Crime Survey of England and Wales suggests that women are
seven times more likely than men to have been the victim of a sexual assault at
some point in their adult life130. Camden ranks 11th of the London boroughs for the
number of sexual offences recorded during 2011 compared with third for all crime.
The recorded number of sexual offences has decreased in Camden by 6% since
2003 although it is now increasing again after reaching a low in early 2009, a similar
pattern to London. However the number fell further in London and England during the
same period - by 13% and 7% respectively.

8.6.
477 racist and religious hate crimes and 63 homophobic crimes were recorded in
Camden in the year to September 2012. Camden has the second highest number of
recorded racist and religious hate crimes of the London boroughs after Westminster
and the sixth highest number of recorded homophobic crimes. This is probably due
as much to the willingness of victims to report these crimes as to their actual
prevalence. The number of racist and religious hate crimes increased by 5.5% and
the number of homophobic crimes fell by 30% respectively compared with the year to
September 2011. The changes across the whole of the Metropolitan Police were a
15% increase and a 10% decrease for the two types of crime131.

8.7.
There is good quality data about domestic violence in the borough because it is a
focus for the police and council’s community safety services. In the year 2011/12,
1,553 domestic violence incidents were reported to Camden Safety Net, a joint
council/police service. The five wards with the largest number of reported incidents
were Gospel Oak, Haverstock, Cantelowes, Kilburn and St Pancras and Somers
Town132. According to domestic violence information recorded by the police, 80% of
victims are female with 38% of these aged 20-29. The proportion of female victims
aged 30 – 59 has increased slightly over the last three years. 58% of female
domestic violence victims are classified as ‘white.’ Afro-Caribbean (16%) and Asian
(13%) make up the next two largest groups133.Recorded domestic violence crimes
have remained static over the past 3 years and is lower than comparator boroughs,
although the number of cases subject to Multi-agency Risk Assessment Conferences
has increased considerably over the past five years134.

8.8.
In June 2012, 31% of respondents in Camden to the Metropolitan Police’s Public
Attitude Survey said they were worried or very worried about crime in their local
area, a considerable fall from 2008/9 when the dataset began. This is below the

130Crime statistics: Annual trend and demographic tables 2011-12 - Crime in England and Wales, Quarterly First
Release to March 2012
131www.met.police.uk/crimefigures
132 Unpublished LBC report, November 2012
133Camden JSNA Chapter 6
134 Unpublished LBC report, November 2012

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

43
figure for the whole of London (35%). According to the Camden Residents’ Survey,
the proportion of residents concerned about crime has also fallen from 47% in
2003 to 24% in 2012. In the 2012 survey, 95% of respondents said they felt very safe
or fairly safe during the day, the same as the national figure, but this fell to 69% after
dark compared with 75% nationally.

8.9.
In the 2008 Social Capital Survey, only a low proportion of Camden residents said
they had been discriminated against or treated less fairly than other people within
the last two years; most (86%) had not experienced any discrimination. Black and
Asian residents said they have experienced discrimination because of their ethnicity
(17% and 12% respectively said they have experienced ethnic discrimination
compared to 3% of White residents). Almost one in ten (9%) disabled residents had
been discriminated against because of a disability. The same proportion (9%) of
Muslims said they have been discriminated against because of their religion –
compared to just 2% of the population overall.

8.10. Community safety partnership focus groups found that LGBT people and people
with learning disabilities reported experiencing harassment and avoiding certain
areas deemed as ‘problematic’ or changing routes and daily routines to avoid
conflict135.

8.11. In 2011/12, a slightly lower proportion of adult social care clients aged 18-65
reported feeling safe (56%) than all social care users (59%). This was also true for
females (57%) and BME groups (57%). Feeling safe in the survey goes beyond fear
of crime as was defined as feeling safe “both inside and outside the home. This
includes fear of abuse or other physical harm”. The Camden figure is about the same
as the London figure and below the national figure136.

To be healthy

8.12. 12,350 people in the borough or 5.6% of the whole population report their health as
bad or very bad137.

8.13. There are several figures available for the number of working age people with a
disability in the borough. According to the 2011 Census, 18,594 people of working
age in Camden have a long-term health problem or disability which limits day-to-day
to a greater or lesser extent, 11.6% of the population, compared with 11.0% for
London and 13.0% for England and Wales138. According to the Annual Population
Survey, there are 28,000-40,000 people of working age with a disability living in
Camden (16%-23% of the population)139.

8.14. 7,160 people of working age claimed the Disability Living Allowance(DLA) in
February 2012. The largest single disabling condition is psychosis which accounted
for 1840 or 26% of all claimants. Men make up 54% of claimants, 34% were aged 45-
54 and 70% had been claiming for 5 years or more. All claims will be reassessed as
part of the phasing out of DLA and its replacement by Personal Independence
Payments between April 2013 and 2016.

135Ibid.
136 Camden Adult Social Care Survey 2011-12 (unpublished)
137 2011 Census
138Ibid.
139June 2011-June 2012, accessed via www.nomisweb.co.uk

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

44
8.15. There are 647 adults who are known to Camden’s learning disability service. The
crude prevalence of learning disability in Camden is lower than London and England
due to the demographics of the borough (a large working age population largely
made up of young professionals and students). The learning disabled population is
increasing due in part to the rising numbers of young people with complex needs
surviving into adulthood. The rate of increase is estimated to range from 1.2% to
5.1% (average 3.2%) per year. People with learning disabilities suffer
disproportionately from specific health issues. They are three times more likely to die
early compared to the general population and thus have a shorter life expectancy140.

8.16. At the time of the 2001 Census, 13% of the borough’s carers of working age
reported that they were not in good health compared with 10% for Greater London141.

8.17. Overall life expectancy for men and women in Camden has improved at a faster
rate over the past 10 years compared to London and England (see Figure 10).
During the period 2008-10 life expectancy at birth for men in Camden was similar to
England (78.5 years vs. 78.6 years) whilst life expectancy at birth for women in
Camden was significantly higher than England (83.8 vs. 82.6)142.

66.0
68.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
1995-1997*
1996-1998
1997-1999
1998-2000
1999-2001
2000-2002
2001-2003
2002-2004
2003-2005
2004-2006
2005-2007
2006-2008
2007-2009
2008-2010
Years
Males - Camden
Males - London
Males - England
Females - Camden
Females - London
Females - England

Figure 10: Life expectancy trends, Camden, London and England

8.18. Although outcomes in terms of life expectancy are generally improving for most
people in Camden, they are not improving fast enough for the poorest sections of the
borough. In 2006-10 there was an 11.6 year gap in life expectancy between male
residents living in the 10% least and most deprived areas in Camden, the third
highest in London. For females the gap was 6.2 years, the 7th highest in London143.

140JSNA Chapter 19
141 LBC analysis of 2001 Census data
142Camden JSNA Chapter 2
143 The gap in life expectancy is measured using the Slope Index of Inequality (SII).This is a single score which
represents the gap in life expectancy at birth between the 10% most and least deprived areas within a local
authority, based on a statistical analysis of the relationship between life expectancy and deprivation. A low SII
value indicates there is a small gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas, while a high
value indicates a greater gap in life expectancy.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

45

8.19. The latest ward level data available is for 2005-2009. Life expectancy for men and
women in Camden is increasing overall and in most wards. There is nearly an 11
year difference in life expectancy for men between the lowest and highest wards
(Kilburn and Hampstead Town respectively – see Figure 11). There is nearly a six
year difference in life expectancy between men and women in the borough overall,
which rises to almost 10 years within St. Pancras and Somers Town ward144.

Figure 11: Male life expectancy by ward, 1999-2003 and 2005-2009

8.20. The causes of deaths that disproportionately affect those from the most deprived
communities compared to the least deprived and contributing to the life expectancy
gap are cardiovascular conditions, lung cancer, chronic cirrhosis of liver, respiratory
disease and suicides.

8.21. Camden’s excess winter death index was lower than the London and national
figures and among the lowest of the London boroughs for the period 2006-2009.
There is data going back to the early 1990s but there is no real discernible trend over
time. The rate was significantly higher for people aged under 65 and significantly
lower for people aged 65 to 84 compared with national data145.

8.22. Adjusted for population factors, Camden had a significantly higher rate of deaths
attributable to smoking (234.4/100,000 population >35 years) compared to England
and London (216.0 and 207.9, respectively)146.

8.23. In Camden, the prevalence of smoking in the routine and manual socio-economic
group is estimated at 27.2%, similar to the average across England for this group. It
is interesting to note that although the prevalence of smoking in the general
population in Camden is lower compared to England, the prevalence in the routine
and manual group is not. This indicates a high level of inequality in the prevalence of

144Knowing our communities: an overview of Camden’s social mix
145Excess Winter Deaths, Borough (London Datastore)
146Camden JSNA Chapter 8

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

46
smoking, and thus associated diseases and premature mortality attributable to
smoking at a local level147.

8.24. Modelled estimates of smoking prevalence show that the more deprived areas in
Camden are expected to have as high a prevalence rate as 34%. A local lifestyle
survey in Camden also found that the prevalence of smoking ranged from 17% in the
less deprived area of the borough to 33% in the more deprived wards of Kings Cross
and St. Pancras & Somers Town (see Figure 12). Smoking is highly prevalent among
some ethnic groups, particularly Bangladeshi and Irish men. Smokeless tobacco
(chewing tobacco, snuff and paan) although less harmful than smoked tobacco it is
still a cause of diseases (including oral cancer). Chewing tobacco is most commonly
used by the Bangladeshi community148.

MSOA = Middle Super Output Area

Figure 12: Prevalence of smoking in Camden, 2006-08149

8.25. 22.5% of people across the borough are regularly participating in 3x30 minutes
moderate intensity of physical activity, which is slightly higher than the national
average (21.8%). However 40% of Camden residents are inactive. Trends in physical
activity in Camden remain largely unchanged. This data comes from the Active
People Survey which also found that lower income groups, women and people with a
long term limiting illness were less likely to be active. There were no significant
differences between BME and non-BME groups.

8.26. An in depth adult physical activity needs assessment was undertaken in 2009
through the Pro-Active Camden partnership. It found that a number of groups
exhibiting low levels of participation in sport and physical activity are those that have
or are at the greatest risk of poor health. These groups were:
•
males aged between 35 and 65 years

147Ibid.
148Ibid.
149Ibid.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

47
•
black and minority ethnic groups
•
disabled people
•
lone parents150

8.27. It is estimated that the prevalence of adult obesity in Camden ranges from 14,280
and 45,700 (7%-21%) obese adults. By all measures, it is lower than London and
England. There is no more detailed local data although nationally obesity:
•
increases with age to 75 and then declines
•
prevalence is highest amongst Irish and Black Caribbean men and Black
Caribbean, Black African and Pakistani women
•
higher amongst more deprived groups
•
prevalence of obesity in people with serious mental illness as 28.5% and 24% for
those with depression, and 28.3% for those with learning difficulties151

8.28. While Camden’s drinking profile is comparable to London and England, the rate of
hospital stays due to alcohol related harm is significantly worse than the London and
England average. The numbers have doubled over the past 10 years in common with
the regional and national picture.

8.29. On average men in Camden lived about 10.3 months less due to alcohol than if they
did not drink, compared to 8.1 months on average in London and 9.1 months across
England. Women lived 3.8 months less (London: 3.4 months, England: 4.2 months).
The highest numbers of alcohol-related ambulance call outs were in the wards of
Camden Town and Primrose Hill and Holborn and Covent Garden. This matches the
areas of Camden with the highest concentration of licensed premises and therefore
high levels of the consumption of alcohol by the population. In Camden, the health
needs assessment (2009) identified Irish males (over 25 years) as being a group
more like to drink harmful levels of alcohol152.

8.30. Approximately 2,300 adults in Camden are expected to use opiates or crack, an
estimated rate of 13 per 1,000 population aged 15-64. This is the 7th highest rate in
London and significantly higher than England (8.9) and London (9.5). A total of 318
Camden residents had a drug related hospital admission in 2010/2011, an 18%
(n=60) increase compared to the previous year. The majority of these admissions
were for males aged 35-44. The London Ambulance Service has reported 523 call
outs for drug overdoses in 2010/2011, similar to the previous year153.

8.31. Camden’s rates of drug related deaths are amongst the highest in London. 191
drug related deaths were recorded between 2003 and 2011. In 2010 a total of 25
deaths were recorded for Camden residents, this is an 8% increase on 2009, and a
78.6% increase on 2008. Nationally the majority of drug related deaths (around 70%)
in England and Wales were males, compared to 77% in Camden154.

8.32. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in Camden for all ages
and second leading cause for premature mortality (deaths under the aged of
75).However mortality rates from CVD are declining. Camden has seen a 43%
reduction in early CVD deaths compared to 47% in London and 50% in England.
Overall the rate of premature CVD is significantly higher compared to England but
similar to London. Premature mortality rates from CVD are higher for men compared

150JSNA Chapter 9
151JSNA Chapter 10
152JSNA Chapter 12
153JSNA Chapter 13
154Ibid.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

48
to women and for those living in the most deprived areas of Camden. People with
serious mental illness and those with learning disabilities are at higher risk of
developing and dying from CVD related conditions compared to the general
population155.

8.33. Both the recorded and expected prevalence rates for diabetes in Camden are lower
than for London and England. There were currently 7,538 people on the diabetes
register in Camden in 2010/11 and increase from 5,840 in 2006/7. This may be due
to better detection. There is no local data on prevalence by group although nationally
the risk of type 2 diabetes is greater in people of South Asian, African Caribbean and
Middle Eastern origins and in less affluent communities156.

8.34. Cancer accounted for 29% of all deaths and 35% of early deaths (<75 years) in
Camden in 2008-10. New cases of cancer and rates of cancer death are higher in
more deprived parts of Camden and inequalities in cancer outcomes account for
around 16% of the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of
Camden. Kentish Town and Kilburn wards (two of Camden’s more deprived wards)
have significantly higher rates of mortality from all cancers compared to England. The
rate of early death from cancer is falling at a faster rate in Camden than London and
England157.

8.35. 2,474 (1.2% of the adult population) adults have a diagnosis of Chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease(COPD) amongst Camden’s GP registered population. A further
4,000 adults are estimated to be living with undiagnosed COPD. Mortality rates from
COPD in Camden are similar to London and England. Men and people from deprived
communities in Camden are more likely to suffer from COPD. This is largely due to
the association of smoking. There is a higher prevalence of COPD amongst males
and mortality from COPD is also higher for men. COPD develops slowly over years,
so most people are at least 40 years old when symptoms begin158.

8.36. Camden has the 2nd highest serious mental illness prevalence and 5th highest
depression prevalence in London. There are 3,358 adults diagnosed with serious
mental illness registered with Camden GPs and 19,647 adults with depression (see
Table 7). In Camden, Bangladeshi women are more vulnerable to depression
compared to Bangladeshi men or White British women, but are under-represented in
treatment. A similar pattern is true of men of Irish descent. Irish men are particularly
over-represented in local suicide figures. Locally, black population groups are over-
represented in Community Mental Health Team caseloads and admissions and Asian
groups are under-represented in both. Black populations are also more likely to
access mental health services through crisis or emergency services and more likely
to be receiving compulsory treatment. Nearly 20% of assertive outreach contacts are
with Black African clients (three times the proportion in the population). Whilst the
admission rate for white ethnic groups is 1.4 times higher than the England average
for all ethnic groups, the admission rate for black ethnic groups is 4.9 times higher
than the England average. Nationally, there is a social gradient to mental illness.
Rates of mental illness for the poorest are nearly double those of the richest fifth by
income. There is no local data on this variable159.

155JSNA Chapter 14
156JSNA Chapter 15
157JSNA Chapter 16
158JSNA Chapter 17
159JSNA Chapter 18

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

49

Serious Mental
Illness
(numbers)
Depression
(numbers)
Camden
1.3% (3,358)
9.7% (19,647)
London
1.0%
7.8%
England
0.8%
11.2%
Table 7: Prevalence for Serious Mental Illness and Depression, registered population, Camden,
London and England 2010/11160

8.37. Another measure of the prevalence of mental illness is the number of people
claiming Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance due to mental ill-
health. The rate in Camden is 29 per 1000 population. The rate has fallen
considerably since 2003, when it was 44, although changing criteria make
comparisons over time difficult. However the Camden rate is still higher than the
London rate (21)161.

8.38. Camden’s suicide rate has decreased substantially over the last decade, and is now
similar to London and national averages. There were 59 deaths recorded with cause
as suicide and injury undetermined in Camden for all persons during the 3 year
period 2008-10 (an average of 20 deaths a year). This gives Camden the 7th highest
rate of mortality from suicide and injury undetermined in London and is similar to that
in London and England162.

8.39. The roads with the highest traffic volumes, such as Euston Road, Tottenham Court
Road and Finchley Road, have the worst air pollution levels in the borough.
Camden, like many other boroughs across London, has failed the Government’s air
quality objectives for NO2 and PM10 since 2000 and has been declared an Air
Quality Management Area. Camden exceeds the annual NO2 objective along most of
Camden’s busy roads163.

To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society

8.40. According to the 2011 Census,50.5% of the adult population of Camden had a
degree, a lot higher than the London figure of 37.7%. At 12.7%, the proportion of
Camden residents with no qualifications is lower than the London figure. However
this still leaves 23,451 Camden residents who have no qualifications at all,
significantly disadvantaging them in the London labour market164.

8.41. In 2010/11, 3986 people were enrolled on Adult Education courses funded by the
Skills Funding Agency in the borough. 20% of learners had disabilities and/or
learning difficulties, 78% were female, 60% from an ethnic minority group (including
White other) and 61% from the 30% most deprived neighbourhoods according to the
Indices of Deprivation165.

160Ibid.
161 Data from Nomis, LBC analysis
162JSNA Chapter 18
163Camden’s Transport Strategy August 2011 p.46
xx-xxxx-xxxx Census
165Adult Community Learning - Profile of Learners 2010-11

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

50
8.42. Generally use of the internet is high in Camden if the internet response rate to the
2011 Census is taken as a proxy. 24% of respondents responded online, the ninth
highest rate in the country. However at the other end of the spectrum, the Council
estimates that 14% of adults living in Camden have never used the internet
equivalent to 27,000 people of which 7,000 are estimated to be unemployed166.

To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security

8.43. Income inequality is discussed in section 3 above. As discussed in that section,
housing tenure is strongly associated with income inequality in the borough. The
issue is explored further in the following paragraphs.

8.44. Camden has a very distinctive tenure pattern – roughly a third owner occupied, a
third social rented and a third private rented. 23.0% of households in Camden rent
from the council and another 10.1% from a housing association, making a total of
33.1% of households in the social rented sector (see Figure 13). This is the eighth
highest proportion in London. 24% are rented from the council, the fifth highest
proportion. The proportion of owner occupied households is half the national
proportion and the private rented sector twice the national proportion167.

8.45. The wards with the largest proportion of social rented housing at the time of the 2001
Census were St Pancras and Somers Town (70%), Regent’s Park (53%), Holborn
and Covent Garden (52%), Haverstock (52%) and King’s Cross (51%).

166 LBC Draft Digital Strategy (unpublished)
1672011 Census
Figure 13: Camden households by tenure, 2011
Source: 2011 Census

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

51
8.46. In August 2012, 28,116 households received housing benefit, 29% of all
households. This compares with 26% for London and 31% for Inner London. The
number of households receiving housing benefit has increased by 5.5% since
November 2008, but is now falling from a peak in October 2010, probably due to
welfare reform168. 57% of claims were from council tenant households and a further
26% from housing association households. 15% of housing benefit claimants are in
work (see below), 30% are families with children and 35% are pensioners.

8.47. In September 2012, 3,399 private sector tenants received housing benefit for all or
part of their rent through the Local Housing Allowance (LHA). This is about 12% of
the total housing benefit claims in Camden. While they only make up about 3% of the
total households in the borough, households claiming LHA are noteworthy as they
make up the majority of low income households in the private rented sector169.

8.48. The government capped the LHA in April 2011 for new claims as part of its
programme of welfare reform and reduced the rate from the 50th to the 30th
percentile of market rent. The maximum LHA for a 2 bedroom flat is now £290 a
week, 65% of the median weekly rent of £444.62. Existing LHA claimants (there were
1,804 in April 2011) were given 12 months’ protection from the anniversary of their
claim. There has not been a major movement of households out of the borough, at
least not yet – only a third of these protected claimants have stopped claiming,
perhaps because they have left the borough or because they have found work. The
two thirds that are still claiming may have succeeded in renegotiating their rent with
their landlord (often with help from the council), moved to a cheaper property in the
borough, or absorbed the increase in their housing costs.

8.49. However there is evidence within the borough of movement of households in the LHA
sector since the cap was introduced. Figure 14 shows that there is an increasing
concentration of LHA claimants in the west of the borough and a loss of LHA
claimants in the southern part of the borough170. There is likely to be a decrease over
the medium to long term in the number of properties which are within the LHA caps in
the borough as landlords may find it more profitable to renovate their properties for
the young professional market. This would lead to an even greater polarisation by
tenure with low income households solely in the social rented sector.

168Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit caseload statistics (DWP)
169 Unpublished LBC analysis
170Impacts of welfare reform (LBC)

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

52

Figure 14: Local Housing Allowance claimants, September 2012 with change since April 2011

8.50. A lack of affordable housing was the fourth largest area of concern for Camden
residents in the 2012 residents’ survey after lack of jobs, crime and rising prices. 21%
reported it as a concern. Comparator data is only available from the 2010 survey,
when the Camden figure was 6% higher than the London figure.171

8.51. As noted above, the majority of housing benefit claimants in the borough are social
housing tenants. In fact, 67% of council tenants claim housing benefit compared
with 29% of all households. 36% of council tenants are claiming income-based out-
of-work benefits but the total proportion who are not working is likely to be higher172.
The most deprived parts of the borough coincide with areas with a high proportion of
council properties. The correlation between social housing and deprivation is clear
but the nature of the relationship is complex. Living in social housing is not
intrinsically a sign of deprivation but occupants of social housing typically have
poorer outcomes across a range of domains. The supply of social housing is very
restricted – just 1,100 council properties are let each year and a quarter of those are
to existing tenants.

8.52. Council tenants are more likely to be from an ethnic minority than the population at
large – the Camden Tenant Profile shows that 43% of tenants are from a BME group.
61% are female, 84% are over 35 and 49% have been a tenant for over 10 years173.

171Residents’ Survey 2012 (forthcoming); Residents’ Survey 2009/10
172Unpublished LBC Benefits data. The numerator is the number of people claiming so-called “passporting”
benefits (which include Income Support and income-based Job Seekers’ Allowance and Employment and
Support Allowance). The denominator is number of housing tenancies, minus pensioners receiving
passporting benefits i.e. households known to the pensioners, but not other pensioner households in council
housing not claiming passporting benefits. For these reasons, the actual proportion of workless households is
likely to be higher.
173Camden Tenant Profile October 2012. Ethnicity percentage excludes unknowns.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

53
8.53. There has been good progress on the condition of council homes, with the
proportion classified as non-decent reduced from 91.5% in 2004 to 37% in 2011/12.
However the proportion of non-decent council housing is still far higher than the
national figure and for other social rented and owner occupied housing (although
recent comparator data is not available)174.

8.54. In 2010, the rate of fuel poverty (10%) in Camden compared favourably with those
across England (16%) – probably because of the proportion of flats in the borough –
and were similar to London’s (11%)175.However there has been a general upward
trend since 2003, when about 5% of households were in fuel poverty. The 2010
figure is actually a decrease from 13% reported in 2009, a trend that is reflected
nationally. The main reason for this is that 2010 was the first time in over a decade
that fuel bills decreased. However, 2010 and 2011 saw a marked increase in fuel
costs which one would expect to see reflected in subsequent fuel poverty data.

8.55. At a ward level, Kentish Town, Cantelowes, King’s Cross, Bloomsbury and West
Hampstead have the highest rates of fuel poverty. However data is also available at
a lower level and this shows concentrations in parts of other wards e.g. Highgate,
Gospel Oak and Camden Town with Primrose Hill176.

8.56. Although complete data is not available, it is clear that low income is the strongest
determinant of fuel poverty. Rates of fuel poverty are highest among households in
social housing and lowest among owner occupiers, even though owner occupied
homes are the least energy efficient. A 2004 survey showed higher rates of fuel
poverty among owner occupiers without a mortgage than those with. This may
suggest that some of the population, perhaps older, who are asset rich but cash
poor177.

8.57. 3.5% of households in Camden do not have central heating compared with 2.8% in
London and 2.7% nationally. However there does not seem to be direct relationship
at a local authority level between deprivation and absence of central heating178.

8.58. The energy efficiency of homes is an important contributory factor in fuel poverty.
The standard measure is the SAP rating. Camden Council housing is more energy
efficient that council housing nationwide (2008/9 latest data). The latest data across
all tenures in the borough is from 2004 and shows that council properties are more
energy efficient than private rented or owner occupied properties but less efficient
than housing association properties. The trend for council housing is upward179.

8.59. The levels of rough sleeping in the borough are low and the number of households
in temporary accommodation has decreased sharply in recent years. The number of
households in temporary accommodation at the end of 2011/12 was 67.2% less
than at the end of 2004/05. A decrease in numbers of households in temporary
accommodation has also been seen in other areas. Across London, for example, the
number of households in temporary accommodation fell by 38.8% over the same
period of time. Throughout England, it fell by 50.1%.However there are still over 500
households in temporary accommodation, often for longer periods of time. Due to

174 Unpublished draft analysis for JSNA
175 ibid., 2010 data
176 Unpublished briefing on fuel poverty, 2010 data
177 Unpublished draft analysis for JSNA
178 2011 Census
179 Unpublished draft analysis for JSNA

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

54
other housing options being available for single people, the majority of households in
temporary accommodation are families (see above)180.

8.60. According to a recent London-wide audit of empty homes, there were 512 empty
homes in Camden in 2010, the eighth highest of the London boroughs. The three
wards with the largest number of empty homes were Frognal and Fitzjohns, Swiss
Cottage and Hampstead Town181.

8.61. A final element of housing inequality, and a possible proxy for high wealth, is having
a second address, data for which is available for the first time in the 2011 Census.
28,550 Camden residents, 13.0% of the population, have a second address
elsewhere in the UK or abroad (rented or owned), the fourth highest proportion of the
London boroughs182. The proportion for London is 4.8%, the highest regional
proportion. There are an additional 8,440 people who usually live elsewhere but have
a second home in Camden, equivalent to 3.8% of the usual population. This is the
sixth highest proportion of the London boroughs and the proportion for London as a
whole is 2.0%183.

8.62. In 2011, Camden had one of the lowest numbers of mortgage possession claims
per 1000 population (1.3) of the London boroughs and the number is about half what
it was in 2006 (2.9). Camden also had a low number of landlord possession claims
per 1000 population (8.7) and although the number has also decreased since 2006
(when it was 9.6), it has done so by a much smaller amount184. Camden had one of
the lowest rates of individual insolvency in 2011, ranking 32 of 33 London local
authorities with a rate of 4.3 per 10,000 population185. The rate has almost halved
since 2006, whereas it has been steady in the authorities with the highest rates.

8.63. Some data on the take-up of debt advice services is available by London borough.
It dates from a one-off exercise in 2009 and brings together data from London’s
biggest providers of debt advice and is based on the postcode of face-to-face and
telephone clients. Camden had 13.96 debt advice clients per 1000 population, the
highest rate of all London boroughs. The London-wide rate was 8.76. It seems likely
these figures are influenced by supply of debt advice and Camden has historically
had good provision in this area186.

8.64. Data on debt is available at ward level from the Camden Citizens Advice Bureaux
(CABx). The three wards with the highest level of debt owed by clients of the
Camden CABx are Cantelowes, Kentish Town and West Hampstead.

8.65. A comfortable standard of living also includes access to parks, libraries, cultural
institutions and public transport.

8.66. All of Camden’s town centres are served by at least one tube or Overground
station187. Camden generally has very good levels of accessibility to transport and

180Ibid.
181London Empty Homes Audit (GLA)
182 There are several reasons why a person may have second address for example it could be a holiday home, a
family home or a pied à terre. It seems reasonable to assume that in most cases a second address indicates a
high income, although not necessarily if that second address was in a country with relatively low property prices.
1832011 Census, Second address estimates for local authorities in England and Wales
184Department of Justice statistics
185Department for Business, Innovation and Skills statistics
186Data from Debt Advice Clients 2009 (London Datastore) analysed by LBC
187Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy p. 103

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

55
services but there are exceptions to this, especially in the northern part of the
borough – these tend to be wealthy areas188.

8.67. 61.1% of households in Camden do not have a car or a van, the sixth highest
proportion in London and in the country and twice the figure for Outer London189.
However Camden is relatively well-served by public transport so access to a car may
not be as essential to a good standard of living in Camden as it is elsewhere in the
country.

8.68. Most of Camden’s population has reasonable access to a metropolitan or district
park (that is Hampstead Heath or Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill) but a large
proportion of residents do not have reasonable access to local and small parks and
open spaces. Camden’s Annual Monitoring Report and the Camden Open Space,
Sport and Recreation Study Update 2008 show that only a small amount of new
public open space has been provided in the borough and therefore in many areas,
including South and West Hampstead, Gospel Oak and Kentish Town and parts of
central London, there is still poor access to small and local parks and open
spaces190. Overall Camden currently has 19 m2of park provision per person. When
compared to some other inner London Boroughs, Camden fairs better than Hackney
which has only 15 m2 of park provision per person but has less than Wandsworth
which is particularly well served by large public parks and has 24 m2 per person191.

8.69. In 2011, Camden had a council-operated library for every 16,814 of the population,
more than England (14,746) but considerably less than Inner London (22,500)192.
These figures pre-date the transfer of some branch libraries in Camden to the
community sector but it seems likely that Camden is still relatively well served as
there have been library closures in many parts of the country.

8.70. Camden also has a wide variety of tourist and cultural attractions, from major
institutions, such as the British Museum and British Library; to open spaces like
Hampstead Heath and Primrose Hill; shopping destinations like Camden Town’s
markets and Covent Garden; music venues such as the Roundhouse, Camden
Palace (Koko) and the Forum; Regent’s Canal; and historic places, such as
Hampstead and Bloomsbury193.

To engage in productive and valued activities

8.71. In 2011, the median annual salary for Camden residents in full-time work is
£35,593, a 17% increase since 2003. The London median was £31,935 and the
national £26,615. There has been a 22% increase in the London median annual
salary since 2003 and a 25% increase nationally.

8.72. The lower quartile annual earnings are £24,360 and also increased by 17% over the
same period. London and national figures were £22,713 and £18,720 respectively
and both increased by more the Camden amount.

8.73. The median annual salary for male Camden residents is 23% higher than for their
female counterparts in 2011. The gap has narrowed since 2003 when it was 36%.

188Camden’s Transport Strategy August 2011, pp 56-57
1892011 Census
190Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy p. 133
191Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study 2008 p. 2-6
192CIPFA Public Library Statistics 2011-12
193Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy p. 87

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

56
The lower quartile gap is very similar. The pay gap is 15% in London and 25%
nationally. The gap has narrowed more in Camden than in London and nationally194.

8.74. People working on low incomes can be eligible for Housing and Council Tax
Benefits. In April 2012, there were approximately 4,000 households with at least one
person in work and claiming Housing and/or Council Tax Benefit in Camden. This is
equivalent to 16% of all Housing and/or Council Tax Benefit claimants - nationally,
18% of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit claimants are in work. It is also
approximately equivalent to 4% of the population in employment. 64% (or 2,600) of
these households had children. In April 2008 just before the recession, 2,700
Housing and/or Council Tax Benefit claimants were in work, an increase of 50% over
four years195.

8.75. At 59.8%, the employment rate for economically active Camden residents aged 16-
74 is slightly higher lower than London (62.4%) and England and Wales (61.9%).
This is probably due to the large proportion of students in the borough. The rate for
women is about 10 percentage points lower than for men, a similar gap to London
and England and Wales196.

8.76. Figures at a London level show that 10% of workers in the capital were
underemployed in the period 2009-2012, in that they would like to work more hours
but are unable to do so. The underemployment rate has risen from 7% in the pre-
recession period of 2005-2008 and the London rate is in line with the national rate.
This data is not available at a local authority level197.

8.77. Employment rates by other characteristics are not reliable at a local level but at a
London level, the employment rates for the following groups are much lower than the
overall working age population (68%):
•
BME groups generally (60%) especially Bangladeshi/Pakistani (52%) and
Black/Black British (57%)
•
BME women (51%), especially Bangladeshi/Pakistani (32%)
•
People with disabilities (45%)

8.78. The council calculates employment rates for its adult social care clients for data
returns to the Department of Health. They are very low – for 2011/12, 7% for clients
with learning disabilities and 4.2% for clients with mental ill-health with both figures
below the London and national rates. However this group by definition have critical or
substantial social care needs and so are likely to be far from the labour market198.

8.79. The proportion of economically active women working part-time(9.9%) is far lower in
Camden than London (15.0%) and England and Wales (21.2%).Female Camden
residents are more likely than males (5.9%) to be working part-time199.

8.80. Another source of data on employment refers to jobs in Camden rather than the
employment of Camden residents. 304,000 jobs are done by people employed in
Camden, 7% of all employment in London, the third highest of London boroughs after
Westminster and the City. This far exceeds the number of Camden residents of
working age but of course most jobs are filled by non-residents– there are 1.72 jobs

194 Data from ASHE, LBC Corporate Strategy team analysis
195 LBC unpublished data
1962011 Census
197People in work wanting more hours increases by 1 million since 2008 (ONS, November 2012)
198 LBC unpublished data
199 Source: Annual Population Survey

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

57
per working age person in Camden. The total number of jobs is growing again after
falls in 2009 and 2010, and is now back at the 2008 level. All of this growth has been
part-time jobs, which has risen by 10,300 (17%) since 2008, while full-time
employment fell slightly by 2,300 (-1%)200.

8.81. 38.3% of the population of Camden are in the highest socio-economic classification,
comprising senior managers and professionals compared with 26.4% across London
and 20.6% in England and Wales. A lower proportion work in occupations in the
lower socio-economic classifications201.

8.82. According to the 2011 Census, 7,755 economically active people in Camden aged
between 16-74 were unemployed on the Census day202. This is equivalent to 4.5%
of the economically active population, compared with 5.2% in London and 4.4% in
England and Wales.

8.83. A narrower definition of unemployment is the claimant count or the number of
people claiming Job Seekers’ Allowance (JSA). The claimant count stood at 5,230 in
June 2012 or 5.2% of the economically active population excluding students. The
rate was 5.8% for London as a whole and 5.4% for Great Britain. As noted above, the
rate is higher for young people. The total number of Camden residents claiming JSA
has fallen by 7% over the past year. Despite this recent fall, the claimant count is still
37% higher than in March 2008. At that time, the claimant count was at a twenty-year
low of 3,760 or 3.8%. The Camden rate is now lower than the London rate and
nationally – see Figure 15 below.

Figure 15: Claimant count unemployment since the beginning of 2008, Camden and comparators203

8.84. The overall claimant count rate masks important differences between groups. Since
2005 the overall claimant count has fallen slightly and for men and young women it

200 LBC analysis using BRES data Source: Camden Business and Employment Bulletin Autumn 2012
201 2011 Census
202 Unemployment here is the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition - a person aged 16 to 74 is
classified as unemployed if they are not in employment, are available to start work in the next two weeks, and
either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a new job.
203 Source: Office for National Statistics (Jobcentre Plus administrative system) © Crown copyright, GLA
estimates, © 2012

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

58
has fallen quite substantially despite large increases in 2008 and 2009 caused by
recession. However the numbers of unemployed women aged 25-44 and 45-59 in
the borough has increased by 45% and 61% respectively since 2005. Despite this
large increase, unemployment rates for women in these age groups are still low at
3.6% and 4.8% respectively. However this is not an exclusively Camden
phenomenon and indeed unemployment for women in these age groups have
increased by much more in London as a whole and nationally (114% and 180%
respectively).

8.85. The reason for the increase in unemployment among women aged 25 and over is not
clear. It is likely due to two main factors - women being disproportionately affected by
the recession and a gradual “migration” from Income Support to JSA of lone parents.
Figure 16 shows that while an increase in JSA claimants with children coincided with
a decrease in lone parent Income Support claimants, unfortunately it also coincides
with the beginning of the 2008 recession so it is not certain there is a causal link.

Figure 16: JSA claimants with children and income support claimants – lone parent client group,
Camden, 1999-2012 (with dates of welfare reforms)
8.86. There is considerable variation in claimant count unemployment rates by ethnicity.
Rates are higher than the overall rate for Pakistani/Bangladeshis, Black Africans and
Black Caribbean people204.

8.87. The wards with the highest claimant count unemployment rates in September 2012
were St Pancras and Somers Town (9.8%), Kilburn (7.9%), Haverstock (7.6%) and
King’s Cross (7.6%) – see Figure 17. The Camden rate was 5.2%. These wards are
also among the most deprived and have large ethnic minority populations.
Hampstead Town has the lowest rate (1.5%). However the claimant count fell in all
wards (except Fortune Green) between September 2011 and September 2012, with

204 GLA Calculated Experimental JSA Claimant Count Rates by Ethnic Group June 2012 (unpublished)

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

59
the largest falls in the wards with the highest rates for example by 10% in Kilburn,
5.5% in St Pancras and Somers Town205.

Figure 17: Claimant count unemployment rate by ward, September 2012

8.88. The 2012 Camden Residents’ Survey206 asked respondents about barriers to work
for people in Camden generally. The top two barriers picked from a list were lack of
suitable jobs (67% said a great deal or to some extent) and a lack of jobs paying the
London Living Wage (61%).

8.89. The 2012 Residents’ Survey respondents were also asked an open question about
personal barriers to work – the top three responses were “not enough vacancies”
(29%), childcare (22%) and personal health (13%)207. The Council is undertaking
further work to analyse these results in more detail.

8.90. 22,500 working age people in Camden were claiming out of work benefits in
November 2011, equivalent to 12.6% of the working age population. The figure
includes Job Seekers Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance and Income
Support. This is about the same as the proportion for Central London but lower than
the proportions for Greater London and Great Britain. The proportion has been on a
steadily downward trajectory since 1999 when the data first became available208.

205Unemployment in Camden, September 2012
206The 2012 Camden Residents’ Survey is a 1000 person survey, representative of Camden’s population in terms of age, sex,
and race which focuses on residents’ concerns and general levels of satisfaction. It was carried out in October and November
2012.
207Residents’ Survey 2012 (forthcoming)
208 Camden Business and Employment Bulletin, Autumn 2012

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

60
8.91. At a ward level, the highest proportion of working age residents claiming benefits in
November 2011 were in St Pancras & Somers Town (19.5%), Kilburn (18.1%) and
Haverstock (17%).

8.92. Economically inactive is a wider category of non-working people, covering people
who may or may not be claiming out of work benefits. They may be in full-time
education, sick, disabled or looking after children or family members. The proportion
of economically inactive people in Camden aged between 16 and 74 is 31.9%
compared with 28.3% in London and 30.3% in England and Wales. However the
figure for Camden is skewed by the large number of economically inactive
students209. If students and retired people are removed, only 11.9% of the population
are economically inactive compared with 12.1% in London and 10.7% in England and
Wales210.

8.93. At a London level, disabled people (47%), BME women (41%) and
Bangladeshi/Pakistani people (39%), especially women (61%) have higher levels of
economic inactivity than the whole population (25%)211.

8.94. According to the 2011 Census, there are 17,306 carers in the borough, 7.9% of the
population. In London as a whole 8.4% of the population are carers and 10.3% in
England and Wales. 3,318 Camden carers or 19.2% of all carers provided 50 or
more hours of care per week.

8.95. For more detail on carers, we must look back to the 2001 Census. People providing
more than 50 hours a week of care are twice as likely to report that they are not in
good health compared to the non-carer population. In 2001 carers in Camden
followed a similar profile to the national picture with 59% of carers being female and
41% being male carers. However as the number of hours of care increases so does
the percentage of carers who are female. In the 15 to 64 age group the ethnic
background of carers is 17% Bangladeshi, 11% Caribbean, 13% African, and 11.5%
Pakistani, a higher representation than in the general population. The wards with
greatest percentage of carers caring for more than 50 hours per week are St
Pancras/Somers Town, Gospel Oak, Regent's Park, Haverstock and Kentish
Town212.

8.96. 2,100 people in Camden were claiming Carers’ Allowance in February 2012; three
quarters were women and over 90% were of working age213.

8.97. According to the 2008 Social Capital Survey, around one in three (29%) Camden
residents said they have volunteered over the past 12 months – which was
significantly up on 2005 levels, when only 14% had volunteered. Age group and
ethnicity appear to have little bearing on whether residents are likely to have
volunteered or not. However, working residents are more likely to say they have
volunteered than non- working residents (32% compared to 26%). It is the middle
classes that are most likely to say they volunteer, for example, 39% of owner
occupiers have volunteered compared to 23% of social renters and 28% of private

209 Students may be economically active or inactive but the majority are the latter.
210 2011 Census
211 Source: Nomiswebsite
212 JSNA Chapter 21
213 Source: Nomis website

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

61
renters; whilst 41% of ABs have volunteered compared to 29% of C1/C2s and 16%
of DEs214.

8.98. The Adult Social Care Survey asks social care users whether they are able to
spend time on anything they value or enjoy. This is a broad definition including
formal employment, volunteering, unpaid work, caring for others or simple leisure
activities because what people can do and aspire to do will vary a lot depending on
their health and disabilities.

8.99. Only around 6 out of 10 social care users said they could spend time as they wished
or could do enough things of value. This matches the picture in London and
nationally. Within the social care group, proportionally fewer females (61%) to males
(69%) reported being able to spend enough time on things of value. Rates were also
lower for BME compared to white groups though statistics are less reliable. However,
nationally there is a 10% difference between white and BME groups which is
statistically significant.

To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence

8.100. Turnout in the 2010 local elections was unusually high because it coincided with
national elections. The wards with the lowest turnouts were Haverstock by some
way, then King’s Cross, Bloomsbury, St Pancras and Somers Town and Holborn and
Covent Garden. These wards are all relatively deprived but also have a high level of
transience. Although the wards with the highest turnout were Hampstead Town and
Highgate, the more deprived Kentish Town and Gospel Oak also had high turnouts.
These four wards all have relatively low levels of transience. This suggests that
transience is as important as deprivation as a factor in voter turnout.

8.101. Overall Camden’s turnout was low compared with other boroughs; at 59.6% it was
below the London average of 62.0% and ranked 25th of 32 boroughs. The lowest
turnouts were in Westminster, Newham and Kensington and Chelsea. If we also
consider that Frognal and Fitzjohns had only the 12th highest turnout in Camden, it
seems that wealth is as much a predictor of low turnout as poverty and transience.
This fits with the Experian Mosaic analysis of households in which some of the
wealthiest lifestyle groups are the least involved in their communities215.

8.102. The 2009/10 Annual Residents’ Survey asked respondents whether they thought the
Council involves residents when making decisions. The proportion responding
either “a great deal or to some extent” was 56% compared with 43% in 2004, when
data was first available. It compares well with London where the proportion was 49%.
There were no major differences by ward or social group216.

8.103. The 2012 Residents’ Survey asked respondents whether they thought they could
influence decisions in their local area. The proportion who either definitely agreed
or tended to agree was 47%. No comparator data or breakdown by characteristic
was available when this report went to press217.However the question was also
asked in the 2008 Social Capital Survey, when broadly the same proportion agreed

214Camden Social Capital Survey 2008.See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_Kingdom#20th_century for a description of social
class categories.
215 Data from Borough Council Election Results 2010 (GLA)
216Camden Annual Residents’ Survey 2010
217Camden Residents’ Survey 2012 (forthcoming)

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

62
(48%). At that time, nationally only one in five citizens (22%) agreed they can
influence decisions in their area. In the Camden survey, lower social classes were
least likely to feel they could influence decisions in their area (42% of DEs compared
to 54% if ABs). Social renters and private renters felt they had less influence
compared to owner occupiers (46% and 42% respectively compared to 56%)218.

8.104. The 2010 Annual Residents’ Survey asked what, if any, actions respondents had
taken over the last 12 months to attempt to solve a local problem including actions
like voting, signing a petition, attending a public meeting etc. Voting was by far the
most popular action (36%), followed by signing a petition (17%), contacting the
relevant organisation (12%) and contacting councillor/MP (11%). 41% had not taken
any actions. Overwhelmingly it is the white middle classes who are most likely to take
action. A noticeably higher proportion of White British residents (60%) say they have
taken action, compared to 40% of Asian/Asian British residents, 47% of Black/Black
British residents and 50% of mixed residents. Similarly, 70% of owner occupiers have
taken action compared to 46% of people who rent from the council, and 75% of ABs
have taken action compared to 44% of DEs. The question was also asked in the
2008 Social Capital Survey and the proportion of residents having taken an action fell
by 5 percentage points219.

8.105. A survey of Camden Council tenants in 2009 found that 52% were satisfied with the
account taken of their views by the Council as a landlord. There was little variation by
ethnic group, gender etc. 41% felt there were enough opportunities to participate in
decision-making and management220.

8.106. Adult social care clients are able to take more control over their care by having a
Personal Budget. Overall 63% of clients have taken up personal budgets but the
rates are lower for working age clients (53%) and Black (56%) and Mixed (51%)
ethnic groups.

To enjoy individual, family and social life

8.107. There is no overall measure of well-being available at a local level although the
Office for National Statistics Subjective Well-being data is available for Inner and
Outer London and for unitary and county councils outside London. Respondents
were asked about life satisfaction. Inner London has one of the lowest well-being
scores in the country with a mean life satisfaction rating on an 11 point scale of 7.2
compared with 7.4 nationally. The sample sizes are not large enough to allow a
break down by characteristics at a local level. However nationally, the following
groups are more likely to be less satisfied with life than the overall population (mean
score in brackets):
•
People aged between 35 and 59, especially the 45-49 (7.1) and 50-54 (7.1)
age groups
•
People from most BME groups (except Indians and Chinese), especially
Black/ African/Caribbean/Black British (6.6), Bangladeshi (7.0), Arab (7.1),
Mixed (7.1) Pakistani (7.2)
•
People reporting their health as fair (6.9), bad (5.8) or very bad (4.7)
•
Disabled people (6.8)
•
Divorced (6.7), single (7.2) or widowed (7.3)
•
Unemployed (6.5)

218Camden Social Capital Survey 2008
219Camden Residents’ Survey 2010. This question was not asked in the 2012 Survey.
220STATUS Survey 2009

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

63
Given the lower Inner London score, it seems likely that these results would be at
least as low if the survey were reproduced locally in Camden, if not lower221.

8.108. According to the 2012 Residents’ Survey, 91% of residents were very or fairly
satisfied with Camden as a place to live222. This is higher than the national figure
and similar to the results from the 2008 Social Capital Survey. In the latter, the
following groups were less satisfied with their neighbourhood:
•
Longer term residents
•
Social renters
•
Social class DE
•
Residents of Cantelowes, Haverstock and St Pancras and Somers Town
wards223

8.109. Also from the 2008 Social Capital Survey, the vast majority of residents in Camden
knew at least a few of the people in their neighbourhood (92%). The majority
knew just ‘a few’ (38%), or ‘some’ (31%) of the people in the neighbourhood. Over
one in five (22%) said they know many of the people in their neighbourhood, which
was in line with national data available. The following groups were less likely to know
their neighbours:
•
People under 35
•
Private renters
•
Black and Asian residents

8.110. Results from an Adult Social Care Survey carried out by the Council in Spring 2012
found that 72% of adult social clients felt they had adequate or as much control as
they wanted over their lives. This is a similar proportion to last year and remains
above London averages. This year, more people felt they had as much control as
they wanted. However, the proportion reporting adequate control or better from BME
groups was 63% compared to 76% for white groups. This mirrors the national
trend224.

8.111. The Adult Social Care Survey also asks social care users whether they have the
level of social contact with other people they would like. Proportionally fewer
younger adult social care users (69%) reported that they has adequate social contact
or better compared to older social care users (77%). BME groups also reported lower
levels of adequate contact (66% vs 75% for white groups)225.

9.
Life stage 4: older people

9.1.
According to the 2011 Census, people aged 65 and over made up 10.9% of the
population. This is slightly lower than the London proportion (11.1%) and much lower
than the UK figure (16.5%)226. At the ward level, the wards with the highest
proportion of the population aged 65 and over are Hampstead Town (14.0%),
Frognal and Fitzjohns (13.2%) and Highgate (12.4%). They tend to be the wealthier
wards, but St Pancras and Somers Town is a significant exception with 11.2% of the

221April 2011 to March 2012, Annual Population Survey Subjective Well-being Experimental dataset, ONS
222Residents’ Survey 2012 (forthcoming)
223Op cit.
224 Unpublished LBC analysis
225ibid.
226 2011 Census First Release Population and Households

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

64
population aged 65 and over227. Older people is taken to mean people aged 65 and
over throughout this section.

To live in safety and security

9.2.
Although crime and fear of crime is important to the whole population, for vulnerable
adults, especially older people, the effects of both can be exacerbated. They are at
greater risk of being harmed or exploited than the population as a whole. This can
manifest as physical; sexual; financial or material; emotional or psychological;
neglect; institutional abuses or discrimination. Another issue concerning physical
security is people’s fear of falling and injuring themselves or increased risks from
issues relating to memory loss.

9.3.
Social care clients aged 65 and over feel safer than their working age counterparts
(65% vs 56%)228. The main factor governing how safe social care clients feel is their
type of disability rather than age. Clients with mental health problems had the lowest
levels of feeling safe, not unsurprising given that this group also experience higher
levels of anxiety and depression. Older social care users are primary people who are
frail and/or with physical disabilities. Also, people who felt safest were those that had
no difficulty getting to places locally outside the home and those that did not leave
the home, the latter being largely older people.

9.4.
Recent community safety focus groups found that older people felt frightened to
go out at night, and felt vulnerable during the day with a number of elderly
participants expressing weariness in relation to pick pocketing in particular, which
half of the focus group had experienced229.

To be healthy

9.5.
It is inevitable that older people are more likely to suffer poor health than working age
people because the prevalence of many diseases and conditions increases with age.
However national data show some differences in health between older and young
people which are not obviously directly attributable to age:

•
Older people are less likely to smoke than young people
•
They are less likely to be physically active
•
Levels of obesity and overweight tend to increase up to the age of 75 years and
then decline
•
Chronic drinkers in particular tend to be older, and are more likely to be male
•
Rates of common mental illness peak at age 40-54 and apparently drop in later
life, although there is known to be significant under-diagnosis of neurotic
disorders and depression in older age groups230

9.6.
One condition that affects older people almost exclusively is dementia. There were
712 people with a diagnosis of dementia registered with Camden GPs in 2010/11.
This equates to a lower rate prevalence rate than England and similar to London.
Camden and London’s young population explains the relatively low prevalence of

227Ward level figures are from the GLA 2011 Round of Demographic Projections 'Camden Development', 2012
projections
228 Adult Social Care Users Survey 2011/12
229 JSNA Chapter 6
230 JSNA various chapters

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

65
dementia. The estimated number of cases of dementia in Camden is about 1,600
suggesting that over 50%of cases are not diagnosed231.

9.7.
1,830 people over 65 receive the Disability Living Allowance, or about 8% of the
population. Arthritis is the most common disabling condition, accounting for 27% of
all claims.

9.8.
20% of carers in Camden were over 60 at the time of the 2001 Census (3,100
carers). Of these carers, nearly a third report that they are in poor health232.

To be knowledgeable and to have the skills to participate in society

9.9.
In 2010/11, 35% of people enrolled on Adult Education courses funded by the
Skills Funding Agency were aged 60 and over, making older people overrepresented
among learners compared with the whole population233.

To enjoy a comfortable standard of living, with independence and security

9.10. The government’s Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 (ID2010) includes the Income
deprivation affecting older people index (IDAOPI). Camden scores 30.9 on this
measure, higher than the London figure of 23.0 and 8th highest in London (see Figure
18)234. This indicates that although Camden has a relatively small older population, it
is relatively more deprived than other London boroughs.

231 JSNA Chapter 18 Mental Health
232A multi-agency strategy for carers in Camden 2007-2010
233http://www.camdendata.info/AddDocuments1/LB Camden ACL 2010-11 Learners.xls
234Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Older People (GLA, Feb 2012), p.5

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

66

Figure 18: Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index, London boroughs, 2010

9.11. Figure 19 shows that income deprivation affecting older people tends to coincide with
general deprivation, which itself correlates to areas of social housing. However there
are important exceptions – there are some areas of the borough e.g. Primrose Hill,
Chalk Farm, Holborn and parts of West Hampstead and Fortune Green wards which
are hotspots for income deprivation among older people. These often coincide with
the locations of sheltered housing developments. There were 86 lower super output
areas among the 30% most deprived in the country according to the rank of IDAOPI
measure in 2010, an increase of 7 since 2007.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

67

Figure 19: Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index, Camden, 2010
9.12. Pension Credit is a means tested benefit for people of retirement age and is another
indicator of pensioner poverty. In February 2012 there were 8,610 claimants in
Camden, about 35% of the population aged 65 and over235. Camden has a relatively
low number of Pension Credit claimants – it ranks 20th of the London boroughs.
However nationally a third of people entitled to Pension Credit are not claiming it.
55% of pension credit claimants were women and 86% were single. 41% were aged
60-69, 35% 70-79 and 24% over 80.

9.13. The five wards with the highest numbers of Pension Credit claimants are in
descending order Kilburn, St Pancras and Somers Town, Regent’s Park, Haverstock
and Gospel Oak236.

9.14. 35% of housing benefit claimants in the borough are pensioners, around 9,000
households.

9.15. As noted above, fuel poverty tends to affect older people more than the population
as a whole although there is no data to demonstrate this at a local level. This is
because they tend to have lower incomes (even if they are asset rich), may be more
likely to live in older homes and, critically, because they need to have their heating on
more because they’re more likely to be at home in the day. Older people are also
more likely to suffer adverse consequences from living in cold homes although as
shown above, in Camden this does not seem to result in a high level of excess winter
deaths.

235 2011 Census denominator
236 DWP statistics, LBC analysis
Figure in brackets refers to
number of LSOAs in each
category.

Camden Equality Taskforce Evidence Base

68
9.16. At the other end of the scale, the number of inheritance tax-paying estates in a
local authority can be used as a proxy for the wealth of its older people. In 2009/10,
Camden had the 6th highest number of inheritance tax-paying estates in London,
accounting for 4.6% of estates but only 2.7% of the population aged over 65. Barnet
had by far the highest number of estates. This suggests a polarisation of income
among older people in the borough – a relatively high proportion of older people in
poverty but also some older people who are (asset) rich.

9.17. At the time of the 2001 Census, pensioner households (15.2% of all households)
were relatively evenly distributed across different forms of tenure, but formed a
smaller proportion of owner occupiers (14.8%) and private renters (11%), and a
higher proportion of Council tenant households (19.9%) and other social renters
(16.2%).

9.18. Of single person households, the proportion made up of pensioners (who account for
25.8% of all single person households) was highest in accommodation rented from
the Council (33%) and lowest in privately rented accommodation (20.3%).

To engage in productive and valued activities

9.19. At the time of the 2001 Census, older people were more likely to have caring
responsibilities than the whole population (10.5% vs 8.1%). Older people in
Camden were slightly less likely than in London as a whole to have caring
responsibilities (11.1%). Caring is discussed in more detail in the working age section
above.

9.20. More than a third of older people (35%) who responded to the Council’s 2012 Adult
Social Care survey said they could either only do some things of value or could not
spend time on anything of value. This is not significantly different from the London
and National results.

To participate in decision-making, have a voice and influence

9.21. The take-up of personal budgets among adult social care clients is higher for those
aged 65 and over (69%) than for working age (53%).

To enjoy individual, family and social life

9.22. People aged 65 and over are more likely to say that most people can be trusted in
their neighbourhood (58% vs 52% for the whole population), according to the 2008
Social Capital Survey. They are also more likely to know many people in their local
area (29% vs 22%). However they are less likely to mix with people from different
ethnic and financial backgrounds237.

9.23. According to the 2012 Adult Social Care Survey, social care clients aged 65 and over
were slightly more likely to say they "have as much social contact as I want with
people they like" or "have adequate social contact with people" than working age
social care clients (77% vs 69%). Nevertheless this leaves a significant minority,
about a quarter, who are feel isolated. This would be equivalent to over 1000 people,
mostly older people, if the survey results were replicated across all social care
clients238.

237Op cit.
238Op cit.