Black & Minority

Ethnic (BME) Housing Strategy

Evidence Base 2009

Contents Summary: BME Housing Strategy Evidence Base 2009 – Key Findings 1 Chapter One: Demographic and Socio Economic Context 11 Ethnic profile in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) 11 New Migrant Households 12 Housing Tenure & Ethnicity 13 Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) Claimant Count & Ethnicity 14 Distribution of Ethnic Groups in LBRuT 17 Chapter Two: Data from the Housing Register 20 Ethnic Profile of the Housing Register 20 Main Reason for Applying to the Housing Register & Ethnicity 25 Existing Accommodation, Ethnicity & the Housing Register 32 Chapter Three: Overcrowding and the Need for Larger Accommodation 38 Overcrowding 38 Need for Larger Accommodation 45 Ethnicity and Size of Housing Needed 47 Availability of Larger Housing in the Borough 53 Chapter Four: House Conditions and Ethnicity 54 Housing Register – ‘condition of home affecting health’ 57 Housing Register – ‘poor quality accommodation’ 59 Chapter Five: Homelessness & Ethnicity 66 Ethnicity of Homeless Applicants 66 Causes of Homelessness 69 Homelessness and Household Type 73 Homelessness within Asian & Black Communities 76 Understanding the Causes of Ethnic Minority Homelessness 78 Chapter Six: Ethnic Profile of Housing Association Lettings and Intermediate Housing 81 Ethnic Profile of Housing Association Lettings – Data from CORE 81 Lettings & Ethnicity for Main Housing Associations Operating in LBRuT 85 Intermediate Housing & Ethnicity 88 Chapter Seven: Supporting Independent Living 91 CORE Data on Supported Housing Lettings & Ethnicity 91 Supporting People 92 Older People’s Supported Housing 95 Mental Health & Ethnicity 95 Domestic Abuse 99 Gypsies & Travellers 103 Chapter Eight: Asylum Seekers, Refugees & Migrant Workers 106 Asylum Seekers & Refugees 106 Un-accompanied Asylum Seeking Children & Care Leavers 107 Migrant Workers 107 Chapter Nine: Community Engagement, Empowerment and Cohesion 115 Community Cohesion 115 Place Survey 2008 119 Hate Crime 123 Financial Inclusion & Worklessness 125

i

BME Housing Strategy Evidence Base 2009 – Key Findings 1) Demographic and Socio Economic Context

Ethnic profile in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames • The majority of residents, 79% have a White British ethnic background. The borough

has a higher proportion of non-British white residents (notably White Other) compared to England and to a lesser extent London. A further 9% of households in Richmond have a non-white ethnic background which is similar to England but below the London average.

• Mixed race residents make up just over 2% of the population, Black residents make

up 1% of the population and Chinese and Other residents make up just over 2% of the population. The largest specific groups are White Irish (2.8%) and Indian households (2.6%).

• Recent estimates highlight that the White British and White Irish population is

declining with an increase in certain ethnic groups notably White Other, Indian, Pakistani, Black Caribbean and Black African.

New Migrant Households

• There is only limited information available on international migration into the borough.

• National Insurance applications by nationality and local authority area provide some data although it does not include asylum seekers or those joining exiting family in the UK.

• In Richmond new migrant groups applying for work are dominated by Eastern and

Western European nationals as well as Antipodean, North American and Indian nationals. The largest groups are Polish and Australian.

Housing Tenure & Ethnicity

• Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007 found that White households are more likely to be owner occupiers in general (72.2%), although looking at ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’ a higher proportion of Asian households fit within this category (52.2%).

• A high proportion of Mixed Race households live in Registered Social Landlord (RSL)

accommodation (30.2%) although a relatively high proportion are also ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’ (30.2%).

• Asian households are the least likely to live in RSL accommodation (8.7%) and the

most likely to be ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’ (52.2%).

• Black households are the least likely to be owner occupiers and the most likely to be living in RSL accommodation (58.7%) or Private Rented accommodation (31.5%).

• There is a high proportion of ‘Other’ ethnic group households who are ‘Owner

Occupiers - no mortgage’ 29%).

Incomes, Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) Claimant Count & Ethnicity • Average household income is highest amongst owner occupiers and lowest for social

housing tenants.

• Average household income is also lower for Mixed Race and Black households than for Asian or White households. Household income is highest amongst those with an

1

‘Other’ ethnic origin. Lower household income amongst Mixed Race and Black households may increase levels of housing need within these groups.

• All non-White ethnic minority groups, except ‘Asian’, are over represented amongst

people claiming JSA in June 2009, compared to population estimates for the borough, however details of ethnicity is not known for 6% of claimants.

• Black and ‘Other’ residents are the most over represented amongst all people

claiming JSA in June 2009, both with 4% of all claimants compared to 2% of the borough population.

Distribution of Ethnic Groups in LBRuT

• Compared to the borough average there is a significantly higher proportion of Asian residents living in both Heathfield and Whitton wards and some of the lowest levels of Asian residents in Mortlake & Barnes Common, South Richmond, and Twickenham.

• The highest percentages of Black residents, compared to the borough average, live

in Heathfield and Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside wards. The wards with the lowest levels of Black residents are Teddington, South Twickenham and East Sheen however the variations are not as significant as for Asian residents.

• The wards with the highest percentages of Mixed Race residents are Ham,

Petersham & Richmond Riverside, North Richmond and Barnes and the lowest levels are found in Hampton, South Twickenham and South Richmond, again, the variations are not as significant as within other ethnic groups.

• The percentage of Chinese and ‘Other’ ethnic groups in Ham, Petersham &

Richmond Riverside and Heathfield are higher than the borough average, although the variations are relatively small.

• Heathfield has a particularly ethnically diverse profile within the borough as well as

some of the highest levels of social housing in the borough and it includes one of the 5 areas of relative disadvantage.

• Whitton has a significantly higher than average percentage of Asian and White Irish

residents compared to the borough average.

• South Richmond and Barnes have significantly higher than average levels of White ‘Other’ ethnic group residents. Further data from the Census shows that in South Richmond this may be due to the significant number of people living in the ward who are born in South Africa and North America, in Barnes it may be due to a large number people born in Sweden and North America living in the ward.

2) Data from the Housing Register

Ethnic Profile of the Housing Register • Ethnic minorities are over-represented on the housing register, which may reflect

greater levels of housing need.

• Under representation of certain ethnic groups on the housing register may reflect the better socio economic outcomes of that group.

• Black African and ‘Other’ ethnic groups are particularly over-represented on the

housing register. Asian ‘Other’ households are also over represented but it is difficult to differentiate between Asian ethnic groups due to the data available.

2

Main Reason for Applying to the Housing Register & Ethnicity • Nearly all ethnic groups share the same top three main reasons for applying for

housing, which are – ‘Need larger property’, ‘Leaving parental home’ and ‘Being asked to leave’.

• ‘Need for larger property’ as a reason for applying to the housing register represents

a larger proportion for Asian households than for White households.

• For Black households the percentage of those seeking housing due to ‘Living in temporary accommodation’ is high. Black households are also twice as likely as Mixed, Other & White households to state that ‘Living in temporary accommodation’ is the reason they are applying for housing.

• For Mixed households ‘Being asked to leave’ is the top reason for applying for

housing, although the gap between the percentage reporting this reason and ‘Need for larger property’ is relatively small.

Existing Accommodation, Ethnicity & the Housing Register

• Amongst all Asian households on the housing register there is a higher proportion living in the Private Rented sector than within all other ethnic groups, except ‘Other’ ethnic group households.

• For all Black households on the housing register a higher proportion live in Housing

Association properties than within all other ethnic groups and the proportion living with parents is lower for Black households than for all other ethnic groups, especially White households.

• There is quite an even distribution of all Mixed Race households amongst the

different housing types. Amongst all ‘Other’ ethnic households there is a higher proportion living in the Private Rented sector than within all of the other ethnic groups and the proportion living with parents is the lowest amongst all ethnic groups.

3) Overcrowding and the Need for Larger Accommodation

Overcrowding • A total of 864 overcrowded households (13% of all applications) were identified from

the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register as of April 2008.

• All non-white households are affected disproportionately by overcrowding when comparing the ethnic composition of overcrowded households with the demographics for the borough. This is even more noticeable when looking at severe overcrowding.

• Asian and ‘Other’ ethnic groups are the most over represented but Black and Mixed

households are also over represented, and only to a slightly lesser degree.

• White households make up an even smaller percentage of the total although there are still 88 severely overcrowded White households recorded on the housing register.

• Asian and Black severely overcrowded households are shown as experiencing the

most significant disproportion when comparing the ethnic make up of the borough.

• The majority of Black, Asian and Mixed Race overcrowded households require 2 bed properties but the percentage needing 3 beds is higher than for White households, particularly for Black households.

Need for Larger Accommodation

• Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007 has found that all non-White households in the borough have larger average household sizes than White households.

3

• Asian or Asian British households have the largest average household size, followed

by ‘Other’ ethnic group households and then Black or Black British households.

Ethnicity and Size of Housing Needed • There are 1,283 households on the housing register who have stated the ‘need for a

larger property’ as their main reason for applying for housing. All non-White ethnic minority households are over represented amongst this group.

• Black households are the most over represented and the majority of Black

households in this position are from the Black African community.

• All non-White ethnic minority households are over represented amongst those on the housing register requiring properties with 3 or 4+ bedrooms.

Availability of Larger Housing in the Borough

• The availability of larger properties in the borough is limited with low turnover of larger social rented properties and a stock profile for the main HA’s operating in the borough weighted towards smaller properties.

4) House Conditions and Ethnicity

House Conditions & Ethnicity • All non-White ethnic minority groups experience higher rates living in ‘unsuitable

housing’ (this includes overcrowding and affordability issues) as well as being disproportionately affected by housing which suffers from disrepair, damp and mould.

• Findings from the 2006 English House Condition Survey show that in both the Private

and Social Sectors BME households are more likely than White households to live in non-decent homes, poor quality accommodation and homes in ‘serious disrepair.

• Data from the Census 2001 shows Asian households are the least likely to be without

central heating (3.6% of dwellings) and Black households are the most likely to be without central heating (8%) in the borough.

Housing Register – ‘condition of home affecting health’

• There are 545 White households on the housing register stating that the condition of their home is affecting their health. All non-White ethnic minority households are over represented amongst this group.

• Black households are the most over represented, followed by Asian households and

then ‘Other’ ethnic group households.

Housing Register – ‘poor quality accommodation’ • There are 91 households on the housing register who state that ‘poor quality

accommodation’ is their main reason for applying for housing, with Black, Asian and Mixed households all over represented.

5) Homelessness & Ethnicity

Homelessness & Ethnicity • In LBRuT homelessness applications from BME groups are nearly two and a half

times the proportion of BME groups in the resident population.

• The incidences of homelessness amongst households of a Black ethnic origin were six times the proportion of the resident population.

4

• When looking at duty accepted homelessness applications for Apr 07 to Mar 09 there was only a slight over representation for Asian households. However, this may be due to ‘hidden homelessness’ possibly due to a lack of knowledge about services and/or a reluctance to access services.

Causes of Homelessness

• Some major causes of homelessness for Asian households are ‘parents/relatives/friends no longer able to accommodate’, loss of UK Border Agency accommodation and loss of rented accommodation.

• Although recorded cases do not show a significant over representation of Asian

households amongst all homeless households case histories examined and national research suggest there may be ‘hidden’ homelessness within the Asian community. There may be a need for better promotion of housing advice services to the Asian community.

• A significant proportion of Asian households became homeless due to the loss of

rented accommodation, highlighting the difficulties of meeting private rented sector costs.

• Overcrowding is a significant factor leading to homelessness in the Asian community

and reductions in this issue could be beneficial in reducing homelessness cases.

• There is a significant over representation of Black homeless households, a large proportion of Black homeless households are Black African.

• Homeless Black households are more likely to be Young People – 34% (of which

62% were asylum/former asylum seekers).

• 50% of all homeless Black households were asylum/former asylum seekers, some from African states such as Sierra Leone, Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

• Parents/relatives/friends no longer able to accommodate was the cause of

homelessness in 29% of all Black homelessness cases.

• Again overcrowding is also closely linked to homelessness for Black households and therefore any measures taken to tackle this would also help to address the levels of homelessness.

• There is no significant over representation of Mixed Race households amongst

accepted homeless cases.

• There is a significant over representation of ‘Other’ ethnic groups amongst all accepted homeless cases, however, as it is not possible to identify specific ethnic groups within this category it is difficult to identify any common causes or issues.

• The number of homelessness cases where ethnicity is not known is high, 60 cases

(21%), however the input of this information has now been made mandatory.

Understanding the Causes of Ethnic Minority Homelessness • There are overarching factors which contribute to the over representation of BME

households amongst all homeless households. These include the disproportionate overcrowding experienced by BME households, larger household sizes and lower incomes.

• These factors result in BME households being more at risk of homelessness due to

arrears, eviction and households that can no longer accommodate all occupants.

5

6) Ethnic Profile of Housing Association Lettings and Intermediate Housing

Ethnic Profile of Housing Association Lettings – Data from CORE • The proportion of lettings to BME households may have increased due to population

increases amongst BME residents and a decreasing White British population.

• Lettings to White British households have decreased over the last six years, however, between 2006/07 and 2007/08 there has been very little change in the percentage of lettings to White British residents.

• Levels of lettings to White ‘Other’ ethnic groups have increased over the last five

years but there has been a slight decrease in 2007/08. Lettings to White Irish residents have fluctuated slightly over the last six years but have decreased only slightly from the levels recorded in 2002/03.

• Lettings to Asian residents have fluctuated within the last six years but are higher in

2007/08 than in 2002/03.

• Levels of lettings to Chinese residents are lower in 2007/08 than in 2002/03, however, this is based on a relatively small total number of households.

• Lettings to ‘Other’ ethnic groups have increased over the last six years, except a

decrease in 2006/07, before rising again.

• Lettings to Mixed Race groups have remained relatively stable, apart from an increase in 2006/07 before they returned to previous levels.

Lettings & Ethnicity for Main Housing Associations Operating in LBRuT

• As per Housing Corporation Regulatory Guidance BME lettings should be proportionate to BME housing need.

• Data from CORE shows that for Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP) and

Richmond upon Thames Churches Housing Trust (RuTCHT) the percentage of lettings to each ethnic group is either equal to, or greater than, the percentage of residents from each ethnic group according to Census 2001 data, except for ‘Other’ ethnic groups.

• There is a very slight difference of 0.1% between the percentage of lettings and the

Census data for ‘Other’ ethnic groups in the borough for both RHP and RuTCHT.

Guidance on Lettings to BME Households • The Housing Corporation Regulatory Guidance 2005 (Section 2.7), includes a

requirement for BME lettings and states that ‘specifically in relation to black and minority ethnic (BME) people’ housing associations should ensure lettings: are proportionate to BME housing need, or census data where this information is deficient, in the area where association has homes’.

• Both for RHP and RuTCHT the percentage of lettings to each ethnic group is either

equal to, or greater than, the percentage of residents from each ethnic group according to Census 2001 data, except for ‘Other’ ethnic groups.

• There is a very slight difference of 0.1% between the percentage of lettings and the Census data for ‘Other’ ethnic groups in the borough for both RHP and RuTCHT.

6

Intermediate Housing & Ethnicity • The majority of applications for intermediate housing are from the White community

however, the percentage of applicants broadly reflect population estimates for the borough.

• When comparing the ethnic breakdown of all applications against the percentage of

successful and rejected applications there are no significant differences. 7) Households with Support Needs

CORE Data on Supported Housing Lettings & Ethnicity • According to Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007, Black or Black British

households are the most likely to have a support need and Asian or Asian British households were the least likely.

• Support need households are also more likely to be living in unsuitable housing.

Supporting People

• There is very limited data available for the ethnicity of Supporting People service users and therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions about need for services or take up by ethnic groups.

• The ‘snapshot’ data that is available for 113 service users highlights the large

proportion for which ethnicity is not known (22%).

Older People’s Supported Housing • In 2005, it was estimated that the total BME population who are over 65 yrs old was

1,000 (4.35% of all over 65s) and the total BME population over 85 yrs old was 56 (1.6% of all over 85s) and the older BME population is likely to rise over the next ten years. The largest BME group in the older population are people from the Asian Indian community.

Mental Health & Ethnicity

• A census of mental health hospital inpatients for England & Wales in 2005 found that Indian, Chinese and White British groups were under represented in rates of admissions whereas all other ethnic groups were over represented, especially Black Caribbean, Mixed Race Black Caribbean & White and Mixed Race Other ethnic groups.

• Psychological morbidity rates have been found to be comparatively higher amongst

Pakistani, Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Black African ethnic groups than the White ethnic group, whereas rates are comparatively lower amongst Indian and Chinese ethnic groups.

• Snapshot of service users in Richmond from SW London and St Georges MH Trust

on Ethnicity of Mental Health Service provides ethnicity data for service users.

• This data found that Black African service users were over-represented compared to the make up of Richmond’s population.

Domestic Abuse

• The Richmond upon Thames Strategic Assessment 2007 found that the borough had the second lowest number of domestic abuse offences across the Met Police Service area for April to June 2007 and that people of African/Caribbean appearance are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse.

• There were 74 applicants to the LBRuT housing register who stated ‘domestic abuse’

as their main reason for applying, as at June 2009. Although this is only a small

7

• The profile of cases stating the main reason for applying to the housing register as

‘domestic abuse’ do not appear to show any over representation of Asian households however, this could be due to under reporting. National research suggests that Asian women may be less likely to report domestic abuse.

• LBRuT’s Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) saw 215 referrals for

September 2008 to 2009 and 26% were for BME households, compared to the estimated BME proportion of the borough population at 11%. This shows a significant over representation of BME households amongst all households being referred to the MARAC.

• Home Office research highlights that BME domestic abuse victims can experience

barriers related to language, culture and fear of racism when accessing advice and assistance and that service providers should try to address these issues so that services are accessible to everyone.

Gypsies & Travellers

• The Mayor’s Draft London Housing Strategy, May 2009, highlights the poor health, education and employment prospects for Gypsies & Travellers in London and states that this is due, at least in part, to a lack of suitable accommodation.

• There is 1 site in LBRuT, managed by Richmond Housing Partnership, which

comprises 12 pitches.

• In 2008 the GLA and London Boroughs carried out an estimate of the number of pitches required to address lack of site provision. This included estimates for households with a psychological aversion (which refers to gypsies and travellers living in housing but with a requirement for a pitch due to cultural needs). Amendments to the draft London Plan have subsequently set the target for Richmond upon Thames at 4 pitches.

• The current approach being considered by LBRuT, in response to the GTAA, is to

address overcrowding on the existing site, progress short to medium term delivery of the minimum number of additional pitches and undertake the research work necessary to identify households in bricks and mortar who are in need.

8) Asylum Seekers, Refugees & Migrant Workers

Asylum Seekers & Refugees • There is very little data available to accurately report on the number of people living

in the borough who have been granted asylum status, or indefinite leave to remain.

• Statistics are available for the number of people claiming asylum in the borough with accommodation (from UK Border Agency), subsistence or both. There are only 25 people claiming asylum in LBRuT (with subsistence) as of June 09 and only 5 with accommodation.

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) & Care Leavers

• Children who arrive in LBRuT as unaccompanied asylum seekers will mostly become ‘looked after children’ as per the Children’s Act 1989, Section 20, following their accommodation in the borough and will qualify for a leaving care package.

• LBRuT currently receives, on average, 1 new arrival every month and as of Quarter 2

(July to Sep 2009) there were 79 asylum seeker care leavers.

8

• The government are progressing plans for ‘specialist authorities‘, and if this plan is

realised, Richmond will cease to receive referrals and numbers will begin to decrease.

Migrant Workers

• There is a lack of available data regarding the number of migrant workers in the UK however, some data is available from those registering on the Workers Registration Scheme (for A8 nationals) and National Insurance Number Applications.

• Some of the key housing issues for migrant workers are high cost accommodation,

overcrowding and poor housing conditions, with the majority of migrant workers living in the Private Rented Sector.

• Both nationally, and in LBRuT, the largest ethnic group of migrant workers are Polish

nationals.

• Migrant workers from A8 & A2 states are only eligible for benefits and housing in the UK after working for 12 consecutive months and many migrant workers are employed in seasonal or short term positions, making it unlikely that they would remain in continuous employment for this period of time. This is also reflected in the very low number of homelessness applications from Eastern European applicants in LBRuT (3 in the period April 2007 to March 2009)

9) Community Engagement, Empowerment and Cohesion

Community Cohesion • The borough has low levels of multiple deprivations but there are 5 areas of relative

disadvantage. In some of these areas the ethnic profile of residents differs to the borough averages.

• In Heathfields the ethnic profile shows a significant increase in the Asian population

(compared to borough averages), and higher proportions than average for Mixed Race & Chinese households.

• In Castelnau there is a significantly higher proportion of Mixed race households

compared to borough averages and slightly higher proportions of Asian and Black households.

Place Survey 2008

• The Place Survey is carried out by the local authority every three years to find out how residents feel about the local area and public services. This was carried out for the first time in 2008. The response from BME households was quite low and therefore results should be viewed with caution.

• A higher proportion of BME respondents agreed that their local area is a place where

people from different backgrounds get on well together although there were no significant differences in the responses from White and BME respondents to whether they felt that they belong to their neighbourhood.

• BME respondents were more likely to agree that they could influence decisions

affecting their local area.

• In response to the question ‘In your local area, how much of a problem do you think there is with people not treating each other with respect and consideration?’ there was virtually no difference between responses from White and BME respondents.

9

Hate Crime • It is suspected that incidents of Hate Crime are under reported and therefore more

needs to be done to improve reporting systems and identify and support victims. LBRuT has recruited a Hate Crime Co-ordinator to take this work forward.

• It is likely that racially motivated incidents are under reported and therefore the true

extent of their impact on the housing of those affected is not known.

• From the small number of households stating that ‘other type of harassment’ is the main reasons they are applying for housing it appears there is a slightly higher incidence amongst Black Caribbean households, although this should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of overall cases.

• There did not appear to be any ethnic groups who were over represented amongst

the households reporting ‘racial harassment’ or ‘violence or threatened violence’ as the main reason for applying for housing.

Financial Inclusion & Worklessness

• LBRuT’s workforce monitoring analysis for 2007/08 found that the percentage of BME employees has continued to increase and 38% of applicants for jobs at the council were from an ethnic minority.

• A new development programme to increase the number of BME senior managers in

LBRuT will be launched in January 2010.

• The Hills Review found that there are increased levels of those without paid work for those living in social housing and as there are often high numbers of BME tenants in social housing this is likely to affect them disproportionately.

• Across London all BME groups experience lower employment rates, especially

Pakistani / Bangladeshi ethnic groups.

• Figures for JSA claims in LBRuT show that all BME groups are over-represented amongst all JSA claimants in the borough.

• When looking at what are sometimes described as the 5 areas of financial inclusion

– ‘banking, credit, insurance, savings and financial advice’ there is evidence that lack of these may affect BME groups disproportionately. These issues can lead to a range of difficulties leading to poorer life chances.

• Nationally, there is evidence that all BME groups are more likely to be affected by

low incomes, both before and after housing costs. All BME groups are also more likely to be without a bank account or home insurance.

10

Chapter One: Demographic and Socio Economic Context Ethnic Profile in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) Census 2001 Data on ethnicity is available via the 2001 Census. This finds that 9% of Richmond’s population have a non-white ethnic background. This is the same as the national average but substantially lower than Greater London as a whole (29%). An additional 12% of Richmond’s population have a non-British white background, which is higher than England (4%) and London (11%). The group with a non-British white background is very diverse, including people from Ireland and a range of countries across Europe, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and North America. The most numerous specific ethnic minority groups in Richmond are the Irish (2.8%) and Indian communities (2.5%). Overall, this means that 21% of Richmond’s population have a non-white British background – a figure which is higher than across England (13%) but lower than Greater London (40%). Changes since 2001 Census The ONS publish annual population estimates which the GLA has used to produce population estimates by ethnicity for London local authorities, via Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) briefings. These figures are available for 2005 and provide a more up to date analysis of changing ethnicity within London. It should be noted that the 2005 figures are estimates only and therefore provide an indication regarding changes to ethnicity. Changes in ethnic composition in Richmond upon Thames Comparing DMAG estimates with the 2001 Census there has been a decline in the proportion of White British and White Irish residents residing in the LBRuT, which follows a London wide trend. There has also been an increase in the proportion of White Other residents in the borough, from 9.5% to 10.6% (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2007). This again follows London trends with Richmond having the 7th highest percentage increase in the White Other population within Greater London. The proportion of residents who are mixed race has increased slightly or remained constant, with growth in the Mixed Race Black Caribbean/White (0.4% to 0.5%) and Mixed Race Asian/White (0.9% to 1%) groups (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2007). The proportion of Mixed Race Black African/White and Mixed Race Other has remained constant at 0.3% and 0.7% (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2007). The proportion of residents with an Indian ethnic background has increased, from 2.6% to 2.8% of residents (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2007), making this the single largest specific ethnic minority group in the borough. There has also been an increase in the proportion of residents with a Pakistani ethnic background from 0.4% to 0.7% of residents (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2007). The proportion of Asian Others has increased slightly from 0.7% to 0.8% (ONS 2001, DMAG 2007) whilst the proportion of residents with a Bangladeshi ethnic background has remained constant at 0.4% of households (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2007).

11

Changes in ethnic composition in Richmond upon Thames

Ethnic Group Census 2001 2005 Estimates White British 78.7 75.7White Irish 2.8 2.6White Other 9.5 10.6 Mixed Race Black Caribbean/White 0.4 0.5Mixed Race Black African/White 0.3 0.3Mixed Race Asian/White 0.9 1Mixed Race Other 0.7 0.7 Indian 2.5 2.8Pakistani 0.4 0.7Bangladeshi 0.4 0.4Asian Other 0.7 0.8 Black Caribbean 0.4 0.8Black African 0.5 0.7Black Other 0.1 0.2 Chinese 0.8 0.9Other 1.3 1.3

Source: ONS Census 2001 & DMAG Estimates 2005 Black Caribbean households have increased from 0.4% to 0.8% of residents (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2005). This contrasts to the London wide situation, where there has been a decline in the proportion of Black Caribbean households. There has also been an increase in the proportion of Black African residents from 0.5% to 0.7% of households (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2005). The proportion of Black Other residents has increased slightly from 0.8% to 0.9% of residents (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2005). The proportion of Chinese residents has increased slightly from 0.8% to 0.9% of households, whilst Other ethnic groups has remained constant at 1.3% of households (ONS Census 2001, DMAG 2005). Key Findings – The majority of residents, 79% have a White British ethnic background. The borough has a higher proportion of non-British white residents (notably White Other) compared to England and to a lesser extent London. A further 9% of households in Richmond have a non-white ethnic background which is similar to England but below the London average. Mixed race residents make up just over 2% of the population, Black residents make up 1% of the population and Chinese and Other residents make up just over 2% of the population. The largest specific groups are White Irish (2.8%) and Indian households (2.6%). Recent estimates highlight that the White British and White Irish population is declining with an increase in certain ethnic groups notably White Other, Indian, Pakistani, Black Caribbean and Black African. New migrant households There is very little information available on international migration into the borough. One source of information is from the DWP who collect data on new National Insurance applications by nationality and local authority area. It should be noted this figure does not

12

reflect all international migration into the borough such as asylum seekers or people joining existing family within the United Kingdom and any households who may leave the borough. In Richmond new migrant groups applying for work are dominated by Eastern and Western European nationals as well as Antipodean, North American and Indian nationals. The largest groups are Polish (410 applications), Australian (260 applications), South African (150 applications), United States citizens (160 applications) and French (130 applications). The graph above provides figures for 2005/06, 2006/07and 2007/08. Migrant workers in LBRuT are discussed in more details in Chapter Eight. Housing Tenure & Ethnicity

Ethnic group Owner

occupied (no mortgage)

Owner occupied (with mortgage) RSL Private

Rented

White h’hlds & % of all White h'hlds

22,444 (31%) 29,825 (41.2%) 8,191 (11.3%) 11,773 (16.2%)

Mixed h’hlds & % of all Mixed h'hlds

150 (16%) 282 (30.2%) 282 (30.2%) 218 (23.3%)

Asian h’hlds & % of all Asian h’hlds

415 (17.4%) 1,241 (52.2%) 209 (8.7%) 511 (21.5%)

Black h’hlds & % of all Black h'hlds

0 (0%) 68 (9.6%) 415 (58.7%) 223 (31.5%)

‘Other’ h’hlds & % of all ‘Other’ h'hlds

376 (29%) 351 (27.1%) 216 (16.6%) 351 (27.1%)

Source: Fordham 2007 The table above shows a breakdown of tenure, by ethnicity, from Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment. Fordham’s findings have been used instead of the Census 2001 as it is the latest available data for tenure and ethnicity in the borough. This data shows that White households are more likely to be owner occupiers in general (72.2%), although looking at ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’ a higher proportion of Asian households fit within this category (52.2%). A high proportion of Mixed Race households live in Registered Social Landlord (RSL) accommodation (30.2%) although relatively high proportions are also ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’ (30.2%). Asian households are the least likely to live in RSL accommodation (8.7%) and the most likely to be ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’ (52.2%). Black households are the least likely to be owner occupiers with no-one surveyed being an ‘Owner Occupier - no mortgage’ and only 9.6% of all Black households surveyed being ‘Owner Occupiers - with mortgage’, although it should be taken into account that the total number of households surveyed is relatively small. Black households are the most likely to be living in RSL accommodation (58.7%) or Private Rented accommodation (31.5%). There is a high proportion of ‘Other’ ethnic group households who are ‘Owner Occupiers - no mortgage’ 29%).

13

Household Income by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Average Annual

Household Income (£)

White 39,602 Mixed Race 20,616 Asian or Asian British 31,710 Black or Black British 22,100 Any Other Ethnic Group 70,045 Average for Study 39,481

Source: Fordham 2007 Analysis of income by ethnicity found that mixed race and black households had the lowest average household incomes followed by Asian and White households. Highest average income levels were found amongst ‘other’ ethnic groups, which may reflect multi national households in corporate lets in some parts of the borough. Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) Claimant Count & Ethnicity The graph below shows the total number of people claiming JSA within the borough has increased steadily during 2008-2009. This situation has been exacerbated by the fact that the number of unfilled Jobcentre vacancies has been significantly lower than normal during the same period.

Job Seekers Allowance Claimant Count LBRuT July 2008-09

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Jul-08

Aug-08

Sep-08

Oct-08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Jun-09

Jul-09

Total

Total 1137 1228 1265 1304 1414 1571 1787 2174 2326 2401 2584 2507 2637

Jul-08

Aug-08

Sep-08

Oct-08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Jun-09

Jul-09

Source: Office of National Statistics (ONS)

14

15

JSA Claimant Count & Ethnicity – LBRuT June 2009

Ethnic Group Number claiming JSA

% Claiming JSA - June 2009

DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Asian 120 5% 5%

Black 90 4% 2% Mixed 85 3% 2% Other 90 4% 2% White 1,955 78% 89% Not Known / Refused 155 6% N/A

Source: Office of National Statistics (ONS) As shown in the table and graph above all non-White ethnic minority groups, except ‘Asian’, are over-represented amongst people claiming JSA compared to population estimates for the borough. It should be taken into account that the ethnicity of a significant number (6%) of JSA claimants is not known, however if they were included the over-representation of non-White ethnic groups could only either remain at the levels shown or increase. Black and ‘Other’ residents are the most over represented amongst all people claiming JSA in June 2009, both with 4% of all claimants compared with 2% of the borough population. Key Findings – Average household income is highest amongst owner occupiers and lowest for social housing tenants. Average household income is also lower for Mixed Race and Black households than for Asian or White households. Household income is highest amongst those with an ‘Other’ ethnic origin. Lower household income amongst Mixed Race and Black households may increase levels of housing need within these groups. All non-White ethnic minority groups, except ‘Asian’, are over-represented amongst people claiming JSA in June 2009 compared to population estimates for the borough, however details of ethnicity are not known for 6% of claimants. Black and ‘Other’ residents are the most over-represented amongst all people claiming JSA in June 2009, both with 4% of all claimants compared with 2% of the borough population.

Ethnic Group

Ham

pton

Ham

pton N

Fulwell

Teddington

Ham

pton W

West Tw

ick

South Twick

Heathfield

Whitton

St Margs

Twick R

iver

Ham

Peter

S Richm

ond

White British 86.1 82.8 83.9 84.3 82.6 79.4 81.8 77.5 78.9 78.6 76.9 75.1 70.8 74.2 White Irish 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.3 2.5 2.9 4.4 2.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 2 2.8 White Other 4.8 5 5.5 6.6 7.5 6.7 7.2 3.6 4 9.9 12.6 12.6 18.2 12.2 White % 93.2 89.9 92.5 93.2 92.6 89 93.4 83.7 86 91.8 92.7 89.7 91.8 89.7 Mix Race Blk Carib 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 Mix Race Blk African 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 Mix Race Asian 0.7 1 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.5 1 1 0.9 1 1 0.7 Mix Race Other 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 1 0.7 Mixed % 1.7 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.2 2.3 2 2.9 1.9 Asian: Indian 1.8 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.3 3.8 2.2 6.6 5.5 2.7 1.6 2.1 1.4 Asian: Pakistani 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 Asian: Bangladeshi 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Asian: Other 0.8 1 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 1 1.1 0.5 0.4 1 0.5 Asian % 3.1 4.5 3.1 2.8 2.8 5.3 3.1 9.5 8 3.8 2.6 3.5 2.4 Black Caribbean 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 Black African 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 Black Other 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 Black % 0.6 1.1 1 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.4 1.4 1.3 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.2 Chinese 0.7 1 0.3 0.8 0.5 1 0.4 1 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 Other 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.9 1.5 1 1 1.8 0.9 Other % 1.6 2.1 1.2 1.7 1.4 2.1 1.3 2.9 2.3 1.5 1.7 2.7 1.8

The table above shows the breakdown, by ethnicity, of all people by ward in LBRuT from the Census 2001. It should be taken into account that this data is likely to have changed since the Census was carried out, however it does provide a comprehensive breakdown for the borough. The comparisons made below are all from Census 2001 data which differs slightly from the more up to date DMAG population estimates used elsewhere in the evidence base.

16

Distribution of Ethnic Groups in LBRuT Asian Ethnic Groups The LBRuT average, across the borough, for all Asian residents is 4%. The wards with the highest population percentage for Asian residents are Heathfield (9.5%), Whitton (8%) and West Twickenham (5.3%). As the data shows there is a significantly larger than the average proportion of Asian residents living in both Heathfield and Whitton wards and the increases seem to be largely within the Asian, Indian community. The wards with the lowest levels of Asian residents are Mortlake & Barnes Common (2.6%), South Richmond (2.4%) and Twickenham (2.6%). Black Ethnic Groups The LBRuT average for all Black residents is 1%. The wards with the highest percentages of Black residents are Heathfield (1.4%), Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside (1.4%). The wards with the lowest levels of Black residents are Teddington (0.4%), South Twickenham (0.4%) and East Sheen (0.5%). The variations across the borough are not as significant for Asian residents with no key areas where much higher, or lower, proportions are noted. Mixed Race Ethnic Groups The LBRuT average for all Mixed Race residents is 2.3%. The wards with the highest percentages of Mixed Race residents are Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside (2.9%), North Richmond (2.7%) and Barnes (2.7%). The wards with the lowest levels of Mixed Race residents are Hampton (1.7%), South Twickenham (1.7%) and South Richmond (1.9%). Again, there are no very significant high or low percentage levels for Mixed Race residents in wards across the borough. Chinese & ‘Other’ Ethnic Groups The average across LBRuT for all Chinese & ‘Other’ ethnic group residents is 2.1% (0.8% for Chinese residents & 1.3% for ‘Other’ ethnic groups). The wards with the highest percentages for Chinese & ‘Other’ ethnic groups are Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and Heathfield. In Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside the variation is due mostly to a higher level of ‘Other’ ethnic groups, 1.8% compared to the borough average of 1.3% whereas the percentage of Chinese residents is 0.9% compared to 0.8%. In Heathfield there are slightly higher levels of Chinese residents, 1% compared to 0.8%, and ‘Other’ ethnic group residents, 1.9% compared to 1.3%. The wards with the lowest levels of Chinese and ‘Other’ ethnic group residents are Mortlake & Barnes Common and South Twickenham. In Mortlake & Barnes Common there are similarly lower levels of both Chinese residents, 0.3% compared to 0.8%, and ‘Other’ ethnic group residents, 0.8% compared to 1.3%. In South Twickenham the differences are also similar for both Chinese and ‘Other’ ethnic group residents. For Chinese residents it is 0.4% compared to 0.8% and for ‘Other’ ethnic group residents it is 0.9% compared to 1.3%. White Ethnic Groups The average across LBRuT for all White residents is 91%. The wards with the highest percentages of White residents are South Twickenham (93.4%), Hampton (93.2%) and Mortlake & Barnes Common (93.1%). The wards with the lowest percentages of White residents are Heathfield (83.7%), Whitton (86%) and West Twickenham (89%). As can be seen the higher levels of White residents in some wards are not significantly higher however,

17

the lower levels in Heathfield and Whitton are more noticeable and due mostly to a lower than average level of White ‘Other’ residents in these wards. For White Irish residents the borough average is 2.8%. There are two wards where there are higher levels of White Irish residents, South Twickenham (4.4%) and Whitton (3.4%). The borough average for White ‘Other’ residents is 9.5% but there is a much higher percentage of White ‘Other’ residents in both South Richmond (18.2%) and Barnes (16.5%). Distribution of Ethnic Groups by Ward in LBRuT Heathfield has an ethnically diverse profile within the borough with a significantly higher than average percentage of Asian residents (9.5% compared to the borough average of 4%) and slightly higher percentages of Black (1.4% to 1%), Chinese (1% to 0.8%) and ‘Other’ ethnic groups (1.9% to 1.3%). Correspondingly it has a lower than average percentage of White residents (83.7% compared to 91%). Heathfield ward has some of the highest levels of social housing in the borough and includes one of the 5 areas of relative disadvantage. Whitton has a significantly higher than average percentage of Asian residents (8% compared to the borough average of 4%) and a higher than average percentage of White Irish residents (3.4% to 2.8%). South Richmond and Barnes have significantly higher than average levels of White ‘Other’ ethnic group residents. The percentage of White ‘Other’ ethnic group residents living in South Richmond is 18.2% compared to the borough average of 9.5% with data from the Census showing that a significant number of people born in South Africa and North America live in the ward. In Barnes the percentage of White ‘Other’ ethnic group residents is 16.5%, compared to the borough average of 9.5%, and Census data also suggests that this may be because a significant number of people living in the ward were born in Sweden and North America. Key findings – compared to the borough average there is a significantly higher proportion of Asian residents living in both Heathfield and Whitton wards and some of the lowest levels of Asian residents in Mortlake & Barnes Common, South Richmond, and Twickenham. The highest percentages of Black residents, compared to the borough average, live in Heathfield and Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside wards. The wards with the lowest levels of Black residents are Teddington, South Twickenham and East Sheen however the variations across the borough are not as significant as for Asian residents. The wards with the highest percentages of Mixed Race residents are Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside, North Richmond and Barnes and the lowest levels are found in Hampton, South Twickenham and South Richmond. Again, the variations are not as significant as within other ethnic groups. The percentage of Chinese and ‘Other’ ethnic groups in Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and Heathfield are higher than the borough average, although the variations are relatively small. The wards with the highest percentages of White residents are South Twickenham, Hampton and Mortlake & Barnes Common. In Heathfield and Whitton the levels of White residents are noticeably lower although this is due mostly to lower than average levels of White ‘Other’ ethnic residents. Heathfield has a particularly ethnically diverse profile within the borough as well as some of the highest levels of social housing in the borough and it includes one of the 5 areas of relative disadvantage.

18

Whitton has a significantly higher than average percentage of Asian and White Irish residents compared to the borough average. South Richmond and Barnes have significantly higher than average levels of White ‘Other’ ethnic group residents. Further data from the Census shows that in South Richmond this may be due to the significant number of people living in the ward who are born in South Africa and North America and in Barnes it may be due to a large number people born in Sweden and North America living in the ward.

19

Chapter Two: Data from the Housing Register Ethnic Profile of the Housing Register Housing Register Data The council has a legal duty to maintain a housing register, which it carries out in partnership with local housing associations. The housing register is a useful source of information regarding the level of housing need in the borough as it reflects the number of residents waiting for affordable housing. The vast majority of these residents require social rented housing. Due to the large numbers waiting on the housing register, only a limited amount of re-lets of housing association properties and an even smaller amount of new affordable housing is developed each year shows there is a clear mismatch between demand and supply. The council also has legal obligations to re-house certain homeless households as well as provide housing for vulnerable groups. Therefore only those households with the most pressing housing need gain housing association properties each year. Data Limitations Comparisons between Housing Register Data & Richmond upon Thames Population In order to provide comparisons between the findings from the housing register and the ethnic make up the borough, population data from the Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) briefings has been used. The ONS publish annual population estimates which the Greater London Authority (GLA) has used to produce population estimates by ethnicity for London local authorities, via DMAG briefings. These figures are available for 2005 and provide a more up to date analysis of changing ethnicity within London than the Census 2001 can provide. The figures have been used throughout the evidence base. It should be noted that the 20051 figures are estimates only and therefore provide an indication regarding changes to ethnicity. When comparing data from the Housing Register with DMAG figures it should also be taken into account that a large number of households on the Housing Register have either refused to provide details of ethnicity or it is not known. No such categories exist within the DMAG briefings and therefore this may lead to some skewing of the data. Ethnic make up of Housing Register Analysis of the housing register by ethnicity shows that 60% are White British and 28.4% are from an ethnic minority. 22.1% of the ethnic minority total is made up of non-white ethnic minorities. It should be noted that 5.5% of housing register applicants refused to provide their ethnic origin and it is not known for another 5.4%. Comparing the ethnic composition of housing register applicants to the ethnic composition of the borough to population estimates is a useful means of establishing if different ethnic groups are either over or under-represented on the housing register. However, some caution should be applied as new migrant communities may not have registered, or be aware of the housing register. Under representation of certain ethnic groups on the housing register may also reflect the better socio economic outcomes of that group. Higher incomes may protect households against some housing problems, with these groups facing lower levels of housing need.

1 Source; Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) Estimates 2005 (published 2007)

20

Household income by ethnicity Fordham’s Housing Market Assessment provides analysis of income by ethnicity in the borough and found that Mixed Race and Black households had the lowest average household incomes followed by Asian and then White households. Highest average income levels were found amongst ‘other’ ethnic groups, which may reflect multi national households in corporate lets in some parts of the borough.

Ethnicity Average Annual Household Income (£) White 39,602 Mixed Race 20,616 Asian or Asian British 31,710 Black or Black British 22,100 Any Other Ethnic Group 70,045 Average for Study 39,481

Source: Fordham 2007

21

Ethnicity & LBRuT Housing Register

60

75.7

1.4 2.64.9

10.6

22.1

9.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Households

White British White Irish White Other Non-White EthnicMinority

Ethnicity

Ethnicity of Households on Housing Register compared to Estimated Percentage of Population

% Housing Register Applicants DMAG Population Estimates 2005

Source: LBRuT Housing Register June 2009 White ethnic groups White British ethnic groups are under-represented on the housing register when compared to the population of Richmond upon Thames, with 60% of housing register applicants but 75.7% of the population. White ‘Other’ ethnic groups are also under-represented on the register making up 10.6% of the population but only 4.9% of housing register applicants. White Irish are slightly under-represented making up 2.6% of the population but only 1.4% of housing register applicants. Mixed Race ethnic groups Mixed Race ‘Other’ groups are over-represented on the housing register, making up 2.3% of housing register applicants but only 0.7% of London Borough of Richmond’s population. Mixed Race Black African applicants are slightly over-represented compared to the borough population make up, at 0.5% applicants compared to 0.3% population. Mixed Race Black

22

Caribbean applicants are represented equally, making up 0.5% of the housing register and 0.5% of the borough’s population. Mixed Race Asian households are under represented, comprising 0.5% of the Housing Register and 1% of the borough’s population. Asian ethnic groups Asian households as a single ethnic group are over-represented as applicants on the housing register compared to their population make up, with 6.1% applicants and 4.7% of the population. It is difficult to draw further conclusions when looking at the breakdown of Asian ethnic groups as the majority of Asian households on the housing register are identified as ‘Asian Other’ (81% of all Asian households on the housing register). It is not clear whether this is because these households come from Asian ethnic groups not currently listed on the register or whether there are issues around data entry. Black ethnic groups Black residents are over-represented on the housing register compared to the borough’s population, at 6.6% of applicants compared to 1.7% of the borough’s population. Black African households are particularly over-represented with 3.6% of applicants compared to 0.7% of the borough’s population and Black ‘Other’ households are also over represented with 1.3% of applicants compared to 0.2% of the borough’s population. Black Caribbean households are slightly less over-represented comprising 1.7% of the housing register and 0.8% of the borough’s population. Chinese/Other ethnic groups Chinese households are under-represented on the housing register comprising 0.4% of applicants and 0.9% of the population. ‘Other’ ethnic groups are significantly over-represented making up 4.6% of applicants and 1.3% of the borough population. Key Findings – Ethnic minorities are over-represented on the housing register, which may reflect greater levels of housing need within these communities. It should be noted however that there are key differentials between and within different ethnic groups. For example, Black African households are significantly more over-represented on the housing register than Black ‘Other’ or Black Caribbean households. Under-representation of certain ethnic groups on the housing register may reflect the better socio economic outcomes of that group. Black African and ‘Other’ ethnic groups are particularly over-represented on the housing register. Asian ‘Other’ households are also over-represented but it is difficult to differentiate between Asian ethnic groups due to the data available. White Irish, Mixed Asian and Chinese households are all under-represented on the housing register.

23

Ethnicity Breakdown - Housing Register & Population Estimates

Ethnicity of Households on the Housing Register compared to Proportion of the Borough's Population

0.2

0.6

5

0.3

3.6

1.7

1.3

0.4

2.3

0.5

0.5

0.5

4.6

1.4

4.9

0.4

2.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.2

0.9

0.7

1.0

0.3

0.5

1.3

2.6

10.6

Asian Bangladeshi

Asian Indian

Asian Other

Asian Pakistani

Black African

Black Caribbean

Black Other

Chinese

Mixed Other

Mixed Asian

Mixed Black African

Mixed BlackCaribbean

Other

White Irish

White Other

Eth

nici

ty

Households

% Housing Register Applicants % DMAG Pop Est 2005

24

Main Reason for Applying to the Housing Register & Ethnicity

Ethnic Description BA

L

DO

M

HO

U

LAC

LPH

MED

MO

D

N/K

NFR

NLP

OH

A

PQA

PRI

PRO

RA

C

Asian 78 4 42 / 46 38 / 7 22 114 2 8 4 1 2 % 18.4 0.9 9.9 / 10.9 9 / / 5.2 27 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.4 Black 66 11 23 3 34 31 3 5 15 106 8 5 43 2 3 % 15.3 2.5 5.3 0.6 7.8 7.1 0.6 / 3.4 24.5 1.8 1.1 9.9 0.4 0.6 Mixed 55 2 24 1 38 21 / 3 18 50 3 4 5 / 2 % 21.7 0.7 9.4 0.3 15 8.3 / / 7.1 19.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 / 0.7 Other 58 6 41 2 27 30 8 21 77 2 1 9 2 1 % 17.6 1.8 12.5 0.6 8.2 9.14 / / 6.4 23.4 0.6 0.3 2.7 0.6 0.3 White 658 36 451 14 677 418 2 103 326 811 39 63 80 43 3 219% 15.3 0.8 10.5 0.3 15.8 9.7 0.04 / 7.6 18.9 0.9 1.4 1.8 1 0.07NK/Refused 134 15 53 1 72 51 3 27 42 144 8 10 24 6 5 Total 1049 74 634 21 894 589 8 20 444 1302 62 91 165 54 16 301 The table above provides a breakdown of the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register with the main reason given for applying for housing by ethnicity. It also shows the percentage breakdown of main reason for applying for housing within each ethnic group. When extracting this data the total number of households (6,428) produced was approx 200 households less than expected. It is not clear why this discrepancy occurs in running this query on the database but it should be taken into account when looking at the results. It should also be noted that ethnicity has either been refused, or is not known, for 721 households (12%). KEY: IBS (housing register database) codes for ‘Main reason applying for housing’

IBS Code Main reason applying for housing IBS Code Main reason applying for housing IBS Code Main reason applying for housingBAL Being asked to leave NK Not known RAC Racial harassment DOM Domestic violence NFR Near friends or relatives REL Relationship breakdown HOU Can't afford present housing NLP Need for larger property SO Shared ownership LAC Leaving LA care OHA Other type of harassment SUPP Ready to leave supported accom LPH Leaving parental home PQA Poor quality accommodation TEM Living in temporary accom MED Medical/health circs PRI Leaving prison TOG Live together or getting married MOD Leaving armed forces PRO Need a smaller property VIO Violence or threatened

25

When a household applies to go on the housing register they are asked for the main reason they are applying for housing, and given a range of options to choose from, as per the key to reason codes above. The 4 most commonly given reasons are ‘Need for larger property’ (1,302), ‘Being asked to leave’ (1,049), ‘Leaving parental home’ (894) and ‘Can’t afford present housing’ (634). Three of these reasons are analysed by ethnicity below in order to highlight any differentials between ethnic groups. ‘Need for larger property’ has been excluded from this section as this data is looked at alongside other information from the housing register about bedroom sizes required in Chapter Three: Overcrowding and the Need for Larger Accommodation. Households stating main reason applying for housing – ‘Being asked to leave’

Main reason applying for housing - 'Being asked to leave'

7% 6% 5% 6%

63%

13%

5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White NK/Refused

Being asked to leave DMAG 2007 Popultation Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

Ethnic Description Main reason applying forhousing - ‘Being asked to leave’Asian 78 Black 66 Mixed 55 Other 58 White 658 NK/Refused 134 Total 1,049

Source: LBRuT Housing Register All non-White ethnic minority groups are over-represented on the housing register and this is reflected in the breakdown of all households stating that the main reason they are applying for housing is because they are ‘Being asked to leave’ their existing accommodation. 658 White households on the housing register have stated that they are applying for housing due to ‘Being asked to leave’ their existing accommodation (63% of all households in this

26

situation), however as White households make up 89% of the borough population they are under-represented amongst all households in this position. Black households and ‘Other’ households are over-represented with 6% of all households ‘being asked to leave’ coming from these ethnic groups whilst only making up 2% of the population. Mixed and Asian households are also over-represented, although to a slightly lesser degree. Key findings – Black and ‘Other’ ethnic group households are the most over-represented amongst all households reporting ‘Being asked to leave’ as the main reason for applying for housing. Mixed and Asian households are also over-represented, although to a slightly lesser degree. Households stating main reason applying for housing – ‘Leaving parental home’

Main reason applying for housing - 'Leaving parental home'

5% 4% 4% 3%

76%

8%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White NK/Refused

Leaving parental home DMAG 2007 Popultation Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

Ethnic Description Main reason applying for housing -‘Leaving parental home’Asian 46 Black 34 Mixed 38 Other 27 White 677 NK/Refused 72 Total 894

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

27

Although when looking at all households who have stated they are applying for housing due to ‘Leaving parental home’ non-White ethnic minority households are still over-represented. The differences between make-up of the population and the breakdown of these households by ethnicity is not as pronounced as for some of the other reasons given, especially ‘Being asked to leave’. Broadly, the number of households from each ethnic group is more closely aligned with the make-up of the borough although there is a slight over-representation for Black, Mixed Race and ‘Other’ ethnic groups. Key findings – the ethnic breakdown of households on the housing register stating ‘Leaving parental home’ as the main reason for applying for housing is more closely aligned with borough population estimates than for other main reasons. However, there is slight over-representation for Black, Mixed Race and ‘Other’ ethnic groups. Households stating main reason applying for housing – ‘Can’t afford present housing

Main reason applying for housing - 'Can't afford present housing'

7% 4% 4% 6%

71%

8%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White NK/Refused

Can't afford present housing DMAG 2007 Popultation Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

28

Ethnic Description Can't afford present housing

Asian 42 Black 23 Mixed 24 Other 41 White 451 NK/Refused 53 Total 634

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The ethnic breakdown of all households stating that their main reason for applying for housing is that they ‘Can’t afford present housing’ shows over-representation of all non-White ethnic minority households when compared with the make up of the borough population, but the differentials are not as pronounced as for households ‘Being asked to leave’. ‘Other’ ethnic groups are the most over-represented amongst all households stating they ‘Can’t afford present housing’. ‘Other’ ethnic minority households make up 6% of all households in this situation and 2% of the borough population. As ‘Other’ ethnic groups are also the most over-represented ethnic group living in the private rented sector (whilst on the housing register) this may be linked to the cost of private sector rents. Asian, Black and Mixed Race households are all over-represented to the same extent. There is a 2% difference between the proportion of households from each ethnic group in this situation and proportion of households from each ethnic group within the borough. Key findings – ‘Other’ ethnic groups are the most over-represented amongst all households stating ‘Can’t afford present housing’ as the main reason for applying for housing. This may be related to the cost of private rent as the majority of ‘Other’ ethnic group households on the housing register live in the private sector. Asian, Black and Mixed Race households are also over-represented, although to a lesser degree. Main Reasons Applying for Housing – within Ethnic Groups Main Reasons Applying for Housing for White Households The top 3 reasons stated by White households on the housing register for applying for housing are –

• Need larger property – 18.9% • Leaving parental home – 15.8% • Being asked to leave – 15.3%

These reasons are some of the most prevalent for applying for housing and are reported by a high proportion of all ethnic groups. The main difference for White households appears to be the more even spread amongst the main reasons. ‘Need for larger property’ is the top reason but there is not a significant difference between the percentage of all white households reporting this as their main reason and those choosing the other two top reasons.

29

Main Reasons Applying for Housing for Asian Households The top 3 reasons stated by Asian households on the housing register for applying for housing are –

• Need for larger property - 27% (of all Asian households applying for housing) • Being asked to leave -18.4% • Leaving parental home - 10.9%

The top 3 main reasons for Asian households are the same as for White households however, ‘Need for larger property’ represents a larger proportion of all Asian households than for all White households. For Asian households a larger proportion report ‘Being asked to leave’ than ‘Leaving the parental home’ as the main reason applying for housing. Main Reasons Applying for Housing for Black Households The top 3 reasons stated by Black households on the housing register for applying for housing are –

• Need for larger property – 24.5% (of all Black households applying for housing) • Being asked to leave – 15.3% • Living in temporary accommodation – 11.8%

Main reasons stated for Black households are very similar to other ethnic groups but the percentage of those seeking housing due to ‘Living in temporary accommodation’ is higher. Black households are twice as likely as Mixed, Other & White households to state that ‘Living in temporary accommodation’ is the reason they are applying for housing. The percentage of all Black households stating this reason is also significantly higher than for Asian households, where 6.3% of all households state this reason. The percentage of Black households stating ‘Leaving parental home’ as the main reason is quite low in comparison to other ethnic groups at 7.8%, with only ‘Other’ ethnic group showing a similar percentage stating this reason at 8.2%. White households are twice as likely to state that ‘Leaving parental home’ is the main reason for applying for housing. Main Reasons Applying for Housing for Mixed Households The top 3 reasons stated by Mixed Race households on the housing register for applying for housing are –

• Being asked to leave – 21.7% • Need for larger property – 19.7% • Leaving parental home – 15%

For Mixed households ‘Being asked to leave’ is the top reason for applying for housing, although the gap between the percentage reporting this reason and ‘Need for larger property’ is small. Again, the top three reasons for applying for housing are very similar to the main reasons for all ethnic groups. Main Reasons Applying for Housing for ‘Other’ Households The top 3 reasons stated by ‘Other’ households on the housing register for applying for housing are –

30

31

• Need larger property – 23.4% • Being asked to leave – 17.6% • Can’t afford present housing – 12.5%

The high proportion of Mixed households stating ‘Need for larger housing’ and ‘Being asked to leave’ as top reasons for applying for housing is in keeping with all ethnic groups although ‘Can’t afford present housing’ appears to be a slightly more significant reason for Mixed households than for other ethnic groups. Key findings – amongst all White households on the housing register there is a quite even split between the three most common reasons for applying for housing. ‘Need for larger property’ is the top reason, but only by a relatively small margin. The top 3 main reasons applying for housing for Asian households are the same as for White households however, ‘Need for larger property’ represents a larger proportion for Asian households than within White households. There is also a larger proportion reporting ‘Being asked to leave’ than ‘Leaving the parental home’ as the main reason for applying for housing. Main reasons stated for Black households are very similar to other ethnic groups but the percentage of those seeking housing due to ‘Living in temporary accommodation’ is higher. Black households are also twice as likely as Mixed, Other & White households to state that ‘Living in temporary accommodation’ is the reason they are applying for housing. The percentage of Black households stating ‘Leaving parental home’ as the main reason is quite low in comparison to other ethnic groups For Mixed households ‘Being asked to leave’ is the top reason for applying for housing, although the gap between the percentage reporting this reason and ‘Need for larger property’ is relatively small.

Existing Accommodation, Ethnicity & the Housing Register

Ethnic Description

Car

avan

Hou

sing

A

ssoc

iatio

n

Hos

tel/B

&B

LA C

are

Lodg

er

NFA

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

r

Oth

er

Livi

ng w

ith

Pare

nts

Priv

ate

Tena

nt

Pris

on

Livi

ng w

ith

Rel

ativ

es

Asian 81 7 3 7 1 9 21 60 155 1 43 19.3% 1.6% 0.7% 1.6% 0.2% 2.1% 5% 14.3% 36.9% 0.2% 10.2% Black 95 22 1 11 16 6 54 52 97 17 33 21.2% 4.9% 0.2% 2.4% 3.5% 1.3% 12% 11.6% 21.7% 3.8% 7.3% Mixed 54 2 1 11 10 8 14 47 74 2 19 20.5% 0.7% 0.3% 4.1% 3.8% 3% 5.3 17.8% 28.1% 0.7% 7.2% Other 63 9 3 9 7 8 24 32 143 1 22 18.4% 2.6% 0.8% 2.6% 2% 2.3% 7% 9.3% 41.9% 0.2% 6.4% White 4 772 104 20 154 122 172 289 881 1358 23 247 0.1% 17.4% 2.3% 0.4% 3.4% 2.7% 3.8% 6.5% 19.8% 30.6% 0.5% 5.5% NK/Refused 117 28 3 14 34 16 65 97 217 6 56

Totals 4 1182 172 31 206 190 219 467 1169 2044 50 420

The table above provides a breakdown of the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register by the type of housing lived in at the time of application and ethnicity. It also shows the percentage breakdown of housing type within each ethnic group. This data was extracted from the Housing Register in June 2009. At this time the total number of households on the housing register was 6,635 although the exact number of households does not remain static as cases are continually removed or added. It should be noted that there are 730 households who have either refused to give details of ethnicity or it is not known (11%). The most predominant housing types, in which applicants on the housing register currently reside, are - Private Tenants (2,044), Living with Parents or Relatives (1,589) and Housing Association (1,182). The total number of households living in these three types of housing is 4,815 (73% of all applications on the housing register). Below, each of the three most prevalent housing types has been analysed by ethnicity, using population estimates, and differentials between ethnic groups are also examined.

32

Key findings – the Private Rented Sector (31%), Living with Friends or Relatives (24%) and Housing Association Properties (18%) are the three main housing types that housing register applicants are most likely to be living in. Current Housing Type – Private Rented Sector Tenants

Ethnic Breakdown for Private Rented Tenants on the Housing Register

7% 5% 4% 7%

66%

11% 5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

Private Tenants DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The ethnic breakdown of all households on the housing register living in the Private Rented Sector shows that all non-White ethnic minority households are over-represented when comparing the make up of the borough’s resident population. The largest number of households living in the Private Rented sector whilst making an application to the housing register are from the White community (1,358) however they make up 66% of all households in this type of housing whilst making up 89% of the borough population and therefore they are under-represented. ‘Other’ ethnic households are the most over-represented group in Private Rented accommodation making up 7% of all households in this housing type compared to 2% of the borough population described as from ‘Other’ ethnic groups. Black households comprise 5% of all households living in the Private Rented sector whilst making up 2% of the borough population. Both Mixed and Asian ethnic groups are equally over-represented amongst all households living in the Private Rented sector. Mixed households make up 4% of households in this housing type compared to 2% of the resident population and Asian households make up 7% of these households compared to 5% of the population.

33

Key findings – ‘Other’ ethnic group households are the most over-represented amongst all households living in the Private Rented Sector (whilst making an application to the housing register), followed by Black, Asian & Mixed Race households. Current Housing Type – Living with Parents or Relatives

Ethnic Breakdown for Housing Register Applicants Living with Parents or Relatives

7% 5% 4% 3%

71%

10%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

Living with parents or relatives DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The ethnic breakdown of all households ‘living with parents or relatives’ whilst making an application to the housing register, shows that the over-representation of non-White ethnic minority groups is less pronounced here than with other housing types. White households are still under-represented but to a lesser degree, with 71% of all households ‘living with parents or relatives’ coming from the White community, whilst making up 89% of the population. Black and Asian households are the most over-represented amongst all households ‘living with parents or relatives’ but only marginally. Key findings – ethnicity of households on the housing register whilst living with parents or relatives is more closely aligned with population estimates than for other main housing types. All non-White ethnic minority groups are still over-represented amongst all households living with parents or relatives but to a lesser degree than for other main housing types.

34

Current Housing Type - Housing Association

Ethnic breakdown for Housing Association Tenants on Housing Register

7% 8% 5% 5%

65%

10%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

Hsg Assoc Tenant DMAG 2007 Popultation Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The ethnic breakdown of all households residing in Housing Association properties, whilst making an application to the housing register, shows that all non-White ethnic minority households are over-represented when comparing the make up of the borough population. Although White households comprise of the largest number of households in Housing Association properties (772) they only represent 65% of all households in this type of housing whilst making up 89% of the borough population. Black households are the most over-represented ethnic group with 8% of all households living in Housing Association properties compared to 2% of the borough population coming from the Black community. Both Mixed and ‘Other’ ethnic groups are equally over-represented amongst all households living in Housing Association properties compared to the make up of the borough population, making up 5% of households in this housing type compared to 2% of the population. There is a slightly smaller over-representation for Asian households as they make up 7% of all households in this housing type and 5% of the borough population. Key findings – Black households are the most over-represented amongst all households living in Housing Association properties (whilst making an application to the housing register), followed by Mixed Race, ‘Other’ ethnic groups and then Asian households. Ethnic Groups and Predominant Types of Housing on the Housing Register Below, the breakdown of the most prevalent housing types within each ethnic group are analysed to identify any differences.

35

As can be seen below, the three most common types of housing that households are living in whilst making an application to the housing register, are the same across all ethnic groups. It is only when looking at the distribution amongst these three main housing types that any differences are identified. Current Housing Type on Housing Register – White Households The three most prevalent housing types for White households on the housing register are - Private Tenant – 30.6% Housing Association – 17.4% Living with Parents – 19.8% The proportion of all White households living with parents is higher than within any other ethnic group and the proportion living in Housing Association properties is the lowest amongst all ethnic groups (although there are not very significant differences between ethnic groups within the Housing Association sector). Current Housing Type on Housing Register – Asian Households The three most prevalent housing types for Asian households on the housing register are - Private Tenant – 36.9% Housing Association – 19.3% Living with Parents – 14.3% Amongst all Asian households there is a higher proportion living in the Private Rented sector than within all other ethnic groups except ‘Other’ ethnic households. Current Housing Type on Housing Register – Black Households The three most prevalent housing types for Black households on the housing register are - Private Tenant – 21.7% Housing Association – 21.2% Living with Parents – 11.6% Looking at all Black households on the housing register a higher proportion live in Housing Association properties than within all other ethnic groups. The proportion living with parents is lower for Black households than for all other ethnic groups, especially White households. Current Housing Type on Housing Register – Mixed Households The three most prevalent housing types for Mixed households on the housing register are - Private Tenant – 28.1% Housing Association – 20.5% Living with Parents – 17.8%

36

There is quite an even distribution of all Mixed Race households amongst the different housing types. Although the proportion of all Mixed Race households living with parents is quite high it is not as high as for White Households. Current Housing Type on Housing Register – ‘Other’ Households The three most prevalent current housing types for ‘Other’ households are - Private Tenant – 41.9% Housing Association – 18.4% Living with Parents – 9.3% Amongst all ‘Other’ ethnic households there is a higher proportion living in the Private Rented sector than within all of the other ethnic groups and the proportion living with parents is the lowest amongst all ethnic groups. Key findings – The proportion of all White households living with parents is higher than within any other ethnic group and the proportion living in Housing Association properties is the lowest amongst all ethnic groups. Amongst all Asian households there is a higher proportion living in the Private Rented sector than within all other ethnic groups except ‘Other’ ethnic households. For all Black households on the housing register a higher proportion live in Housing Association properties than within all other ethnic groups and the proportion living with parents is lower for Black households than for all other ethnic groups, especially White households. There is quite an even distribution of all Mixed Race households amongst the different housing types. Amongst all ‘Other’ ethnic households there is a higher proportion living in the Private Rented sector than within all of the other ethnic groups and the proportion living with parents is the lowest amongst all ethnic groups.

37

Chapter Three: Overcrowding and the Need for Larger Accommodation Overcrowding Background All Local Authorities have been asked to provide baseline statistics for overcrowding, and severe overcrowding, to Communities and Local Government (CLG). The CLG requested details of all overcrowded households, from all tenures, on the Local Authority (LA) housing register wanting to be re-housed as on 01/04/08. Details of ethnicity have now been matched against the housing register so that the statistics can be analysed by ethnicity. Overcrowding The ‘bedroom standard’ has been used to identify overcrowded households. A number of bedrooms is calculated in accordance with the composition of a household, by age / sex / marital status, and then compared to the actual number of bedrooms available. If there are fewer bedrooms available than those calculated under the bedroom standard then the household is deemed overcrowded. Severe Overcrowding Severe overcrowding describes households who are two or more bedrooms short of the ‘bedroom standard’. Overcrowding & Ethnicity A total of 864 overcrowded households (13% of all applications) have been identified from the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register. It should be noted that a significant number of households on the housing register have either refused to provide details of ethnicity, or ethnicity is not known. It should be taken into account that we do not know how this information may have affected the results had it been known, when looking at these findings.

38

Overcrowding – Ethnicity & Population in Richmond upon Thames

Overcrowding - Ethnicity & Percentage of Population in Richmond

63%

5%9% 6% 6% 4%

7%

89%

2% 5% 2% 2% 0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White MixedRace

Asian Black Other Not Known Refused

% overcrowded % of population (DMAG 07)

Source: LBRuT Housing Register & DMAG 2005 (published 2007) When comparing the ethnic composition of all overcrowded households on the housing register with the demographics for the borough all non-white households are affected disproportionately by overcrowding. When looking at severe overcrowding this becomes even more acute with significant differences between the make-up of the population in the borough and the levels of overcrowding experienced by non-white groups. White Households Although 63% of all overcrowded households on the housing register are from the White community, White households make up 89% of the borough’s population and therefore overcrowding still affects non-white households to a greater extent. Asian Households 9% of all overcrowded households on the housing register come from the Asian Community. The majority of these households (88%) are identified as ‘Asian Other’. Asian households are affected disproportionately by overcrowding as the percentage of overcrowded households (9%) is higher than the percentage of Asian households in the borough (5%). Black Households 6% of all overcrowded households on the housing register were from the Black community. This particularly affects Black African households with 72% of all overcrowded Black households coming from this ethnic group. Again this community is disproportionately affected by overcrowding with Black households making up 2% of the borough population but 6% of all overcrowded households. Mixed Race Mixed Race households make up 5% of all overcrowded households, but only 2% of the borough’s population, showing that overcrowding for these households is also out of proportion to the number of mixed race households in the borough.

39

Not Known & Refused It has not been possible to establish the ethnicity of 11% of all overcrowded households as their ethnicity has either not been recorded, or they have declined to provide this information. Another 6% are recorded as from ‘Other’ ethnic minority groups. Ethnicity of Overcrowded Households on Housing Register

Ethnic Description Total number overcrowded households

Asian Bangladeshi 5 Asian Indian 4 Asian Other 71 Asian Pakistani 1 Black African 40 Black Caribbean 10 Black Other 5 Chinese 5 Eastern European 7 Middle Eastern 2 Mixed Other 21 Mixed White & Asian 10 Mixed White & Black African 6 Mixed White & Black Caribbean 5 Not Known 36 Other 48 Refused 59 White British 498 White Irish 7 White Other 24 Total 864

Source: LBRuT Housing Register Key findings – a total of 864 overcrowded households (13% of all applications) have been identified from the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register. All non-white households are affected disproportionately by overcrowding when comparing the ethnic composition of overcrowded households with the demographics for the borough. This is even more noticeable when looking at severe overcrowding. Asian and ‘Other’ ethnic groups are the most over-represented but Black and Mixed households are also over-represented, and only to a slightly lesser degree. White households are under-represented as overcrowded households but it is important to note that there are 498 overcrowded White households so this is still a problem that affects the White community significantly.

40

Severe Overcrowding – Ethnicity & Population in Richmond upon Thames

Severe Overcrowding - Ethnicity & Percentage of Population in Richmond

59%

13% 11%4% 3% 3%

7%

89%

5% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White Asian Black Mixed Race Other Not Known Refused

% severely overcrowded % of population (DMAG 07)

Source: LBRuT Housing Register White Households 59% of all severely overcrowded households on the housing register are White. However, White households make up 89% of the borough’s population and therefore although there are a significant number of White households experiencing severe overcrowding it is not proportionate to the make-up of the borough. Asian Households 13% of all severely overcrowded households are from the Asian community yet Asian households only make up 5% of the boroughs population. They are therefore disproportionately affected. Black Households Black households represent 11% of all severe overcrowding but only make up 2% of the borough’s population and therefore they are the most disproportionately affected ethnic group. Mixed Race Mixed Race households are also disproportionately affected by severe overcrowding with 4% experiencing this housing problem but only 2% of the borough population comprising of Mixed Race households.

41

Ethnicity of Severely Overcrowded Households on Housing Register

Ethnic Description Total

Asian Bangladeshi 1Asian Indian 0Asian Other 19Asian Pakistani 0Black African 14Black Caribbean 1Black Other 2Chinese 1Eastern European 1Middle Eastern 0Mixed Other 3Mixed White & Asian 1Mixed White & Black African 1Mixed White & Black Caribbean 1Not Known 5Other 3Refused 10White British 84White Irish 0White Other 4Total 151

Source: LBRuT Housing Register Key findings – the over-representation of non-white households is even more pronounced when looking at severely overcrowded households. White households make up an even smaller percentage of the total although there are still 88 severely overcrowded White households recorded on the housing register. Asian and Black severely overcrowded households are shown as experiencing the most significant disproportion when comparing the ethnic make up of the borough.

42

Overcrowding - current number of bedrooms & bedrooms needed Overcrowding by current number of beds

Ethnic Group In studios

In 1 bed

In 2 beds

In 3 beds

In 4+ beds Total

White 51 350 121 12 2 536 10% 65% 22% 2% 1% Asian 9 53 15 4 - 81 11% 65% 19% 5% 0% Black 5 37 7 6 - 55 9% 67% 13% 11% 0% Mixed Race 2 32 6 1 1 42 5% 76% 15% 2% 2% Other 3 31 18 2 1 55 5% 56% 33% 4% 2% Not Known 2 20 12 2 - 36Refused 6 41 8 4 - 59Total overcrowded h/hlds in each bedsize 78 564 187 31 4 864

% of all overcrowded h/hlds in each bedsize 9% 65% 22% 3% 1% 100%

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The table above shows overcrowded households by current number of bedrooms and ethnicity. This gives a breakdown for each ethnic group of what size accommodation they are living in whilst experiencing overcrowding in order to identify any significant differences. The vast majority of overcrowded households currently reside in 1 bedroom homes (65%) although a significant number also live in 2 bedroom homes (22%), with a smaller number in studios (9%), 3 beds (3%) and 4+ beds (1%). The breakdown of each ethnic group by current number of bedrooms is broadly similar especially when taking into account the small number of overcrowded households in 3+ beds.

43

Overcrowded Households currently in 1 bedroom homes Ethnic Group Need 2 beds Need 3 beds Need 4 beds Need 5 beds TotalWhite 325 25 - - 350 93% 7% 0% 0% Mixed Race 28 4 - - 32 88% 12% 0% 0% Asian 46 7 - - 53 87% 13% 0% 0% Black 28 7 1 1 37 75% 19% 3% 3% Other 31 - - - 31 100% 0% 0% 0% Not Known 19 1 20Refused 38 3 41Total 515 47 1 1 564

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The table above looks at all overcrowded households currently living in 1 bed properties (as the majority of overcrowded households live in this size accommodation) and what sized accommodation they require according to the bedroom standard. The table also gives a breakdown of this information by ethnicity. The majority of overcrowded households living in 1 bedroom properties have a need for a 2 bedroom property (91%), according to the bedroom standard. The ethnic make up of overcrowded households currently in 1 bedroom homes is very similar to all overcrowded households but the number of bedrooms needed varies amongst ethnic groups. White overcrowded households currently in 1 bed homes predominantly need 2 beds, with a small number needing 3 beds. The majority of Black, Asian and Mixed Race households also need 2 beds but the percentage needing 3 beds is higher than for White households, particularly for Black households. There are only two households currently in 1 bed homes needing 4 or 5 bed properties and both of these are from the Black community. Key findings – the majority of overcrowded households currently reside in 1 bedroom homes although a significant number also live in 2 bedroom homes, with a small number in studios, and 3 beds+. There are no significant differences between ethnic groups when looking at the breakdown of current number of bedrooms. The majority of overcrowded households living in 1 bedroom properties have a need for a 2 bedroom property (91%) (according to the bedroom standard). Although the ethnic make up of overcrowded households currently in 1 bedroom homes is very similar to all overcrowded households, the number of bedrooms needed varies. White overcrowded households currently in 1 bed homes predominantly need 2 beds, with a small number needing 3 beds. The majority of Black, Asian and Mixed Race

44

households also need 2 beds but the percentage needing 3 beds is higher than for White households, particularly for Black households. There are only two households currently in 1 bed homes needing 4 or 5 bed properties and both of these are from the Black community. The Need for Larger Accommodation Household Size & Ethnicity Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007 has found that Asian or Asian British households have the largest average household size in the borough, with an estimated 3.04 persons per household. Black or Black British households have an average 2.40 persons per household and Mixed households an average of 2.23 persons per household. This compares with the average household size at 2.19 persons per household for White households. Household Sizes & Ethnicity

Ethnic group

No. of persons in household 1 2 3 4 5 6 or

more Total Average HH size

White 26,115 23,654 9,887 8,817 2,872 889 72,234 2.19Mixed 423 208 115 76 63 45 930 2.23Asian or Asian British 439 629 352 534 182 238 2,374 3.04

Black or Black British 233 141 175 127 29 0 705 2.40

Any other ethnic group 415 230 452 125 30 44 1,296 2.43

Total 27,625 24,862 10,981 9,679 3,176 1,216 77,539 2.22Source: Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007

45

Household Composition & Ethnicity in LBRuT

Household compositio

n Whi

te

% o

f all

Whi

te

H/h

lds

Mix

ed R

ace

% o

f all

Mix

ed

Rac

e H

/hld

s

Asi

an

% o

f all

Asi

an

H/h

lds

Bla

ck

% o

f all

Bla

ck

H/h

lds

‘Oth

er’

% o

f all

'Oth

er'

H/h

lds

Tota

l

Married or Cohabiting Households - no children

13073

18.4

137

15.2 294 12.

5 86 12.7 204 16 1379

4

Married or Cohabiting Households - 1+ child

17021

23.9

205

22.8 892 38.

113

620.

1 469 36.9

18723

Lone Parent Households 4742 6.6 10

9 12.

1 235 10 116

17.1 110 8.6 5312

Other Households 5933 8.3 10

6 11.

8 332 14.2 84 12.

4 125 9.8 6580Pensioners (2+ People) 4546 6.4 25 2.7 76 3.2

5 11 1.6 19 1.4 46771 Person Households (Pensioner)

10283

14.4 44 4.9 82 3.5 35 5.1 46 3.6 1049

0

1 Person Household (Non-Pensioner)

15353

21.6

271

30.2 426 18.

220

830.

7 295 23.2

16553

Total 70951 89

7 233

767

6126

8 76129

Source: ONS Census 2001 The table above show households composition and ethnicity in LBRuT from Census 2001 data. White households are quite evenly split with a similar percentage composed of either Married / Cohabiting - with children (23.9%), without children (18.4%), or 1 person (non-pensioner) (21.6%). There are also a significant percentage of White 1 person (pensioner) households (14.4%). A high percentage of Mixed Race households are ‘1 person (non-pensioner) (30.2%) or ‘Married / Cohabiting – 1+ child’ (22.8%). The proportion of Mixed Race Lone Parent households is quite high compared to other ethnic groups (12.1%) and Pensioner households (2+ people) are quite low (2.7%). Asian households are predominantly ‘Married / Cohabiting – 1+ child’ (38.1%) although there are also a significant proportion of Asian households that are ‘1 person (non-pensioner) (18.2%) and ‘Other’ households (14.2%). ‘1 person (pensioner) households are low amongst Asian households (3.5%). A high proportion of Black households comprise of ‘1 person (non-pensioner) (30.7%) and Married / Cohabiting 1+ child (20.1%). There are also a relatively high proportion of Lone parent households (17.1%).

46

‘Other’ ethnic group households consist predominantly of ‘Married / Cohabiting – 1+ child’ (36.9%) and ‘1 person (non-pensioner) (23.2%). The percentage of Pensioner households (2+ people) is low (1.4%). Key findings – Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007 has found that all non-White households in the borough have larger than average household sizes than White households with Asian or Asian British households having the largest average household size, followed by ‘Other’ ethnic group households and then Black or Black British households. Data from the Census 2001 shows that a high percentage of Asian households are ‘Married / Cohabiting – 1+ child’ and a significant proportion are ‘1 person households (both pensioner & non-pensioner) which are low. A high proportion of Black households comprise of ‘1 person (non-pensioner) and Married / Cohabiting 1+ child, and there are also a relatively high proportion of Lone parent households. Amongst Mixed Race households there are a significant proportion of ‘1 person (non-pensioner) and ‘Married / Cohabiting – 1+ child’ households. The proportion of Mixed Race Lone Parent households is quite high compared to other ethnic groups and Pensioner households (2+ people) are quite low. White households are quite evenly split with a similar percentage composed of either Married / Cohabiting - with children or without children and 1 person (non-pensioner) households. There are also a significant percentage of White 1 person (pensioner) households. ‘Other’ ethnic group households consist predominantly of ‘Married / Cohabiting – 1+ child’ and ‘One person – other’ with a low percentage of Pensioner (2+ people) households. Ethnicity & Size of Housing Needed Data is held on the size of the property required for each household which has applied for housing via Richmond upon Thames Housing Register. When making an application applicants are also asked for the main reason they are applying for housing with one possible choice in answering to this question being ‘need for a larger property’. Below, information about the household which is in need of larger properties (3 or 4+ bedrooms) has been analysed by ethnicity as well as all applications where ‘need for a larger property’ has been chosen as the main reason for applying for housing. Households stating main reason for applying for housing as ‘need for larger properties’ There are 1,283 households on the housing register who have stated the ‘need for a larger property’ as their main reason for applying for housing. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

47

Ethnic Description No of H/hlds stating 'need for larger property'

Asian 105 Black 104 Mixed 50 Other 76 White 805 Not Known / Refused 143 Total 1,283

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

Housing Register due to 'Need for Larger Property'

8% 8%4% 6%

63%

11%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Race Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register 'Need Larger Property' main reason for re-housing

DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph above shows the percentage breakdown, by ethnicity, of all households on the housing register due to the need for a larger property compared to the ethnic make up of the borough. Although the majority of households applying to the housing register due to the ‘need for a larger property’ are from the White community (805) they are under-represented as a total of all households in this position with 63% of cases against 89% of the resident population. Black households are the most over-represented on the housing register as applying for housing due to a need for a larger property with 8% of all households in this situation compared to 2% of the population coming from the Black Community. As the table below shows, the majority of Black households stating this as the main reason for needing housing are from the Black African community.

48

Ethnic Description No. of H/Hlds stating ‘need for larger property’ Black African 72 Black Caribbean 21 Black Other 11 Total 104

Source: LBRuT Housing Register Households defined as from ‘Other’ ethnic minority groups are also over-represented as needing larger properties with 6% of all cases compared to making up 2% of the borough population. Asian households are also over-represented amongst all households stating the need for a larger property, with 8% of cases compared to 5% of the borough population coming from the Asian community. It has not been possible to identify if there are any differences amongst specific Asian communities as the majority of Asian households have been entered on to the housing register as ‘Asian Other’ Mixed ethnic groups are also over-represented, although to a slightly lesser degree. Key findings - there are 1,283 households on the housing register who have stated the ‘need for a larger property’ as their main reason for applying for housing. All non-White ethnic minority households are over-represented amongst this group. Black households are the most over-represented and the majority of Black households in this position are from the Black African community. Households defined as from ‘Other’ ethnic minority groups are the next most over- represented ethnic group needing larger properties, followed by Asian households and then Mixed Race households. Households on the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register in need of 3 beds There are 792 households on the housing register (out of a total 26,635) who require properties with 3 bedrooms. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

2 The total number on the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register will vary (according to applications being added and removed) depending on the date on which queries are run to extract information from the register.

49

Ethnic Descriptions No. on Housing Register in need of 3 beds Asian 85 Black 65 Mixed Race 38 Not Known 38 Other 78 Refused 52 White 436 Total 792

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

On Housing Register in need of 3 beds

11% 8% 5%10%

55%

11%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Race Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register in need of 3 beds DMAG 2007 Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph above shows the percentage breakdown, by ethnicity, of all households on the housing register needing 3 bed properties, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough. There are 436 White households who require 3 bed properties on the housing register (the largest numerical group), making up 55% of all households with this requirement, however as White households make up 89% of the borough population they are under-represented amongst all households in this position. Households from ‘Other’ ethnic groups make up 10% of all households requiring 3 bed properties but only 2% of the resident population. As the exact ethnic background of these households is not known it is difficult to draw conclusions from this over-representation. Asian and Black households are both over-represented amongst households requiring 3 bed properties. Asian households make up 11% of cases, compared to 5% of the population and Black households make up 8% of all cases, compared to 2% of the population.

50

As the table below shows, the majority of Black households requiring 3 bed properties are from the Black African community. As previously mentioned it is unfortunately not possible to identify if there are any differences within specific Asian communities as the majority of Asian households have been entered onto the housing register as ‘Asian Other’.

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds requiring 3 bed properties Black African 35 Black Caribbean 18 Black Other 12 Total 65

Source: LBRuT Housing Register Mixed households are also over-represented amongst households requiring 3 beds on the housing register, making up 5% of all cases compared to 2% of the population. Key findings - there are 792 households on the housing register (out of a total 36,635) who require properties with 3 bedrooms. All non-White ethnic minority households are over- represented amongst this group Households from ‘Other’ ethnic groups are the most over-represented amongst all households needing 3 bed properties, followed by Asian, Black and Mixed Race households. The majority of Black households requiring 3 bed properties are from the Black African community. Households on the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register in need of 4+ beds There are 196 households on the housing register (out of a total 6,635) who require properties with 4+ bed properties. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position and the exact number of beds required.

Ethnic Description No. of beds required 4 5 6 7 Total

Asian 13 4 1 18 Black 18 5 23 Mixed 11 3 14 Other 9 2 10 White 90 5 5 1 101 Not Known / Refused 26 3 29 Total 167 22 6 1 196

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

3 The total number on the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register will vary (according to applications being added and removed) depending on the date on which queries are run to extract information from the register.

51

On Housing Register in need of 4+ beds

9% 12%7% 5%

52%

15%

5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Race Other White NK / Refused

% on Housing Register in need of 4+ beds DMAG 2007 Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph above shows the percentage breakdown, by ethnicity, of all households on the housing register needing 4+ bed properties, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough. The majority of households who require properties larger than 3 bedrooms require a 4 bed property (85%). Another 11% require 5 bed properties and a small number of households require 6 or 7 bed properties. White households make up 52% of all households requiring 4+ bedrooms compared to 89% of the population. Therefore, although there are 101 White households requiring 4+ bedrooms, they are under-represented amongst all households in this situation. Black households are significantly over-represented amongst households on the housing register requiring 4+ beds with 10% of all households in this position coming from the Black community compared to making up 2% of the resident population. As the table below shows, the majority of Black households requiring 4+ bed properties are from the Black African community. Again, it isn’t possible to look at the breakdown within the Asian community due to the limitations of the data held on the housing register.

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds requiring 4+ beds Black African 19 Black Caribbean 3 Black Other 1 Total 23

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

52

Mixed households are also over-represented amongst households requiring 4+ beds. 7% of all cases are from the Mixed community compared to 3% of the borough population consisting of Mixed households. Asian households make up 9% of all households requiring 4+ beds and as Asian households make up 5% of the population they are over-represented. ‘Other’ ethnic groups are also over-represented amongst households requiring 4+, beds but to a slightly lesser degree. Key findings - there are 196 households on the housing register (out of a total 6,635) who require properties with 4+ bed properties. The majority of households who require properties larger than 3 bedrooms require a 4 bed property (85%). Black households are the most over-represented amongst all households on the housing register requiring 4+ beds, followed by Mixed Race households, Asian households and then ‘Other ethnic group households. Availability of Larger Housing in the Borough Low Turnover of Larger Social Rent Properties Turnover of larger three bed properties is low, at 2.8%, this compares to 6.8% for owner occupied properties and over 29% (Fordham 2007) for the private rented sector. Low turnover of three and four bedroom properties in the housing association sector limits the number of properties of this size becoming available to re-let. Size of New Affordable Housing – Existing Stock Arguments As shown in the tables below, the existing stock profiles of the largest housing associations (HAs) in Richmond upon Thames, for historic reasons, are heavily weighted towards bed-sit and one bedroom properties. The two largest HAs have 34% bed-sit/one bedroom properties and 24% bed-sit/one bedroom properties respectively. Stock Profile of Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP)

Bed-sit 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed 236 1820 2030 1745 163 4% 30% 34% 29% 3%

Source: RSR 2008 93% of RHP stock (5,565) is in the London Borough of Richmond, the remainder is in other London

boroughs Stock Profile of Richmond upon Thames Churches Housing Trust (RuTCHT)

Bed-sit 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 223 784 668 249 82 11% 39% 33% 12% 4%

Source: RSR 2008 68% of RuTCHT (1,360) is in the London Borough of Richmond, the remainder is in other London boroughs

Key findings – the availability of larger properties in the borough is limited with low turnover of larger social rented properties and a stock profile for the main HAs operating in the borough weighted towards smaller properties.

53

Chapter Four: House Conditions and Ethnicity Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007 found that all non-White ethnic groups had higher rates of unsuitable housing than White households. Black households were particularly likely to be living in unsuitable housing. It should be noted that ‘unsuitable housing’ is wider than poor housing conditions (including overcrowding and affordability that are both issues which affect BME households). The English House Condition Survey 2006, Annual Report (published 2008) highlights that ethnic minority households ‘are much more likely than average to live in homes in serious disrepair, or with problems of damp and mould’. The English House Condition Survey (EHCS) is a national survey of housing in England commissioned by Communities and Local Government (CLG). The information is derived from a combination of interview surveys, market value surveys and physical inspections of property. The 2006 EHCS results came from a sample of 15,648 dwellings and some of the findings are set out below. EHCS – poor living conditions by tenure

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Poor living conditions by tenure (England)

non decent homes 21.7 25.7 39.7 32.1 22.2

poor quality environments 14.8 12.7 22.4 21.6 18.0

energy inefficient homes 7.8 12.5 15.3 3.6 2.9

homes in serious disrepair 8.2 10.4 18.0 9.3 7.2

% of - own with

mortgage

% of - own outright

% of - privately

rent

% of - rent from local authority

% of - rent from RSL

Source: CLG English House Conditions Survey 2006

As can be seen in the graph above, the highest percentage of non decent homes exists within the privately rented sector (39.7%), followed by local authority properties (32.1%). Poor quality environments are most prevalent in the privately rented sector (22.4%), local authority (21.6%) and RSL properties (18%). They are at their lowest for owner occupiers.

54

The proportion of energy inefficient homes is highest in the privately rented sector (15.3%) and for properties owned outright (12.5%). They are lowest for RSL and local authority properties. Homes in serious disrepair occur most frequently in the privately rented sector (18%) with similar proportions within all of the other tenure types. EHCS – poor living conditions & ethnicity in the private sector

White

BM

E

White

BM

E

White

BM

E

White

BM

E

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Private Sector - poor living conditions & ethnicity (England)

% White 25.3 14.3 11.2 10.0

% BME 29.5 24.2 3.8 14.3

non decent poor quality environments

energy inefficient home

in serious disrepair

Source: CLG English House Conditions Survey 2006

The graph above shows the percentages of all White and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) households surveyed in the Private Sector living in non-decent homes, poor quality environments, energy inefficient homes and ‘in serious disrepair’. These results are shown by the ethnic identity of the ‘household reference person’. Amongst the households surveyed, BME households were slightly more likely than White households to live in non-decent homes (29.5% of all BME households compared to 25.3% of White households). BME households were significantly more likely to be living in ‘poor quality environments’ with 24.2% of all BME households compared to 14.3% of all White households. The percentage of BME households living in homes ‘in serious disrepair’ is also higher with 14.3% compared to 10% of White households surveyed. However, only 3.8% of BME households fell into the category of those living in ‘energy inefficient homes’, compared to 11.2% of White households.

55

EHCS – poor living conditions & ethnicity in the social sector

White

BM

E

White

BM

E

White

BM

E

White

BM

E

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Social Sector - poor living conditions & ethnicity (England)

% White 26.6 18.6 3.3 8.0

% BME 33.2 29.2 2.8 10.7

non decent homes

poor quality environ ments

energy inefficient home

in serious disrepair

Source: CLG English House Conditions Survey 2006

The graph above shows the percentages of all White and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) households surveyed in the Social Sector living in non-decent homes, poor quality environments, energy inefficient homes and ‘in serious disrepair’. These results are shown by the ethnic identity of the ‘household reference person’. A higher percentage of all BME households surveyed were found to be living in non-decent homes, 33.2%, compared to 26.6% of all White households. This is also the case for poor quality environments with 29.2% of all BME households and 18.6% of all White households surveyed. BME households are slightly more likely than White households to be living in homes with ‘serious disrepair (10.7% compared to 8%). There is no significant difference when looking at energy inefficient homes with 2.8% of all BME households compared to 3.3% of all White households.

56

Unshared Dwellings – Ethnicity & Central Heating

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Unshared dwellings, ethnicity & central heating - LBRuT

% With central heating 96.3 91.9 93 93.9 92.8

% No central heating 3.6 8 7.2 6 7.1

Asian Black Mixed Other White

Source: ONS Census 2001

The table above uses data from the 2001 Census to show unshared dwellings in the borough by ethnicity, with and without central heating. Although the percentage difference between dwellings with and without central heating are not hugely significant for any ethnic group there are some small variations. Asian households are the least likely to be without central heating (3.6% of dwellings) and Black households are the most likely to be without central heating (8%). Key findings – all non-White ethnic minority groups experience higher rates of living in ‘unsuitable housing’ (this includes overcrowding and affordability issues) as well as being disproportionately affected by housing which suffers from disrepair, damp and mould. Findings from the 2006 English House Condition Survey show that in both the Private and Social Sectors BME households are more likely than White households to live in non-decent homes, poor quality accommodation and homes in ‘serious disrepair’. Data from the Census 2001 show Asian households are the least likely to be without central heating (3.6% of dwellings) and Black households are the most likely to be without central heating (8%) in the borough. Housing Register – households for whom ‘condition of home’ affects their health There are 881 households on the housing register who state that the condition of their home is affecting their health. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

57

Ethnic Description No. of H/Hlds ‘condition of home affecting health’

Asian 77 Black 59 Mixed 40 Other 68 White 545 Not Known / Refused 92 Total 881

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph below shows the percentage breakdown by ethnicity of all households on the housing register stating that the condition of their home is affecting their health, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough.

On Housing Register 'condition of home affecting health'

9% 7% 4%8%

62%

10%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register stating 'condition of home affecting health'

DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register All non-white ethnic minority households stating that the condition of their home is affecting their health are over-represented when comparing the number of households in this situation on the housing register with the make up of the borough population. There are 545 White households stating that the condition of their home is affecting their health. Although this is a significant number, these figures show an under-representation when comparing the percentage of all households in this situation who come from the White community, 62%, with the percentage of White households in the borough who are defined as White, 489%. Black households are the most disproportionately affected with 7% on the housing register reporting this housing problem compared with the make up of the borough showing Black households at 2%. 4 Source; Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) Estimates 2005 (published 2007)

58

9% of Asian households on the housing register state this is a problem yet Asian households only make up 5% of the resident population. Therefore Asian households are also disproportionately affected. Other households represent 8% of all households on the housing register reporting this problem however only 2% of the population is defined as ‘Other’. Although this clearly shows an over-representation it is difficult to draw conclusions as the exact ethnic make up of this group is not known. Key findings - there are 545 White households stating that the condition of their home is affecting their health. All non-White ethnic minority households are over-represented amongst this group. Black households are the most over-represented, followed by Asian households and then ‘Other’ ethnic group households. Housing Register - ‘poor quality accommodation’ main reason for application There are 91 households on the housing register who state that ‘poor quality accommodation’ is their main reason for applying for housing. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds reporting poor quality accommodation Asian 8 Black 5 Mixed 4 Other 1 White 63 Not Known / Refused 10 Total 91

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph below shows the percentage breakdown by ethnicity of all households on the housing register stating that ‘poor quality accommodation’ is the main reason they have applied for housing, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough.

59

On Housing Register 'poor quality accommodation' main reason for housing

9% 6% 4% 1%

69%

11%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register 'poor quality accommodation' main reason for re-housingDMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

69% of all households stating that ‘poor quality accommodation’ is the main reason for applying for housing are from the White community. White households make up 89% of the population of the borough and therefore, although they make up the majority of households in this position, they are under-represented when looking at all of the households with poor quality accommodation. Black, Asian and Mixed households are all over-represented when looking at the proportion of all households reporting this housing problem compared to the ethnic make up of the borough. However the ethnic group ‘Other’ is slightly under-represented. Key findings – there are 91 households on the housing register who state that ‘poor quality accommodation’ is their main reason for applying for housing. Black, Asian and Mixed households are all over-represented, however, the ethnic group ‘Other’ is slightly under-represented. Housing Register – households with no cooking facilities (or shared facilities) There are 3,254 households on the housing register who state that they either do not have any cooking facilities (153) or they share cooking facilities (3,101). The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

60

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds stating no or shared cooking facilities

Asian 204 Black 240 Mixed 149 Other 137 White 2,193 Not Known / Refused 331 Total 3,254

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph below shows the percentage breakdown by ethnicity of all households on the housing register stating that they have no cooking facilities, or they are shared, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough.

On Housing Register with no cooking facilities or shared

7% 7% 5% 4%

67%

10%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register with no cooking facilities or shared DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The majority of households on the housing register with either shared or no cooking facilities are from the White community (2,193), however when comparing the make up of the borough population they are under-represented amongst all households in this position. Black households are the most disproportionately affected ethnic group with Black households making up 2% of the population but 7% of all households with shared or no cooking facilities. Asian, Mixed and Other households are also over-represented but to a slightly lesser degree. Key findings – There are 3,254 households on the housing register who state that they either do not have any cooking facilities (153) or they share cooking facilities (3,101). Black households are the most disproportionately affected ethnic group. Asian, Mixed and ‘Other’ ethnic groups are also over-represented but to a slightly lesser degree.

61

Housing Register – households with no heating There are 186 households on the housing register who report that they have no heating. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position. Further written analysis of this data has not been carried out due to the small number of households and the significant proportion who have not given details of ethnicity, or they are not known (19%).

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds without heating Asian 7 Black 14 Mixed 8 Other 10 White 112 Not Known / Refused 35 Totals 186

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph below shows the percentage breakdown by ethnicity of all households on the housing register reporting that they are without heating, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough. The small number of households in total without heating should be taken into account when making comparisons against the make up of the borough population.

On Housing Register without heating

4%8%

4% 5%

60%

19%

5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register without heating DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register Housing Register – households with no hot water There are 119 households on the housing register who state that they do not have any hot water supply. The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

62

Further analysis of this data has not been carried out due to the small number of households and the significant proportion who have not given details of ethnicity, or they are not known (20%).

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds stating no hot water Asian 1 Black 6 Mixed 6 Other 6 White 76 Not Known / Refused 24 Total 119

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph below shows the percentage breakdown by ethnicity of all households on the housing register reporting that they are without hot water, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough. The small number of households overall without hot water should be taken into account when making comparisons against the make up of the borough population.

On Housing Register with no hot water

1%5% 5% 5%

64%

20%

5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register with no hot water DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The majority of households with no hot water on the housing register are from the White community (76) however when comparing the make up of the borough population they are under-represented amongst all households in this position. There is only one Asian household on the housing register stating that they do not have hot water and therefore they appear to be under-represented. Black, Mixed and Other ethnic groups are all over-represented to the same degree, with a difference of 3% for each group between the proportion of households without hot water and the make up of the borough population.

63

Housing Register – households with shared, or no, toilet facilities There are 3,261 households on the housing register who state that they either do not have any toilet facilities (75) or they share toilet facilities (3,186). The table below shows the ethnic breakdown of all households in this position.

Ethnic Description No. of H/hlds stating no or shared toilet facilities Asian 201 Black 239 Mixed 147 Other 137 White 2207 Not Known / Refused 330 Total 3,261

Source: LBRuT Housing Register The graph below shows the percentage breakdown by ethnicity of all households on the housing register reporting that they have no toilet facilities, or they share them, compared to the ethnic make up of the borough.

On Housing Register with no toilet facilities or shared

6% 7% 5% 4%

68%

10%5% 2% 2% 2%

89%

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian Black Mixed Other White Not Known /Refused

% on Housing Register no toilet facilities or shared DMAG 2007 Popultation Estimates

Source: LBRuT Housing Register 68% of all households on the housing register who state that they have no toilet facilities, or they share them, are White households. As White households make up 89% of the borough population they are under-represented amongst all households on the housing register in this situation, however they do still account for 2,207 of all households with no or shared toilet facilities. Black households constitute 7% of all households with no toilet facilities or shared toilet facilities but make up 2% of the borough population and therefore they are over-represented amongst all households in this situation.

64

Mixed and Other ethnic groups are also over-represented amongst all households in this situation, although to a slightly lesser degree than Black households. Asian households are only slightly over-represented making up 6% of all households with no or shared toilet facilities compared to 5% of all households coming from the Asian community. Key findings – there are 3,261 households on the housing register who state that they either do not have any toilet facilities (75) or they share toilet facilities (3,186). Black households are the most over-represented amongst this group, followed by Mixed Race households, ‘Other’ ethnic groups and then Asian households.

65

Chapter Five: Homelessness & Ethnicity The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) Homelessness Strategy 2008-2012 highlighted the over-representation of BME households which are homeless and included a commitment in the action plan to carry out ‘pathways mapping’ research to help understand the local reasons for this. This work has now been carried out and this section of the evidence base has been produced using the findings from the pathways mapping research. It is well known that nationally, ethnic minority households are around three times more likely to become statutorily homeless than are the majority White population. There are also marked differences in the rates of statutory homelessness between the various ethnic minority groups. Across England people of Black African and Black Caribbean origins are twice as likely to be accepted as homeless as people of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origins5. In the LBRuT the proportion of both homeless and housing register applications from non-White households far exceeds numbers in the resident population. Homeless applications from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups amount to nearly two and a half times the proportion of BME groups in the resident population. The incidences of homelessness amongst households of a Black ethnic origin were six times the proportion of the resident population, whilst Asian households were only slightly over represented6. The reasons behind these greater rates of homelessness and the differences between communities are the main issues explored in this section of the evidence base. The differences between the routes to homelessness of ethnic groups in Richmond upon Thames are examined here using three local datasets (homeless applications, duty accepted cases of homelessness and the housing tenure of housing register applicants), and case histories of specific ethnic groups. Ethnicity of Homeless Applicants Between April 2007 and March 2009 homeless applications (duty accepted) were received from 20 specific ethnic groups (see table below). Over a fifth of applications came from households with a non-White ethnic origin. Almost 10% of applicants were White non-British (i.e. White Irish, White Other and Eastern European). The two largest specific ethnic minority groups amongst those accepted as homeless were White Other (5.59%) and Black African (5.59%). 17 homeless applicants, or 5.94%, refused to give their ethnic origin. It should be noted that another 15.03% of homeless cases recorded on IBS came from households whose ethnic origin was unknown. Combined, those applicants that refused to give their ethnic origin and those cases where the ethnic origin of the household has gone unrecorded, account for more than 20% of duty accepted homelessness cases. As a result the figures analysed below must be treated with caution.

5 Communities and Local Government (CLG) 2005, ‘Causes of Homelessness Amongst Ethnic Minority Populations’. 6 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) (2008), Homelessness Review

66

As of August 2009 the ethnic origin of any applicant (homelessness and/or housing register) is a mandatory field in the borough’s housing operations system (IBS) and therefore the number of cases where this information is not known should reduce. Ethnicity of Duty Accepted Homeless Applicants

Ethnicity Duty Accepted Homeless Applicants

% of Duty Accepted Homeless Applicants

White British 136 47.55White Irish 5 1.75White Other 16 5.59Eastern European 6 2.10White *group percentages rounded up 163 57%Asian Indian 1 0.35Asian Bangladeshi 2 0.70Asian Pakistani 3 1.05Asian Afghan 5 1.75Asian Other 6 2.10Asian 17 6%Black Caribbean 3 1.05Black African 16 5.59Black Other 5 1.75Black 24 8%Mixed White & Black Caribbean 4 1.40Mixed White & Black African 1 0.35Mixed White & Asian 1 0.35Mixed Other 1 0.35Mixed Race 7 3%Chinese 2 0.70Iraqi 2 0.70Middle Eastern 1 0.35Other 10 3.50‘Other’ ethnic groups 15 5%Refused 17 5.94Unknown 43 15.03Refused / Unknown 60 21%Total 286 100% Due to the sample size and small number of homeless applications from each specific ethnic minority group this information has also been shown in broader ethnic groups. The small number of cases within each ethnic group should be taken into account when considering any over or under-representation identified, amongst all homeless cases, as detailed below.

67

Homeless Applicants – Duty Accepted (2007/08 – 2008/09)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Duty Accepted 56.99% 5.94% 8.39% 2.45% 5.24% 5.94% 15.03%

ONS mid-2007 PopulationEstimates by Ethnic Group

87.84% 5.16% 1.94% 2.72% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00%

White Asian Black Mixed Other Refused Unknow n

The chart above demonstrates the over-representation of ethnic minority groups amongst those households accepted as homeless in Richmond. White applicants make up only 56.99% of accepted homeless cases whilst constituting 87.84% of the local population. The only other group under-represented amongst homeless households are those from a Mixed ethnic background. However, the disparity between the proportion of homeless applicants and local residents with a Mixed ethnic background is very small (2.45% and 2.72% respectively), and may be the result of the very small number of Mixed ethnicity homeless applicants in the sample from which the data below is drawn. The proportion of Black households accepted as homeless by the borough is more than four times the proportion of Black residents in the local population. Households of ‘Other’ ethnic origin are also over-represented amongst homeless cases in the borough. The proportion of homeless acceptances from ‘Other’ ethnic groups is two times greater than the proportion of residents of ‘Other’ ethnic origin in the local population. Asian households are only slightly over-represented amongst homelessness acceptances; 5.16% of Richmond’s population is of Asian/Asian British origin and only 5.94% of duty accepted homeless applications are from Asian households.

68

Applicants and Cases Accepted by Ethnicity (2007/08 – 2008/09)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Duty Accepted 56.99% 5.94% 8.39% 2.45% 5.24% 5.94% 15.03%

All Applicants 57.23% 6.02% 8.73% 2.41% 5.42% 5.42% 14.76%

White Asian Black Mixed Other Refused Unknown

There is no real disparity between the ethnicity of homeless applicants and those households that the Council accepts a duty to house (see chart above). Thus the disparity between the make up of the local population and those accepted as homeless reflects the disproportionate housing need of specific ethnic minority groups, not discrimination positive/negative in the homelessness application process. The disparity between the ethnic origins of homeless households and their numbers in the local community reflects greater vulnerability to homelessness and thus a greater need within these ethnic minority populations for housing advice and support. It is possible that the figures analysed here do not provide a true picture of the disproportionately high numbers experiencing homelessness within ethnic minority communities. A number of studies have suggested that ‘hidden’ homelessness (for example, people sleeping on sofas and floors in the homes of friends and relatives) might be more likely amongst certain BME groups, particularly Asian households7. ‘Hidden’ homelessness can arise out of a need to accommodate family and community members, particularly those coming from abroad. It can also occur because households are unaware of, or reluctant to exercise, their rights under housing and homelessness legislation. As a result these households fail to approach their local housing services and remain uncounted. Causes of homelessness Over 19 different reasons for ‘loss of last settled home’ i.e. reasons for homelessness were given by accepted homeless applicants over the two year period 2007/08 – 2008/09. If the reasons for homelessness are aggregated up into 10 over arching categories we can more readily tease out the main causes/triggers of homelessness in the borough. The chart below displays the causes of homelessness in Richmond. The majority of applicants became homeless following eviction by relatives (especially parents) and/or friends who were no longer able to accommodate the applicants and their household 7 Shelter (2004), ‘The black and minority ethnic housing crisis’

69

(47.55%). The second largest cause of homelessness was the loss of rented/tied accommodation in the private sector (17.13%). Other reasons (e.g. homeless in emergency, sleeping rough or in a hostel, returned from abroad) for loss of last settled home was the case in 12.59% of homeless acceptances. Relationship breakdown (including violent breakdowns) accounts for 8.74% of accepted homeless cases. Over 5% of accepted homeless households have left an institution (e.g. HM Forces, Hospital, LA care, Prison) and a further 5.94% have become homeless following eviction from accommodation provided by the UK Border Agency (formerly NASS) having been granted indefinite leave to remain or asylum status. Very few households become homeless as a result of arrears. Reason for Homelessness – Duty Accepted Cases (2007/08 – 2008/09)

Relatives/friends can't accommodate47.55%

Lost rented/tied17.13%

HA/RSL arrears0.35%

LA public sector dwelling arrears0.35%

Mortgage arrears1.05%

Private sector arrears1.05% Other

12.59%

Relationship breakdown8.74%

Institution5.24%

NASS5.94%

70

In all ethnic groups the main reason for loss of last settled home is eviction by relatives and/or friends who are no longer able to accommodate the homeless applicant and their household. The small number of cases within each ethnic group, especially Mixed Race households, makes it very difficult to draw significant conclusions when looking at the reason for homelessness within each group, and therefore the findings below should be treated with caution. Asian/Asian British Households

Reason for homelessness Total %*rounded up Institution/care 1 6% Lost rented/tied/NTQ/AST 4 24% NASS 4 24% Other 1 6% Parents no longer able to accommodate 1 6% Relationship breakdown non violent 1 6% Relatives/friends can't accommodate 5 29% Total number of cases 17

The loss of private rented accommodation was the reason for homelessness for 4 Asian households, which is higher than for other ethnic minority households, except ‘Other’ ethnic groups. The loss of accommodation following an asylum seeker decision also accounts for 4 cases of homelessness. Cases where homelessness is due to ‘parents no longer able to accommodate’ are very low compared to other ethnic groups, with only 1 case out of 17. Black/Black British Households

Reason for homelessness Total % *rounded up Institution/care 1 4% LA public sector dwelling arrears 1 4% Mortgage arrears 1 4% NASS 7 29% Other 5 21% Parents no longer able to accommodate 3 13% Prison 1 4% Relationship violence - partner 1 4% Relatives/friends can't accommodate 4 17% Total number of cases 24

The loss of accommodation following an asylum decision is a significant reason for homelessness for Black households (7 cases out of 24). Parents or relatives ‘no longer being able to accommodate’ also accounts for 7 cases of homelessness for Black households. There are no cases of homelessness for Black households due to loss of private rented accommodation and there are also 5 cases where the reason for homelessness is not known.

71

Mixed Race Households Reason for homelessness Total % *rounded up

Institution/care 1 14% Lost rented/tied/NTQ/AST 1 14% Lost rented/tied/other 1 14% Parents no longer able to accommodate 3 43% Relatives/friends can't accommodate 1 14% Total number of cases 7

With such a small sample of cases it is very difficult to draw any conclusions from the breakdown above although, as with most ethnicities, ‘parents no longer able to accommodate’ is also a significant reason for homelessness for Mixed Race households. ‘Other’ Ethnic Group Households

Reason for homelessness Total % *rounded up Lost rented/tied/NTQ/AST 4 27% NASS 1 7% Other 4 27% Parents no longer able to accommodate 2 13% Relationship violence - partner 1 7% Relatives/friends can't accommodate 3 20% Total number of cases 15

Parents or relatives being no longer able to accommodate is the top reason for homelessness for ‘Other’ ethnic group households and loss of private rented accommodation also appears quite high (4 cases out of 15), although there are also 4 cases for which we do not know the reason for homelessness. White Households

Reason for homelessness Total % *rounded up HA/RSL arrears 1 1% Hospital 2 1% Institution/care 5 3% Lost rented/tied/NTQ/AST 22 14% Lost rented/tied/other 6 4% Mortgage arrears 1 1% NASS 3 2% Other 20 12% Other violence 5 3% Parents no longer able to accommodate 67 41% Private sector arrears 3 2% Relationship breakdown non violent 6 4% Relationship violence - other 2 1% Relationship violence - partner 5 3% Relatives/friends can't accommodate 15 9% Total number of cases 163

After ‘parents no longer able to accommodate’ the loss of rented accommodation is also high for White homeless households (14%). As is the case for most ethnicities there are a high number of cases for which we do not know the cause of homelessness (20 cases out of 163).

72

Homelessness and household type Household Type – Duty Accepted Cases (2007/08 – 2008/09)

Single, no children31.47%

Couple, no children2.45%

Other, no children4.20%

Single, with children27.97%

Couple, with children16.43%

16/17 year old17.48%

All homeless applications record the household type of the applicant. Using this information we can group households into the broad categories used in the chart above. The majority of homelessness applications are submitted by single person households (31.47%). 27.97% of duty accepted homeless cases are single parent households (including parents to be i.e. pregnant). The next largest group of duty accepted homeless cases are 16 and 17 year olds (17.48%), although this does not represent the true number of young people approaching as homeless and accommodated by the borough, as many of the 16 and 17 year olds approaching as homeless are parents, or parents to be, and as such are recorded as single/couple pregnant or single/couple with one or more dependents, not as 16/17 years old. Another group who can also count as ‘hidden young people’ are former ‘relevant’ children leaving LA care up to the age of 21 or 24 if still in full time education or training (including former asylum seekers), as these cases are often recorded as single applicants. If we include all of these young people 34.27% of duty accepted homeless cases in the last two years were 16/17 years old and/or former ‘relevant’ children and care leavers aged 18-21.

73

Ethnicity of Adult and Under 21 (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) Applicants – Duty Accepted Cases (2007/08 – 2008/09)

0

50

100

150

200

250

White Asian/AsianBritis h

Black/BlackBritis h

Mixed Other Refused Unknown

Cas

es

16-17 Homeless & 18-21 Care Leavers Adult Applicants 35.14% of Black/Black British homeless applicants are young people (16/17 years old and 18-21 year olds leaving care) (see chart above). In contrast, only 15.00% of Asian/Asian British homeless applicants fall into either of these categories. The proportion of young White homeless applicants (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) over the last two years was 25.23%, young people made up a similar proportion of homelessness applications in all other broad ethnic groups (Mixed, Other, Refused and Unknown). The age profile of BME Households overall is quite different from that of the general population. While BME groups comprise less than 8% of England’s overall population, they account for nearly 18% of those aged 16-24 (Census 2001). The over-representation of BME groups amongst homeless acceptances may reflect the younger age profile of these communities. The large proportion of local Black/Black British homeless applicants that are under 21 (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) would support this hypothesis. The majority of homelessness applications from Black/Black British young people were submitted by households with a Black African ethnic origin. 9.18% of all accepted homelessness applications from young people were submitted by Black Africans. This represents the largest specific ethnic minority group amongst under 21s (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) over the last two years. 16.33% of accepted homeless applicants under 21 (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) over the last two years were asylum/former asylum seekers. Over the study period all young (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) Asian/Asian British homeless applicants were seeking, or had sought, asylum. 75% of ‘Other’ ethnic origin and 61.54% of Black/Black British under 21 homeless applicants in the last two years were asylum/former asylum seekers. Only 3.64% of young White homeless applicants had sought asylum. The large proportion of Black African young people submitting homeless applications (9.18%) reflects the increasing number of asylum seekers from African states such as Sierra Leone, Eritrea and D.R. of Congo (LBRuT, 2008).

74

Six reasons for loss of last settled home were given by young people (16/17 years old and 18-21 year old care leavers) accepted as homeless in the last two years. 7.14% of duty accepted under 21 homeless applicants lost their last settled home following eviction from UK Border Agency (formerly NASS) accommodation. Excluding ‘Other’ reason for loss of last settled home, eviction from accommodation provided by NASS (now the UK Border Agency) was the third most common reason for homelessness amongst young people in the borough. Another 6.12% of under 21s (16/17 years old, 18-21 care leavers) became homeless after leaving an institution/care. As a result of the Hillingdon judgement the borough has seen an increase in the number of young people receiving a leaving care service. The Hillingdon judgement ruled that asylum seekers, aged 16/17 who had initially been provided with accommodation and support, were eligible for a leaving care service. In 2007/08 over half of all Council care leavers were asylum seekers (LBRuT, 2008). Future numbers of asylum seekers are difficult to predict as they will depend on the external factors determining the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK. Although we have seen an increase in the number of asylum seekers from Africa in recent years and as a result a growing number of homeless applications from the Black African population, the specific ethnic minority groups arriving in the UK will alter reflecting new conflicts and other push factors arising across the globe. Under 21 (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) Ethnicity of Former Asylum Seekers – Duty Accepted Cases (2007/08 – 2008/09)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

White Asian/AsianBritis h

Black/BlackBritis h

Mixed Other Refused Unknown

Cas

es

Former Asylum Seeker Ordinary Residents of the UK

However, the vast majority of young people in the borough lost their last settled home as their parents were no longer able to accommodate them (61.22%). Another 8.16% became homeless following eviction by relatives and/or friends. Combined, 69.38% of under 21s became homeless after being asked to leave the accommodation of relatives and/or friends.

75

Under 21 (16/17 years old and 18-21 care leavers) Applicants’ Reason for Homelessness – Duty Accepted Cases (2007/08 – 2008/09)

Ins titution/care6.12%

NASS7.14%

Other15.31%

Parents no longer able to

accommodate61.22%

Relatives/friends can't accommodate

8.16%Relationship breakdown non

violent2.04%

The next two sections look in more detail at the reasons for loss of last settled home amongst the ethnic minority communities submitting the greatest proportion of homelessness applications to the borough. The Asian/Asian British community made up 5.94% of homeless applications; this represents a slight over-representation as only 5.16% of residents in the local population have an Asian/Asian British ethnic origin. In contrast the local Black/Black British population is significantly over-represented amongst homeless applicants. The proportion of Black households accepted as homeless by the borough is more than four times the proportion of Black residents in the local population. 8.39% of duty accepted homeless applications came from Black households. The number of homeless applications submitted by Mixed race households over the last two years is too small to draw meaningful conclusions from and are not considered here. 5.24% of homeless applications were submitted by households of an ‘Other’ ethnic origin. This is such a varied and disparate group that considering the small numbers studied here it is not possible to identify any common triggers of homelessness. Homelessness within Asian & Black Communities Although the number of duty accepted homeless applicants from both the Asian and Black communities is quite low (17 and 24 respectively) the details from these cases, and all of the national research available, make it possible to explore experiences of homelessness for these communities in more depth (as below). The number of cases for Mixed Race applicants (7) meant that it was difficult to examine underlying issues in more detail and, although there are more cases amongst ‘Other’ ethnic minority groups, it is not possible to identify the specific ethnic background and therefore what common homelessness cause and issues might be present. Homelessness in the Asian Community If we include households that suffered parental eviction along with those asked to leave the accommodation of other relatives and/or friends, the proportion of the local Asian community

76

that lost their last settled home because relatives and/or friends could no longer accommodate them exceeds a third of all applications from this ethnic group. The majority of Asian/Asian British homelessness applicants approached the borough because their parents, relatives and/or friends were no longer able or willing to accommodate them. In three out of four cases, however, relatives and friends had acted as a safety net against homelessness but were no longer able to provide accommodation, because of lack of space, because of the economic cost involved in having additional people in the house, and/or because tensions had arisen between the relatives or friends. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to think of the loss of accommodation in these cases not so much as the cause of homelessness but as one step along the path to homelessness. Although none of the cases studied here stated overcrowding as the immediate cause of their homelessness (‘overcrowding’ is not included in IBS as a sub-attribute of ‘reason for loss of last settled home’), it is worth highlighting the role of overcrowding in explaining why some Asian/Asian British households may no longer be able to accommodate relatives or friends. Asian households are affected disproportionately by overcrowding; 9% of all overcrowded households (13% of all severely overcrowded households) on the LBRuT housing register are Asian/Asian British, this compares to the proportion of Asian residents in the local population – 5.16%. The literature and the longitudinal data recording individual pathways into homelessness studied here suggests that given the importance of family, many Asian people would attempt to house a relative undergoing temporary financial or domestic difficulties. However, in some cases, there is simply no slack as families are already living in overcrowded and/or poor conditions. Households are extended vertically and horizontally, often including three generations under one roof8. 23.53% of Asian/Asian British households lost there last settled home due to eviction from rented and/or tied accommodation. In comparison only 13.50% of the local White population became homeless after losing accommodation in the private rented sector. This may reflect the heavy reliance on the private rented sector in Bangladeshi and refugee groups. Another 23.53% of Asian/Asian British households lost their last settled home as a result of eviction from UK Border Agency (formerly NASS) accommodation. The majority of these asylum seekers identified themselves as Asian Afghan. As a general rule, knowledge of both statutory and voluntary homelessness services is poor across all Asian groups (see footnote 4). This lack of knowledge may well result in ‘hidden’ homelessness, with Asian/Asian British households remaining homeless at home living in overcrowded and/or poor conditions with extended family or friends without approaching the council. This ‘hidden’ homelessness may account for the small proportion of homeless applicants from the local Asian community (5.94% of duty accepted applicants). However, the relatively low rates of statutory homelessness amongst the Asian/Asian British communities may also be owed to cultural preferences for home owning, to negative images of social housing, to a fear of being located away from one’s own community and family, and concern about racial harassment. Homelessness in the Black Community Homelessness in the Black community, as in all other ethnic minority groups is largely an outcome of social exclusion. Much of the research literature that covers the Black/Black British community considers it less important to discuss either the personal or the cultural

8 Communities and Local Government (2005), ‘Causes of Homelessness Amongst Ethnic Minority Populations’

77

factors that might contribute to homelessness, than to emphasise the common experiences of poverty, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, discrimination and hopelessness9. However locally, there are also causes or triggers to homelessness that are more commonly found in, or specific to, this community. In all cases where the reason for loss of last settled home was recorded as ‘Other’ a duty to house the applicants was accepted because they were 16/17 years old or post care 18-21 year olds all of whom had sought asylum. If we combine these households with those whose reason for homelessness was eviction from NASS (now the UK Border Agency) accommodation, half the homeless applicants from the Black/Black British community in the last two years were former asylum seekers. If we include households that suffered parental eviction along with those asked to leave the accommodation of other relatives and/or friends, the proportion of the local Black community that lost their last settled home because relatives and/or friends could no longer accommodate them exceeds 29%. The majority of those asked to leave by friends and/or family in the last two years fell into a priority need category due to their age; they were 16/17 years old or elderly singles. Black African households are disproportionately affected by homelessness. Two thirds of accepted homelessness applications from the Black/Black British population were from the Black African community. 46.15% of former asylum seekers accepted as homeless are Black Africans. Overall 5.59% of duty accepted homelessness cases from the last two years were submitted by Black African households. In contrast only 0.78% of the local population is estimated to be Black African. 75% of duty accepted Black African homelessness applicants had sought/were seeking asylum. Asylum seekers live in greater poverty than the general population and are more likely to be in a situation of near complete economic dependency on the state when they eventually become accepted as refugees10. The single most common trigger of statutory homelessness amongst refugees was the loss of NASS accommodation and/or support upon being granted asylum status or leave to remain (see footnote 5). Understanding the causes of ethnic minority homelessness There can be many contributing factors to the experience of homelessness. BME people are over-represented among low-income households (Shelter, 2004). Households on low incomes often struggle to pay their housing costs, resulting in rent or mortgage arrears. Arrears can lead to homelessness when landlords decide to evict. Unemployment is also disproportionate amongst the BME population (ONS, 2004). Unemployment can often trigger homelessness, as it generates or compounds households’ inability to cover their housing costs. Large families are harder to support and families with only one earner tend to have below average household incomes. Consequently, large families, single income families and lone-parent families are more likely to be in poverty and at greater risk of homelessness. Large and lone-parent households are more common amongst certain BME groups than the White British population (Housing Corporation, 2008). The Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations have significantly fewer dual income households (Housing Corporation, 2008).

9 Communities and Local Government (2005), ‘Causes of Homelessness Amongst Ethnic Minority Populations’ 10 Garvie, D. (2001), Far from home: The housing of asylum seekers in private rented accommodation, Shelter

78

Overcrowding and ‘hidden’ homelessness (for example, people sleeping on sofas and floors in the homes of friends and relatives) can also create conditions leading to statutory homelessness. For example, in cases where pressures on the host household result in them asking the ‘hidden’ homeless household to leave, the latter usually have no tenancy rights and are often forced to make a homeless application. BME households are at least five times more likely to live in overcrowded conditions than White households (CLG, 2008). However, there is a lack of research into ‘hidden’ homelessness amongst BME households. A number of studies have suggested that ‘hidden’ homelessness might be more likely amongst certain BME groups, particularly Asian households (Shelter, 2004). This can arise out of a need to accommodate family and community members, particularly those coming from abroad. The presence of concealed nuclear families within extended families can contribute to overcrowding. ‘Hidden’ homelessness can also occur because households are unaware of, or reluctant to exercise, their rights under housing and homelessness legislation. This failure to access support services is often the result of the language and cultural barriers that BME groups face when accessing housing services. People who have recently sought asylum are much more likely to be accepted as homeless. While people await the determination of their asylum claim, they are excluded from both employment and entitlement to mainstream welfare benefits. Since April 2000, asylum seeking households who find themselves destitute are entitled to apply to the UK Border Agency (formerly the National Asylum Support Service (NASS)), which can provide accommodation and financial support. Once people have been granted refugee status or leave to remain in the UK, they gain entitlements to homelessness assistance and welfare benefits. However, households accommodated by the UK Border Agency usually only have a few weeks (minimum 28 days notice to quit) to secure alternative accommodation before they are evicted. In the face of this ‘crisis homelessness’, former asylum applicants are often forced to make an application for homelessness assistance. As a result a significant proportion of BME homeless applicants are former asylum seekers. In all ethnic groups the main trigger of homelessness was eviction by relatives and/or friends (particularly parents): in the White and Mixed ethnic groups this reason for loss of last settled home accounted for more than 50% of duty accepted homeless cases. 35.29% of Asian/Asian British, 29.17% of Black/Black British and 33.33% of Other ethnic origin homeless applicants had been asked to leave accommodation by relatives and/or friends. An investigation of case histories suggests that the higher proportion of evictions by relatives and/or friends in the Asian community is because those relatives and friends had been acting as a safety net against homelessness. They were no longer able to provide accommodation, because of lack of space, because of the economic cost involved in having additional people in the house, and/or because tensions had arisen between the relatives or friends. Homelessness and Ethnicity - References Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2006), Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities CLG (2008), Survey of English Housing 2006/07 Garvie, D. (2001), Far from home: The housing of asylum seekers in private rented accommodation, Shelter

79

Housing Corporation (2008), Understanding Demographic, Spatial and Economic Impacts on Future Affordable Housing Demand: Paper Seven – BME housing needs and aspirations London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) (2008), Homelessness Review LBRuT (2008), Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) ODPM (2005), Causes of Homelessness Amongst Ethnic Minority Populations: Research Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2004), Annual Local Area Labour Force Survey 2001/02 Shelter (2004), The black and minority ethnic housing crisis Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2000), Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal

80

Chapter Six: Ethnic Profile of Housing association Lettings and Intermediate Housing Ethnic Profile of Housing Association Lettings - Data from CORE CORE (Continous Recording System) provides data on the number of lettings to each ethnic group made during each financial year. It categorizes ethnicity using Census 2001 definitions. It is useful to review this data to see if any ethnic group are either under- or over- represented in new housing association lettings. Information on this may reflect greater levels of housing need (such as overcrowding or homelessness) affecting certain ethnic minority groups. This data is available by area or by Housing Association. Below, this information is looked at for both the Richmond upon Thames area and for the two largest Housing Associations operating in the borough – Richmond Housing Partnership and Richmond upon Thames Churches Housing Trust. All Housing Association lettings in LBRuT Housing association lettings (general needs) to White British residents

75

70

65

60

55

% general needs lettings toWhite British households

73.6 69.2 69.2 61.9 64.3 64.12002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Source: Core New Lettings in Richmond upon Thames April 2007 to March 2008

Lettings to White British households have decreased from 73.6% in 2002/03 to 64.1% in 2007/08. However, between 2006/07 and 2007/08 there has been very little change in the percentage of lettings to White British residents.

81

Housing association lettings (general needs) to White Other & White Irish residents

0

5

10

15

% general needs lettings to WhiteOther households

6.1 7.9 8.7 9.7 10.4 9.4

% general needs lettings to WhiteIrish households

2.9 3.3 1.8 1.2 2.8 2.2

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Source: Core New Lettings in Richmond upon Thames April 2007 to March 2008

Lettings to White ‘Other’ residents increased over the last five years with 6.1% of lettings in 2002/03 rising to 10.4% of lettings in 2006/07. There has been a slight decrease in 2007/08 with 9.4% of lettings to White ‘Other’ residents. Lettings to White Irish residents have fluctuated slightly over the last six years but at 2.2% in 2007/08 they have decreased only slightly from the 2.0% of lets in 2002/03. Housing association lettings (general needs) to Asian residents

82

Lettings to all Asian residents have fluctuated within the last six years but are higher, at 7.7%, in 2007/08 than in 2002/03 when lets to all Asian residents were 5.7%. They were at their highest in 2006/07 when 10.8% of lets were made to all Asian residents. Lettings to Asian Indian residents have remained relatively constant throughout the last six years and are the same in 2007/08, at 1.1%, as in 2002/03. There were no lets to A e

ave remained at broa

ughout the period in-

% in 2006/07 then an increase to 5.2% in 2007/08.

Housing association lettings (general needs) to Chinese and Other Residents

10

12

8

6

4

2

0

% general needs lettings to 5.7 7.5 6 10.8 4.8

7.7

% general needs lettings to

1.1 2 1 1.2 0.6 1.1Indian households% general needs lettings toPakistani households

0 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.6

% general needs lettings toBangladeshi households

0.8 0.2 0.4 1.8 0.3 0.8

% general needs lettings toAsian Other households

3.8 4.8 4.2 7.2 2.8 5.2

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

sian Pakistani residents in 2002/03 but from 2003/04 to 2007/08 thdly the same level - around 0.5%.

yh Lettings to Asian Bangladeshi residents are at the same level (0.8%) in 2007/08 as they

ere in 2002/03, although there has been some fluctuation throwbetween. Lettings to Asian Other increased between 2002/03 and 2005/06 (from 3.8% to 7.2%) ollowed by a decrease to 2.8f

83

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

% general needs lettings toChinese households

0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3

% general needs lettings to Otherhouseholds

1.3 1.1 1.6 1.4 0.6 3

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Source: Core New Lettings in Richmond upon Thames April 2007 to March 2008

ettings to Chinese residents are slightly lower in 2007/08, at 0.3%, than in 2002/03 when

ing the last six years from 1.3% in 2002/03 3% in 2007/08, although they were lower in 2006/07 when only 0.6% of new lets were

Lthey were 0.6% of all housing association lettings in that year. Lettings to ‘Other’ households have increased durtomade to ‘Other’ households.

84

Housing association lettings (general needs) to Mixed Race residents

Source: Core New Lettings in Richmond upon Thames April 2007 to March 2008

Lettings to

6

8

4

2

0

42002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

% general needs lettings toMixed households

.8 3.8 3.8 5 7.6 4.9

Mixed Race residents have remained relatively stable throughout the period 2002/03 (4.6%) to 2007/08 (4.9%). The year 2006/07 saw an increase to 7.6% before dropping back to levels similar to previous years. Housing association lettings (general needs) to Black residents

9

7

8

6

3

5

4

2

0

1

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

% general needs lettings to 4.4Black households

6.1 7.8 7.8 8.4 6.2

% general needs lettings toBlack Caribbean households

1.1 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.8 1.7

% general needs lettings toBlack African households

2.5 2.7 4 4.7 4.8 3.9

% general needs lettings toBlack Other households

0.8 0.7 1 0.6 0.8 0.6

Source: Core New Lettings in Richmond upon Thames April 2007 to March 2008

85

Lettings to all Black households have increased from 4.4% in 2002/03 to 6.2% in 2007/08, however this is slightly lo 00 hen els had risen to 8.4%. Lettings to Black Carib s have also increased 1.1% in 2002/03 to 1.7% in 2007/08 but were slightly higher during the period in-between when they rose temporarily to 2.8%. Levels of lettings to Bl reased er the last six years, from 2.5% to 3.9%, althoug an 2006/07 w n th ere 4.8%. Lettings to Black Othe ively stan oughout the period 2002/03 (at 0.8%) to 2

wer than the recent peak in 2 6/07 w lev

bean resident mfro

ack African residents hy lower th

ave inc ovh this is slightl he ey w

r residents have remained relat con t thr007/08 (at 0.6%).

Key findings – letting ve d as er the last six years, s to White British households ha e rec ed ovhowever, between 200 n ve little in the percentage 6/07 and 2007/08 there has bee ry changeof lettings to White British residents. Levels of lettings to W ave increased over the last five years but hite ‘Other’ ethnic groups hthere has been a sligh Lettings to W Irish residents have fluctuated t decrease in 2007/08. hiteslightly over the last six years but have decreased only slightly from the levels recorded in 2002/03. Lettings to higher in 2007/08 Asian residents have fluctuated within the last six years but arethan in 2002/03. Levels of lettings to Chinese residents are lower in 2007/08 than in 2002/03, however, this is based on a relatively small total number of households. Lettings to ‘Other’ ethnic groups have increased over the last six years, except a decrease in 2006/07, before rising again. Lettings to Mixed Race groups have remained relatively stable, apart from an increase in 2006/07 before they returned to previous levels. Lettings &u Richmond Housing Partnership - New Lettings (General s) April 2007 to March 2T elow, shows all general n ds new lets for the period April 2007 to March 2008 for Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP). It provides details of ity for the main applicant for all RHP lettings, not just within Richmond upon Thames. information is fro E (C cording System) retu . The total number of new lettings fo period is 210 and 1 ) of the are letfollowing a referra

Ethnicity for Main Housing Associations Operating in Richmond es pon Tham

Need008 able 1, b ee

ethnicThis m COR

ontinous Re rns

r the 55 (74% se s l from the LBRuT.

86

Richmond Housing Partnership 2007/08 Ethnic group of person 1 Total %

White: British 138 66% White: Irish 4 2% White: Other 20 9% Mixed: White & Black Caribbean 3 1% Mixed: White & Black African 2 1% Mixed: White & Asian 1 1% Mixed: Other 3 1% Asian/Asian British: Indian 3 1% Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 2 1% Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi 3 1% Asian/Asian British: Other 14 7% Black/Black British: Caribbean 3 1% Black/Black British: African 8 4% Black/Black British: Other 0 0% Chinese/Other: Chinese 0 0% Chinese/Other: Other 4 2% Missing 1 1% Refused 1 1% Total 2 110 00%

Source: Core 200 Mar 08 Guidance on LettingThe Housing Corporation Regulatory Guidance 2005 (Section 2.7), states that ‘housing associations must dem t all their ir commitment to equal opportunity’. It goes on to state that ‘specifically in relation to black and minority ethnic (BME) people’ housing associations ure that ‘lettings: are proportionate to BME housing need, or census data where this information is deficient, in the area where association has homes’.

he table below shows all general needs new lets for the period April 2007 to March 2008

General Needs New Lettings (RHP) April 7 to ch 20

s to BME Households

onstrate, when carrying ou functions, the

should ens

Tfor RHP, compared to Census 2001 data for the ethnic make up of the borough.

Richmond Housing Partnership Lettings 2007/08 & Census 2001 Ethnic Description RHP number of lettings % of all RHP lettings Census 2001Asian 22 10% 4% Black 11 5% 1% Mixed 9 4% 2.3% White 162 77% 91% Other 4 2% 2.1% Not Known 1 1% N/A

Refused 1 1% N/A Total 210 100%

Source: Core General Needs New Lettings (RHP) April 2007 to March 2008 & Census 2001 As can be seen in the table above the percentage of RHP lettings to each ethnic group is either equal to, or greater than, the percentage of residents from each ethnic group according to Census 2001 data, except for ‘Other’ ethnic groups where there is only a difference of 0.1% between the percentage of lettings and the Census data.

87

Richmond upon Thames Churches Housing Trust - New Lettings (General Needs) April 200The ta shows a ets for 7 to Marfor Richmond Churches Housing Trust (RuTCHT). It provides details of ethni ty for ain

t for all RuTCHT lettings, Richmond up hames. Th inform n is RE (Continous Recording System) returns.

l number of new lettings e period is 170 and 13 ) of these are le a referral from the LBRu

urches Housing T t 2007/08

7 to March 2008 ble below ll general needs new l the period April 200

cich 2008

the mapplican not just within on T is atiofrom CO The tota

gfor thT

8 (81% ts followin .

ChRichmond rusEthnic group of person 1 Total %

White: British 105 62% White: Irish 3 2% White: Other 11 7% Mixed: White & Black Caribbean 3 2% Mixed: White & Black African 3 2% Mixed: White & Asian 2 1% Mixed: Other 3 2% Asian/Asian British: Indian 3 2% Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 1 1% Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi 0 0% Asian/Asian British: Other 11 6% Black/Black British: Caribbean 2 1% Black/Black British: African 8 5% Black/Black British: Other 2 1% Chinese/Other: Chinese 0 0% Chinese/Other: Other 2 1% Missing 4 1% Refused 7 4% Total 170 100%

Source: Core General Needs New Lettings (RHP) April 2007 to March 2008 The table below shows all general needs new lets for the period April 2007 to March 2008 for RuTCHT compared to Census 2001 data for the ethnic make up of the borough.

unt the Regulatory Code & Guidance 2005 (as above) the percentage of of

ther’ he

Taking into accoRuTCHT lettings to each ethnic group is either equal to, or greater than, the percentageresidents from each ethnic group according to Census 2001 data, except again for ‘Oethnic groups, although, as for RHP, there is only a difference of 0.1% between tpercentage of lettings and the Census data for ‘Other’ ethnic groups.

88

Richmond Churches Housing Trust Lettings 2007/08 & Census 2001

Ethnic Description

RUTCHT number of lettings

% of all RUTCHT lettings

Census 2001 Asian 15 9% 4% Black 12 7% 1% Mixed 11 6% 2.3% White 119 70% 91% Other 2 2% 2.1%

n 4 2% N/A Not KnowRefused 7 4% N/A Total 170 100%

Source: Core General Needs New Lettings (RHP) April 2007 to March 2008 & Census 2001 Key findings - the Housing Corporation Regulatory Guidance 2005 (Section 2.7), includes a requirement for BME lettings and states that ‘specifically in relation to black and minority ethnic (BME) people’ housing associations should ensure ‘lettings: are proportionate to BME housing need, or census data where this information is deficient, in the area where association has homes’. Both for RHP and RuTCHT the percentage of lettings to each ethnic group is either equal to, or greater than, the percentage of residents from each ethnic group according to Census 2001 data, except for ‘Other’ ethnic groups. There is a very slight difference of 0.1% between the percentage of lettings and the Census data for ‘Other’ ethnic groups in the borough for both RHP and RuTCHT. Intermediate Housing & Ethnicity Intermediate housing ref

pen rker

which offers people the chance to buy or rent homes

ts of 17

ed for New Build Home Ownership,

ing in

occupation etc.). We have also compared the 603 successful applicants with those that have been rejected. These findings have been compared to statistics drawn from the sub-

hs; Croydon,

ers to sub market housing which is above target rents but below market levels. This includes various forms of shared ownership housing, key woo

housing and sub market rent provision. Key workers are crucial public sector employees such as nurses and other NHS staff, teachers, police officers, prison and probation staff, andfire fighters. Data sources The following data on intermediate housing in the LBRuT has been provided by Tower

omes; a housing association,Hthroughout London and the South of England. Tower Homes is the Homes and Communities Agency zone agent for the South West London sub-region. Tower Homes is part of the L&Q group, and is now referred to as L&Q. Tower has provided the details of 758 applications for intermediate housing from residenLBRuT, of which 155 (20%) have been rejected. Residents submitted applications for

ifferent types of intermediate housing. 269 (35%) applidother schemes applied for include; First Time Buyer Initiatives, Open Market Home Ownership, and Key Worker Living schemes. The 758 applications have been used to gather information on the type of people, livthe borough, who want intermediate housing (their ethnicity, household income, and

region. The South West (London) Sub-region is made up of 7 London boroug

89

Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond, Sutton, and Wandsworth. In so doing we hope tdemonstrate where the experience of LBRuT refle

o cts the wider picture in intermediate

ousing and where it differs.

Intermediate Housing Applications and Ethnicity The information from Tower Homes splits applicants into 17 ethnic groups following the 2001 Census categories, e.g. Black/Black British Caribbean, Black/Black British African and Black/Black British Other. Due to the sample size, and to help interpret/analyse the data, it was necessary to group these into broader categories; Asian/Asian British, Black/Black British, Chinese & Other, Mixed Race, and White. Percentage of applications for LBRuT by ethnic group

h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Asian Black Chinese & Other Mixed White Refused

% Applicants 3 3 3 4 83 4% Borough 5 2 2 3 89

vast majority (83%) of applicants are White; 505 of the successful applicants are White nd 125 of those rejected are White, 84% and 81% respectively. 84% of this group refer to

themselves as White British, with a small number of White Irish (28) and of Other White Background (74). The number of applications from Asian (21), Black (25), Chinese & Other (21) and Mixed Race (30) groups are similar to one another and much lower. 31 applicants left the question unanswered. According to Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) 112005 population estimates the ethnic composition of applicants for intermediate housing roughly reflects the ethnic make up of the borough (see chart below). However, the White population of the borough is slightly under-represented in applications to Tower, and there is a small over-representation of Black, Chinese & Other, and Mixed Race groups. It should be noted that there are no ‘refused/not given’ categories in DMAG ethnicity data. Although the ethnic background of LBRuT applicants roughly reflects the composition of the borough, it does not represent the ethnic mix of successful applicants from across the sub-region. Across the sub-region Tower received a greater proportion of successful applications from Asian, Mixed Race, and (markedly) Black groups, and 25% fewer

Source: Tower Homes 2008 & DMAG population estimates 2005 (rounded up/down to nearest %)

heTa

11 Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) estimates 2005 (published in 2007)

90

applications from the White population. This reflects the high black and ethnopulations in other boroughs of the sub-region.

ic minority p Ethnic composition of successful & rejected applications

50

60

70

80

90

10

20

30

40

0Asian Black Chinese

& OtherMixed White

& all applications 3 3 3 4 83 4

% Successful applicants 3 4 3 4 84 2

% Rejected applicants 3 3 4 3 81 3

Refused

to nearest % Source; Tower Homes 2008. Rounded up/down

Key findings – the majority of applications for intermediate housing are from the White community however, the percentage of applicants broadly reflect population estimates for the borough. When comparing the ethnic wn ca st t tage breakdo of all appli tions again he percen of successful and rejected applications there are no significant differences.

91

Chapter Seven: Supporting Independent Living For Hous smen households with support needs in the borough and ethnicity. The data within Fordham’s assessment covers a wide range of groups with support needs and they are described a ail Elderly / People with a Physical Disab eople with a Learning Disability / People with Mental Health problems / People with a Sensory Disability / Others. The intention was to identify the ipal groups who, due to th ndition or v , ‘have require nts for spe d forms of housing provision or else require support services in order to continue living an independent life’.

he table below shows that ‘Black or Black British’ households were the most likely to have n

issues).

ower unit (22.5% of all support needs households) • Support Services to home (20.4% of all support needs households)

dham’s Local ing Asses t 2007 provides data on

s – Fr ility / P

princ eir coulnerability me cialise

Tsupport needs (25.4% of all Black households have a support need) and ‘Asian or AsiaBritish’ households are the least likely to contain a person with support needs (5.3% of all Asian households have a support need). Fordham’s also found that support needs households are more likely to be living in ‘unsuitable’ housing (this includes overcrowding and affordability The most commonly sought adaptations or improvements (from the categories offered in Fordham’s questionnaire) were –

• Level access sh

• Other alterations to bathroom/toilet (18.9% of all support needs households) Support needs households and ethnic group

Ethnic group Support needs

No support needs

Number of h/hlds

% of total % of those h/hlds with with a

support support needs need

White 7,502 64,731 72,233 10.4 91.2Mixed 211 721 932 22.6 2.6Asian or Asian British 126 2,249 2,375 5.3 1.5Black or Black British 179 526 705 25.4 2.2Any other ethnic group 210 1,085 1,295 16.2 2.6Total 8,228 69,312 77,540 10.6 100.0

Source: LBRuT Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007

using lettings to ach ethnic group made during each financial year. The table below shows the ethnicity of

the main applicant for all new lettings for the period 2007-2008.

CORE Data on Supported Housing Lettings & Ethnicity CORE provides data on the number of Housing Association supported hoe

92

Supported Housing New lettings in Richmond upon Thames 2007-2008 Ethnic

Description No. of

lettings % of all

ings Fordham’s’ – % of all h/hlds with a

lett support need Asian 11 .8%4 2% Black 12 5.3% 2%

6 2.6% 3% MixedWhite 195 % 1% 86.2 9Other 1 .4% 3% 0 Not Known 0 0% N/A Refused 1 0.4% N/A Total 226

Source: Supported H g Ne n Ap to M 2 T of supported housing to ‘Other’ ethnic minority groups a the proportion of ‘Other’ ethnic group households wit heb ttings to Black and Asian hous olds ppear to slightlye holds with support needs identified by Fordham’s assessment, however, it is not possible t reak down the type of supported ing sel ken in terpreting this data.

Core ousin w Letti gs ril 2007 arch 008

he percentage of new lettingsppears to be low compared to hin t orough with a support need. Le

useeh a

xceed the proportion of hoo b hous the

ets are for, so caution should be ta in

K ing to Fordham’s Local Housing Assessment 2007, Black or ey findings – accord Black B kely to e a support need and Asian or A Brritish households are the most li hav sian itish h are also more likely to be living ouseholds were the least likely. Support need households in unsuitable housing. When comparing new lets of supported housing (C e da ) wit the p rcenta of or ta h e ge h , lets to ‘Other’ ethnic minority groups appear to be low and ouseholds with a support needB seholds are slightly high. lack and Asian hou S Supporting People (SP) is a national prog mme th wa mp ente on 1 April 2 Itsmain aim is to help vulnerable people to either maintain or work towards inde den ngvia housing related support. Support can either be ccom odation based or ‘ tinsupport’ which attaches to the individual wherever they live.

rant was previously ring fenced

upporting People

ra at s i lem d 003. pen t livi

a m floa g

The Supporting People gs

to provide housing related support ervices, however, the grant became de-ring fenced in April 2009.

The table below shows a breakdown of services by client group as of July 2009, with capacity to assist 1,574 households. Over 90% of existing provision is accommodation based and all of the floating support is confined to social rented housing.

93

94

Primary Client Group

Acc

om. B

ased

Se

rvic

e

Acc

om. b

ased

with

flo

atin

g/re

settl

emen

t/o

utre

ach

supp

ort

Com

mun

ity o

r Soc

ial

Ala

rm S

ervi

ce

Floa

ting

Supp

ort

Serv

ice

Res

ettle

men

t Se

rvic

e

Tota

l

%

No.

of S

ervi

ces

Frail elderly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Older people with support needs 946 3 148 0 0 1097 69.7 43Older people with mental health problems/dementia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Offenders or people at risk of offending 19 6 0 12 0 37 2.35 4

Mentally disordered offenders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0People with mental health problems 70 6 0 49 0 125 7.94 17

People with a physical or sensory disability 3 0 0 0 0 3 0.19 1

People with HIV/AIDS 6 0 0 0 0 6 0.38 4People with learning disabilities 29 0 0 13 0 42 2.67 8People with alcohol problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0People with drug problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Refugees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rough sleeper 33 6 0 0 0 39 2.48 4Single homeless with support needs 12 0 0 0 125 137 8.70 3

Homeless families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Traveller 0 0 0 15 0 15 0.95 1Teenage parents 4 0 0 0 0 4 0.25 1Women at risk of domestic violence 15 0 0 14 0 29 1.84 3

Young people at risk 4 0 0 18 0 22 1.40 4Young people leaving care 7 11 0 0 0 18 1.14 3Generic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0Total 1148 32 148 121 125 1574 100.00 96% 72.94 2.03 9.40 7.69 7.94 100.00

Source: LBRuT Supporting People July 2009 Richmond upon Thames Supporting People Strategy Evidence Base 2005-2010 The Richmond upon Thames Supporting People Strategy Evidence Base 2005-2010 highlights some issues around housing related support and ethnicity, however, numbers are considered insufficient to support the provision of specialist support services for particular communities so an approach of ensuring services are accessible and appropriate for all has been taken.

tatistics from the Health Protection Agen dents

es in the borough.

S cy in 2003 showed that 167 borough resiwere seen for care due to HIV/AIDS and that Black African households were over represented (12%) amongst this group when comparing the make up of the borough population. However, it should be noted that not everyone who has HIV/AIDS will require either housing or housing related support. As can be seen in the table above there are currently 4 HIV/AIDS accommodation based support servic

A 2002 report from the former Housing Corporation (now The Tenant Services Authority) isability & Housing’ found that there was poor take up of schemes amongst BME people

ichmond upon Thames Supporting People Access to Services - Equality Impact

thered from the SPOCC (Supporting People Oxford Computer onsultants) software application used by the Supporting People team.

rom the non-White ethnic

roups. Twenty five individuals out of the 113 service users under review either chose to not

er of service users looked at in total, and the high number of ervice users for whom ethnicity is not known (22%), it is difficult to draw any conclusions

INA highlights the need for improved monitoring of ethnicity in the future.

ople Service Users

’Dwith physical and sensory disabilities. RNeeds Assessment (EINA) An EINA on fair access to Supporting People services was carried out in 2009. The EINA looked at the details of 113 service users who accessed housing related services over a 12 month period which were funded through the Supporting People programme. This information was gaC The chart below shows the ethnic breakdown of the 113 service users. Only six individualsout of the 113 service users defined their race/ethnicity as being fgprovide information on their race/ethnicity or may not have been given an opportunity to do so. Due to the relatively small numbsfrom this data. As there is currently no single gateway into Supporting People services it is not possible to check if service users are always given the opportunity to define their race/ethnicity. The E

reakdown of Supporting PeB

Supporting People Service Users by Ethnicity

1 1 1 3

25

82

Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Mixed Other Not Known White

Source: LBRuT Supporting People Access to Services - Equality Impact Needs Assessment (EINA) *based on 113 service users

Key findings – there is very limited data available for the ethnicity of Supporting People service users and therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions about need for services or take up by ethnic groups. The ‘snapshot’ data that is available for 113 service users highlights the large proportion for which ethnicity is not known (22%).

95

Older People’s Supported Housing The Older People’s Supported Housing Review March 2008 looked at the ethnicity of the

lder population in the borough using data from the Census 2001.

lation in Richmond upon hames across all age groups was 9%, and it is estimated that this has now increased to

the total BME population who are over 65 was 1,000, hich is 4.35% of the total over 65 population. The total BME population over 85 was 56 or

groups in the older population are people from the Asian Indian community. he older BME population is likely to rise over the next ten years, particularly as there are

ent of

the need to ensure that future rovision is culturally sensitive.

o According to the 2001 Census, the Black and Minority Ethnic popuT10.1%. In 2005, it was estimated thatw1.6% of the total. The largest BMET1,182 people in the 55-64 age group which is 6.2% of the total. The review found that the numbers at present would not seem to support the developma specific accommodation based scheme for ethnic elders, however, the needs of the older BME population need to be kept under review, particularlyp Key findings - In 2005, it was estimated that the total BME population who are over 65 yrs old was 1,000 (4.35% of all over 65s) and the total BME population over 85 yrs old was 56 (1.6% of all over 85s) and the older BME population is likely to rise over the next ten years. The largest BME group in the older population are people from the Asian Indian community. Mental Health & Ethnicity A report, ‘Mental Heath & Ethnicity in Richmond upon Thames’, was produced in 2007 for the Mental Health Accommodation Review Steering Group. ‘Count me In’ Healthcare Commission Census One of the sources of data that the steering group report looked at was the ‘Count Me In’

port which was a census of all adult and children inpatients in mental health hospitals and he

a snapshot of the ethnicity of patients on the day.

• Indian, Chinese and White British groups were under-represented on standard rates d be expected by population level)

represented on standard rates of admissions (i.e. pected by population levels).

• Particularly high rates of admissions were found amongst Black Caribbean, Mixed

y the Department of Health which allows analysis f data on a number of health issues at borough, regional and national level. It covers a

focus on measuring health inequalities between areas.

s ession/anxiety medication and psychiatric admission rates to determine an overall

refacilities in England and Wales on the 31st March 2005. The census was carried out by tHealthcare commission and provided Some of the Key Findings were –

of admissions (i.e. lower than what woul

• All other ethnic groups were over-higher than what would be ex

Race Black Caribbean & White and Mixed Race Other ethnic groups. The Health Poverty Index (HPI) The HPI is a statistical resource funded bonumber of health concerns with a The HPI uses data on suicide, levels of mental health associated benefits, prescribing levelfor depr

96

psychological morbidity rate using a ‘scoring’ system. The index ranks all boroughs linearly ne

orst situation in terms of health outcomes). It is important to realise that some ethnic groups have relatively small populations in Richmond which may be of importance when analysing datasets. The key findings in Richmond were -

• Psychological morbidity rates are comparatively higher amongst Pakistani, Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Black African ethnic groups than the White ethnic group.

• Rates are comparatively lower amongst Indian and Chinese ethnic groups.

• Richmond has lower rates for all ethnic groups when compared to the England

average for each ethnic group. The greatest differentials in psychological morbidity can be seen amongst White and Chinese groups.

• Compared to ‘London Outer Suburbs’ (Office for National Statistics defined area)

rates of psychological morbidity are higher in Richmond

ghest in highest rate in the sub region for rates

ional comparison shows Richmond has some of the lowest levels of esidents.

• Sub regionally comparisons show Richmond is third / fourth worst for Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Black African residents.

Snapshot Data from SW London and St Georges MH Trust on Ethnicity of Mental Health Service users in Richmond Data provided by SW London & St. George's MH Trust for Richmond on ethnicity of service users helps give us a snapshot of the ethnicity of service users. The data is from the KPI Quarter 3 Report. Data is available from three separate sources

• Community mental health teams • Assertive outreach services • Crisis & Home Treatment and Inpatient Services

It should be stressed that caution should be exercised when making comparisons with Census 2001 data as, amongst other concerns, a small sample size of service users may disproportionately affect percentages and there are differences nic

e, with the Census 2001 r-represented as service

sers.

with a score between 0 and 1 (with zero being the best possible health outcome and obeing the w

amongst Pakistani,Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean residents.

• Sub regional analysis shows rates of psychological morbidity are generally hi

Lambeth. Richmond does however have theof psychological morbidity amongst residents with a Pakistani ethnicity.

• Sub reg

psychological morbidity in the sub region for Chinese, Indian and White r

in definitions for ethgroups between the collection sources.

thnic Minority Service Users EThe following graphs compare ethnicity of service users, by servic

rofile of Richmond’s ethnic minority groups to see which are ovepu

97

Ethnicity of Service Users (Excluding White) - Community Mental Health Team Statistics

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

%

Black

African

Black

Caribbean

Asian

Chinese

Other

Service UsersCensus 2001

KPI Quarter 3 Report

• Black African and to a lesser extent Black Caribbean service users are over-

represented compared to their proportion of Richmond’s population in using

Ethnicity of Service Users (Excluding White) – Assertive Outreach Team

Community Mental Health Team services.

• Asian, Chinese and Other service users are slightly over-represented as service users.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

%

Black

African

Black

Caribbean

Asian

Chinese

Other

Service UsersCensus 2001

KPI Quarter 3 Report

ertive

• Black African service users are over-represented as service users of the AssOutreach Team compared to their proportion of Richmond’s population.

• To a lesser extent so are Asian and Other ethnic groups.

98

Ethnicity of Service Users - Crisis & Home Treatment and Inpatient Services

3.5

4

2.5

3

1

1.5

2%Service UsersCensus 2001

0

0.5

Black

African

Blac

Cari

Asian

Chines

Other

kbbean

e

KPI Quarter 3 Report

•

• Black African and Black Caribbean service users of crisis and home treatment and

inpatient services are over-represented when compared to the proportion of population.

Chinese and Other service users are under- represented in using these services.

Comparison of White Service Users with Census 2001 population make up

75

100

90

80

85

%

95

CM

AOT

CH

T

Service Users

Census 01'

HT IS

KPI Quarter 3 Report

• The majority of service users for all mental health services are white.

• White service users of the community mental health team are slightly under-

represented when compared to their proportion of Richmond’s population.

• White service users of the Assertive Outreach Team are under-represented when compared to their proportion of Richmond’s population.

99

Key findings – a census of mental health hospital inpatients for England & Wales in 2005 found that Indian, Chinese and White British groups were under-represented in rates of admissions whereas all other ethnic groups were over-represented, especially Black Caribbean, Mixed Race Black Caribbean & White and Mixed Race Other ethnic groups. The Health Poverty Index (HPI) provides data on the overall psychological morbidity rate at borough level using a ‘scoring’ system, with higher rates denoting poorer outcomes. Morbidity rates are comparatively higher amongst Pakistani, Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Black African ethnic groups than the White ethnic group, whereas rates are comparatively lower amongst Indian and Chinese ethnic groups. Sub regional analysis shows rates of psychological morbidity are generally highest in Lambeth. Richmond does however have the highest rate in the sub region for rates of psychological morbidity amongst residents with a Pakistani ethnicity and some of the lowest levels of psychological morbidity in the sub region for Chinese, Indian and White residents. Snapshot of service users in Richmond from SW London and St Georges MH Trust on Ethnicity of Mental Health Service provides ethnicity data for service users.

ata for the Community Mental Health Team found that Black African, and to a lesser extent DBlack Caribbean, service users were over-represented compared to their proportion of Richmond’s population whereas Asian, Chinese and Other service users are slightly over-represented as service users. Data for the Assertive Outreach Team showed that Black African service users were over-represented as service users of the service, compared to the make up of Richmond’s popula sser ex ian hnic tion and, to a le tent, so are As and Other et groups. Data for the Crisis & Home Treatment and Inpatient Services found that Black African and Black Caribbean service users were over-r resented when ompared to the proportion oep c f population. Chinese and Other service use are under-represented in using these servicers s. Domestic Abuse

se is a significant cause of h elessness and an also lead to the need for easures to ensure that a person can remain safely within their home. The LBRu

lti Agency Risk Assessment onference (M C) initiative to handle referr participating agencies and the Safety First Scheme which aims to

s in a person’s home Both of these are looked at in more detail

cs for the period 2007/08 to 2008/09 ow that there were 11 (4%) e ‘relationship violence (partne other)’ was s d as the cause of

e cases, 7 were fr White appli , 1 from a Black applicant, 1 group applicant, and the ethnicity e remaining 2 cases is not

gh this is quite a low number of cases it should be noted that the s Strategy draws attention to e likelihood t there is significant under

Domestic abu om csecurity m T operates a Mu C ARA als of domestic abuse fromaddress security issuebelow.

.

Homelessness statisti

her sh

cases w r / tatehomelessness. Of thes

r’ ethnic om cants

from an ‘Otheou

for thknown. AlthHomelessnes

ng. th hat

reporti

100

Richmond upon Thames Strategic Assessment 2007 The n Tha ic As includ the urvey e sur 16% of all in

r domestic violence.

period 2005/06 and 2006/07 e LBRuT had th est number of domestic abuses across the Metropolitan Police Service, and in the period April to June 2007 the h had the second lowest.

found that p le of African/Caribbean appearance are ortionately affected by dom se, when comparing the levels reported

ese communities with the make up of the borough

ain Reason for Application

dings.

Richmond upo British Crime S

mes Strateg 2006/07. Th

sessment 2007vey found that

ed some key findings fromcidents of violence

were fo For the th e low offenceboroug

sessment alsoThe asdisprop

eopestic abu within

population. This is an issue echoed thacross the Metropolitan Police Service.

ousing Register Cases - Domestic Abuse as MHThe tables below look at all the applications on the housing register, compared to populationestimates, where the main reason for applying for housing has been stated as ‘Domestic Abuse’. It should be taken into account that it is only a small number of cases in total, and that for 20.2% of all cases ethnicity is not known, so caution should be taken when onsidering the finc

Some of the cases looked at below will be ‘out of borough’ applications from people fleeing domestic violence and seeking to leave an area where they may fear for their safety. However, it is very unlikely that these cases would be awarded enough points to access

ousing in LBRuT. h Main Reason for Re-Housing - Domestic Abuse (DOM)

Ethnic Group No. of DOM apps

% all DOM cases

DMAG 2007 Population Estimates

Asian Afghan Asian Bangladeshi 0.4Asian Indian 1 1.3 2.8Asian Other 2 2.7 0.8Asian Pakistani 1 1.3 0.7Black African 4 5.4 0.7Black Caribbean 4 5.4 0.8Black Other 3 4 0.2Chinese 0.9Mixed Other 1 1.3 0.7Mixed White & Asian 1Mixed White & Black African 0.3

Mixed White & Black Caribbean 1 1.3 0.5

Other 6 8.1 1.3Refused / Not Known 15 20.2 White British 28 37.8 75.7White Irish 1 1.3 2.6White Other 7 9.4 10.6Total 74

Source: LBRuT Housing Register September 2009

101

Ethnic Group No of DOM

apps % of all DOM DMAG 2005 Population

cases Estimates Asian 4 5.3 4.7Black 11 14.8 1.7Mixed 2 2.6 2.5Other 6 8.1 2.2White 36 48.5 88.9Not known/Refused 15 20.2

74Total Source: LBRuT Housing Register Septem

The percentage of cases from the White community is very low compared to borough population estimates, especially for Whit

ber 2009

e British.

e

fear of other consequences.

ent

he Mixed Race community so it is not possible to draw any

n

Overall, there is very little difference between the percentage of applications from all Asian ethnic groups and percentages within the borough population. Although the number of casesfrom Asian households does not look particularly high it is possible that there could be somunder reporting. A toolkit from the Government Office for London (GOL) ‘Asian Women, Domestic Violence and Mental Health’ (February 2009) highlights that some of the potential reasons why Asian women may not disclose domestic abuse include the stigma of divorce, fear of being sent abroad and Black households account for 14.8% of all cases which is considerably higher than the proportion of the borough population (1.7%) and is the most significant over-representationamongst all ethnic groups, although there is no noticeable difference between the differBlack ethnic groups. Although there is only a small number of such applications on the housing register (11) the over-representation found here does correspond with the findingsof the Strategic Assessment, as above. There are only two cases from tmeaningful conclusions. The percentage of applications to the housing register, on the basis of domestic abuse, from ‘Other’ ethnic groups (8.1%) is higher than the borough populatio(2.2%). Key findings - the Richmond upon Thames Strategic Assessment 2007 found that the borough had the second lowest number of domestic abuse offences across the Met Police Service area for April to June 2007. The assessment also found that people of African/Caribbean appearance are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse, when comparing the levels reported within these communities with the make up of the borough population. There are 74 applicants to the LBRuT housing register who state ‘domestic abuse’ as their main reason for applying. Although this is only a small number of cases the ethnic profile does reflect the findings of the strategic assessment with 14.8% of cases from Black households, whilst making up only 1.7% of the borough population. The profile of cases stating the main reason for applying to the housing register as ‘domestic abuse’ does not appear to show any over-representation of Asian households however, this could be due to under-reporting. A toolkit from GOL ‘Asian Women, Domestic Violence and Mental Health’ highlights that Asian women may not disclose domestic abuse due to many

102

factors including the stigma of divorce, fear of being sent abroad and fear of other consequences. Safety First Scheme

f options to help

eople remain in their home and feel safe, such as, replacement locks, Careline alarm and

ocal agencies. It is not currently possible to look at referrals the Safety First scheme by ethnicity.

poses a significant risk and onstructing and implementing risk management plans for those at risk.

here were a total of 215 referrals for the period September 2008 to September 2009 and 55 referrals. Census 2001 data shows the non-White population of tion estimates from the Greater London Authority provide an

e

lt in a further referral to the Safety First

o

r

The Richmond upon Thames Safety First Scheme is aimed at residents affected by domestic abuse and hate crime, as well as vulnerable adults who may have been affectedby crime. The scheme operates across all tenures and offers a range opother security measures. Referrals to the scheme are made through the Metropolitan Police, Refuge, Housing Associations, LBRuT and other lto Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) The MARAC is part of a co-ordinated community response to domestic abuse which brings together representatives from statutory, community and voluntary agencies. The MARAC aims include determining whether an alleged perpetratorc Any case referred to the MARAC needs to meet certain criteria and referrals are made by participating agencies. The ethnicity of referrals to the MARAC is recorded as either BME ornon-BME. Tof these (26%) were BME

BRuT as 9% and populaLestimate in 2005 of 11% of the borough population as non-White BME. Comparing thpercentage of MARAC referrals which are from people who are BME, with either of these shows a significant over-representation of BME referrals (26% to either 9%, or 11%). Unfortunately it is not possible to break down these statistics any further to identify specific ethnic groups for each referral. The number of referrals per month to the MARAC has increased steadily during the last year, going from 9 in September 2008 to over 20 in July, August and September 2009. It appears that this is due to increased awareness of the MARAC system amongst all of the

gencies involved. Referrals to the MARAC can resuascheme, or other action required to ensure housing related concerns are addressed, although there will not always be a housing element to the process. Home Office Research The Home Office’s report ‘Tackling Domestic Violence: providing advocacy and support turvivors from Black and other minority ethnic communities’ (2005) looks at potential barriers s

faced when accessing services. It highlights the need for services to be aware of specific issues that may affect BME domestic abuse victims. When BME victims are referred to, or approach, service providers and advice agencies they need to take into account possible barriers to becoming independent from a partner such as: • language barriers • cultural – these can include religious concerns and fear of affecting the ‘honour’ of a

family (especially for Asian women), often related to being separated from a partne

103

• immigration status – fear of what impact separation may have on status and the right to remain in the country

• experiences of racism – if these have previously occurred they can reinforce feelings of fear and vulnerability

The report suggests that service providers should consider taking steps to try and counter

e these possible issues, including, assessing immigration status, addressing any languagneeds and carefully considering the location of any hostel placement. Key findings - LBRuT’s Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) provides a co-ordinated response to cases of domestic abuse which are referred via participating agencies. There were 215 referrals for the period September 2008 to 2009 and ethnicity was recorded as BME or non-BME. 26% of the referrals were for BME households, compared to the estimated BME proportion of the borough population at 11%. This shows a significant over representation of BME households amongst all households being referred to the MARAC. The number of referrals per month to the MARAC has doubled in the period September 2008 to 2009 but it appears that this is due to increased awareness of the initiative. Home Office research highlights that BME domestic abuse victims can experience barriers related to language, culture and fear of racism when accessing advice and assistance and that service providers should try to address these issues so that services are accessible to everyone. Gypsies & Travellers The Mayor’s Draft London Housing Strategy (May 2009), highlights the poor health, education and employment prospects for Gypsies & Travellers in London and states thatis due, at least in part, to a lack of suitable accommodation. Across London, as of July 2there were 806 Gypsy & Traveller caravans on sites. In the London Borough of Richmondupon Thames (LBRuT) there is 1 site, managed by Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP)

ith 12

this 007,

pitches. It is likely that all the Gypsies & Travellers living at the site in LBRuT are Irish’

a ‘severely disadvantaged and marginalised minority in British society’ leading the lack

n,

in LBRuT, funded in the

ts

need for 68 new pitches over ten years. This included requirements of need for psychological

aversion, which refers to Gypsies & Travellers living in housing but with a requirement for

wWhite Irish and it should be noted that they may often be identified ethnically as ‘Whiteinstead of Gypsies & Travellers. This can make it difficult to accurately identify Gypsies &Travellers in the borough within various datasets. A report from the Irish Traveller Movement ‘Room to Roam’ (June 2004) describes Irish

ravellers asTthem to be ‘discriminated against and excluded’. The report goes on to highlight howof suitable stopping places as well as services which are culturally specific in educatiosocial and health care all combine to have a negative impact on these communities.

here is also some provision of support for Gypsy & Traveller householdsTby Supporting People, with a floating support and visiting service for 15 service users borough, as of July 2009. This service is provided by RHP and includes signposting to relevant services, accessing local community organisations and support in tackling incidenof any racial harassment. London Gypsies & Travellers Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA) n 2008 the GLA, with the London Boroughs, produced the GTAA which outlines theI

7

104

pitches due to cultural needs. As the number of pitches required for psychological aversioin LBRuT is based on estimates it is likely that work will need to be done to accurately identify such households in order to confirm that the assessment figur

n

es are correct. The ayor’s Draft London Housing Strategy outlined his intention to set proposed pitch provision

mendments to the Draft London Plan have subsequently set Richmond a target of 4

dditional pitches and undertake the research work ecessary to identify potential households in bricks and mortar who are in need.

t and availability in the borough, identified need will be met by working with

artners. As the Local Development Framework Core Strategy highlights “it is likely that few pportunities for further provision will arise and great care will be required in finding a

olicies and minimised visual intrusion”. The Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing outlines the Government requirement for producing a Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) to demonstrate how the proposed future supply of housing can be delivered. A London-wide SHLAA has been undertaken by the Greater London Authority (GLA) to inform the London Plan Review. Preparation of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, part of LBRuT’s Local Development Framework, will commence in Summer 2010, which will include the identification of appropriate sites in the borough. There is also the option of sites within Council ownership and the ‘Property Review of Council Owned Land’ could consider this issue. It would be beneficial to identify a site promptly in order to take advantage of funding opportunities. There is funding available via the Gypsy and Traveller Sites Grant for the period 2008-2011, to facilitate the development of new and refurbished pitches which will fund the capital costs of new pitches and bids for the next round will need to be finalised in July 2010. The difficulties faced in delivering new sites and the tensions that can occur within communities is highlighted by Communities & Local Government (CLG) and they are developing best practice guidance for Local Authorities covering the entire planning process, from site identification to planning hearings, to be released in late 2009. Since April 2008 Local Authorities have reported on the way in which they determine planning applications for Gypsies and Traveller sites as part of the Statistical Release on Planning Applications. In their ‘Progress Report on Gypsies and Travellers Policy’ (July 2009) the CLG points out that, for the period 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009, there has been no significant difference found between the proportion of permissions granted when comparing housing developments and Gypsy and Traveller sites of similar scales.

Mtargets for each borough in the draft London Plan. Apitches. The London Plan based target amendments on a number of factors including a need to reflect a weighting between need and housing land capacity and the unique circumstances of London including the role of bricks and mortar accommodation and the limited supply of land. The consultation will be followed by an Examination in Public in Summer 2010, and the replacement Plan is expected to be published Winter 2011/12. Meeting Gypsy & Traveller Housing Need in LBRuT The current approach being considered by LBRuT, in response to the GTAA and amendedtargets is to address overcrowding on the existing site, progress short to medium term delivery of the minimum number of an The LBRuT Core Planning Policy stipulates that the existing RHP site will be protected buwith limited lpolocation which conformed to other p

105

Key findings - the Mayor’s Draft London Housing Strategy May 2009 highlights the poor health, education and employment prospects for Gypsies & Travellers in London and states that this is due, at least in part, to a lack of suitable accommodation. There is 1 site in LBRuT managed by Richmond Housing Partnership, which comprises 12 pitches. In 2008 the GLA and London Boroughs carried out an estimate of the number of pitches required to address lack of site provision in Greater London. This included estimates for households with a psychological aversion (which refers to gypsies and travellers living in housing but with a requirement for a pitch due to cultural needs). Amendments to the draft London Plan has subsequently set the target for Richmond upon Thames at 4 pitches. The current approach being considered by LBRuT is to address overcrowding on the existing site, progress short to medium term delivery of the minimum number of additional pitches and undertake the research work necessary to identify any potential households in bricks and mortar who are in need. The identification of potential sites will be progressed via the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (preparation to commence in 2010) and consideration of sites in Council ownership.

106

Chapter Eight - Asylum Seekers, Refugees & Migrant

ople living in the orough who have been granted asylum status, or indefinite leave to remain. There are

lum, by Local

sylum status is recorded for Homelessness Applications but it is not currently possible to

s Old (not leaving care) sylum Seekers (over the age of 18) who apply for support may receive allocated

or both from the UK Border Agency. Statistics on the umber of Asylum Seekers in receipt of subsistence or accommodation support are released

ing unaccompanied

Workers Asylum Seekers & Refugees There is very little data available to accurately report on the number of pebstatistics available from the Home Office for the number of people claiming asyAuthority, and these are looked at in more detail below. Aidentify Housing Register applicants who have been granted asylum status, or indefinite leave to remain, and therefore we cannot obtain further information on their housing outcomes in the borough. Asylum Seekers – Over 18 YearAaccommodation, subsistence support,non a quarterly basis. The table below shows data for Asylum Seekers in receipt of subsistence or accommodation support in the LBRuT, and other boroughs in the sub region, excludasylum seeking children. Asylum Seekers in receipt of subsistence only support

As at Dec 07 As at Dec 08 As at Jun 09 Richmond 30 25 25 Merton 150 135 115 Wandsworth 130 70 45 Lambeth 255 140 125 Sutton 30 30 20 Kingston 40 25 25 Croydon 155 105 115

Source: Home Office Asylum Seekers in supported accommodation – Dispersed

As at Dec 07 As at Dec 08 As at Jun 09 Richmond 10 5 5 Merton 15 15 10 Wandsworth 5 5 5 Lambeth 55 25 15 Sutton 0 0 0 Kingston 0 0 0 Croydon 35 35 50

Source: Home Office *there were also 5 cases 'disbenefited' (previously supported under the UK

benefits system) in Lambeth for 2007/08/09 These cases would be awaiting a decision. If their asylum application is successful they would be eligible to approach the council to seek housing advice and their case would be considered in exactly the same way as any other.

107

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) & Care Leavers

urrently receives, on average, 1 ew arrival every month.

tarters at University in September 2009 comprising of 4 asylum seeker care leavers and 5

f which may continue post 18.

opean countries joining. Two states

the A2 states, Bulgaria and Romania, joined the EU. The A2 states are

rmation being monitoring data from the Workers Registration Scheme,

Children who arrive in LBRuT as unaccompanied asylum seekers will mostly become‘looked after children’ as per the Children’s Act 1989, Section 20, following their accommodation in the borough. Following the Hillingdon Judgement12 this means that theywill qualify for a leaving care package when leaving care, including accommodation, whichalso continues past the age of 21 if the person is in full time education. Following arrival in the UK there is a dispersal system in place in Croydon for unaccompanied asylum seeking children and the LBRuT cn As of Quarter 2 (July to Sep 2009) the LBRuT has a caseload of 79 asylum seeker care leavers. There are a total of 29 care leavers who are in higher education, 19 of which are asylum seeker care leavers. However, this pattern does appear to be changing with newsnon-asylum seeker care leavers. Care leavers are normally housed in: • The private rented sector – some of which are located out of borough. • One of a number of supported housing schemes where they receive either on site or

floating support. • Foster care placements, some o• Permanent Registered Social Landlord (RSL) accommodation It is anticipated that the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, and correspondingly asylum seeker care leavers, will continue to grow as more young people remain in education post 21 yrs and referrals continue to be made via the Croydon rota. Thegovernment are progressing plans for ‘specialist authorities‘, and if this plan is realised, Richmond will cease to receive referrals and numbers will begin to decrease. Migrant Workers

xpansion of the European Union (EU) – A8 & A2 States EIn May 2004 the EU expanded with 10 new Eastern Eur(Cyprus and Malta) were granted full EU rights and eight (known as the A8 states) were restricted in their automatic right to work. The A8 states are Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia. The UK set up the Worker Registration Scheme for A8 nationals who were looking for employment and this required them to registeron the scheme within one month of starting work for an employer. In January 2007 required to abide by the Worker Authorisation Scheme, limiting work opportunities to particular sectors and an ‘accession worker card’ must be obtained before starting work. There is a lack of available data regarding the number of migrant workers in the UK with the

ain sources of infomwhich provides some national and regional information, and National Insurance Number Applications which can be looked at by boroughs (shown below).

12 The Hillingdon Judgement looked at which part of the Children’s Act 1989 applies to UASC and impact this has on whether they are defined as ‘looked after’ children and therefore entitled to a leaving care package.

the

108

Housing Issues for Migrant Workers A report from the Building & Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) ‘Home from Home:

) highlights that an estimated 1

ion in 2004 and 2007, however, approximately half of the workers ave now left the UK. The number of Polish nationals living in the UK has increased and

they now constitute the ‘single largest foreign national group resident in the UK’. Low pay is a significant issue for migrant workers with 89% of migrant workers, compared to 57% of the UK population, earning less than £400 per week in 2007. This report highlights main housing issues for migrant workers as high cost accommodation, overcrowding and poor housing conditions with the majority of migrant workers living in the Private Rented Sector. As Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are also a key type of accommodation for migrant workers the HMO regulations are of particular significance. HMOs are generally characterised by having more than one household who share (or lack) a kitchen, bathroom or WC facilities and often exhibit some of the worst conditions in the private rented sector. The Housing Act 2004 introduced mandatory licensing of certain HMOs (those with 3 storeys, 5 or more occupants and shared facilities) to ensure adequate management and conditions in the sector. This came into force on the 6th April 2006 with local authorities responsible for the licensing of HMOs within their area. The BSHF report raises some concerns about whether there are adequate resources available for making all of the necessary checks on HMOs. As can be seen from the National Insurance Registrations statistics below, the largest group applying for national insurance numbers are from Poland. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report ‘Social Networks & Polish Immigration to the UK’ (May 2009) examines the way that Polish immigrants often use socia

e short and long term effects of this. Although these’ in

t term.

ent

lack of planning for the housing and welfare ty tension,

he briefing also highlights that the overwhelming majority of migrant workers live in the private rented sector and often experience overcrowding and poor housing conditions. There

addressing the issues of migrant workers housing’ (2008million migrant workers have come to the UK from the Eastern European countries which joined the European Unh

l networks to find employment and methods can lead to finding th

employment very quickly there could be a long term impact of workers becoming ‘trappedlow-skilled, low paid jobs. Employment opportunities can be limited amongst peer groups and this could also then affect levels of integration into the mainstream British economy and society. The report also highlights the high rate of return migration which can make

eveloping integration strategies difficult as they need to be more shord Housing & Benefit Entitlement for Migrant Workers The Policy Briefing from Shelter, ‘Eastern European Migrant Workers & Housing’ (June 2008) discusses the housing entitlement for migrant workers, which is complex and varies amongst the member states. In general, EU member states prior to 2004, and including Cyprus & Malta, have the same benefits and housing rights as UK nationals as long as they are working, and even if they cease work there are some circumstances in which their rights

ight continue. m For A8 and A2 states workers must be in employment and registered on the appropriatescheme before they are eligible for benefits and housing. It is only after being in employmas a registered worker for 12 consecutive months that they are treated in the same way asother EU workers. The rie b fing suggests that there has been aneeds of migrant workers and concerns over possible increased communiespecially in areas where there are difficulties in accessing affordable housing. T

109

can also be difficulties in accessing housing advice with barriers including advice available inthe necessary languages and long working hours. National Insurance (NI) Registrations in the LBRuT The table below shows the number of NI applications for the last three years by nationali

ty r the largest groups. fo

Number of new NI registrations in Richmond upon Thames - Largest Groups

0

500

600

30

400

0

100

200

PolandSouth New

AustraliaAf rica

USA IrelandZealand

Slovakia Germany France India

2005/06 470 310 250 130 130 90 100 130 120 80

2006/07 510 280 180 160 110 90 70 130 130 100

2007/08 410 260 150 160 80 100 60 120 130 100

Source: DWP 2005/06, 2006/07, 2007/08

In LBRuT new migrant groups applying for work are dominated by Eastern and Western European nationals as well as North American nationals. The largest groups are Polish (410 applications), Australian (260 applications), and United States citizens (160 applications).

006/07 and 2007/08.

r nd

for staff of multi-national organisations in Richmond, Barnes and to

ent (CLG) provide

es

and in priority need

The graph above provides figures for 2005/06, 2 Other available data suggests that some of those coming to work in LBRuT will occupy highcost private rented accommodation especially in certain wards in the borough. Census 2001 data shows that both South Richmond and Barnes have significantly higher than average levels of ‘Other’ ethnic group residents and that this is likely to include a significant numbeof residents from North America. There is also some evidence that points towards a high emarket for corporate letsa lesser extent Kew. Homelessness Applications P1E homelessness data returns to Communities and Local Governminformation about homeless applications, acceptances and whether they are made by Eastern European Applicants (EEAs). Looking at this data for the period 1st April 2007 to March 2009 there have only been 3 applications for people from Eastern European countriand these are –

• Lithuania – 1 ineligible application • Poland – 1 application, eligible, unintentional and in priority need • Czech Republic – 1 application, eligible, unintentional

110

The very low number of applications from Eastern European applicants is likely to be due the eligibility criteria for accessing public funds (12 consecutive months in employmendiscussed above). It is possible that migrant workers from the A8 & A2 states who lose thei

to t – as

r b, and accommodation if it is tied, could quickly become homeless but without eligibility to jo

access services except the few voluntary groups that offer assistance to these clients. Key findings - there is a lack of available data regarding the number of migrant workers in the UK however, some data is available from those registering on the Workers Registration Scheme (for A8 nationals) and National Insurance Number Applications. Some of the key housing issues for migrant workers are high cost accommodation, overcrowding and poor housing conditions, with the majority of migrant workers living in the Private Rented Sector. As Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are also a key type of accommodation for migrant workers the HMO regulations are of particular significance. Both nationally, and in LBRuT, the largest ethnic group of migrant workers are Polish nationals. Migrant workers from A8 & A2 states are only eligible for benefits and housing in the UK after working for 12 consecutive months and many migrant workers are employed in seasonal or short term positions, making it unlikely that they would remain in continuous employment for this period of time. This is also reflected in the very low number of homelessness applications from Eastern European applicants in LBRuT (3 in the period April 2007 to March 2009) Continuous Recording of Social Lettings (CORE) data & Nationality The summary of new Housing Association lettings in LBRuT for the period April 2007 to March 2008 shows that 82% of all lettings were made to UK nationals resident in the UK. The nationality of the main applicant is recorded for all the new housing association lettings made during this period. There was 1 let for a Czech Republic applicant, Poland (2 lets) and Other European Economic Area country (10 lets) but it should be noted that the nationality is not k

(May 2004 to March 2009) hig n uing downward trend in applications to the Wo n Scheme since late 2007, with 23,000 applications for Quarter 1 2009, compared to 49,000 in Quarter 1 2008. 15% of all registered workers were in London (Quarter 1 2009). It should be noted that this data does not include those who are self employed. The majority of registere were working more n 35 hours per week (84%) and were aged 18-34 year old (78%), for period March 2008 to February 2009. Only 8% stated

43% from Poland for March 2008 to February 2009.

nown for 12% of all new lets. Workers Registration Scheme Monitoring The Home Office UK Bord cce r A8 Countrieser Agency ‘A

lights that natssion Monitoring Report’ foally there has been a continh io

rkers Registratio

d workers tha

t hat they had dependants living with them at the time of registration.

For the period May 2004 to March 2009, 66% of all approved applications were for workers from Poland, 10% from Slovakia and 9% from Lithuania. However, there has been a drop in approved applications Nationally, the top sector for employment of A8 registered workers is Admin, Business & Management however, in London it is Hospitality & Catering.

111

In the UK there w llowance in Quarter 1 2009 and 1,797 were allowed to proceed for further consideration. 75% of applications were disallowed as a result of Right to Reside and Habitual Residence Tests. For the period May 2004 to December 2008 4,572 statutory homelessness decisions were made nationally from A8 applicants (including those who were ineligible) and a main duty was owed to 36%. The total number of decisions made for A8 applications represent 0.5% of all homelessness decisions made during this period. Worker Registration Scheme in LBRuT Details of those registered on the Worker Registration Scheme at borough level has recently become available for the period April 2009 to June 2009, with the data for LBRuT shown below. Worker Registration Scheme – Approved Applicants by Nationality

ere 6,732 applications for Income Support & Job Seekers A

Worker Registration Scheme (A8 states) - by Nationality (Apr to June 09) LBRUT

Poland58%

Slovakia6%

Czech Republic6%

Hungary18%

Latvia6%

Lithuania6%

Source: Local Government Association, Worker Registration Scheme April 2009 to June 2009

Registrations - Worker Registration Scheme (LBRuT) April 2009 to June 2009

Nationality Number of RegistrationsCzech Republic 5 Hungary 15 Latvia 5 Lithuania 5 Poland 50 Slovakia 5 Total 85

Source: Local Government Association, Worker Registration Scheme April 2009 to June 2009

f 17 years old, nd 5 had dependents over 17 years old. There was a quite even gender split with 45 female

approved applicants, and 40 male. Further details about these 85 registered approved workers are shown in the graphs below.

As can be seen above there were a total of 85 registrations during the period April 2009 to June 2009 with the majority of approved applicants (58%) being Polish, followed by Hungarian applicants (18%). Out of the 85 registrations in LBRuT 10 also had dependents under the age oa

112

Worker Registration Scheme – Intended Length of Stay

Worker Registration Scheme - Intended Length of Stay (Apr to June 09) LBRuT

6%

29%

65%

Less than 3 months More than 2 years Do not know

Source: Local Government Association, Worker Registration Scheme April 2009 to June 2009 When registering on the scheme workers also state how long they intend to stay and, as thgraph above shows, the majority of applicants in LBRuT only intended to stay for a very short period of time (less than 3 months) although a significant proportion did not know (29%) and a small amount had more long term plans, inte

e

nding to stay for more than 2 years %).

Worker Registration Scheme – Hourly Rate of Pay

(6

Workers Registration Scheme - Hourly Rate of Pay (Apr to June 09) LBRuT

35%

6%

6%6%

47%

£5.35 - £5.99 £6.00 - 7.99 £8.00 - £9.99 £10.00 - £11.99 £12.00 +

Source: Local Government Association, Worker Registration Scheme April 2009 to June 2009

ay.

£7.99 per hour. Only 6% work for an hourly rate of £12.00 or over.

As can be seen above, the majority of registered workers work for relatively low rates of pThe majority (47%) have an hourly wage of £5.35 to £5.99 which is around the level of the national minimum wage (£5.73 for workers over 22 years old) and another 35% work for£6.00 to

113

Workers Registration Scheme – Hours per Week

Worker Registration Scheme - Hours per Week (Apr to June 09) LBRuT

6% 11%

17%

49%11%

6%

10-15 16-21 22-29 30-34 35-40 40+

Source: Local Government Association, Worker Registration Scheme April 2009 to June 2009

The graph above shows the number of hours worked per week by those registered on the Worker Registration Scheme in LBRuT. The majority work full time with 49% working between 35 and 40 hours per week, and 6% work over 40 hours per week. Another 17% work part time, 16 to 21 hours, or 10 to 15 hours (11%). Workers Registration Scheme – Occupation

Worker Registration Scheme - Occupation (Apr to June 09) LBRuT

25%

6%

6%13% 13%

24%

13%

Sales/Retail Driver/Delivery Kitchen/ Catering

Waiting Staff Cleaner /Domestic Staff Deliveryman

Other/Not Known

Source: Local Government Association, Worker Registration Scheme April 2009 to June 2009 There is a wide mix of occupations amongst those registered on the scheme in LBRuT in the period April and June 2009, although as would be expected from the hourly rates of pay shown above they appear to be mostly lower paid employment opportunities. It should be noted that there is quite a large percentage for which occupation details are not known (25%). Key findings - Data regarding all new Housing Association lettings in LBRuT for the period April 2007 to March 2008 shows that 82% of all lettings were made to UK nationals resident in the UK. There was 1 let for a Czech Republic applicant, Poland (2 lets) and Other

114

European Economic Area country (10 lets), but it should be noted that the nationality is not known for 12% of all new lets. Statistics for those registering on the Worker Registration Scheme in LBRuT for April to June 2009 show that the majority of the 85 registrations were from Polish nationals (58%), followed by Hungarian applicants (18%). Ten of those registering during this period had dependents under the age of 17 years old, 45 were female, 40 were male. The majority of registering migrant workers (65%) intend to stay less than three months, although another 29% do not know how long they intend to stay. As can be seen above, the majority of registered workers work for relatively low rates of pay. The majority of registered workers (47%) have an hourly wage of £5.35 to £5.99 which is around the level of the national minimum wage and 49% work full time. There is a wide mix of occupations amongst those registered on the scheme, although as would be expected from the hourly rates of pay shown above they appear to be mostly lower paid employment opportunities.

115

Chapter Nine: Community Engagement, Empowerment and Cohesion

ommunity Cohesion C Indices of Multiple Deprivation & Inequality

he borough has low levels of Multiple Deprivation ranked 310th out of 354 local areas T(where 1 is the most deprived) on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (2007). Richmond upon Thames is also the least deprived borough in Greater London (London Futures 2007). The borough does however have five areas of relative disadvantage where there are

centrations of less well off residents facconwe

ing higher levels of unemployment, worklessness, r skill levels and poorer physical and mental health. It should be stressed these are

mparison to the relative affluence that characterises the

The Community Development Executive Group and Community Development Advisory Group (both sub groups of the Richmond Local Strategic Partnership) are carrying out work to tackle disadvantage in these areas. A profile of each area has been produced which includes details of the ethnic make up within each area of the borough, as well as further information about the sub indices such as crime, access to housing and education. The profile for each area is looked at below to establish if there are any differences between the ethnic make up of the borough as a whole and the five areas of relative disadvantage. Each profile is derived from Census 2001 figures and Index of Multiple Deprivation data from 2004/2007 and uses a Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) which is deemed to be the ‘best fit’ in order to produce data for the area of interest. It should be noted that the comparisons below, of the ethnic profile of each area and in the borough population, are made using Census 2001 data rather than the Greater London Authority (GLA) Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) population projections used elsewhere in this evidence base, which show higher percentages for BME households. Ham

loareas of relative disadvantage in coborough.

0

Ham - Ethnic Breakdown

90100

30

80

40506070

1020

Ham % 89 2.7 4.9 1.7 1.9

LBRuT % 91 2.2 3.8 0.9 2

White MixedAsian Black or Other

Asian or Black or Chinese

Source: Census 2001& IMD 2004/2007 (LSOA 017B)

116

The ethnic make up of this area is broadly in line with the population make up of the borough although there is a slightly increased percentage of all non-White ethnic minority groups except for Chinese/Other where there is a slight decrease. The greatest percentage increases are for the Asian and Black Communities. According to Census 2001 data, 23% of households in this area lived in social housing, compared to a borough average of 12%, and 16% of households were overcrowded. Key findings – there is a slightly higher percentage of Asian and Black households living in Ham compared to the borough as a whole. There are a higher percentage of households living in social housing in the area and the ranking of ‘Barriers to Housing & Social Services’ has worsened during the period 2004-07. Hampton Nurserylands

Hampton Nurserylands - Ethnic Breakdown

20

708090

100

30405060

010

Hmpton NL % 90.5 2.2 3.9 0.9 2

LBRuT % 91 2.2 3.8 0.9 2

White Mixed Asian Black e Asian or Black or Chines

British Britishor Other

Source: Census 2001& IMD 2004/2007 (LSOA 020E)

The ethnic make up of the area Hampton Nurserylands is almost identical to the borough

ide population.

From 2004 to 2007 Hampton Nursery Lands’ Multiple Indices declined from 10,682 to 8,575 however, there was an improvement in the rank of Barriers to Housing & Social Services score from 15,033 to 15,128. Again, the percentage of households living in social housing (22%) in this area is higher than the borough average (12%).

w

Key findings – there is virtually no difference between the ethnic make up of Hampton Nurserylands and the borough as a whole. Although the Multiple Indices had declined during 2004-07 there has been improvement in Barriers to Housing & Social Services. As with all the 5 areas of relative disadvantage, there is a higher level of households living in social housing than for across the borough.

117

Heathfields

0102030405060708090

100

Heathfields - Ethnic Breakdown

Heathfields % 79.6 4.3 9.5 2.6 3.9

LBRuT % 91 2.2 3.8 0.9 2

White MixedAsian or

Asian British

Black or Black

British

Chinese or Other

Source: Census 2001& IMD 2004/2007 (LSOA 013B)

There are some significant differences between the ethnic make up of the Heathfields areaand the borough as a whole. All non-White ethnic minority groups are over-represented

ithin the area, especially Asian households with 9.5% within Heathfields compared to 3.8%

eathfield’s Multiple Indices ranking declined from 9,438 to 8,112 but had improvements in

wwithin the borough. Hthe Education, Barriers to Housing, Crime and Environment indicators. According to Census 2001 data the percentage of households living in social housing was 23%, compared to a borough average of 12%. Key findings – all non-White ethnic minority households are over-represented within Heathfields especially Asian households. Although the overall ranking for the area has declined there have been improvements in several sub indices. The percentage of households living in social housing is higher than the borough average.

118

Castelnau

0

Castelnau - Ethnic Breakdown

8090

100

6070

1020304050

Castelnau % 84.8 6.1 5.8 2.3 2.6

LBRuT % 91 2.2 3.8 0.9 2

White Mixed Asian or Asian

Black or Black

Chinese or Other

Source: Census 2001& IMD 2004/2007 (LSOA 001G)

The area of Castelnau has a higher proportion of all non-White ethnic minority househo

an for across the borough, particularly for Mixed Race households andlds

Asian households.

ices.

th Castelnau’s Multiple Indices score declined only slightly from 10,680 to 10,530 and there were improvements in the Income, Health, and Barriers to Housing and Environment ind Castelnau has the highest levels of households living in social housing, 26.3%, within all of the five areas, and is significantly higher than the borough average of 12%. Key findings – Castelnau has a significantly higher proportion of Mixed Race and Asian households compared to the borough as a whole, and other non-White ethnic minority households are also over represented in the area. The area also has the highest levels of households in social housing amongst the five areas of relative disadvantage in the borough. Mortlake

010

203040

506070

8090

100

Mortlake - Ethnic Breakdown

Mortlake % 89.9 2.2 3.8 0.9 2.1

LBRuT % 91 2.2 3.8 0.9 2

White MixedAsian or

Asian British

Black or Black

British

Chinese or Other

Source: Census 2001& IMD 2004/2007 (LSOA 003D)

119

The ethnic make up of the area Mortlake is almost identical to the borough wide population. Mortlake’s Multiple Indices score improved from 11,890 to 13,013 and there were also

provements in Health, Education, Barriers to Housing, Crime and the Environment indices. im24.4% of households in Mortlake live in social housing compared to the borough average of 12%. Key findings – the ethnic make up of Mortlake is virtually identical to the borough as a whole. The overall ranking for the area has improved during 2004-07 as well as improvements in other sub indices. As with all other areas of relative disadvantage there is higher than average levels of households living in social housing. Place Survey 2008 The Place Survey measures 18 of the National Indicators which are being collected for the Comprehensive Area Assessment. All local authorities are required to undertake a Place Survey every two years, and the first one was conducted in September 2008. The Richmond upon Thames Place Survey was produced by Ipsos Mori. It has been possible to examine some of the indicator results by ethnicity, however, any findings should be treated with caution as there were only 60 BME respondents in total. The LBRuT has also conducted a Place Survey Boost in 2009 in the 5 areas of relative disadvantage which was carried out in order to measure the impact of community development work, act as a comparison against the borough wide Place Survey and to inform future work. The Place Survey Boost achieved a response rate of 37% (3,541 responses) with 11% of responses from BME residents, which is much more closely aligned to the demographic profile of the borough than the original Place Survey. Results from both surveys are examined below, starting with the borough wide Place Survey.

Borough Wide - Place Survey 2008 NI 1: % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well togetherin their local area

86%

98%

14%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

%

Agree Disagree

NI % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area

White BME

Source: LBRuT Place Survey 2008

120

A higher proportion of BME respondents agreed that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, with 98% of BME respondents agreeing with this statement, compared to 86% of White respondents. Also, 19.8% of all BME respondents to this question stated that they ‘Definitely agreed’ with this statement, compared to 7% of all White respondents. It should be noted that 3% of respondents did not state their ethnicity. NI 2: % of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood

16.113.3

48.2 47.4

26.331.1

9.5

NI % of people who feel they belong to their neighbourhood

0

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

8.1

5

10

Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly

White BME

Source: LBRuT Place Survey 2008 As can be seen above, BME respondents were slightly less likely to feel ‘Very strongly’, ‘Fairly strongly’ or ‘Not strongly at all’ that they belong to their neighbourhood than White respondents. However, this is based on a relatively small number of responses in total and 4% did not give details of their ethnicity.

121

NI 4: % of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality

29%

45%

71%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Can influence decisions Can not influence decisions

ence decisions in their locality

NI % of people who feel they can influ

White BME

Source: LBRuT Place Survey 2008 BME respondents were more likely to agree that they could influence decisions affecting

eir local area, with 45% of BME respondents feeling they could influence local decision ts.

e area treat one another with respect and onsideration

thmaking, compared to 29% of white responden NI 23: Perception that people in thc

2.7 2.4

15.2 15.3

63.8 64

18.3 17.7

0

10

20

50

30

40%

60

70

A very big problem A fairly big problem Not a very big Not a problem at all

that people in the area treat one another with NI Perceptionsrespect and consideration

problem

White BME

Source: LBRuT Place Survey 2008

122

The graph above shows responses from White and BME respondents in regard to the question - ‘In your local area, how much of a problem do you think there is with people not treating each other with respect and consideration?’

n above there is very little difference in the percentages from both White and nts to this question and the four possible answers.

As can be see

ME respondeB Key findings - a higher proportion of BME respondents agreed that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together although there were no significant differences in the responses from White and BME respondents to whether they felt that they belong to their neighbourhood. BME respondents were more likely to agree that they could influence decisions affecting their local area. In response to the question ‘In your local area, how much of a problem do you think there is with people not treating each other with respect and consideration?’ there was virtually no difference between responses from White and BME respondents. 5 Areas of Relative Disadvantage - Place Survey Boost 2009

ost have been examined for any demographic trends,

verall satisfaction from BME residents was 79% compared to higher 86% from White residents.

hite respondents were more likely to believe people of different backgrounds get on well

s likely to feel they belong to their immediate neighbourhood with response of 54% from BME residents compared to 61% response from White residents.

and BME sidents reported greater problems with this than White residents (BME 23% compared to hite 17%).

The results of the Place Survey Boincluding any key differentials on the basis of ethnicity. It should be noted that percentagesquoted below are weighted to take into account the full population size of each area. Overall satisfaction with local area (NI 5) The percentage response to oa Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in local area (NI 1) Wtogether in the local area with a response of 78% compared to the BME response of 72%. Percentage of people who feel they belong to their immediate neighbourhood (NI 2) BME respondents were lesa Perceptions of anti-social behaviour as a problem (NI 17) Those surveyed were asked about 7 different kinds of anti-social behaviourreW Feeling safe when out on your own after dark White residents reported a higher level of feeling safe after dark, 53%, compared to 44% from BME respondents. Key findings – the percentage differences between BME and White residents for responses to the Place Survey Boost were not very significant but there were some key areas where there was some difference in perceptions reported. The most significant difference was for whether residents feel safe out on their own after dark with a response of 44% from BME residents compared to 53% from White residents.

123

BME residents also gave slightly less favourable responses to how they feel about overall satisfaction with the local area, feeling as if they belong to the immediate neighbourhood and perceptions of anti-social behaviour.

ate Crime H The number of households stating that harassment, violence or threatened violence is the

a the Richmond upon Thames Housing Register of these cases are probably not connected to

ied specifically as the underlying

reason for ‘other type of harassment’ or ‘violence o a v c it is still important to esta households are disproportionately affected by these issues, they have also b Although these numbers are small there is some evidence that racially motivated incidents are under report ore may affect housing c ditio for re pe le than the data shows. Community SaThe Richmond upon Thames Community Safety Strategic Assessment 2007 includes the findings of a study of 180 minority ethnic people living and working in the borough and found that 2 out of 3 p been a victim, or witnessed racia ncid t over the past 2 years and that people ort incidents because victims did not feel th ould be supported or tak In 2006/07 the R d upon Thames Police Pu ose urveyed were either ‘very worried’ or ‘fairly worried’ about t

As a result o ed a Hate Crime Co-ordinator to ensure that work done to identify and support victims of hate Crime is consistent and well publicised. A Hate Crime Forum is being established and will meet for the first time in late 2009

main reason they are applying for housing viis small (98 out of a total of 6,428) and someethnicity. There are a small number of cases (15) where ‘racial harassment’ is identifthe main reason for an application. However, as it is not possible to determine

e’, andr thre tened iolenblish if BME een included.

ed and theref on ns mo op

fety Partnership

eople had , a l i entend not to rep ey wen seriously.

ichmon blic Attitude Survey 16% of thhe possibility of being physically s

attacked because of skin colour, ethnic origin or religion

f the suspected under reporting of Hate Crime the LBRuT has recruit

.

Key findings spected that incidents of Hate Crime are under reported and therefore – it is sumore needs to be done to improve reporting systems and identify and support victims. LBRuT has recruited a Hate Crime Co-ordinator to take this work forward. LBRuT Housing Register & Harassment, Violence or Threatened Violence When a household applies to go on the Richmond upon Thames housing register they are asked for the main reason they are applying for housing, and given a range of options to choose from. Three of the reasons that can be selected are -

• racial harassment (RAC) • other type of harassment (OHA) • violence or threatened violence (VIO)

Data has been extracted from the housing register for all households who have stated one of

to ed problems.

the categories above as their main reason for applying for housing and their ethnicity entify any trends amongst ethnic groups experiencing these housing relatid

124

It is important to note that these reasons for applying for housing are reported by only a small number of households and therefore caution should be taken when interpreting results. As of June 2009, there were 98 ca

the ses on the housing register which have reported

ne of these reasons for applying for re-housing out of a total of 6,428 (1.5%).

AC = 15 cases (0.2% of housing register)

ouseholds reporting OHA, RAC & VIO by Ethnicity (full breakdown)

o These break down as – OHA = 57 cases (0.9% of housing register) RVIO = 26 cases (0.4% of housing register) H

Ethnic Description OHA RAC VIO Total Asian Other 1 1 3 5 Asian Pakistani 1 1 2 Black African 2 1 3 Black Caribbean 5 1 2 8 Black Other 1 2 1 4 Mixed Other 2 1 3 Mixed White & Asian 1 1 Mixed White & Black Caribbean 1 1 2 Not Known 5 2 3 10 Other 1 1 1 3 Refused 2 2 2 6 White British 34 2 11 47 White Other 2 1 1 4 Total 57 15 26 98

Source: LBRuT Housing Register Households reporting OHA, RAC & VIO by Ethnicity (ethnic group % breakdown)

Ethnic Description % of all h/hlds reporting OHA RAC or VIO Asian 7% Black 16% Mixed 6% Not Known 10% Other 3% Refused 6% White 52%

Source: LBRuT Housing Register

ther Type of Harassment (OHA) O60% of all households on the housing register citing OHA as the reason for applyinghousing are White British. White British households make up an estimated 1389% of the resident population. There is an even spread of ethnic background for most other

ouseholds reporting this reason for hous

for re-

ing apart from the 5 cases that come from the

all.

hBlack Caribbean community (9% of all OHA cases) which indicates a slightly higher incidence for this ethnic group, although it is difficult to draw any conclusions as the total

umber of cases is still very smn

13 Source; Data Management & Analysis Group (DMAG) Estimates 2005 (published 2007)

125

Racial Harassment (RAC) There is no one ethnic group where reporting racial harassment as the reason for appfor housing is more prevalent but it should be noted that this includes 2 W

lying hite British

ouseholds who have stated this reason.

ousing are White British, 20% are ‘refused’ or ‘not known’ and the remaining cases are

h Violence or Threatened Violence (VIO) 42% of all households on the housing register citing VIO as the reason for applying for hdistributed relatively evenly among other ethnic groups. Key findings – it is likely that racially motivated incidents are under reported and therefore the true extent of their impact on the housing of those affected is not known. From the small number of households stating that ‘other type of harassment’ is the main reasons they are applying for housing it appears there is a slightly higher incidence amongst Black Caribbean households, although this should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of overall cases. There did not appear to be any ethnic groups who were over represented amongst the households reporting ‘racial harassment’ or ‘violence or threatened violence’ as the main reason for applying for housing. Financial Inclusion & Worklessness LBRuT Workforce Monitoring Analysis As an employer the LBRuT carries out ‘Workforce Monitoring Analysis’ each year under the

ravel to Work Target for the workforce which has

ation f at middle management level – Ascent and Ascent Lite, running over 2 years.

of BME staff in senior la

2009 to start in J

Race Equality Scheme. The Workforce Monitoring for 2007/08 found the following outcome – • The percentage of BME employees in the workforce has continued to increase and is

now at 14.9%. This is in line with the Tbeen set at 15%.

• Thirty eight percent of applicants for jobs at the Council, and 21.5% of new starters, arefrom an ethnic minority.

There have been two development programmes aimed at addressing under-represent

f BME stafoThe ‘Step Up’ programme, aimed at under-representationmanagement is currently being commissioned and will be unched at the end of September

anuary 2010.

Key findi rce monitoring analysis for 2007/08 found that the ngs – LBRuT’s workfopercentag o in and of app for jobs at e of BME employees has continued t crease 38% licantsthe council were from an ethnic minority. A new dev to increase the number of BME senior managers will be elopment programmelaunched in September 2009. The Construction Trainees Initiative (CTI) In April 2009 the Council become a partner of Notting Hill Housing Trust’s Construction Training Initiative. The scheme was set up in 1995 and is open to unemployed people over 18 years old. The scheme is keen to encourage applications from BME groups with a target

126

of 50% BME applicants and there are generally 50-60% BME participants at any one timeThe CTI has

. been operating in 6 other London Boroughs for several years and, as at

eptember 2009, there are 3 trainees from LBRuT on the programme.

e lete an NVQ level 2 qualification. Between

995 and March 2009, 617 CTI trainees gained NVQ qualifications through the scheme.

t te at e, rt

Worklessness In The Hills review of social housing ‘Ends & Means: The Future of Social Housing in England’ (2007) it was highlighted that more than half of those of working age, living in social housing, were without paid work (as of Spring 2006), which is twice the national average. Considering the impact that worklessness can have on income levels, building of skills and experience and potential social isolation this can have significant affects on life chances. This is of particular concern for BME groups as they are often over-represented amongst social housing tenants. The Greater London Authority (GLA) Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG) produced a report in September 2008 ‘Londoners and the Labour Market’ looking at some of the results from the 2007 Annual Population Survey. The report examines levels of labour market participation for the working age population in London for the period January to December 2007. The Annual Population Survey is a large sample survey of UK households. Data shown below is aggregated up into the groups shown due to concerns about sample sizes for smaller groups. This should be taken into account when interpreting these findings. Looking at the working age population overall in London 70% are in employment (also referred to as the ‘emplo n is

ade up of the eco ort,

S The scheme aims to complement college-based learning with practical site work experiencwith approved contractors so trainees can comp1 LBRuT’s partner housing associations will ensure that all the development contracts thathey award contain the requirement that contractors employ trainees. They will also promoCTI to contractors and meet the costs of supporting trainees. LBRuT will ensure thpartner housing associations working in the borough participate with the initiativprovide CTI with details of forthcoming local developments and contracts and supporegular liaison.

yment rate’) and 30% are ‘workless’. The ‘workless’ populationomically inactive and unemployed. In London, according to the repm

36% of the working age population are from BME groups and one quarter are foreign nationals.

mployment Rates in London by Ethnicity & Gender EWorking Age People % for all % Males % Females

White groups 75% 81% 69% All BME groups 60% 69% 52% Indian ethnic groups 71% 78% 63% Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic groups 45% 63% 26% Black ethnic groups 63% 66% 60% Mixed ethnic groups 61% 62% 60% Other ethnic groups 58% 69% 47%

Source: GLA DMAG ‘Londoners & the Labour Market’ 2008

s can be seen in the table above, for BME Londoners the employment rate is 60% Acompared to 75% for White Londoners. This disparity increases for BME Women, at 52%,

127

especially for Women from Bangladeshi / Pakistani communities, where the employment

he employment rate for Indian ethnic groups, at 71%, is close to the same level as for hite groups but for all other ethnic minority groups it is significantly lower, especially for

hi ethnic groups at 45%.

ousehold for all new housing association lettings in the borough each year. Detail of this may

rate is 26%. TWPakistani / Banglades Economic Status for New Housing Association Tenants – LBRuT The Continuous Recording System (CORE) records the economic status of the head of the hdata for 2007/08 is shown below. It should be noted that housing association tenantsoften start a housing association tenancy after living in temporary accommodation, wherebarriers to securing employment are greater, and therefore the number of tenants in work may increase over time.

LBRuT HA New Lets - Economic Status for Head of Households 2007/08

Long term sick/disabled

18%

Other1% Working full or part

Not seeking worktir%

time27%

Unemployed/Jobseeker

Full time student5%

Re5%

ed 12%32

: CORE New Lettings Richmond upon Thames April 2007 to March 2008

As can be seen above the majority of households are ‘not seeking work’ (32%) which is likely re commitments. The second largest economically inactive group is ‘long te ’ (18%), followed by ‘unemployed/jobseekers’ (12%). Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) Claims As discussed previously, in Chapter

sian’, are over-represented amongst people claiming JSA compared to population

compared with

Source

to be due to childcarm sick or disabled

One, all non-White ethnic minority groups, except ‘Aestimates for the borough. Black and ‘Other’ residents are the most over-represented amongst all people claiming JSA in June 2009, both with 4% of all claimants an estimated 2% of the borough population. Key findings – the Hills Review found that there are increased levels of those without paid work for those living in social housing and as there are often high numbers of BME tenants in social housing this is likely to affect them disproportionately. Across London all BME groups experience lower employment rates, especially Pakistani / Bangladeshi ethnic groups.

128

Figures for JSA claims in LBRuT show that all BME groups are over-represented amongst all JSA claimants in the borough. Financial Inclusion Financial exclusion is often cha of a bank account and/or everyday financial products such as home insurance, lack of knowledge or ability about personal finance and a greater vulnerabi lternative lending sources such as doorstep lenders. In November 2008 T inancial Inclusion &

thnicity: An Agenda for Research & Policy Action’. The report states that a low income,

BME s (both looked at in

ore detail below).

The report looks at what it desc e l inclusion ‘banking, credit, insurance, savings and financial advice’. Lack of create barriers to receipt of benefits an loyment opportunities (amongst other problems) and BME groups can experience gr fficulties in accessing banking due to language barriers and problems supplyin ty documen The report also high for low income households

nd that social housi nants, experiences

racterised by lack

lity to a

he Runnymeade Trust produced a report ‘FEpoor education and insecure employment are all recognised contributors to financial exclusion’. As the report goes on to say, there is evidence of over-representation of households amongst those on low incomes and lower employment ratem

ribes as th 5 areas of financiabanking and credit services can

d empeater dig identi ts.

lights that low levels of insurance is an issueng, which often sees a higher proportion of BME tea

higher levels of burglary than privately owned properties, leading to higher insurance costs. Income Levels The table below shows details of the risk of being in a low income groups (60% below

edian) nationally by ethnicity, both before and after housing costs.m Percentage risk of being in low income group by ethnicity

Ethnic group Before housing costs (%) After housing costs (%)White 17 20 Mixed 23 35 Asian/Asian British 36 42

Indian 22 25 Pakistani/Bangladeshi 53 61

Black/Black British 25 39 Black Caribbean 22 31 Black Non-Caribbean 28 45

Other 26 37 Source: UK Family Resources Survey, 2007/08, (DWP, 2009)

As the table above shows, all ethnic minority groups are more likely than White households to live on a low income, especially after housing costs have been deducted. The percentage risk is the greatest for Pakistani/Bangladeshi households and Black, non-Caribbean households. Households with No Bank Account or Home Insurance The Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) UK Family Resource Survey 2007-08 includes data on types of bank accounts held and ethnicity and which households have insurance and ethnicity. The survey is based on approx 25,000 interviews but it should be noted that questions relating to savings and banking are sensitive and do often attract low response

129

130

rates. The percentages shown below for those who do not have any account includes those who did not answer that question. No Bank Account by Ethnicity of Head of Household

Ethnicity % of householdsAsian 5% Black 5% Mixed 5% Other 5% White 3%

Source: DWP UK Family Resource Survey 2007-08 As can be seen above, according to the survey findings, all ethnic minority households were more likely to not have a bank account than White households although there is no difference shown in the percentages for each ethnic minority group. Households with Home Insurance by Ethnicity of Head of Household

Ethnicity % of householdsAsian 58% Black 45% Mixed 56% Other 49% White 81%

Source: DWP UK Family Resource Survey 2007-08 As shown in the table above, the survey found that all ethnic minority households were much more likely to be without home insurance than White households. Again the extent to which different ethnic minority households are affected is quite similar, although Asian & Mixed households show the highest percentage without home insurance. Key findings – when looking at what are sometimes described as the 5 areas of financial inclusion – ‘banking, credit, insurance, savings and financial advice’ there is evidence that this may affect BME groups disproportionately. These issues can lead to a range of difficulties leading to poorer life chances. Nationally, there is evidence that all BME groups are more likely to be affected by low incomes, both before and after housing costs. All BME groups are also more likely to be without a bank account or home insurance.