1

Published by Research and Intelligence (Autumn 2013)

Ethnic Group Profile of Hampshire

2011 Census

www.hants.gov.uk

2

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Ethnic Group by District

3. Ethnic Group by Age and Sex

4. Ethnic Group and Country of birth

5. Ethnic Group and Religion

6. Ethnic Group and Health

7. Ethnic Group and Household Composition

8. Ethnic Group and Economic Activity

9. Ethnic Group and Car Ownership

10. Ethnic Group and Tenure

11. Ethnic Group and Occupancy

12. Conclusion

13. Appendices

p3 p6 p11 p15 p17 p19 p23 p25 p28 p32 p34 p36 p38

3

1 Introduction A largely white British county, Hampshire might not seem at first sight a very interesting place to produce a report on its ethnic diversity. However, lying within Hampshire’s white British towns, suburbs and villages are significant pockets of those from a range of different ethnic backgrounds. Such communities have formed as a result of changes in national and international law as well as a result of historical migration patterns. This report aims to highlight the growing diversity of Hampshire’s population using mainly 2011 census data but also making comparisons, where appropriate, back to 2001. Questions relating to a person’s ethnic group were first asked in the 1991 Census of England and Wales when people were asked ‘which ethnic group do you descend from: White; Black-Caribbean; Black-African; Black-Other; Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi and Chinese.’ By 2001 the question had altered to ask about people’s ethnic group in terms of their cultural background and the number of categories had grown to include mixed and white Irish. By 2011 the question had evolved further to simply ask people to state their ethnic group or background and included separate categories for Gypsies and Arabs. Both 2001 and 2011 censuses also allowed respondents to write in their ethnic group if they didn’t feel it fitted one of the pre-defined categories. Questions on ethnic group therefore, and especially since 2001, refer to a person’s own perception of their ethnicity and as such can change over time and cannot necessarily be labelled by others. Though correlated to country of birth, ethnicity is not the same. Eighteen detailed ethnic group categories were collected on the 2011 Census. However, for the purposes of this report, these categories have been combined into six broad groups (Table 1). In addition there were two large ‘write-in’ categories (Polish and Nepalese) across Hampshire and these have been investigated where the data allows. Please note that throughout this report Hampshire should be understood as referring to the combined administrative areas of Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council. Figure 1 on the following page shows this area in more detail. An appendix at the end of this report contains all the relevant 2011 Census tables. For further information please contact the Demography Team: Jack Cox Senior Research Officer Research and Intelligence Demography jack.cox@hants.gov.uk 01962 826980

4

Table 1: Ethnic Groups recorded in the 2011 Census.

Broad Ethnic Group (used herein)

Detailed Ethnic Group (as recorded by 2011 Census)

White British White - English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British

White Other Irish Gypsy or Irish Traveller Other White

Mixed/multiple Mixed/multiple - White and Black Caribbean Mixed/multiple - White and Black African Mixed/multiple - White and Asian Mixed/multiple - Other Mixed

Asian Asian/Asian British - Indian Asian/Asian British - Pakistani Asian/Asian British - Bangladeshi Asian/Asian British - Chinese Asian/Asian British - Other

Black Black/African/Caribbean/Black British - African Black/African/Caribbean/Black British - Caribbean Black/African/Caribbean/Black British - Other

Black

Other Arab Any Other

5

1,759,700 people in 2011

New Forest

Test Valley

Basingstoke and Deane

Hart

Portsmouth

Winchester

East Hampshire

Eastleigh

Rushmoor

Havant

Gosport

Southampton

Fareham

7% since 2001 (115,000)

Hampshire

7% non-white

(2001 3.3%)

Figure 1

6

2 Ethnic Group by District As already stated, Hampshire is a largely White British county with 89.0% of its inhabitants choosing to describe their ethnicity as White British, significantly higher than the national average of 80.5%. However, both nationally and in Hampshire these figures are considerably lower than those seen in 2001 (87.5% nationally and 94.1% for Hampshire). But far from homogeneous, the population of Hampshire in 2011 in fact described themselves by over ninety different ethnic group labels – from the 89% white British group to the very small groups describing themselves as Cuban or Croatian, for example. When the analysis looks in more detail at Hampshire’s districts, interesting differences in the ethnic make-up of Hampshire’s population emerge. Nine of Hampshire’s districts have over 90% of their population defining themselves as being White British (Figure 2). However, Basingstoke and Deane, Rushmoor, Portsmouth and Southampton fall below the county average and Southampton in fact has a significantly lower White British population compared to the national average at 77.7% of its total population. Indeed, urban areas in particular across the county tend to have higher ethnic group diversity. After White British, White Other is the next most common ethnic group in the majority of Hampshire’s districts. However in Rushmoor, Eastleigh, Portsmouth and Southampton the second most common grouping behind White British ethnicity is Asian. Behind Southampton, the district of Rushmoor, located in the North East of Hampshire has the largest non white British population in the county at 19.5%. Most of this is made up of the Asian ethnic group accounting for 10.4% of its overall population. This is largely as a result of legislation surrounding Ghurkha Armed Forces personnel and the settlement in the district of them and their families. As a result 6.5% of Rushmoor’s population identified themselves as Nepalese in the 2011 census. Indeed the whole of the Asian ethnic group in Rushmoor has risen from under 2% in 2001. In the southern parts of the county the picture is somewhat different with Southampton and its population of White Other individuals being a substantial subset of their population (8.3%). The size of Southampton’s White Other population can largely be attributed to the migration into the city after the European Accession in 2004 and the large numbers of Eastern European individuals who moved to the city after this date1. In particular, the Polish population became a large part of Southampton’s community – growing from the smaller but significant groups who settled in the authority following the end

1 In May 2004 the Treaty of the Accession to the European Union (2003) between the existing

15 EU member states and 10 new states came into force. 10 EU countries joined the EU in 2004, 8 of these became known as the A8 countries - Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – and Malta and Cyprus – known as A10 when combined with the A8.

7

of the Second World War. In 2011 the Polish ethnic group accounted for 3.2% of Southampton’s total population.

It should be noted that whilst the Nepalese population is very much focussed in Rushmoor with very few living elsewhere in Hampshire, the Polish ethnic group are dotted, albeit in smaller numbers, all over the county. Figures 3 and 4 below serve to give more information about the distribution of both the Nepalese and Polish populations in the county.

8

.

White British

Hampshire

89.0% of Hampshire are White British

97.3% Horndean Catherington and Lovedean Ward

44.6% Bevois Ward

from 94.1% in 2001

1.6 million

Figure 2

9

0.9% of Hampshire are Polish

15,420

4 of Top 5 Hampshire wards

Freemantle 8.1% Shirley 6.6% Bevois 5.2% Millbrook 3.9% Eastrop 3.5% (Basingstoke and Deane)

Polish

Hampshire

3.2% Polish (7,670)

Southampton

Figure 3

10

0.5% of Hampshire Nepalese

0.5% of Hampshire are Nepalese

Nepalese Hampshire

8,520

6,120 Nepalese (6.5%) 71.8% of all Hampshire’s

Nepalese population Wellington Ward 17.7%

Mayfield Ward 13.9%

Rushmoor

Figure 4

11

3 Ethnic Group by Age and Sex

The subsequent graphs of Figure 5 in this section show Hampshire’s population data by age and sex for each ethnicity in a graphical form known as a population pyramid. The first two pyramids show the total population of Hampshire at the time of the 2001 and 2011 Censuses. They clearly illustrate how the county’s population is changing, in particular how it has aged over time as more and more people begin to occupy the older age groups. Hampshire’s pyramid is becoming more rectangular in its shape, a feature caused by sustained low birth and death rates across the population. Also visible are the post-war and 1960’s baby booms moving through the age structure. For more information on how Hampshire’s population (as represented by population pyramids) has changed over time, please see the Population Pyramid Video. The remaining population pyramids show the very distinct age and sex structures associated with each of the main ethnic groups in Hampshire as at 20112. The White British pyramid has much the same structure as that of the entire Hampshire population as this is by far the most common ethnicity across Hampshire. It has a wide peak indicating the large elderly population, a rectangular shape and two distinct bulges from the baby booms. Also evident is a peak in those aged 15 to 24 which is likely to be explained by the large student populations in Southampton, Portsmouth and Winchester. The White Other pyramid has a clear ‘unimodal’ shape (a pyramid that has a pronounced peak at certain ages). It is likely that this is predominantly the result of the large numbers of A8 Accession migrants who have come to Hampshire in search of work. As such they are mostly young working age adults with many fewer children and older people, and interestingly almost 6,000 more females than males. However, at the very bottom of the pyramid the bulge in those aged 0-4 suggest some migrants have either arrived with young children or are settling in Hampshire and starting families, both suggesting a longer term migration move into the county. The Mixed/Multiple pyramid is the most triangular in shape indicating the much younger age structure of this ethnic group. This is at least partly due to the increase in relationships across different ethnic groups and the resulting offspring. The three remaining pyramids reflect the age structures of the Asian, Black and Other ethnic groups. Each pyramid bulges for the working age groups, though for the Other ethnic group this is much more pronounced amongst

2 Please note the different percentage ranges on the x-axis of each pyramid.

12

males. These three pyramids, along with the Mixed/Multiple ethnic group, also show many fewer older people. It is also worth noting the bulge in the 0-4 population across all the population pyramids in 2011, indicating that all ethnic groups, in Hampshire at least, have experienced the recent upturn in fertility to a greater or lesser degree.

13

Hampshire – All Persons (2011)

Hampshire – White British (2011) Hampshire – White Other (2011)

Hampshire – All Persons (2001)

49.3% 771,870

50.7% 793,830

46.0% 32,690

54.0% 38,440

49.3% 867,590

50.7% 892,130

49.1% 788,880

50.9% 817,190

Figure 5

14

Hampshire – Mixed/Multiple (2011) Hampshire – Asian (2011)

Hampshire – Black (2011) Hampshire – Other (2011)

51.4% 14,990

48.6% 14,200

50.1% 33,900

49.9% 33,820

52.3% 8,970

47.7% 8,170

58.6% 5,170

41.4% 3,660

15

4 Ethnic Group and Country of Birth

This report now switches to look in greater detail at the differences and similarities between those of different ethnic groups beyond simply age, sex and location. The first characteristic the report focusses on is country of birth. Country of birth is strongly related to ethnic group but not totally predictive as Table 2 below shows. Table 2: Ethnic group by Country of Birth, 2011

White British3 Non-White British

UK Born 1,519,680 63,200

Non-UK Born 46,020 130,830

In 2011 90.0% of Hampshire’s population were born in the UK, a decline from 93.6% in 2001. Of the 10% born outside the UK, the majority of these individuals were born in Europe (4.2%), the Middle East and Asia (3.3%) and African countries (1.6%). The depth of data provided by the Census allows us to see the large variation in country of birth when looking also at ethnic group. For example, 97.1% of White British people in Hampshire have been born in the UK, along with 78.3% of the Mixed/Multiple ethnic group. In contrast, only 21.2% of those people who defined themselves as being in the Other ethnic category were born in the UK and only 17.7% of White Other individuals. The majority of Hampshire’s Asian population are shown by the Census to have been born in Asia (62.8%). Furthermore, half (50.9%) of Hampshire’s Black population were born in Africa with a further 12.2% having been born in the Americas and Caribbean. However, 31.4% of the Black population of Hampshire were born in the UK. Of the White Other ethnic group, 66.5% were born in other European countries. The Other ethnic group has a high proportion of individuals born in the Middle East and Asia (44.2%) and also has the highest proportion of individuals born in Antarctica and Oceania at 2.6% Figure 6 below shows the country of birth data for Hampshire by ethnicity:

3 British in this context includes the Northern Irish

16

1.6%

0.7%

3.3%

Born in Americas and Caribbean (15,470)

White British (4,610) 37.0%

White Other (3,780) 30.3%

Black (2,080) 16.7%

Born in Middle East

and Asia (57,500)

Asian (42,560) 74.0%

White British (7,640) 13.3%

Other (3,900) 6.8%

Born in Antarctica and

Oceania (5,320) White British (2,730) 53.1%

White Other (1,900) 35.8%

Other (230) 4.3%

Born in Europe (73,670) White Other (47,300) 64.2%

White British (21,610) 29.3%

Mixed (1,540) 2.1%

UK born (1,582,880) White British (1,519,680) 96%

Mixed (22,850) 1.4%

Asian (20,470) 1.3% 90.0%

0.3%

4.2%

Figure 6

African born (27,900) White British (9,430) 33.8%

Black (8,720) 31.3%

White Other (4,310)) 15.4%

17

5 Ethnic Group and Religion Turning to Religion and how this varies by ethnicity, there are some very interesting patterns to be seen across the county. Data from the 2011 Census shows that the majority of people in White British (61.2%), White Other (70.8%) and Black (76.4%) ethnic groups identify themselves as being Christian. Whilst the White British figure is down from 2001 (75.3%), both the White Other (68.3%) and Black (70.1%) ethnic groups are higher than in 2001. Meanwhile each ethnic group shows itself to have at least 10% of its population who state they have No Religion at all, with the Mixed/Multiple ethnic group having the largest proportion at 35.6% with no religion. Religion is the only question on the census form that is voluntary and more than 6% of each ethnicity chose not to state a religion at all, with the exception of Black ethnicities where the proportion who declined to answer was just 0.8%. The Other and Asian ethnic groups stated Muslim as their main religion at 47.3% and 22.1% respectively. The Sikh religion also features prominently within the Asian ethnic group, whilst all Other religions made up very small percentages of the population in each ethnic grouping. Figure 7 below shows the Religion data for Hampshire by ethnicity:

18

Christian 59.7% 89% White British 4.0% White Other

No Religion 29.5% 93.0% White British 2.5% White Other

Not Stated 7.2% 89.1% White British 4.2% White Other

Muslim 1.4% Asian 59.6% Other 16.7%

Hindu 0.7% 93.7% Asian 1.8% Other

Buddhist 0.6%

Asian 67.9% 24.4% White British

Other 0.5% White British 87.5% White other 4.6%

Sikh 0.4% Asian 87.1% Other 15.7%

Jewish 0.1% 78.9% White British 15.4% White Other

Religion Figure 7

19

6 Ethnic Group and Health

The census asks people to report their general health status as at that point in time, rating their health as very good, good, fair, bad or very bad. Whilst it is a self assessed measure of health, it is used extensively in the public health field as it has been shown to correlate well with objective measures of health and mortality risk. Figures 8 and 9 graphically show the general health of Hamshire’s population by ethnic group and it is clear that once again, differences exist. The majority of the population define their health as good or very good, though this ranges from 83.0% of the White British population to 92.0% of the Black population. Bad and very bad self defined health also shows some ethnic group differences. Whilst 4.3% of the whole of Hampshire’s popuation define themselves this way (significanlty lower than the national average at 5.6%), this again varies by ethnic group. The White British population are most likely to label their health as bad or very bad at 4.4%, whilst the Black population is the least likely at 1.9%.

20

Very Good / Good Health Hampshire (all ages)

83.6% (1,472,690) England and Wales 81.2%

93.8% (Fleet North

Ward)

93.7% (Long Sutton Ward)

Black 92.0% Mixed 91.4% Other 90.0% Asian 90.0 White 83.2%

Figure 8

21

Bad/ Very Bad Health Hampshire (all ages)

4.3%

(75,490) England and Wales 5.6%

7.5% (Town Ward)

8.5% (Charles Dickens

Ward)

White 4.4% Other 2.9% Asian 2.4% Mixed 2.3% Black 1.9%

Figure 9

22

The health (self assessed or otherwise) of an individual is highly correlated to their age, and since we have seen that the different ethnic groups have very different age structures in Hampshire, it is important to control for age in any analysis of ethnic group by health in order to fully understand any differences seen. Figure 10 below shows the general health of each of Hampshire’s main ethnic group categories by broad age groups4. It can be clearly seen that the youngest age group (aged 0 to 15 years) experiences very little variation in the proportions of the population that are in anything other than Very Good/Good health with White (97.4%), Mixed (97.2%), Asian (97.2%), Black (97.5%) and Other (96.5%) all stating self perceived good health. However differences can start to be seen between the ethnic groups amongst the working ages and older populations. In the working age group by far the most common response from people of all ethnic groups is again good or very good health. However, there are some variations, with the White ethnic group population being the least likely to respond in this way, though no ethnic group falls below 85%. The level of bad/very bad health comes into view with 3.4% of the White and 3.0% of the Other populations identifying themselves as having health which can be categorised as such. This picture continues clearly into the older ages as ‘less than good’ health outcomes take up an ever increasing share of the population aged 65 years and over, such that for the Asian and Other ethnic group categories less than half of respondents perceived their health to be Good or very Good. The Asian ethnic group is also most likely to report their health to be bad or very bad in this age group at over 16%.

Figure 10: Percentage of Hampshire’s Population that is in Very Good/Good Health,

Fair Health, or Bad/Very Bad Health, by age and Ethnic Group, 2011 Census

4 Please note the 2011 census does not separate the White ethnic group out into White British and

White Other categories for this analysis.

23

7 Ethnic Group and Household Composition The following section presents information from the 2011 Census on household composition and its relationship with ethnic group. The data refers to the Household Reference Person (HRP). A HRP is defined as the oldest full-time worker in most households or a person chosen from the household based on their age and economic activity, (referred to as the ‘head of household’ in earlier censuses). For all ethnic groups with the exception of the Mixed/Multiple ethnic group, “married/civil partnership” households account for the largest share of the HRPs, with a high of 49.2% for the Asian ethnic group. One person households are the next most common household for White British (28.8%), Mixed/multiple (28.8%), Black (27.3%) and Other (26.9%) ethnicities. This is likely to reflect changes in lifestyle whereby individuals of working age are more frequently living alone, either due to choice or family dissolutions. Cohabiting couple households are most prevalent amongst those of Mixed/multiple (13.9%) and White Other (13.6%) ethnic groups compared to Asian at only 5.0%. A higher percentage of households in Mixed/multiple (12.6%) and Black (12.3%) ethnic groups are lone parent households, while proportions are much lower across other ethnicities. The proportions of households that are made up of single pensioners are considerably higher for the White British population (13.1%) than for any other ethnic group. The next biggest are White Other and mixed/multiple at 5.0% and 5.1% respectively. This strongly reflects the differing age profiles of the ethnic groups as shown in the population pyramids of section three. Figure 11 below shows for HRPs household composition by ethnic group:

24

White British

White Other

Mixed -

Asian

Black

Other

One Person

Lone Parent

Married/Civil Partnership

Cohabiting Couple

All Full-Time Students

Single Pensioner

28.8% 9.4% 35.6% 9.9% 0.6% 13.1%

22.0% 7.9% 35.1% 13.6% 2.2% 5.0%

28.8% 12.6% 27.7% 13.9% 3.4% 5.1%

15.6% 5.7% 49.2% 5.0% 4.5% 2.2%

27.3%

12.3%

33.9%

8.5%

5.1%

3.4%

26.9%

6.3%

38.6%

6.3%

7.6%

3.5%

Figure 11

Other

2.5%

14.2%

8.5%

17.7%

9.6%

10.8%

25

8 Ethnic Group and Economic Activity Economic activity status is taken for a subset of the population – namely those aged 16 and over. Economic activity classifies people into those who are economically active: either working full-time; part-time; self employed or those who are unemployed (including unemployed students). Whilst economically inactive includes: the retired; students; those looking after the home and family; and those who are long term sick and disabled. Figures 12 and 13 report the breakdown by ethnic group for Hampshire. The percentage of Hampshire’s population that is economically active varies markedly across ethnic groups, ranging from a high of 77.1% for those of White Other ethnicity to a low of 53.6% for those who define themselves as Other ethnicity groups. Within the economically active group lie those who are classified as unemployed, a group which makes up 3.7% of Hampshire’s population aged 16 and over. The Black ethnic group has the highest proportion unemployed at 6.2% followed closely by Mixed/multiple at 6.1%, whilst the lowest rates of unemployed individuals are seen in the White British (3.1%) and White Other (3.2%) ethnicities. White Other and Other ethnic groups are seen to have the highest proportions of individuals who are self-employed at 10.3% and 10.5% respectively. White British is also high at 9.5% with the Black ethnic group lowest at 6.1%. With regards to part-time and full-time working patterns it can be observed that part-time employment remains stable across all ethnicities whilst full-time work however shows distinct variation; with a high of (48.9%) for Other White ethnicity and a low of only (27.4%) for those of Other ethnicity. Other and White British ethnic groups have the highest economically inactive population aged 16 and over with 46.4% and 35.4% respectively. The group with the lowest inactivity (25.6%) is Black ethnicity. Within the economically inactive group the largest subgroup are the retired individuals (accounting for 62.8% of all of Hampshire’s economically inactive population). However, the vast majority of these are within the White British ethnic group which also has the highest proportion of retired individuals (24.8%), followed by White Other (15.2%). Those of Black ethnicity have the lowest proportions retired at only 4.9%, which reflects their relatively young population. The Mixed/Multiple ethnic group has the highest proportions categorised as long-term sick or disabled at 3.0%, the Asian ethnic group report the lowest at 1.8%.

26

Figure 12: Economic Activity for People Aged 16 and over years by Ethnic Group, 2011 Census. Economically Active

Economically Inactive

27

Economic Activity and Inactivity

Black 74.4% 25.6%

White Other 77.1% 22.9%

Mixed 67.3% 32.7%

Asian 65.5% 34.5%

White British 64.6% 35.4%

Other 53.6% 46.4%

Figure 13

28

9 Ethnic Group and Car Availability

Car access is a useful measure of deprivation, though it is also linked with location as those living in towns and cities with good public transport links and access to amenities may be seen to be less in need of a car than those living in more rural locations. For the purposes of this report car access is split into those without any access, those with one car and those with two or more. In Hampshire as a whole, 18.9% of the population have no access to a car or van which equates to 137,530 households. Although this figure initially seems high, the England and Wales average is considerably higher at 25.6%. In Portsmouth, Charles Dicken’s Ward has the highest proportion of households with no car or van available in Hampshire at 63.0%, well above the county and national averages. The lowest proportion by ethnic group was experienced by the White British population at only 18.2%. Whilst 34.4% of the Other ethnic group households have no access, followed closely by 31.8% of Black households. Whether all differences seen are due to choice seems unlikely, and a degree of correlation between car access and deprivation is known to exist5, however, without more specific information it is impossible to state with certainty how much of the ethnic group variability is also linked to deprivation. Figure 14 shows availability of no cars/vans by ethnic group. Moving on to observe ownership of one car/van per household a number of points can be observed. Across Hampshire as a whole, 41.5% of households have access to one car/van for use, this equates to approximately 302,200 households. This is slightly below the England and Wales average of 42.2%. When looking at this data by ethnicity there is much less variability. The White Other households have the highest proportions of one car access in Hampshire at 45.1%, whilst the Other ethnic group has the lowest at 41.1%. Figure 15 shows availability of one or more cars/vans by ethnic group. Finally turning to the availability of two or more cars/vans per household (figure 16) across Hampshire 39.7% of households have access to two or more cars. This is approximately 289,250 households and is well above the England and Wales average of 32.2%. With regards to variation by ethnic group, 40.6% of White British households have two or more cars/vans available, this figure falls markedly to only 31.0% for the next highest ethnicity, namely White Other and is lowest amongst the Black ethnic group at 23.4%.

.

5 The Carstairs Index of material deprivation was one of the first composite measures of deprivation

and used 1981 census data. It included no car access as one of its four main drivers of material

deprivation.

29

No Cars/Vans available per household

Hampshire

18.9%

(137,530 households) England and Wales 25.6%

Other 34.4% Black 31.8% Mixed/Multiple 27.3% Asian 24.7% White Other 23.9% White British 18.2%

Charles Dickens 63.0%

St Thomas Ward

45.5%

Figure 14

30

One Car/Van available per household

Hampshire

41.5%

(302,200 households) England and Wales 42.2%

White Other 45.1% Black 44.8% Asian 44.5% Mixed/Multiple 43.2% White British 41.2% Other 41.1%

Hardway Ward

50.8%

Elson Ward

50.5%

Figure 15

Grange Ward

53.6%

31

Two or More Car/Van available per household

Hampshire

39.7%

(289,250 households) England and Wales 32.2%

White British 40.6% White Other 31.0% Asian 30.8% Mixed/Multiple 29.6% Other 24.3% Black 23.4%

East Woodhay 70.3%

Downland 70.7%

Figure 16

32

10 Ethnic Group and Tenure

Housing tenure refers to whether households own or rent the property in which they live. When looking at household tenure across Hampshire it can be seen, as with many other variables in this report that variation exists by ethnic group. Figure 17 shows that 67.6% of households (as assessed by their Household Representative Person (HRP)) across Hampshire are owner occupiers (492,450 households), this is above the national average of 64.3%. The remaining 32.4% are rented (236,450 households). This most likely reflects Hampshire’s relatively wealthy status. The highest proportions of ownership are seen for White British households of which 70.4% are owned with the remaining 29.6% being rented. When looking at mixed/multiple ethnicity households there is an almost even split with 51.0% of households being owned and 49.0% rented. The lowest proportions of ownership are evident in Black ethnic group households at only 30.8% with the majority (69.2%) renting. Whether these ethnic group differences are culturally or financially led probably varies itself by ethnic group. However, splitting the rented group out into those whom privately rent and those whom are social renters will help tease out this relationship. Private renting is the second most common tenure across Hampshire, with a high of 41.7% in White Other households and a low of just 11.5% of the White British population. The high numbers of White Other households who rent privately may reflect their more recent arrival into the UK and possibly the relatively short term nature of the migration for many. When looking at social housing a high of almost a quarter (23.2%) of households are observed in the Black ethnic group with a further 21.5% of the mixed/multiple ethnic group. Social renting is least common amongst the White Other ethnicity at just 10.4%. Figure 17 below shows the household tenure data by ethnic group:

33

Tenure in Hampshire

67.6% Owned (492,450 households) England and Wales 64.3%

32.4% Rented (236,450 households) England and Wales 35.6%

White British

White Other

Mixed

Asian

Black

Other

Owned

70.4%

44.3%

51.0%

53.5%

30.8%

39.8%

Rented

29.6%

55.7%

49.0%

46.5%

69.2%

60.2%

Figure 17

34

11 Ethnic Group and Occupancy

The census uses an occupancy rating as a measure of under-occupancy and overcrowding6, and this definition is used here. A value of plus 2 implies that there are two extra rooms available in the household indicating under-occupancy, whilst a value of minus 1 indicates one room too few, and thus overcrowding. The number of rooms required by a household is calculated from the relationship between the occupants, their ages and their gender. For example a one person household requires two common rooms and a bedroom. Households with more than one resident require two common rooms, plus bedrooms for the type of people that they are e.g. a couple require one bedroom, children of the same sex can share until age sixteen, children of a different sex can share until aged ten. Figure 18 shows how occupancy ratings vary by ethnic group, with over half (55.9%) of White British households (as measured by the Household Representative Person (HRP)) having a rating of plus two, indicating that the majority of this population under-occupy their homes when using this measure. This compares to figures 38.9% for White Other and only 27.0% for Black ethnicity. The percentages of households with a rating of plus one are consistent across the ethnic groups, ranging from a high of 22.6% for Mixed/multiple to a low of 18.9% for Other ethnicity. However, the percentages of the population living in homes with an adequate number of rooms (a rating of zero) do show some disparity, with a low of 17.0% for White British and a high of 30.2% for Black ethnicity households. When looking at occupancy ratings of minus one (which denotes overcrowded living arrangements in this context), large differences occur across ethnic groups. Occupancy at this level is lowest for White British households at 5.9%, compared to 23.0% for Asian and 25.1% for Other ethnic groups. Whether these variations by ethnic group in occupancy reflect choice and cultural norms or necessity is not clear and unfortunately census data does not allow for that distinction to be teased out. Figure 18 below shows the household occupancy ratings by ethnic group:

6 2011 Census Glossary of Terms, Office for National Statistics, October 2013

35

Occupancy Rating +2 (Under-occupied)

54.0% (393,890) Households

England and Wales 50.2%

White British 55.9% White Other 38.9%

Mixed/Multiple 36.8%

Asian 33.4%

Black 27.0%

Other 30.0%

Occupancy Rating +1

21.2% (154,388) Households

England and Wales 22.9%

Other 25.1%

Asian 23.0%

Black 21.9%

White Other 17.8%

Mixed/Multiple 14.8%

White British 5.9%

Occupancy Rating 0

17.7% (128,960) Households

England and Wales 18.4%

Black 30.2% Other 26.0%

Mixed/Multiple 25.8%

Asian 23.8%

White Other 23.3%

White British 17.0%

Occupancy Rating -1 (Overcrowding)

7.1% (51,740) Households

England and Wales 8.5%

Other 25.1%

Asian 23.0%

Black 21.9%

White Other 17.8%

Mixed/multiple 14.8%

White British 5.9%

Occupancy Rating Hampshire

Figure 18

36

12 Concluding remarks This report has highlighted the far from homogeneous ethnic population of Hampshire. Whilst it is acknowledged that the majority of Hampshire’s population define themselves as White British, and even more so than the country as a whole, there do exist marked variations across the county. There are some sizeable pockets within Hampshire with large ethnic diversity, as well as many smaller populations dotted around the county. Numbers of non-White British indeed have more than doubled since 2001 as a result of greater mobility, as well as changes in national and international law allowing more people to settle freely in the country. Two specific self identified ethnic groups appear in Hampshire in addition to the main six ethnic groups (see Table 1); namely Polish, principally found in Southampton – though dotted throughout the county; and Nepalese, almost solely found in Rushmoor. And it is these two local authorities which report the greatest non-White British populations more generally. Not only is there variation in the location of different ethnic groups, but also in their age structures. Such differences reflect possibly the length of time the populations have been living in Hampshire or their reason for migrating and staying within the county (or not). The differences here are striking and are likely to be the reason behind some of the other differences the report goes on to highlight. The report has looked individually at a number of different characteristics of the ethnic groups of Hampshire. Pulling them together provides some interesting conclusions and highlights some potential areas for further research in order to draw more substantiated conclusions. For example, turning to those factors that are associated with deprivation – car access, housing tenure, occupancy and economic activity; it appears that often the Black population is affected the most of all ethnic groups with high proportions living in social rented housing; with no car access and the least homes with two or more cars; high levels of over crowding; and the highest proportion of people unemployed. Whilst not conclusive, and individually there may well be alternative explanations, put together these findings appear to suggest this population group are to some degree more deprived. Further analysis will be carried out in due course to investigate this further. Similarly, the White Other ethnic group has really sprung up since the A8 Accession in 2004. This is another area where more detailed analysis might tease out more of the specific characteristics of the different sub-groups within the A8 population. The Nepalese population of Rushmoor is again a relatively new population group, at least at its current size. Further research using the Office for National Statistics (ONS) customised tables service would be able to bring more light into this large population sub group.

37

This report, though raising a number of questions, has brought to light the diversity of the county’s population and highlights where this research might be developed further in the future.

38

Appendices Appendix 2 (Chapter 2 – Ethnic Group by District) Appendix 2.1 Population by Ethnic Group (numbers)

Appendix 2.2 Population by ethnic group (percentage)

39

Appendix 4 (Chapter 4 - Ethnic Group and Country of Birth) Appendix 4.1 Ethnic Group by Country of Birth (numbers)

Appendix 4.2 Ethnic Group by Country of Birth (percentage)

Appendix 4.3 Ethnic Group by Country of Birth (percentage)

40

Appendix 5 (Chapter 5 – Ethnic Group and Religion) Appendix 5.1 Ethnic Group by Religion (numbers)

Appendix 5.2 Ethnic Group by Religion (percentage)

Appendix 5.3 Ethnic Group by Religion (percentage)

41

Appendix 6 (Chapter 6 – Ethnic Group and Health) Appendix 6.1 Ethnic Group by Health Aged 0-15 years (numbers)

Appendix 6.2 Ethnic Group by Health Aged 0-15 years (percentage)

Appendix 6.3 Ethnic Group by Health Aged 16-64 years (numbers)

Appendix 6.4 Ethnic Group by Health Aged 16-64 years (percentage)

42

Appendix 6.5 Ethnic Group by Health Aged 65 and over (numbers)

Appendix 6.6 Ethnic Group by Health Aged 65 and over (percentage)

43

Appendix 7 (Chapter 7 – Ethnic group and Household Composition) Appendix 7.1 Ethnic Group by household composition (numbers)

Appendix 7.2 Ethnic Group by household composition (percentage)

44

Appendix 8 (Chapter 8 – Ethnic Group and Economic Activity) Appendix 8.1 Ethnic Group by Economic Activity (numbers)

Appendix 8.2 Ethnic Group by Economic Activity (percentage)

Appendix 8.3 Ethnic Group by Economic Activity/Inactivity (numbers)

Appendix 8.4 Ethnic Group by Economic Activity/Inactivity (percentage)

45

Appendix 9 (Chapter 9 – Ethnic Group and Car Ownership) Appendix 9.1 Ethnic Group by Car Ownership (numbers)

Appendix 9.2 Ethnic Group by Car Ownership (percentage)

46

Appendix 10 (Chapter 10 – Ethnic Group and Tenure) Appendix 10.1 Ethnic Group by Tenure (numbers)

Appendix 10.2 Ethnic Group by Tenure (percentage)

Appendix 10.3 Ethnic Group by Tenure – Owned/Rented (numbers)

Appendix 10.4 Ethnic Group by Tenure – Owned/Rented (percentage)

47

Appendix 11 (Chapter 11 – Ethnic Group and Occupancy Rating) Appendix 11.1 Ethnic Group by Occupancy Rating (numbers)

Appendix 11.1 Ethnic Group by Occupancy Rating (percentage)