FOCUSONLONDON2011:POVERTY:THEHIDDENCITY

One of the defining features of London is that it is a city of contrasts. Although it is considered one of the richest cities in the world, over a million Londoners are living in relative poverty, even before the additional costs of living in the capital are considered.

This edition of Focus on London, authored by Rachel Leeser, presents a detailed analysis of poverty in London that reveals the scale and distribution of poverty in the capital.

CHARTS:

The motion chart shows the relationship between child poverty and worklessness at borough level, and shows how these two measures have changed since 2006. It reveals a significant reduction in workless households in Hackney (down 12 per cent), and to a lesser extent in Brent (down 7 per cent).

The bar chart shows child poverty rates and the change in child poverty since 2006. It reveals that while Tower Hamlets has the highest rate of child poverty, it also has one of the fastest falling rates (down 12 per cent), though Haringey had the biggest fall (15 per cent).

DATA:

All the data contained within the Poverty: The Hidden City report as well as the data used to create the charts and maps can be accessed in the spreadsheet.

FACTS:

Some interesting facts from the data…

● Highest proportion of children in workless households, by borough, 2010

1. Westminster – 35.6%
2. Barking and Dagenham – 33.6%
3. Lewisham – 33.1%
4. Newham – 31.4%
5. Islington – 30.6%

-31. Barnet – 9.1%

-32. Richmond upon Thames – 7.0%

● Changes in proportions of workless households, 2006-09, by borough

1. Hackney – down 12.3%
2. Brent – down 7.3%
3. Tower Hamlets – down 4.8%
4. Lambeth – down 4.2%
5. Hillingdon – down 4.1%

-31. Enfield – up 5.8%

-32. Bexley – up 7.3%

● Highest reduction in rates of child poverty 2006-09, by borough:

1. Haringey – down 15.0%
2. Newham – down 12.9%
3. Hackney – down 12.8%
4. Tower Hamlets – down 12.1%
5. Southwark – down 11.5%

-31. Bexley – up 6.0%

-32. Havering – up 10.3%

In 2019, people from most ethnic minority groups were more likely than White British people to live in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

FOCUSON**LONDON**2011:**POVERTY**:THE**HIDDEN**CITY

One of the defining features of London is that it is a city of contrasts. Although it is considered one of the richest cities in the world, over a million Londoners are living in relative poverty, even before the additional costs of living in the capital are considered.

This edition of Focus on London, authored by Rachel Leeser, presents a detailed analysis of poverty in London that reveals the scale and distribution of poverty in the capital.

REPORT:

Read the full report as a PDF.

https://londondatastore-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/fol/fol11-poverty-cover-thumb.jpg" alt="">

PRESENTATION:

What do we mean by living in poverty, and how does the model affect different types of families? This interactive presentation provides some clarity on a complex concept.

CHARTS:

The motion chart shows the relationship between child poverty and worklessness at borough level, and shows how these two measures have changed since 2006. It reveals a significant reduction in workless households in Hackney (down 12 per cent), and to a lesser extent in Brent (down 7 per cent).

The bar chart shows child poverty rates and the change in child poverty since 2006. It reveals that while Tower Hamlets has the highest rate of child poverty, it also has one of the fastest falling rates (down 12 per cent), though Haringey had the biggest fall (15 per cent).

Charts

DATA:

All the data contained within the Poverty: The Hidden City report as well as the data used to create the charts and maps can be accessed in this spreadsheet.

FACTS:

Some interesting facts from the data…

● Highest proportion of children in workless households, by borough, 2010

1. Westminster – 35.6%
2. Barking and Dagenham – 33.6%
3. Lewisham – 33.1%
4. Newham – 31.4%
5. Islington – 30.6%

-31. Barnet – 9.1%

-32. Richmond upon Thames – 7.0%

● Changes in proportions of workless households, 2006-09, by borough

1. Hackney – down 12.3%
2. Brent – down 7.3%
3. Tower Hamlets – down 4.8%
4. Lambeth – down 4.2%
5. Hillingdon – down 4.1%

-31. Enfield – up 5.8%

-32. Bexley – up 7.3%

● Highest reduction in rates of child poverty 2006-09, by borough:

1. Haringey – down 15.0%
2. Newham – down 12.9%
3. Hackney – down 12.8%
4. Tower Hamlets – down 12.1%
5. Southwark – down 11.5%

-31. Bexley – up 6.0%

-32. Havering – up 10.3%

Graph and download economic data for Estimate of Related Children Age 5-17 in Families in Poverty for New London County, CT (PE5T17CT09011A647NCEN) from 1989 to 2021 about New London County, CT; Norwich; CT; 5 to 17 years; family; child; poverty; persons; and USA.

Author:Buro HappoldCreation date:October 2024Date of source data harvest:July 2024 Temporal coverage of source data:Multiple inputsSpatial Resolution:Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)Geometry:PolygonSource data URL:Multiple inputsData terms of use:Dataset can be shared openly for reuse for non-commercial purposes, with appropriate attribution.Data attribution:- Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database rights 2025.- Office for National Statistics licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0.- Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.- Dataset processed by Buro Happold in 2024 under the CIEN & South London sub-regional LAEPs, utilising a range of inputs including TfL's Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) dataset.Workflow Diagram:Available - pngComments:The data and analysis developed for the sub-regional LAEP was undertaken using data available at the time and will need to be refined for a full Phase 2 LAEP. Please check here for more detailed background on the data.Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data, the Greater London Authority is not responsible for any inaccuracies and/or mistakes in the information provided.

Graph and download economic data for Estimate of People of All Ages in Poverty in New London County, CT (PEAACT09011A647NCEN) from 1989 to 2021 about New London County, CT; Norwich; CT; child; poverty; persons; and USA.

Population 16 years and over Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in London, Ohio by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

FOCUSONLONDON2011:POVERTY:THEHIDDENCITY One of the defining features of London is that it is a city of contrasts. Although it is considered one of the richest cities in the world, over a million Londoners are living in relative poverty, even before the additional costs of living in the capital are considered. This edition of Focus on London, authored by Rachel Leeser, presents a detailed analysis of poverty in London that reveals the scale and distribution of poverty in the capital. REPORT: Read the full report as a PDF. PRESENTATION: What do we mean by living in poverty, and how does the model affect different types of families? This interactive presentation provides some clarity on a complex concept. CHARTS: The motion chart shows the relationship between child poverty and worklessness at borough level, and shows how these two measures have changed since 2006. It reveals a significant reduction in workless households in Hackney (down 12 per cent), and to a lesser extent in Brent (down 7 per cent). The bar chart shows child poverty rates and the change in child poverty since 2006. It reveals that while Tower Hamlets has the highest rate of child poverty, it also has one of the fastest falling rates (down 12 per cent), though Haringey had the biggest fall (15 per cent). Charts DATA: All the data contained within the Poverty: The Hidden City report as well as the data used to create the charts and maps can be accessed in this spreadsheet. FACTS: Some interesting facts from the data… ● Highest proportion of children in workless households, by borough, 2010 Westminster – 35.6% Barking and Dagenham – 33.6% Lewisham – 33.1% Newham – 31.4% Islington – 30.6% -31. Barnet – 9.1% -32. Richmond upon Thames – 7.0% ● Changes in proportions of workless households, 2006-09, by borough Hackney – down 12.3% Brent – down 7.3% Tower Hamlets – down 4.8% Lambeth – down 4.2% Hillingdon – down 4.1% -31. Enfield – up 5.8% -32. Bexley – up 7.3% ● Highest reduction in rates of child poverty 2006-09, by borough: Haringey – down 15.0% Newham – down 12.9% Hackney – down 12.8% Tower Hamlets – down 12.1% Southwark – down 11.5% -31. Bexley – up 6.0% -32. Havering – up 10.3%

These reports from the GLA Intelligence Unit look at the London figures from the DWP's households below average income series, on which the government's official poverty targets are based.

These fuel poverty risk indicators provide users with a nuanced picture of the impact of various risk factors, exacerbating factors and indicators for fuel poverty. It was developed with the Assembly Health and Public Services Committee in their investigation into fuel poverty in London. The Committee's report explains how the tool could be used strategically to help organisations target specific wards that are at high risk of fuel poverty. Appendix 4 in the report set out the rationale for the risk factors present in the tool.

Users can adjust the weighting of the indicators to show their relative significance. Isolating specific indicators could help organisations determine what type of support is likely to have greatest impact in an area. For example, wards with a low score for cavity wall insulation would indicate wards that could be targeted for promoting uptake of cavity wall insulation.

Read Victoria Borwick's blog "Using public data to tackle fuel poverty - can you help?"

The fuel poverty scores measure risk of fuel poverty based on 12 indicators. The England and Wales average each year is 0. Scores below 0 are more likely to be at risk from fuel poverty according to these measures.

The indicators are:

Housing
Dwellings without central heating
Cavity walls that are uninsulated
Lofts with less than 150mm insulation

Health
Health Deprivation & Disability domain (ID2010)
Standardised Mortality Ratio
Incapacity Benefit claimant rate

Older people
People aged 60 and over
Older people claiming pension credit

Worklessness
Unemployment

Poverty
Income Support claimant rate
Child Poverty rates
Households classified 'fuel poor'

The Excel tool includes a ward map, charts and rankings.

Note: Users must enable macros when prompted upon opening the spreadsheet (or reset security to medium/low) for the map to function. The rest of the tool will function without macros.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/londondatastore-upload/fp-dashboard-map.jpg" alt="Excel Tool">

Graph and download economic data for 90% Confidence Interval Lower Bound of Estimate of Related Children Age 5-17 in Families in Poverty for New London County, CT (PECILB5T17CT09011A647NCEN) from 1989 to 2021 about New London County, CT; Norwich; CT; 5 to 17 years; family; child; poverty; persons; and USA.

Did not work Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in London, Ohio by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

35 to 64 years Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in New London, Ohio by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

Transport for London's (TFL) Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs)

PTALS are a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability. The method is essentially a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London.

Each ares is graded between 0 and 6b, where a score of 0 is very poor access to public transport, and 6b is excellent access to public transport.

The current methodology was developed in 1992, by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The model has been thoroughly reviewed and tested, and has been agreed by the London Borough-led PTAL development group as the most appropriate for use across London.

The measure therefore reflects:

• • Walking time from the point-of interest to the public transport access points;
• • The reliability of the service modes available;
• • The number of services available within the catchment; and
• • The level of service at the public transport access points - i.e. average waiting time.

It does not consider:

• • The speed or utility of accessible services;
• • Crowding, including the ability to board services; or,
• • Ease of interchange.

The PTAL methodology was developed for London where a dense integrated public transport network means that nearly all destinations can be reached within a reasonable amount of time. Research using the ATOS (Access to Opportunities and Services) methodology shows that there is a strong correlation between PTALs and the time taken to reach key services – i.e. high PTAL areas generally have good access to services and low PTAL areas have poor access to services.

Notes

6-digit references identify 100m grid squares.

The 2012 CSV file previously available on the Datastore is now only available via the TfL feeds page.

The 2014 files are available to download below. This includes the GIS contour files.

Current PTAL values can be viewed at TfL’s web site: www.webptals.org.uk

The GLA has calculated the percentage of population for each ward, LSOA, MSOA and borough within each PTAL. The files for 2014 are available below. The method used mapped the number of addresses (using Ordinance Survey AddressBase Plus, and 2011 Census London Output Areas boundaries).

TFL also publish on their website a tool that shows travel time and PTAL maps from any point within London. Click anywhere on the map or input a postcode to change the selected location.

GHQ-12 comparison between Well London sample and ‘Understanding Society’ (British Household Panel Survey 2009/10). (DOCX)

This dataset contains metadata and text files referring to approximately 28000 individuals in 10730 eighteenth-century pauper settlement, bastardy and vagrancy examinations, with a smaller supplementary dataset of removal orders. The examinations were digitised as part of London Lives 1690-1800: Crime, Poverty and Social Policy in the Metropolis, an online resource providing 'a wide range of primary sources about eighteenth-century London, with a particular focus on plebeian Londoners'. The examinations come from two parishes, St Botolph Aldgate and St Clement Danes, between c.1740 and 1800. This release includes plain text files of examinations and a supplementary dataset of St Clement Danes removal orders.

This GLA Intelligence Update takes a brief look at evidence around the wealth gap in London and examines how this has changed in recent years.

Key Findings

• There is a significant gap between the rich and poor in London, both in terms of their wealth and their income.
• A higher proportion of the wealthiest households are in the South East of England than in London.
• Pension wealth accounts for more than half the wealth of the richest ten per cent of the population.
• In London, the tenth of the population with the highest income have weekly income after housing costs of over £1,000 while people in the lowest tenth have under £94 per week.
• The gap between rich and poor is growing, with the difference between the average income for the second highest tenth and second lowest tenth growing around 14 per cent more than inflation since 2003.

Click on the report below to read

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/londondatastore-upload/wealth-gap-in-london.jpg" alt="">

The data included in the report is available to download here

Numbers and percentages of children in poverty for Borough and London Wards (at 31 August each year).
This Children in Low-Income Families Local Measure shows the proportion of children living in families in receipt of out-of-work (means-tested) benefits or in receipt of tax credits where their reported income is less than 60 per cent of UK median income.

This measure provides a broad proxy for relative low income child poverty as set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010, and enables analysis at a local level. Statistics are published at various levels of geography providing an annual snapshot as at 31 August from 2006 onwards. The definitive national measure of relative child poverty as set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010, is contained in the DWP Households Below Average Income (HBAI) publication series.

Children in families in receipt of CTC (<60% median income) or IS/JSA: Number of children living in families in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose reported income is less than 60 per cent of the median income or in receipt of Income Support or Income-Based Jobseekers Allowance.

For National Statistics data on child poverty at Region, please refer to the Department of Work and Pensions' Households Below Average Income publication which uses the relative child poverty measure as set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. The small area estimates are not directly comparable with the national figures. The publication can be found on the DWP website: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/households-below-average-income-hbai--2

More information, including Lower Super Outper Area data from HMRC.

Data for years 2006 to 2010 in the HMRC archive.

This work looks at in-work poverty in London between 1996 and 2023. It provides an overview of the links between working-age poverty and employment participation at the individual and household levels in the capital. Some key findings include: * Poverty has changed. There are now more people in poverty in London who are in a working family than in a workless family. The reverse was true 30 years ago. * Insecure forms of work such as part-time work and self-employment are linked to poverty. * Ethnic minority workers and those with no educational qualifications are most likely to be working and in poverty. * Working families with three or more children have seen their poverty rate increase sharply since the introduction of the two-child benefit cap on Universal Credit. * Single parents have a high likelihood of in-work poverty, though the number of people in work and in poverty has also risen sharply among Londoners living as a couple.