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 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%

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%

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.

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%

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.

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.

Graph and download economic data for Poverty Universe, All Ages for New London County, CT (PUAACT09011A647NCEN) from 1998 to 2021 about New London County, CT; Norwich; CT; poverty; and USA.

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"/>

The sixteen datasets contain data collected from London archives, printed primary sources, and the Old Bailey Proceedings Online. They form the background data to graphs and tables published in the book, London Lives: Poverty, Crime and the Making of a Modern City, 1690-1800 (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

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.

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

This project investigated the character and development of London’s eastern suburb by examining the life of the inhabitants of the extra-mural parishes of St Botolph Aldgate and Holy Trinity Minories from c.1550-c.1700. Covering just under 80 acres running south from the parish of St Botolph Bishopsgate to the Thames, this area experienced a population explosion during the early modern period, from c.3,500 inhabitants in 1540, over 11,000 by 1650, to nearly 20,000 by 1700. The area offers a population with a unique range of social and economic experiences which allow the greatest possible scope for studying suburban living in early modern London. Moreover, it also offers an unprecedented array of sources, including parish registers, records of poor relief, numerous taxation and household listings, and the observations of the parish clerks of St Botolph.

The project had three main aims. The first involves a full family reconstitution and demographic analysis of the area’s parish registers - the largest reconstitution yet attempted from English registers. Relevant issues here are seasonality of mortality across the period, and the impact of maternal feeding practices. The second area of research involved study of the status, wealth and arrangement of the domestic units within the two parishes. Major themes here concern the levels of poverty and overseas immigration, the impact of London’s growth on existing social structures and whether communities of wealth congregated in different areas of the suburb. Finally, the third project strand concerned the topographical development of the area, specifically the expansion of its housing stock. Subjects of interest here included the residence patterns and spatial characteristics of the population, variables such as housing quality and amenity, and rental values.

Pan London financial capability data to support Local Authorities Child Poverty Needs Assessments, updated in April 2011 with 2010 data.

This data is designed to help local authorities improve their understanding of the areas within their borough where low financial capability is most likely to exist. This could be useful to child poverty needs assessments, and subsequent work to develop and target support services for residents within their borough.

Supporting Documents

Technical information about the datasets is available in the readme.txt file.

A support note prepared by MAS and CPU is available to advise local authorities on using the data in Child Poverty Needs Assessments.

Profiles of the data categories are available in the Pen Portraits report and details of the underlying model used by Experian are available in Technical Model report.

Further Information

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/londondatastore-upload/mas_web_graphic.jpg" alt="money advice service logo" />

For more information on the Money Advice Service (formerly the Consumer Financial Education Body): http://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk

For more information on Child Poverty Unit: http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/
families/childpoverty

For details of the Experian model:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/thoresen_review_index.htm

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.

Author:Arup (using data derived from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (now known as the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero).Creation date:2023Date of source data harvest:2023Temporal coverage:2022Spatial Resolution:Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)Geometry:PolygonSource data URL:Fuel Poverty Statistics 2022Data terms of use:Open Government Licence v3 - Dataset can be shared openly for re-use for commercial and non-commercial purposes, with appropriate attribution.Data attribution:- Dataset processed by Arup as part of the West London sub-regional LAEP, 2023.- Office for National Statistics licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0.- Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right, 2023.- Contains Department of Energy Security and Net Zero data licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.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.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.

IntroductionThe objectives of this study were to examine relationships between neighbourhood-level and individual-level characteristics and physical activity in deprived London neighbourhoods.MethodsIn 40 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in London (ranked in top 11% in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) a cross-sectional survey (n = 4107 adults aged > = 16 years), neighbourhood audit tool, GIS measures and routine data measured neighbourhood and individual-level characteristics.The binary outcome was meeting the minimum recommended (CMO, UK) 5×30 mins moderate physical activity per week. Multilevel modelling was used to examine associations between physical activity and individual and neighbourhood-level characteristics.ResultsRespondents living more than 300 m away from accessible greenspace had lower odds of achieving recommended physical activity levels than those who lived within 300 m; from 301–600 m (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.5–0.9) and from 601–900 m (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.4–0.8). There was substantial residual between-neighbourhood variance in physical activity (median odds ratio = 1.7). Other objectively measured neighbourhood-level characteristics were not associated with physical activity levels.ConclusionsDistance to nearest greenspace is associated with meeting recommended physical activity levels in deprived London neighbourhoods. Despite residual variance in physical activity levels between neighbourhoods, we found little evidence for the influence of other measured neighbourhood-level characteristics.

Graph and download economic data for 90% Confidence Interval Upper Bound of Estimate of People of All Ages in Poverty for New London County, CT (PECIUBAACT09011A647NCEN) from 1989 to 2021 about New London County, CT; Norwich; CT; child; poverty; persons; and USA.

Author:Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ)Creation date:April 2023Date of source data harvest:July 2024 Temporal coverage of source data:2021Spatial Resolution:Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)Geometry:PolygonSource data URL:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sub-regional-fuel-poverty-data-2023-2021-dataData terms of use:Open Government Licence v3 - Dataset can be shared openly for reuse for commercial and non-commercial purposes, with appropriate attribution.Data attribution:- Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. - Dataset processed by Buro Happold in 2024 as part of the CIEN & South London sub-regional LAEPs.Workflow Diagram:Not available.Comments: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.

This release includes plain text files of examinations and a supplementary dataset of St Clement Danes removal orders.