Revised mid-year estimates for local authority resident populations were published in summer 2010, with revised small area estimates published in September. The overall national population has not been changed, only the way that this is split between local authorities and small areas.
Table 1 shows the 10 local authorities with the biggest increases in overall population under the revised population estimates. Seven of the ten LAs with the largest increases are in London, with the remaining three also in large cities.
|Local authority||‘Old’ 2008 population||Revised 2008 population||Population increase|
|Richmond upon Thames||180,100||187,200||7,100 (3.9%)|
|Tower Hamlets||220,500||226,800||6,300 (2.9%)|
Table 2 shows the 10 local authorities with the biggest fall in overall population under the revised population estimates. These areas are typically characterised by high levels of migration and/ or large student populations.
|Local authority||‘Old’ 2008 population||Revised 2008 population||Population decrease|
|Kensington and Chelsea||180,300||171,100||-9,300 (-5.1%)|
|Newham||249,500||242,400||-7, 100 (-2.8%)|
The City of London is the local authority most affected in terms of the proportional change, with the total population estimated to be 43% higher on the basis of the revised population estimates. However, the City of London LA has a small population, and the overall increase for the 2008 year is 3,400 (from 7,900 using the old estimates, to 11,300 under the revised estimates).
Population shifts (as a proportion of total population) in other local authorities are significantly smaller, with only 10 local authorities experiencing a 3% or greater increase in population as a result of the revisions, and 10 local authorities experiencing a 3% or greater decrease in population.
The map shows the impact of the revised population levels across England, highlighting those areas with the biggest increases (blue) and decreases (yellow).
The largest increases (shaded blue) are seen in metropolitan areas, including a number of inner and outer London boroughs and larger cities. The largest decreases (shaded yellow) are seen in more rural areas, including parts of East Anglia and the rural East Midlands.
The population revisions also affect the estimated populations of small areas such as Super Output Areas, with some neighbourhoods affected very significantly. For example, one LSOA in Howdenshire ward in East Riding of Yorkshire shows an 88% increase in population from the revised estimates; by contrast, an LSOA in Dale (also in East Yorkshire) has 41% fewer people using the revised estimates.
Across England, there are 28 LSOAs with increases of more than 20% as a result of the population revisions (including each of the LSOAs in the City of London), while 14 LSOAs have decreased in population by more than 20%.
For further analysis and briefing of how the revisions affect your area, including impact at the neighbourhood level, please contact us.
Local programmes are often targeted at those areas with the highest levels of worklessness or other priority issue. The mid-year population estimates are a critical component in this process, as the population data is needed to calculate (for example) the proportion of working-age people in receipt of workless benefits. Revisions to the population data therefore can affect the levels of worklessness, with both local authorities and small areas affected.
For example, the revised population in the London Borough of Brent is estimated to be 6% smaller than previously identified under the national estimates. Using the revised population data to calculate the proportion of working age people receiving DWP benefits (a key indicator of deprivation), shows that the estimated Brent value for August 2008 changed from 15.5% to 16.9% using the revised population estimates.
This is a fairly significant change. As a result, Brent’s position ranked against all local authorities in England changed from the 85thst highest (of 326) in terms of proportion of people receiving benefits, to the 62nd highest using the revised population estimates. In total, 30 local authorities across England show changes in rank position of 10 places or more based on the proportion of working age DWP benefit claimants. Small areas are affected to an even greater extent.
Where programmes are targeted at those areas with the highest levels of worklessness (or other indicator), large changes in rank position could affect whether or not areas receive funds. For example, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (and later Working Neighbourhoods Fund) were targeted at the most deprived 88 or so local authorities. The Brent example shows how the population revisions can shift local authorities in (or out) of the target group, resulting in large changes to funding levels.
In addition, changes to the population denominators can affect trends over time, with some areas even reversing the direction of travel. Using the Brent example again, the proportion of people receiving DWP benefits fell from 16% to 15.5% over the period 2001 to 2008 using the older population estimates. However, based on the revised population estimates, the proportion of people receiving benefits across Brent actually increased over the same period, from 16% to 16.9%. In other words, the population revisions can show a very different story in terms of the overall direction of travel than older data suggests. In total, 19 local authorities across England saw changes in the direction of travel as a result of the revisions.
Stefan Noble, OCSI.
The APPG for left behind neighbourhoods has published their final report on…
*** THIS POST HAS NOW BEEN FILLED *** Are you a skilled…
Understanding deprivation and how to measure it has always been a core…