Current practice among local authorities and other public agencies

General comments and current practice (37.29KB)

Population

The majority of local authorities relied heavily on the ONS "Neighbourhood Statistics" and the annual updating of ‘mid-year estimates', supported by their own insights from service monitoring. These data were generally only of value for overall numbers, and rarely believed to provide much detail. Some places were more sophisticated than others and capable of complex mathematical modelling to adapt the "RG" (ONS) data to local needs, while others compared data with their biennial or three-yearly ‘satisfaction' surveys of residents.  In London, reliance was placed on the GLA, while in outer areas some County Councils had ‘demographic units' but these were also subject to cutbacks.  FHSA (Health Service) data were also used to estimate overall population turnover but these were mistrusted as often being ‘inflated'.  

Health

Some PCTs (NHS Primary Care Trusts) appeared to be willing to collaborate with local authorities to provide access to, or analyses of, GP registrations and the use of ‘walk-in' centres: one specifically indicated that ethnicity was an issue, while others were only obtaining crude overall data on turnover. A few local authorities referred to collaboration with or provision by the Strategic Health Authority's dataset, and the role of the Public Health Observatories and Cancer Registry, at a broader level of analysis.

One LA had appointed a joint PCT/LA Health Improvement Manager who used all data across agencies and another was engaged in a joint project with their local PCT and the SHA to analyse data on GP registration and the use of the ‘walk-in' centre, noting that ‘ethnicity is an issue here'. At least one LA appeared to have obtained small-area estimates using data extracted from GP registrations but we believe that this was restricted to age/sex and postcode area information. The current state of Ethnic Record Keeping in primary care is highly under-developed, while few acute trusts (hospitals) have reached expected levels of coverage on inpatient users.

Crime and disorder

Most Local Authorities are members of a local Crime Reduction Partnership (or Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership) and share data with local police forces on levels of recorded crime, or extract relevant data from local Crime Surveys and Community Safety surveys.  Some conduct three-yearly Crime Audits, which may include attention to ethnicity data. One reported a locally commissioned Quality of Life survey for their CDRP, and that ‘Neighbourhood Profiles' were being prepared by the police and local area committees.  It was evidently possible to obtain and use software that could provide daily/weekly/monthly updates on crimes mapped by postcode but analysis varied from this to quarterly or annual: not all could examine patterns by ethnicity (of victim or perpetrator).

Education

Virtually all Local Authorities referred to the central role of the PLASC (Pupil Level Annual School Census) and regular analysis of the central pupil database maintained as part of schools' management information systems.  A few continue to conduct their own language census exercises but ‘this will be redundant when this information becomes mandatory as part of the DfES collections next year'. Data was not always shared to District levels by County bodies responsible for education. Clearly, the regular and almost universal operation of the schools database provides the best and most consistent source of information on population change (in selected age and demographic groups) and the changes proposed by DfES may assist this.

Employment

Data on issues relating to employment were surprisingly sparse and inconsistent.  There was the potential to examine data on VAT registration, Home Office data on ‘overseas workers', an annual police survey of local farmers to identify groups of seasonal migrant workers, and some LAs referred to data from their local Job Centre and the annual Labour Force Survey (again at a larger regional level) - only one obtained monthly updates of JCP data on a GIS database, and another relied on ONS monthly statistics which did not give detail on the characteristics of employees, as well as some occasional local surveys (or a larger biannual survey of employers).  Interviews suggested that a high level of reliance was placed on informal sources of information and small reliance placed on official statistics as being largely flawed.

Housing

Several local authorities had regular meetings with a Private Landlords' Forum, and many also organised housing needs surveys at varying intervals.  Some had access to choice-based lettings data or information such as street counts of homeless people and rough sleepers. Only one mentioned analysis of housing benefits claims data, and another referred to information gained from the Home Office IND website regarding households supported by NASS. Many no longer have responsibility for housing, and not all districts which have, pass that data to their higher-level county bodies. There seemed to be less concern generally about housing-based information, although RSLs can access very detailed analysis of lettings data on the Housing Corporation joint centre CORE (Continuous Recording) database which actually comprises three sets: on ‘current stock' profiles of general family and sheltered homes, supported housing, and sales/shared ownership and right-to-buy housing, including (ONS16) ethnicity and postcode data. There are however no data on where people go to if they leave. It may be possible to estimate offers of housing made to ‘refugees' and those rehomed because of racial harassment, but these categories may not be identical with Home Office definitions and ‘Other White', disability and language categories are not defined.

Ethnicity, culture and faith

Few LAs had any independent sources of information regarding the ethnic or cultural breakdown and change of their populations. Some were able to estimate change based on their service delivery monitoring, compared with the ONS neighbourhood statistics data, but this might assume that there was no improvement (or deterioration) in uptake rates across ethnic groups.  One mentioned having its own annual ‘BME Survey' which was conducted in ‘close collaboration with the ethnic community council', and another was linked to a local Faith Forum.  Some information on faith profiles was suggested from the SACRE (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education) and others stated that they had ‘good links' to local faith leaders, although others regarded this is problematic due to the propensity to offer ‘inflated figures'.  It was possible to get some estimate of ethnic profile from regular sample surveys according to a few LAs, but for the majority there was no consistent attention to the issue.

Travelling populations (Gypsy/Roma)

Data on these populations was seen as problematic, and not always a locally significant issue.  Most contributed to the regular ODPM ‘caravan counts' and a few held specific ‘travellers needs surveys', or relied on the work of a designated officer in charge of ‘permanent sites'. Further (less statistical) evidence was drawn from a variety of sources including environmental health, police, schools and social services reports, or occasional research projects.

Asylum seeker/refugees

In areas designated as reception areas by NASS, there was often an Asylum Support team who were generally well informed and kept up-to-date records.  Other areas used the experience or insight of Race Equality Councils, local research or the IND website, but there was no consistent attention paid to these issues or monitoring of ‘unofficial' settlement.

Attitudes of local residents

Nearly all local authorities felt that they were in touch with, and monitoring, resident opinion, usually through annual surveys (in about half of cases), or three-yearly ones (usually for the national Best Value exercise) and some had smaller but more frequent ‘citizens panel' surveys, although we were unable to establish how representative these were.  Comments made included the observation that ‘If we don't know who the population is it is hard to target consultation and surveys', and that as they were dependent on ‘how the community feels, so ongoing grassroots feedback is needed'.  There was in one area especially concern about the uptake of homes in new major housing developments, and so (retrospective) case study research was planned.

Analysis of the pattern of use of the ‘Home Office' CC questions showed that while nearly all LAs used at least one of these questions, particularly CC4 (‘you can influence decisions') and CC3 (‘which issues are most important') CC1 and CC5 were less often used, and CC10 (‘where you meet other ethnic groups') by less than a quarter. These seem to be relatively ‘soft' indicators of community tension and we were unable to identify any consistent use that might indicate to what extent they could be used to predict emergent tensions. The national report of the Citizenship survey does not seem to show that diversity or population turnover was associated with any such analysis or conclusions, and it might be worth revisiting these data to seek to prove or disprove this hypothesis.