Demographic and Deprivation Change in Buckinghamshire

1. Demographic and Deprivation Change in Buckinghamshire Marcus Grupp Holly Pedrick Policy, Performance and Communications

2. Purpose • To provide an update as to the changes underway in the Bucks population • To consider how the information can be used to shape services

3. Drivers of population change: births Total Fertility Rate (TFR) TFR • TFR increasing – 2.1 children per woman (England similar) • Increases FR for all women key child bearing age (not under 20s and 40+) • Rising births – 11% higher since 2001 (+600 yr)

4. Drivers of population change: births - deaths • Births - constant TFR (2.10) = 500 extra births annually • Deaths - constant 4k per year • Natural increase in population due to more births than deaths Natural population change

5. Drivers of population change: age structure of population 19,838 more people (33%) More pensioner houses 4,519 less people (-1%) Less families 8,031 less young people (-6%) Less young people Modelled births (could be 5k higher with 2.1 TFR)

6. Drivers of population change: housing • Household size = falling • 2.47 people per house (2011) to 2.32 (2026) • 2.32 causes current population (510k) to fall by 21k (4%), but • 15k new builds allocated creates a net rise 4k people (514k) by 2026 • Uncertainty in AVDC - 15k homes to keep workforce constant (2006-2031) • extra 4,500 to 13,500 homes not currently allocated (AVDC) • Number of houses affects net migration ...

7. Drivers of population change: migration Net Migration • Lots movement in population (6% of Bucks population) • UK migration – 27k move in / 26k leave • Overseas migration – 3.9k move in / 3.7k leave

8. What does this mean for Bucks… • Small population increase - 1.2% • aging population • ‘low’ number of new builds • Uncertainty around CYP numbers • 9k less 0-15’s (1.9 TFR) • No change 0-15’s (2.1 TFR) • Housing • 15,000 less working age • More allocations by AVDC? % change - 2011 to 2026 Clear aging population Uncertainty due to TFRs and houses builds *

9. Locality differences Population Changes • Increasing populations: • Urban • stable births and deaths • net in-migration increase • house builds 2.5 x higher • Decreasing populations: • rural • aging population, more deaths • falling births • Lowest rate of house builds 2011 to 2026 -12% to -7% Get rid of decimals on legend 3% to 7%

10. Deprivation Issues and People at Risk • 9% of children live in families in receipt of out of work benefits (9.4k) • More families experience income deprivation in areas classified as deprived by IMD • 6% of children receive free school meals (4.4k) • Worse educational outcomes for these pupils • Overall educational attainment is 65% • Most affluent ACORN groups 2.5x higher than least affluent groups • Higher proportion of BME population in deprived areas • Worse education outcomes overall (Early years and KS1, 2 and 4) and youth offending

11. Deprivation Issues and People at Risk • 7.4% of babies born were classed as low birth weight (national average 7.6%) • Higher percentage of babies with low birth weight in IMD most deprived areas • Increasing birth rate • Birth rate twice as high among the IMD most deprived areas than least deprived areas • People who are affluent are less likely to become deprived • Current HP / MM areas previously classed as HP, MM, SS/PP, SF and UP • 356 Looked After Children (LAC) in Bucks (2010) • LAC 2x higher in IMD deprived LLSOA’s (0.62% v’s 0.31% of under 18s) • 60% LAC from Moderate Means / Hard Pressed areas (4x ave. MM, 7x HP ) • 45% of children have experienced bullying • Pupils from Hard Pressed and Urban Prosperity (town) areas are most affected • 90 young women referred to ‘RU Safe’ (2009-2010) • Higher risk of sexual exploitation for those who go missing frequently or live in care

12. Index of Multiple Deprivation (2010) High Wycombe Aylesbury • Seven IMD Domains • Income Deprivation • Employment Deprivation • Health Deprivation and Disability • Education, Skills and Training Deprivation • Barriers to Housing and Services • Crime • Living Environment Deprivation

13. Number of people at risk • Multiple issues are experienced by those most in need • Large number people affected and getting worse - 4% population IMD No. of 30% most deprived areas (English scale) 5,000 children aged 0-15

14. Hard Pressed and Moderate Means • ACORN Variables • Age quartiles • Ethnicity • Type of employment • Level of qualifications • Socio economic classification • Commute method • Type of residential dwelling • Number of cars per household • Property owner or renter • Rooms and population per household

15. Hard Pressed and Moderate Means • Only half of those affected are in Aylesbury & Wycombe Isolated not shown on map

16. Hard Pressed and Moderate Means • Only half of those affected are in Aylesbury & Wycombe • Over 1/3rd in Market Towns Isolated not shown on map

17. Hard Pressed and Moderate Means • Only half of those affected are in Aylesbury & Wycombe • Over 1/3rd in Market Towns • 1 in 10 in rural / isolated Isolated not shown on map

18. Number of households at risk ACORN Moderate Means / Hard Pressed Households 15.7k households are MM / HP families • Change (2008-2011) • +29% Hard Pressed • -8% Moderate Means • + 12% Both groups

19. Key Issues • Recent unpredicted rise in TFR – more children • Falling household size – uncertainty of new house builds in AVDC • Reduction in population aged 0 – 15, but if new TFR remains constant then there will be no overall change • Children and families in areas at risk of deprivation are at a greater risk of experiencing certain issues e.g. LAC • Large number of children and families living in areas where people experience a range of deprivation issues • Around half of all areas at risk of deprivation are not in the urban areas in Bucks • How can this information be used to better shape services?