London Borough of Camden
Social Inclusion Strategy
August 2003
www.camden.gov.uk
CONTENTS
page
1. INTRODUCTION
1. Our Vision
2. The Camden Context
Chart Boroughs ranked by polarity
3
3
3
4
2. WHAT DOES SOCIAL INCLUSION MEAN IN CAMDEN?
1. Defining Social Inclusion
2. Social Inclusion Themes: Income maximisation, employability,
participation and access to services in Camden
3. How to achieve better Social Inclusion in Camden
4. Corporate Priorities for Camden
5. Next Steps for 2003/4
5
5
5
3. SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN CAMDEN
1. Background
2. Low household incomes
3. Vulnerable families
Chart Index of child poverty
4. Educational attainment
5. Skills and post-16 qualifications
6. Long-term unemployment
Chart Boroughs ranked by proportion long term unemployed
Chart Employment deprivation in Camden
7. Housing
8. Health inequalities
9. Drugs and substance misuse
Chart Boroughs ranked by drug treatment rate
10
10
10
13
14
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND CAMDEN’S COMMUNITIES
1. Black and Minority Ethnic communities
2. Refugees and asylum seekers
3. Homelessness and rough sleepers
4. People with disabilities and health problems
Physical disabilities
Mental health
5. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Camden
27
27
28
30
31
31
32
32
5. AREAS FOR ACTION
1. Tackling poverty
2. Employment
3. Skills improvement
4. Access to services for target groups
5. Research
6. Educational attainment
7. Resource maximisation
33
2
7
8
9
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Our Vision
Camden is a wealthy borough, but also a polarised one. Camden’s
Community Strategy, Our Camden – Our Future, sets out a vision for
Camden to be a place where the gap between the most deprived and least
deprived is reduced and where no one is excluded from jobs, services or from
taking part in the everyday activities that most people take for granted.
This vision underpins our Social Inclusion Strategy. The Strategy is in part an
explanation of the local impacts and effects of social exclusion, in part a
commentary on the public policy challenges facing Camden and its partners
and finally, a route-map containing ideas, objectives and priorities for Camden
and others to follow to fulfil our duties to be more socially inclusive.
This Strategy takes Community Strategy commitments one step further,
identifying areas where Camden needs to do more work overall and develop
priority areas for concentrated focus across the Council over the medium
term. It commits us to develop a more effective partnership approach between
departments and external stakeholders over the coming years. The Council
recognises that in order to achieve significant changes that will benefit
Camden’s most excluded residents it is essential to work with these agencies,
including other public sector organisations, charities and community groups,
and local businesses.
1.2
The Camden Context
Camden is an extraordinarily vibrant borough – in the centre of London and
packed with arts, green spaces, museums, libraries, galleries and an
incredible diversity of people. It makes Camden a special place to live, work
and visit.
Despite this, severe inequalities persist in the borough and analysis shows
that some of these inequalities are increasing. For example, Camden
residents live in some of the most deprived wards in the country, and the gap
between the most and least deprived wards is bigger than in any other
London borough. In terms of how widespread deprivation is, Camden ranks
as the 34th most deprived authority out of the 354 districts in England. Such
inequality threatens the sense of community in the borough and presents us
with an enormous challenge; not only in service delivery, but also in terms of
residents having a common set of beliefs about what their local community
should be like.
By taking the difference between the highest and the lowest ward scores on
the Index of Multiple Deprivation, Camden stands as the most polarised
borough in London.
3
London Boroughs Ranked by Polarity Index
Ca m den
33
H a r in gey
37
Sou t h wa r k
47
Gr een wich
48
E n field
64
Br en t
72
H a m m er smit h a n d F u lh a m
83
Cr oydon
85
Ken sin gt on a n d Ch elsea
87
West m in st er
100
E a lin g
121
Redbr idge
123
H a ver in g
130
Bexley
138
Br om ley
147
Tower H a m let s
148
Wa lt h a m F or est
158
Su t t on
164
Newh a m
171
Ba r kin g a n d Da gen h a m
177
Wa n dswor t h
178
Ba r n et
182
Lewish a m
194
La mbet h
195
H illin gdon
204
Mer t on
214
H a ckn ey
227
H ou n slow
231
Kin gst on u pon Th a m es
255
H a r r ow
300
Islin gt on
305
Rich m on d Upon -Th a m es
342
0
50
100
150
4
200
250
300
350
400
2.
WHAT DOES SOCIAL INCLUSION IN CAMDEN MEAN?
2.1
Defining Social Inclusion
The term Social Inclusion is used widely and has different meanings for
different people. Overall it is a broad term for actions to reduce the social
exclusion individuals or areas suffer as a result of unemployment, low income,
poor health, family breakdown and low social capital or civic disengagement.
A widely used definition of Social Inclusion, which we use in this Strategy, is:
“Activity aimed at removing the barriers for individuals to participate
effectively in economic, social, political and cultural life.”
The Government’s Social Exclusion Unit and the European Union identified
thirteen groups of people who are at most risk of social exclusion:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
long-term unemployed
living long-term on low-income
workers in low quality employment
people with poor qualifications
early school leavers
children growing up in a family vulnerable to social exclusion (loneparents, separated, family stress and divorced families)
disabled people
those suffering from poor health
those prone to drug abuse and alcoholism
living in an area of multiple disadvantage
homeless
immigrants (refugee and asylum seekers)
ethnic background and people at risk of racial discrimination
Within these groups exclusion varies in intensity. National research suggests
that a very small minority of each relevant group is affected by an extreme
form of multiple deprivation (e.g. teenage pregnancy or rough sleeping);
around one-in-ten are affected by serious problems (e.g. substance misuse);
and around one third are generally at risk by reason of growing up in a low
income household.1 In Camden these statistics are higher than the average.
2.2
Themes: Income maximisation, employability, participation and
access to services in Camden
Camden’s Social Inclusion research project examined how well our priorities
and our work serve to support and provide opportunities to the above groups
in Camden. It then looked at the results that the Strategy needs to encourage
in order to improve the quality of life for high-risk groups of people living here.
1
Social Exclusion Unit, Preventing Social Exclusion Cabinet Office March 2001
5
Within this definition we recognise that there are many types of exclusion ranging from barriers to decision-making to poor access to services and
outright poverty. For pensioners and those unable to work, the access to
services and the ability to influence their provision is a key factor in reducing
social exclusion.
Camden Council also recognises that the concept of ‘employability’ for people
of working age is very important to this debate. There is a correlation
between low employment rates and social exclusion - particularly so among
lone parents, people over 50 and people with physical disabilities and mental
health problems. How Camden provides the right context through providing
the appropriate mix of opportunity and support for people’s ‘job readiness’
provides the background to this Strategy.
Persistently high levels of unemployment among Black and Minority Ethnic
communities have concentrated poverty within these groups, with non-white
adults of working age more likely to find themselves in poverty. Poverty
among parents very often results in household poverty and children growing
up experiencing disadvantage, which can perpetuate problems over
generations. Camden’s local dynamics suggest relatively high levels of urban
poverty and worklessness among the Bangladeshi and African Caribbean
communities, excluded lone parents, refugees and disabled people. We
suspect that there may also be particular issues around poverty, educational
attainment and participation which warrant further investigation within
elements of the white working class community.
While our Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy2 sets out how the Council and its
partners will take action to address the structural issues of exclusion in the
most deprived areas, the Social Inclusion Strategy takes account of the fact
that many aspects of exclusion may not be confined geographically but are
spread across Camden. Exclusion for some will be the result of a complex
mix of poverty, social class, weakened family structures and community
support, as well as particular aspects such as race and disability. It is
recognised that with the right mix of local opportunities and support people
facing multiple disadvantage and deprivation will at least be able to find work
and lift themselves out of poverty.
At the same time the local jobs market poses particular problems for joined-up
interventions by the Council and its key partners. Inner London’s economy in
particular is an established engine of the knowledge economy. While
employment in Camden has risen with national trends over the last decade,
the types of jobs emerging require higher skills and qualifications than before.
Despite Camden having high levels of people with higher qualifications and
degrees this skills challenge has not been met across the board, resulting in a
demonstrable shift towards skilled workers commuting in from the suburbs
and outside London to satisfy this demand. Camden, with its rich diversity of
knowledge economy firms and major mainline stations located in our most
deprived wards, experiences this phenomenon on a daily basis.
2
Available from Camden’s Community Safety and Regeneration Unit.
6
To tackle this issue Camden Council wants to support those people who are
most at risk of social exclusion in the borough, and create opportunities for
residents to improve their quality of life by, where possible:
•
•
•
•
2.3
maximising household incomes;
gaining equal access to the services we provide;
accessing local jobs and development opportunities;
more fully participating in civic society.
How to achieve better social inclusion in Camden
While many levers to achieve this are beyond the Council’s direct control,
Camden’s ability to provide quality services – high performing schools, decent
housing and progressive social services – is within our realm. Our ability to
work with our partners, in the police, higher education, health economy and
the voluntary sector, to achieve these goals is also an important
consideration.
2.3.1 Freedoms and Flexibilities
One way for the Council to develop its approach is through our new freedoms
and flexibilities as a result of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment
(CPA). Being an ‘excellent’ authority under the new CPA guidelines gives
Camden a good foundation to continue striving to provide the best in Council
housing, public education, community safety, social care, environment, leisure
and cultural activities. However, there is a continuing challenge for Camden
to develop all its services to meet the needs of the most excluded residents.
2.3.2 Lobbying
The Council also has an influential lobbying role in terms of its priorities for
regeneration initiatives and lobbying the GLA and central government. The
Council regularly responds to consultations from regional and central
government departments, as do our partners in the police and the health
sector who we often work with to co-ordinate our approaches. In the past the
Council has successful put its weight behind initiatives to increase the number
of police in the borough as well as on anti-social behaviour aspects of the
Licensing Bill.
2.3.3 Corporate Working
Better ways of corporate working between departments to solve local
problems is, however, the key tool at our disposal. This Strategy aims to be
the start of a process where all council departments and other service
providers in the borough use it to think about how we can all work together
creatively and effectively to ensure that the priority groups identified get a
better deal. In other words, we want it to lead to services being delivered in
ways that will mean those people do not miss out. It might also mean
providing new services to fill identified gaps or finding new ways of working
together with the Council, police, health and voluntary sector agencies.
7
2.4
Corporate Priorities for Camden’s Social Inclusion Strategy
Priority One:
Tackling child poverty, work with children, young people and their
families
Getting council departments and other key partners to work together to
develop better solutions to tackle child poverty and exclusion amongst
vulnerable Camden families is a key priority. We know the issues here are
complex and that many parents face disadvantage due to poverty, low
educational qualifications, and difficulty accessing work or services. Our focus
is not only to help families improve their income but also to support then into
sustainable employment by tackling the various barriers they face to work,
including increasing the availability of quality affordable childcare.
In
particular, we are especially keen to:
•
•
•
•
develop and extend programmes aimed at household income
maximisation and tackling ‘poverty traps’;
work with partners to address access to work and skills with excluded
parents;
continue to address educational attainment issues in our underperforming communities and examine lower rates of higher education
take-up in BME and other communities;
investigate further financial and civic exclusion issues in more deprived
‘white working class’ households.
Priority Two:
Increasing training and corporate employment opportunities for
excluded groups
The existing dynamism of Camden’s jobs market and new opportunities
presented by the King’s Cross development present a challenge to help all
working age residents be ‘job-ready’ for local employers.
Camden Council itself, together with the Primary Care Trust and the Mental
Health and Social Care Trust, represent the borough’s largest employers. We
know some excluded people from Camden’s refugee communities and some
disabled people face particular barriers to employment, ranging from their lack
of appropriate skills and qualifications to employers’ attitudes, resulting in
higher rates of unemployment or low quality work. Camden is keen to better
its record in this area, in particular by:
•
•
working with our partners through training and regeneration initiatives
to provide employment and address employability issues, in particular
with disabled people, people with mental health problems and
refugees;
improving the Council’s corporate employment record and working with
partners in the health services in this field;
8
Priority Three:
Improving Access to Services
We will also work with our partners to achieve better results for excluded
people in the field of transport and general accessibility to services. We aim
to promote compliance through planning, education and enforcement and
through our work with the Primary Care Trust and Camden & Islington Mental
Health and Social Care Trust. Over the medium term we are particularly
interested in:
•
•
2.5
improving access to services for disabled people and BME
communities, in particular through progressing the review of Language
Services and physical accessibility to public services;
investigating for the first time barriers to services and issues of equity
within the lesbian gay bisexual transgender (LGBT) community.
Next Steps for 2003/4
Reducing inequalities is already a factor in the annual budgets Camden sets
and in the focus of much of the Council’s day-to-day work. This Strategy is an
approach that seeks to engage all Council departments and our key external
partners to more effectively address these issues.
As a result of this Strategy all service areas will be asked to consider what
more they can do to meet the needs of those people most at risk of exclusion.
In responding to this challenge, all service providers should be asking:
•
•
•
How does this service and our work with partners deliver to the groups
of people most at risk of exclusion in Camden?
How does the service and our work with partners prevent social
exclusion from happening in the first place?
How do our services and our work with partners reintegrate help
excluded individuals back into mainstream society?
This Strategy is the beginning of the process. The Council will use it to
explain internally and to our partners, what we mean by Social Inclusion,
what our priorities are and to help people think about how we can work
together and innovate to tackle Camden’s particular problems. The Council
will now take this strategy out to our partners, in health, the voluntary sector,
the business community and the police, to develop it further and to
incorporate their contribution to delivering against these priorities.
9
3.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN CAMDEN
3.1
Background
In 2000 nearly 70,000 Camden residents – 37% of the borough’s population lived in wards which rank within the most deprived 10% of wards across the
country3. Although not all of these residents are, of course, themselves
deprived or excluded we know, for example, that certain groups suffering
disproportionately from deprivation are over-represented in these areas. For
example, there are higher concentrations of people from certain Black and
Minority Ethnic communities within some Neighbourhood Renewal areas.
A great deal of our current service delivery and regeneration initiatives are
already focused in these most deprived areas. So for example, we provide
outreach careers, employment and training advice services in Camden
Central, West Euston and Holborn community venues. New Sure Start
programmes support families with training and other services to improve
parents’ employability.
We need, however, to achieve a number of improvements. These include
developing a more effective training partnership programme to establish an
improved framework for employment and ‘job-readiness’ initiatives and
sustainable employment strategies for lone parents, disabled people and
refugees. In addition, in the next round of funding Neighbourhood Renewal
employability initiatives will be reviewed to see if Camden is delivering the
maximum possible opportunities for local people. In the longer term we will
work with our partners to help the long-term unemployed take up and remain
in sustainable jobs, and help families out of poverty. Making the most out of
the Kings Cross redevelopment will be crucial to this goal.
3.2
Low household incomes
Living in inner London places additional pressures on people’s disposable
income. Higher costs of housing, transport and quality childcare are coupled
with other local patterns of demand for labour, such as the increased
concentration of employment opportunities in higher skilled occupations; the
competitive labour market. Rates of part-time working an important route
back into to the labour market for lone parents, disabled people and those
with caring responsibilities, are also low. Pensioner poverty, especially for
older women and BME residents remains an issue.
Nationally, some 13 million people and approximately a third of all children
live in households where annual incomes fall below 60% of the overall
average. However, new research findings released by the Greater London
Assembly show that after housing costs this figure is higher in London with
48% of Inner London children live in poverty4. Around a fifth of the population
has spent two of the preceding three years at or below this income level. We
3
4
Office of National Statistics, Neighbourhood Statistics, 2003.
Mayor of London, Tackling Poverty in London : Consultation document April 2003
10
know that many older people across the borough also experience low
incomes and we are targeting a number of our benefit take-up campaigns to
assist them. Today over 57,000 people are living in families in receipt of all
means tested benefits - representing more than 30% of Camden’s population.
There are significant concentrations of poverty within the borough: in St
Pancras and Somers Town ward, more than half of the population are living in
households in receipt of means tested benefits.
Income Support Claimants, August 2000
(% of total Claimants)
Lone Parents
23%
Disabled People
33%
Others
11%
Pensioners
33%
Lone parents face higher risks of low income and account for 23% of all
Income Support claimants and have been identified as one of the groups most
likely to experience persistent poverty. Poverty levels increase further if the
parent has low educational attainment, if there is a disability in the family, if
the household contains more than 1 child, particularly if the children are under
five years of age or if they come from a BME community.
Camden’s own poverty and income maximisation research5 in the former
Castlehaven ward (now Camden Town with Primrose Hill / Haverstock) found
that lone parents required high levels of support to maximise their incomes
and were often not in contact with appropriate agencies and services.
Specifically, they needed help with claiming and maintaining benefits, debt
advice and management, requested help with longer term planning
particularly around the possibilities of entering or changing their work
5
Castlehaven Ward Income Maximisation Project for Children and Families August 2002 LBC
Welfare Rights Unit
11
situation, identified other exclusion issues not related to money problems e.g.
health, education, housing, domestic violence.
If we are to assist lone parents we need to address a range of issues
including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Availability of affordable, quality childcare
Lower rates of skills and employment among excluded lone parents
Availability of decent part time working – introduction of family friendly
employment policies
Awareness of specific in work incentives, such as the run-on of benefits
into work
Concerns about the transition from benefits to work and the need for
advice and practical assistance on financial and non-financial
(childcare) matters.
Promotion and assistance with the take-up of new Working Tax Credit
and Child Tax Credit
For older citizens the Quality of Life Strategy seeks as a priority to target
benefit take-up campaigns at vulnerable older people, especially those from
black and minority ethnic communities and women. While encouraging the
take-up of the new Pension Credit for low income pensioners will be a priority
area for the Welfare Rights Service, it is also an issue which the Council will
raise awareness of among our health and voluntary sector partners.
A significant factor affecting Camden and some other inner London boroughs
is the “Council Tax poverty trap”. This arises from restrictions on payments of
Council Tax Benefit to claimants living in properties in council tax bands F-H.
Camden has 25,430 properties in these bands representing almost 27% of
Camden’s property Valuation list. Many of the residents in these properties
are not “asset rich” but are living on low income or dependent on benefits. In
January 2003 almost 900 households had their Council Tax Benefit restricted.
The largest proportion live in council or socially rented property. Well over a
thousand residents have benefit protection from 1998 so are unwilling or
unable to move for fear of loss of this protection.
Our experience is that many of the households falling into this property trap
come from BME communities as they may be living in larger properties or in
the south of the borough where property values are higher. With the proposed
revaluation many more residents are likely to be significantly affected by this
iniquitous restriction.
The Camden Benefits Service has been innovative in its approach to this
problem and has invited all those who have their benefits restricted to claim
discretionary housing payments. This has mitigated the hardship for half this
group. However regular repetition of this exercise would be more difficult if the
numbers increased significantly as the costs involved are substantial. We
need to continue to lobby for changes to these rules and work with Local
Authority Associations to highlight the issues which are unique to London.
12
In areas where we have more control, the Council needs to look at the
financial impact of its own services. The Council will review its service
charging policies to take account of the benefit system and make them fair for
people on low incomes. In the longer term we aim to work with partners to
improve access to financial services for high-risk groups of people.
3.3
Vulnerable Families
3.3.1 Overview
The issues of poverty and of early intervention are crucial elements of our
approach to providing support and opportunity for vulnerable families. The
term ‘vulnerable families’ includes a whole range of people in different
circumstances as identified in Social Inclusion Reference Document.
It is, however, clear that lone parents in particular face multiple
disadvantages, with children and young people living in a vulnerable
households more likely to be at risk of adverse outcomes. Children and
young people are especially vulnerable at key transition points in their life and
it is particularly important to ensure that they and their families are supported
at these stages.
According to the 2001 Census, there are 6,214 lone parent households with
dependent children in Camden. While family income varies significantly
across Camden, around three quarters of these households claim Income
Support. Almost a quarter of all income support claimants were lone parents
even though they account for less than 10% of all households. A child’s
chance of living in poverty is, according to UNICEF, on average four times
greater in lone-parent households. A significant element of child poverty has
been specifically linked to the rise in the proportion of children living with lone
parents on low incomes. Since the early 1970s the proportion in lone-parent
households has risen from 6 per cent to 22 percent of all children6.
Nationally, the relatively high rates of joblessness among lone-parent families
are the single most important factor explaining the high levels of child poverty
in Britain, compared to other EU states. There are also relatively high
numbers of “children looked after” where Camden Council acts as corporate
parent.
6
Gregg, Harkness and Machin, 1999, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
13
Index of Child Poverty in Camden
(proportion of children under 16 living in means tested
benefit reliant families)
Castlehaven
70%
Somers Town
67%
St. Pancras
65%
Grafton
65%
Caversham
64%
Gospel Oak
63%
King's Cross
59%
Priory
58%
Brunswick
57%
Regent's Park
55%
Holborn
55%
Camden
53%
Kilburn
52%
Bloomsbury
50%
St. John's
41%
Swiss Cottage
40%
Adelaide
38%
West End
38%
Highgate
38%
South End
37%
Fortune Green
28%
Chalk Farm
17%
Belsize
17%
Fitzjohns
15%
Frognal
15%
Hampstead Town
12%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Source: DETR, 2000
In terms of the child poverty index, 13 of the previous wards in Camden are
among the 10% of most severely deprived wards in England shown in red
(Camden and above). Around 11,500 children under 16 are in households reliant
on means-tested benefits.
14
Currently, Camden actively encourages the take-up of the new Child Tax
Credit and Working Tax Credit, as well as prioritising successful Sure Start
programmes, which offer a broad approach to supporting families with young
children.
While the Council is committed to rolling out Sure Start across the whole of
the borough, Camden wants to provide further support for vulnerable families
and in particular has identified that there is a shortage of family-centred
approaches for older children across Camden. Here the Council needs to
adjust its services to consider family-centred approaches which have been
successful. For example, Camden runs an innovative Families in Focus
project in Ampthill Square in Somers Town. This project provides various
forms of intervention to support vulnerable, socially excluded families with a
wide-ranging programme combining leisure activities, education and capacity
building.
Camden and other agencies are also in the process of developing a Children
and Young People’s Strategy whose basic aim is to enable all Camden
children and young people to achieve their potential. The strategy will cover
all children and young people aged 0 – 19 who live in Camden and also
includes young people aged up to 25 in special circumstances, for example
care leavers. Some children and young people may need more support to
achieve the same outcomes as others.
Children have rights and
responsibilities and this strategy is intended to provide a framework for the
way in which organisations in Camden deal with children and young people.
3.3.2 Childcare
Within Camden, as with other London authorities, there are a range of
challenges that stifle the development of quality affordable childcare. The
available tax credits are set nationally, however within London and particularly
inner London, higher rent and higher childcare costs minimise the benefits of
tax credits. A childcare element of up to 70% of the cost of childcare is
available through tax credits to support working families on low incomes to
enable them to access childcare. This is set at a maximum of £135 a week
for one child and £200 a week for 2 or more children based on sole or joint
family income and therefore there is a gap between the money available from
tax credits and high childcare costs.
High staffing costs and a shortage of available land and property in Camden
exacerbate this problem. Particular difficulties are experienced by lone
parents where there is more than one child, parents with more than one child
on very low incomes and who are not able to meet the 30% childcare costs
not covered by tax credits, students and children of refugee and asylum
seekers and travellers. The GLA estimates that as many as 33% of working
families fail to claim these benefits.
Local research from the Kids Clubs Network summarised the findings of a
Fees and Charges Survey in Camden conducted in the summer of 2001. The
survey was sent to childcare providers to be distributed to parents and carers
15
using their facilities, including private, voluntary and local authority provision.
The survey suggested that there is considerable unmet demand for childcare
and out of school activities in Camden.
Over the next few months the Fees and Charges working group will establish
standard unit cost of provision by Play and Early Years and develop a matrix
of fee charges based on cost of provision and map this to tax credits across
incremental income thresholds. The group will also develop a ‘fee model’ to
be tested across the sector based on the actual cost of provision in order to
consider local authority subsidies to meet (or part meet) the needs of priority
groups to enable them to access affordable quality childcare.
3.4
Educational attainment
Britain has one of the highest rates of early departure from education and
training among the OECD countries7. We want to prevent children in Camden
leaving school early and to raise their standard of educational attainment. A
number of young people in Camden leave school before the compulsory age
of 16. Some of the reasons for this are household poverty, exclusion from
school, teenage pregnancy and drug and alcohol misuse.
Camden’s support for schools and their resulting attainment levels are well
recognised. More than four-fifths (82%) of 17 year olds in Camden were in
full time education at the time of the 2001 census compared to two-thirds
(65%) at the time of the 1991 Census.
However, about 50% of pupils fail to gain 5+ GCSEs at grades A*-C (2001)8.
The low pass rate means that many pupils leave education at too early an
age. Last year more than 80% of Year 11 pupils remained in some form of
education, though LEA figures suggest that at least 2% became unemployed
and another 11% were unaccounted for. Despite successful efforts to raise
the educational attainment of some BME communities, it is apparent that
especially for Somali and Black Caribbean pupils there is still some way to go.
Target 60 of the Community Strategy sets out the Council’s commitment to
reducing the gap between Bangladeshi pupils and all pupils. The performance
of Bangladeshi pupils is a continuing success story for the Council. In 2002
the proportion of Bangladeshi pupils achieving 5 or more A*-C grades at
GCSE continued to rise up to 47% compared with 35% in 2000, and the
difference between this group and the borough average was almost
eliminated.
7
D. Darton, D Hirsh and J Strelits, Tackling Disadvantage: a 20 year enterprise, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 2003
8
Camden Education Development Plan 2001/02
16
% of Camden Pupils Failing to get 5+ GCSEs at
Grade A*-C, 2002
Chinese
17%
Any other group
30%
Indian
33%
White
53%
Black African
53%
Bangladeshi
53%
Black other
57%
Black Caribbean
73%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Camden Education Authority, 2003.9
While Camden Education Department has historically identified groups and
communities in need of special measures to boost school results, Camden
has particular concerns about disenfranchised white working class (UK
heritage) children and young people. These pupils entitled to free school
meals continue to underperform particularly at secondary level, as do other
groups from some BME communities. A project has been funded based in
three secondary schools to investigate issues around the underachievement
of white working class pupils, both boys and girls. This work is supported by
some research, based at three schools in the borough, which is trying to
understand the issues faced by this group of people.
Over the next year we will do more work to understand what causes the
exclusion and disengagement of white working class young people and we
will use this to design effective interventions based upon evidence either from
local research or from best practice elsewhere. We already know that in order
to support young people we need to work with the whole family and we need
to try and prevent community breakdown, where different ethnic or age
groups have no contact with each other. We also suspect that poverty for this
group, as with many others, is a key factor in explaining their inability to
participate in the wider society.
3.5
Skills and post-16 qualifications
Camden residents have high rates of higher education qualifications and
degrees compared to London and the rest of the country. However, this
masks much lower rates of attainment among poorer communities and there
appears to be significant ward-by-ward variations to access to university
which roughly reflect ward deprivation. In terms of higher education
progression by ethnic group, the rate of pupils from each main ethnic grouping
leaving from year 11 and from year 12 shows that whilst a slightly higher
proportion of black groups leave after year 11, the main differences can be
9
Black Caribbean rate may be due to small number of pupils.
17
observed in progression from Year 12 to Year 13, with higher proportions of
Black and Bangladeshi pupils leaving at this point.
To address this there is an ongoing effort to encourage young people to stay
on at school beyond 16, but this needs to be developed further. Some of our
other efforts in this area include giving a Connexions Card to 16-19-yearolds rewarding participation in educational activities. This is part of a wider
Youth & Connexions Strategy that addresses careers and support for young
people leaving Key Stage 4. Camden is also prioritising efforts to persuade
young people to remain in education at year 11, in 2003/04. Looking at those
young people most at risk of exclusion, we are trying to improve the
educational attainment of young people in care, reduce teenage conceptions,
and increase education on drugs and alcohol.10
While the Council is committed to raising educational achievement across the
board and for all age groups this is clearly a life-long process and there is a
need to provide pre-school, after-school, adult and community-based learning
opportunities. The relatively high proportion of people across Britain with few
recognised qualifications and/or low literacy and numeracy skills has been
widely documented. Some estimates, for example, suggest that nearly one
adult in four has difficulty reading and writing in English at the level expected
of an 11-year-old school pupil. The importance of early intervention in
providing a solid start for children in terms of their future educational chances,
and of providing childcare in order for parents to access training cannot be
overestimated.
There are many Camden strategies, which, to varying degrees, address the
issue of poor qualifications. These include the Adult Learning Plan, the
Education Development Plan (EDP2), the Educational Approach to
Social Inclusion, the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, the Leaving Care
Action Plan and the Skills for Life Strategy.
There is also a ‘digital divide’ between many residents. Levels of IT usage
are low with half of Camden residents having no access to a computer either
at home or work11. The Council is addressing the issue of poor qualifications
in a number of ways; for example, our flagship project to address this gap
among adults consists of the 29 UKOnline Centres providing ICT learning
opportunities to high-risk groups of people. These provide new resources in
community settings for people to use computers and the Internet to further
their own learning. They have been successful in attracting BME communities
and also disabled people into our libraries.
Our future aspirations to improve residents’ skill levels include using our
position as the largest local employer and to use our partnerships with local
businesses to encourage them to do the same, offering an accessible
information, advice and guidance service on training and lifelong learning for
10
These efforts are being supported by the Teenage Pregnancy and Drug and Alcohol Action
Plan
11
Community Strategy and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy Baseline Evaluation 2002
18
adults and targeting learning opportunities to long-term unemployed and lowincome households.
3.6
Long-term unemployment
Long-term unemployment decreases chances of people getting work of most
varieties. Many of the local factors outlined above, whether individual or
combined, affect the chances of people getting jobs. One of our key priorities
is to help the long-term unemployed, particularly from refugee communities
and disabled people, take up and remain in work.
19
London Boroughs ranked by proportion of people on Longterm Unemployment
(February 2003)
Sou t h wa r k
27.1%
Br en t
24.8%
H a r in gey
23.3%
Tower H a m let s
22.8%
Ca m den
22.8%
La m bet h
21.9%
Lewish a m
21.8%
West m in st er
21.3%
Ken sin gt on a n d Ch elsea
21.3%
Islin gt on
21.0%
H a m m er sm it h a n d F u lh a m
20.0%
Wa n dswor t h
19.6%
Wa lt h a m F or est
18.1%
Gr een wich
18.0%
Su t t on
17.8%
Newh a m
17.6%
Cr oydon
17.4%
Ba r n et
17.0%
H a ckn ey
16.7%
E a lin g
16.1%
E n field
15.5%
Kin gst on
15.4%
Mer t on
15.2%
H a r r ow
15.1%
Br om ley
14.3%
Ba r kin g a n d Da gen h a m
13.9%
Bexley
12.6%
Rich m on d
12.4%
Redbr idge
11.3%
H a ver in g
11.3%
H illin gdon
10.6%
H ou n slow
0.00%
7.3%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Nationally, the proportion of unemployed, non-disabled people who obtain
work is around six times that of disabled people who do so. According to the
2001 Census, 21.6% of female lone parents in Camden were in part-time
employment, which is the fourth lowest among the Inner London boroughs.
20
The road to paid work for the long-term unemployed is challenging, and
requires highly committed multi-agency approaches, linking employers to
trainers and public services. It also requires a long-term commitment as
people who have been out of work for some time require a significant amount
of support to re-enter the job market.
Employment Deprivation
(proportion of adults who wanted to work but unable to
do so)
7%
Hampstead Town
8%
Fitzjohns
Frognal
8%
Belsize
10%
Fortune Green
10%
Brunswick
12%
Adelaide
13%
Swiss Cottage
13%
Bloomsbury
13%
West End
13%
South End
14%
16%
Highgate
19%
Chalk Farm
St. John's
20%
Kilburn
20%
Camden
21%
Regent's Park
22%
Holborn
22%
23%
Priory
King's Cross
24%
Gospel Oak
24%
Caversham
24%
25%
Grafton
26%
Castlehaven
Somers Town
27%
St. Pancras
31%
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Source: DETR, 2000
In terms of employment deprivation, 13 of the previous wards in Camden are
among the 10% worst deprived wards in England.
Around 18,000 are employment deprived in Camden.
21
Providing more training and employment for local residents in high-risk groups
is key. Casual and fixed-term jobs have reduced earnings in a range of less
skilled occupations. Low quality employment means low pay. People in parttime employment, are mostly women on low earnings and often have
childcare needs. 39% of full time employees within Camden earn less than
£460 per week while 4.9% earn less than £250 per week.12
Camden Council is committed to using all the levers at our disposal to try and
provide employment opportunities for local people who are long term
unemployed. However, the Council recognises that it needs to work
constructively with our partners to achieve results in this area and that
progress depends to a large extent on the state of the national and London
regional economy and other factors beyond our direct control. As well using
our own recruitment policies, we will try to achieve tangible results by using
opportunities like the redevelopment at King’s Cross, individual building works
like the redevelopment at Haverstock School, our procurement policy and
practice and our partnerships with local businesses.
3.7
Housing
Camden’s Community Strategy prioritised addressing the acute shortage of
affordable housing in the borough (target 5 to increase by 20% the supply of
new affordable housing by 2006). More recently, Camden’s Housing
Department has produced its five-year Homelessness Strategy (April 2003 2008) in line with the requirements of recent legislation. This begins with the
recognition that at least in the short term a crisis of affordable accommodation
will persist both in Camden and across Greater London.
The census 2001 tells us that:
•
•
•
2.6% of Camden residents do not have own bath/shower and toilet which
ranks Camden 1st both nationally and regionally. This has been reduced
from 4.2% in the 1991 Census.
29.8% (27,321 households) of Camden residents live in one or more
persons per room compared to the national average of 7%. Camden ranks
2nd both nationally and regionally.13
8.1% of Camden households were without central heating which ranks
Camden 12th in Greater London. This has been halved since the 1991
Census (16.2%).
As of 31st March 2003, almost 2,000 homeless households were living in
temporary accommodation, of which 600 were couples with dependent
children. Last year the council received 2,064 approaches from homeless
households and accepted a duty to 1,023 of them, an acceptance rate of 85
12
New Earnings Survey April 2002
A caveat is that Camden has an abundance of hostels and houses of multiple occupation. Camden is
also home to over 16,000 students.
13
22
households a month. The main reasons for homelessness (53%) were family
or relationship breakdown.
As of 31st March 2003 14,500 people were on the Housing Register (this
figure includes homeless households, council tenants wanting to move and
those living in the private sector wanting to move). Of these over 6,000 want
to move because their accommodation is affecting their health.
To compound the challenge facing Camden approximately 8,174 properties
have been lost from the Council’s housing stock since 1980 through the Rightto-Buy. This figures represents a quarter of the stock. Restrictions on the
Right to Buy will mean that over time this trend will slow down, however, with
over 3,000 applications in the pipeline with a completion rate averaging about
50%, the slow down might not happen in the short to medium term.
A significant proportion of the Council's remaining housing stock is in need of
internal repair to meet the Government’s ‘decent homes’ target by 2010 and
improve the quality of life for residents living there. Improving the quality of
council housing stock in Camden is a capital intensive process reliant on the
expenditure of large sums of money made available from central government.
In May 2003 the Council submitted a bid to Central Government for an Arms
Length Management Organisation (ALMO). This has been approved and will
provide approximately £280 million to invest in reaching the decent homes
target. The Council is currently consulting with council tenants on the ALMO.
The final decision will be made early in 2004.
Initiatives to increase housing supply in Camden over the next few years
include the requirement of 50% of new homes in the Kings Cross
Development to be affordable and up to 50% in other developments over 15
units elsewhere.
3.8
Health inequalities
As an Inner London borough Camden is also an area characterised by stark
contrasts in health. These inequalities can mean poor access to health
provision and a tendency to suffer from chronic illness. ‘Health deprivation’ is
reflected in the number of incapacity benefit claimants. Local health
inequalities exist between different ethnic groups and geographical areas. For
example, diagnosed cases of diabetes run at five times the rate in the
Bangladeshi community than in the general population. Nationally, there is
evidence to suggest that conditions such as asthma, diabetes and obesity –
all associated with poverty – are on the rise, and likewise HIV and other
sexually transmitted infections. Undoubtedly, a number of health problems in
the borough are significantly exacerbated by the prevalence of drug and
alcohol abuse. Camden has a Health Action Zone and the Primary Care
Trust, which share the core objectives of reducing health inequalities. In
particular, we will use the Local Health Partnership which comprises
Camden, the PCT, the Mental Health and Social Care Trust, acute Trusts and
the voluntary sector to drive forward this agenda.
23
The short-term outcomes Camden seeks to achieve include: making primary
care services more accessible to homeless people and people with poor
English; ensuring people can afford to heat their homes; promoting healthy
eating and physical activity; employing public health assistants in GP
surgeries and importantly income maximisation through welfare rights
provision and generation of jobs. We will do this by working in partnership with
the Primary Care Trust and other partners to deliver these through existing
health strategies in Camden.
Addressing health for children and young people is key to improving the
health of the population as a whole. Without intervention at an early age, the
marked inequalities in health outcomes – both in relation to geographical
location and family circumstances – will persist across future generations. The
Council and its partners already take reducing health inequalities seriously. It
is one of the themes in Camden’s Community Strategy and a whole range of
initiatives and partnerships support work towards this goal. For example, Sure
Start provides early intervention with extra health visiting, speech and
language help, nutrition advice and dental care. We also have a Well and
Wise programme promoting the mental and physical well being in older
people. Area based initiatives also target high-risk groups, examples being
the Kings Cross-Brunswick Neighbourhood Association’s health
promotion work with the Chinese, Bangladeshi and refugee communities.
Participation is a key theme in our Quality of Life strategy for older people.
One of the outcomes to this is the development of an older person's Citizens'
Panel comprising of about 400 residents. They have come together and
volunteered to be the sounding board for the Council and to better shape our
services for older people.
3.9
Drugs and substance misuse
Camden has significant drug and alcohol-related crime and disorder
problems, in part due to its unique geographical position. The borough covers
an area of Central London with three well-established open hard and soft drug
markets and a large street-drinking population. There have also been
significant estate-based problems, notably particular areas in the south of the
borough.
The Borough also has an established reputation as a centre for leisure and
nightlife activities, which may further increase the prevalence of drug and
alcohol-related disorder. Alcohol continues to have the most widespread
implications for health, while the combined use of heroin and crack by the
street population, particularly in South Camden, is rapidly overtaking alcohol
use in the severity of its impact on community safety.
24
London Boroughs ranked by Drug Treatment Rate
(number aged 15-44 per 1,000 population aged 15-44)
Ca m den
11.1
West m in st er
10.8
Ken sin gt on & Ch elsea
10.0
La m bet h
9.0
Sou t h wa r k
7.3
Gr een wich
7.3
Ba r kin g & Da gen h a m
7.2
H a m m er sm it h & F u lh a m
6.8
Islin gt on
6.4
Kin gst on u pon Th a m es
6.1
Lewish a m
5.7
H a r r ow
4.6
Su t t on
4.4
E a lin g
4.1
Br en t
4.1
N ewh a m
4.1
H a ckn ey
4.0
Br om ley
3.9
Mer t on
3.9
H illin gdon
3.9
Wa n dswor t h
3.8
Rich m on d u pon Th a m es
3.5
Cr oydon
3.4
Wa lt h a m F or est
3.3
Tower H a m let s
3.2
Bexley
2.8
H ou n slow
2.7
Ba r n et
2.4
H a r in gey
2.3
Redbr idge
2.3
H a ver in g
2.1
E n field
2.0
0
2
4
25
6
8
10
12
The Council and its partners already have in place: an effective multi-agency
Drug Action Team (DAT) working to reduce drug and alcohol-related
problems, a Crime and Disorder Strategy addressing drug-related crime and
the findings of a Scrutiny panel, Tackling the Problem of Drugs in Camden
(April 2002). This report made 34 recommendations to the Council’s
Executive, which are now being addressed.
Some of the areas we want to progress include making sure that our
treatment programmes and services are culturally sensitive and the provision
of supported housing for drug users. Camden Council will also work together
with its partners in the Primary Care Trust and Camden & Islington Mental
Health and Social Care Trust to address community safety concerns among
vulnerable tenants or complex-case service users who are particularly at risk
of exposure to or intimidation by local drugs markets.
26
4.0
SOCIAL INCLUSION AND CAMDEN’S COMMUNITIES
Turning to social exclusion among Camden’s diverse communities, this
Strategy calls for our services and partnership working to strive beyond strict
compliance with our legal obligations to provide a deeper provision which can
address the barriers which exist within these groups.
4.1
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Communities
According to the 2001 Census, 31.4% of the borough’s population comes
from BME groups. Many people in Camden strongly agree that they enjoy
living in a neighbourhood with people from different cultures14. Camden’s
Bangladeshi, Chinese and Somali communities all number among the largest
in London. However, unemployment rates among these communities are
significantly higher than the national averages as well as the local Camden
average.
Reflecting equality and diversity is also an essential element in the way the
Council provides services to our residents. This agenda includes how
diversity is represented in Council structures, staff, procurement policies,
delivery and impact of services. The Council is actively seeking to reduce
race inequality in Camden. The Race Equality Scheme (RES), agreed last
year, is the main mechanism for achieving this. Through the provision of key
targets and data, the scheme should serve to reduce and ultimately remove
barriers so that black and minority ethnic communities and those with certain
religious beliefs have equal rights and opportunities with others in the
borough. 15 The Council’s RES contains our commitments to ensuring that as
a service provider, as an employer and as a community leader, we will ensure
that race equality is at the heart of all our policies and practices.
Camden’s ethnic diversity also provokes specific challenges within our key
public services. Our Education Department has noted that over the last 10
years there has been a steady rise in traditionally established community
languages in Camden, such as Bengali/Syleti, Greek, Gujerati and Chinese.
However, the arrival of newer refugee communities from Africa, Iraq and the
former Yugoslavia has seen a significant rise not only in the number of Somali
speakers but also those speaking Yoruba, Lingala, Arabic and Albanian in
Camden schools.16
How people with English as a second language access Camden’s services
are issues of equity reflecting how effectively the Council performs in housing,
health and education. Through our review of language services in the
borough, the Council is committed to working with its partners in the PCT and
the MHSCT to develop a more integrated and advanced approach to the
provision of interpreting services to residents over the next few years.
14
Community Strategy and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy Baseline Evaluation 2002
Our first annual report shows our achievements to date and is available on our website
16
Linguistic Diversity in Camden Schools 2003-2003
15
27
Camden Population by Ethnic Groups (%), 2001
Census
Irish
4.6%
White other
15.8%
Asian and Asian
British
10.4%
Black and Black
British
8.3%
Chinese and other
groups
4.4%
White British
52.7%
Mixed
3.8%
Source: Office of National Statistics, 2001 Census, Crown Copyright.
The Council is also introducing an Impact Assessment checklist to make sure
that our services are accessible to and appropriate for all of Camden’s
communities. The Council also has an important role in ensuring that all
communities feel safe and have a sense of belonging in Camden. We have
worked hard to win government funds to enable us to run projects for young
people of all ethnic origins to reduce any conflict linked to race or ethnicity.
For example, we have also gained funding for a project to increase
understanding between Bangladeshi youth and older white residents on
Sidmouth Mews estate to increase understanding between the generations.
Our key targets from the RES are to:
•
•
•
improve representation in our consultation processes;
train our staff on the implications of the Race Relations Amendment
Act, and
monitor more consistently our service users.
While most of our commitments for the future will be addressed through the
RES, we are also planning to target welfare rights advice at older people from
BME communities with the aim of increasing benefit take-up and household
income.
4.2
Refugees and asylum seekers
Camden, as an Inner London borough, has in recent years experienced a
growth people from refugee communities. According to a World University
Service estimate from the late 1990s some 15,000 refugees and asylum
seekers were living in Camden. The limits of Census data and central
government’s policy of dispersing asylum applicants away from London make
a more precise estimate for the borough extremely difficult. There is also now
28
a sharp legal distinction between refugees and those classed as asylum
seekers.17
Camden has a strong commitment to maintaining and extending support for
refugees and asylum seekers in the borough. The Council also aims to
provide more opportunities for refugees to participate in and contribute fully to
the wider society at the same time as recognising that there is considerable
fear and prejudice within sections of the population around the issues of
asylum and immigration.
Individuals who obtain refugee status (and those granted what has been
called “Exceptional Leave to Remain”) in the UK have the legal right to seek
and obtain paid employment, along with the right to access virtually all social
welfare benefits. Asylum seekers, on the other hand, no longer have such a
right to work, unless they had already obtained or applied for a work permit
prior to 28 July 2002.
In Camden the single largest refugee community comes from Somalia. More
recent arrivals are from the Balkans and Eastern European countries, as well
as West Africa, especially Congo. Some 15% of primary school and 8% of
secondary school pupils are from refugee/asylum-seeking households 18.
There are some serious concerns about the financial circumstances facing a
high proportion of refugees and asylum seekers living in Camden. Many from
refugee communities face a complex combination of obstacles to successful
participation in the labour market and in society more generally.
Time and resources are required to ensure that they know about and can
access our services and those of other statutory organisations, such as the
NHS, for example. Likewise, there are concerns about their access to training
and employment opportunities. The Council is currently running a Scrutiny
Panel into the latter, which will report to the Executive in September. The
Refugee Forum, established in June 2002, is likely to take the lead in
implementing any recommendations from the Scrutiny Panel. In addition, the
Council has also commissioned a needs and profile survey of the large
Somali community in the borough. In particular the research will look at the
exclusion of young Somali people and of the particular problems caused by
the use of Khat among some older Somalians, as well as mental health
problems within this community. This will enable the Council to better
understand this community and their needs, and so plan services that are
more appropriate and effective in addressing their needs, while also offering
easier access to a range of development opportunities.
17
For the purposes of the 1951 Geneva (United Nations) Convention a refugee is a person
who has fled his/her country of origin due to a "well-founded fear of persecution". The sources
of such persecution can include: racial/ethnic prejudice, an individual's religion, nationality,
and membership of a social organisation or political tendency. An asylum seeker is
someone who has applied for such status and is either awaiting an initial decision or
appealing against a rejection of the claim, but as outlined below there are severe restrictions
on the right to work and claim benefit.
18
Camden Education Development Plan 2001/02
29
The Council aims to work with its partners in order to provide more training
and employment opportunities for refugees and increase income through
improved benefits take-up for people from a range of ethnic groups. Through
the Refugee Forum, the Council will work with its partners to prioritise the
training and employment needs of refugees in particular. We will also ensure
that our services are fully accessible to and appropriate for their needs.
4.3
Homelessness and rough sleeping
There are approximately 12,000 homeless people living in Camden of which a
quarter are children. In 2002/3 the Council spent £12.5 million housing
homeless people in temporary accommodation. As a group, people who are
homeless suffer from higher unemployment, worse health and are more likely
to be victims of crime.
We want to address the issue of homelessness in Camden because we know
that homeless people are more likely to suffer from one or more of the many
negative effects of social exclusion. Homeless people find it harder to access
mainstream healthcare, suffer from poor health and live shorter lives than
average. Homeless children do less well at school, suffer from disrupted lives
and are more likely to end up as homeless themselves. Homeless people face
the prospect of poverty, are likely to find employment very difficult and much
more likely to require early intervention.
Camden has been successful in reducing street homelessness from 53 to 13
in the last three years but the treatment of substance misuse continues to be
a pressing need. Camden has also achieved the Government’s target of
families staying in bed and breakfast for no more than 6 weeks one year
ahead of the Government deadline (April 2004).
The new Homelessness Strategy brings together many of the individual
actions taken to improve the quality of life for statutory homeless people and
rough sleepers.
The Street Population Strategy – at the forefront of
reducing rough sleeping, begging and street drinking, a Homeless Families
Outreach Project in the Kings Cross, Holborn and Camden Central areas –
assisting and linking some of the most isolated and vulnerable families to the
services they need, such as housing advice assistance to single homeless
clients and pregnant teenage women.
The main areas for action over the next few years are:
•
•
•
To reduce the proportion of households reapplying as homeless
To ensure that any family, accepted as homeless by the Council, is living
in self-contained temporary accommodation within six weeks
To increase the number of households where homelessness is prevented
Camden policy is to ensure that homeless families and individuals have equal
access and benefit to the services that everyone else benefits from. This
means that services need to work together to make sure that the risk of
30
homelessness is reduced and support towards sustainable accommodation is
given to those to whom Camden has a statutory duty.
4.4
People with disabilities and health problems
4.4.1 Physical disabilities
At the time of the 2001 Census over 31,000 disabled people live in Camden.
As with other groups which can be categorised as socially excluded the ability
of disabled people to avoid poverty relies on routes to work and access to key
public services.
Research also estimates that Camden has approximately 10,000 working age
adults with a disability. However, in Camden as across the country many
people with physical or mental health problems face significant barriers to
work. National labour market data suggests that employment among disabled
people runs at 48% (36% for BME disabled people), compared to 81% for
non-disabled people of working age. Disability also has a significant impact
on the combined economic activity status of households: households
containing a disabled adult have a workless rate of 31.1% compared with
9.7% for households with a non-disabled person.19 Disabled people are also
more likely to be unemployed over the long-term than non-disabled people,
and less likely to possess higher educational qualifications – further
recognised limitations on employability. However, we recognise that within
the disabled community there are significant differences in exclusion and
employability relating to severity of disability and type.
The rollout of the Council’s Generic Impact Assessment through our
diversity work will comment on the service needs of disabled people. Work
with residents through the Council’s Liaison Group structure is a continuing
source of useful information and practical guidance about how the Council
can improve its services. The Council is also aware of its obligations under
the Disability Discrimination Act and actively seeks to promote awareness of
the Act internally and with external stakeholders, including Camden
businesses.
To coincide with the European Year of the Disabled the Council has joined
with DISC to produce a directory of services for disabled people, In and Out
of Camden. In addition to our mainstream service provision to disabled
people the Council has developed additional programmes, for example,
supporting young people with special needs to live in community settings in
the borough; improving access to ICT with a successful £2.75 million central
government bid. The Council’s Quality of Life Strategy for older citizens has
also responded to the needs of older disabled residents.
Our full analysis, however, shows that Camden should progress an overall
strategic approach - beyond our diversity statement - for disabled people
within the Council. Internal evidence suggests that there is an under-reporting
of disability and that the number of disabled people employed by the Council
19
Labour Force Survey, 2001.
31
has declined recently. Both of these gaps need to be remedied by an active
policy-shift on the part of the Council.
4.4.2 Mental Health
Camden has the one of the highest mental health needs rates in the country
and the highest suicide rate in England and Wales with 16.8 suicides per
100,000 people in Camden, compared to 9.1 for London and 9.5 for England
and Wales20. On average nearly 1,200 adults aged 16-64 in the borough are
admitted to hospitals each year for mental health problems. The age
standardised mental health admission rate in Camden is nearly 40% higher
than Islington.21 We suspect that one particularly hard to reach group is the
often complex “dual diagnosis” individual with mental health and substance
misuse problems, which requires greater capacity and joined-up working
between departments and external partners to intervene effectively.
People with mental health problems face particular barriers to work. Over the
last decade the numbers of people with neurotic or psychotic disorders
entering work has significantly lagged behind the general population and
people with physical disabilities. Adjusting our services to address mental ill
health is a particular concern for Camden. People suffering from mental
heath problems are statistically more likely to be long-term unemployed, either
by particular difficulty in accessing work or by discrimination at work.
In the future the Council needs to address the gaps identified by our full social
inclusion analysis by encouraging the development of better employment and
advancement strategies for disabled people and people with mental health
problems within the local authority. Camden will also work with its NHS
partners, the Primary Care Trust and Camden & Islington Mental Health and
Social Care Trust, to develop a more strategic approach to regeneration,
social inclusion and employability for disabled people and people with mental
health problems. This should include more thought on reducing barriers to
work for long-term unemployed people over the age of 50 with physical
disabilities or mental health problems.
4.5
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people in Camden
We suspect that meeting the needs of Camden’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community presents certain challenges and necessitates further
investigation. The numbers of LGBT people in Camden is undetermined making an assessment of the patterns and gaps in Council services
problematic, particularly with the more socially excluded. An initial mapping of
what Camden does will be undertaken after discussions with Camden’s LGBT
Forum. We suspect that beyond issues of homophobic violence issues we
need to address include social isolation and equal access to services.
Camden commits itself to further work in this area.
20
Islington PCT, 2003.
Camden Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy Mapping and Analysis of Neighbourhood
Deprivation, September 2002.
21
32
5.0
AREAS FOR ACTION
From the analysis undertaken the Council has identified a number of key
areas for further action. Over the coming months we will be working with our
internal and external partners to develop a programme of action which will
begin to address some of the following issues.
5.1
•
•
•
•
•
5.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.3
•
•
•
•
Tackling poverty
Income maximisation
Promoting benefits /tax credits take up
Increased benefits/ tax credits awareness
Advice on transition from benefits to work or training particularly for
lone parents and disabled people
Review charging policies
Employment
To improve employment opportunities within council for disabled
people and refugees
To encourage local businesses to improve opportunities for lone
parents, disabled people and refugees
To build on the findings of the Refugee Scrutiny Panel to develop
actions
To develop and implement employment strategies to help our target
groups take up and remain in work
To ensure that the council’s flexible working policies encourage lone
parents to take up employment opportunities and remain in work and
set an example for other local employers
To ensure our procurement policies include our target groups
To use redevelopment opportunities e.g. Kings Cross to increase
employment opportunities for all our target groups
To run a Disability and Employment week as part of the European Year
of Disabled People in September
Skills improvement
To improve/ increase training opportunities through our own
employment policies and in partnership with local businesses, LSC and
other training providers
To develop an effective training partnership
To provide information, advice and guidance on training and lifelong
learning
To target training opportunities at disabled people, refugees & lone
parents
33
5.4
•
•
•
•
5.5
•
•
5.6
•
•
5.7
•
Access to services for target groups
To use the outcomes of the Equalities Impact Assessment to make
services more accessible to disabled people
To use the findings of the Refugee Scrutiny Panel to develop
appropriate interventions in partnership with the Refugee Forum.
To develop with our partners actions to increase the amount of quality
affordable childcare provision
To ensure that the Language Service review delivers on the
communication needs of disabled people through improved provision of
BSL interpreters
Research
To undertake local research to gain more understanding of the issues
relating to the underachievement/ disengagement of white working
class young people
To research the issues and gaps in service provision for LGBT
communities
Educational attainment
To improve the further and higher educational attainment of refugee
communities in the borough and among the Bangladeshi community;
To use the research findings to develop appropriate interventions to
improve educational attainment among children and young people in
receipt of free school meals and related poverty associated benefits;
Resource maximisation
To maximise external funding opportunities through ESF, Home Office
and other external sources
34