Ethnicity_Identity_Religion_Language_-_Census_Analysis_Paper

8/16/2019 Ethnicity_Identity_Religion_Language_-_Census_Analysis_Paper

1/13

Census 2011Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion in Hackney, May 2013

1. IntroductionThe 2011 Census provides a wealth of data about diversity within Hackney’spopulation. In the 2001 Census, uestions were asked about ethnicity, country of birth and faith, and in 2011, new uestions were added on lan!ua!e, nationality, year of arrival "for those born outside the #$% and national identity. Considered to!ether,these provide valuable data on the different di&ensions of diversity in Hackney. Thispaper provides analysis on the followin! areas'

• (thnicity• Country of )irth and *ear of +rrival "&i!ration indicators%• assport data• -ational Identity• an!ua!e• /eli!ion

Please note that this paper represents analysis of the data that has been released by ONS to date (May 2013). Further information in!ludin" !ross#tabulated data is duefor release later in 2013. Further analysis $ill be !ondu!ted on!e ne$ data has beenreleased.

Suary and HeadlinesThe 2011 Census esti&ates Hackney’s population to be 2,20, reflectin! a 203increase in the population since the last Census esti&ate in 2001. The workin! a!epopulation has !rown by 23 in the past decade, with the 24526 a!e !roupde&onstratin! the &ost dra&atic increase "17,000%.

%thni!ity +s well as an increasin! workin! a!e population, the profile of Hackney is one of continued increasin! diversity, with si8able 9hite )ritish "7.23% and )lack +fricanco&&unities "11.3% but also a lar!e and increasin! !roup of residents fro& &i:edethnic back!rounds, e&phasisin! the hyper5diversity of the borou!h. +lthou!h at7.23 the 9hite )ritish population re&ains the sin!le lar!est ethnic !roup inHackney, this !roup has decreased si!nificantly as a proportion of the borou!h fro&.13 in 2001 especially in the conte:t of 203 !rowth. ;ut of the broader ethnic!roups, the 9hite !roup "which includes 9hite )ritish, 9hite ;ther, Irish and i:ed (thnic


2/13

FaithHackney’s faith profile reflects national trends includin! a si!nificant decrease in theChristian population which now stands at 7?.3, representin! the &ost si!nificantdecrease of faith in the borou!h. The proportion of residents with no reli!ionincreased fro& 163 in 2001 to 2?.23 in 2001. )oth the Aewish and >usli&

co&&unities saw &odest increases.

1. EthnicityThe sin!le lar!est ethnic !roup in Hackney is 9hite )ritish which accounts for 7.23of the population. This &arks a si!nificant reduction in the proportion of 9hite )ritishresidents fro& .13 in 2001, euatin! to a 0 person loss and is reflective of Hackney’s increasin! diversity which currently &arks it out as the th &ost ethnicallydiverse borou!h in ondon1 after -ewha&, /edbrid!e, 9altha& Borest and )rent.Hackney’s 9hite )ritish population is low co&pared to the avera!e for ondon".63% and (n!land "?03% althou!h it should be acknowled!ed that the proportionof 9hite )ritish residents decreased in the all local authorities in (n!land and 9ales

between 2001 and 2011, with the e:ception of Borest Heath which saw an increaseof 0.? 3. The lowest proportions of 9hite )ritish residents were found in -ewha&"1.3% and )rent "1?.03%.

The second lar!est ethnic !roup in Hackney is ;ther 9hite "1.13% which hasshown a 03 increase since 2001 "14,07%, the hi!hest absolute nu&eric increaseof all ethnic !roups.

Hackney has a lar!e and well established Turkish co&&unity, who &ay fall within theDother whiteE ethnic cate!ory. Census data reported that in Hackney, 10,0residents identified as TurkishF 20?7 identified as $urdish and a further 1,10identified as Turkish5Cypriot in the Dwrite inE section of the Census for&, totallin!17,67 or 4.3 of the total population. Burther&ore, ?,6?2 residents listed their country of birth as Turkey. These fi!ures place nine of Hackney’s wards2 into the top20 wards in the country with the hi!hest nu&bers of residents who described their ethnicity as Turkish=)ritish Turkish.7 Gespite the si!nificant si8e of the Turkishco&&unity, this !roup is not responsible for the !rowth in the ;ther 9hite ethniccate!ory. Turkish, $urdish and Turkish=Cypriot residents be!an settlin! in Hackney inthe 1670s and the proportion of Turkish residents has shown only &odest !rowthsince 2001 "see country of birth data below%

;ne of the &ost si!nificant causes behind the increase in the nu&ber of D;ther 9hiteE residents is likely the accession of (astern (uropean countries in 200 and

the resultant hi!h levels of i&&i!ration fro& these counties, &ost si!nificantlyoland. +ppro:i&ately ?,?01 residents in Hackney listed their country of birth as oneof the 200 accession states, accountin! for 7.23 of the population. Aust over half these residents ",207% were born in oland. The Dwrite inE section of the Census,which enabled users to specify their ethnicity, saw 74 residents describe their ethnicity as olish, a considerable increase of the fi!ure in 2001 "720%, providin!further evidence that there is !rowin!, si!nificantly si8ed olish co&&unity inHackney.

1


3/13

Hackney is not alone in seein! an increase in the ;ther 9hite cate!ory' nationally,the ;ther 9hite cate!ory had the hi!hest increase across the ethnic !roups, with!rowth of 1.1 &illion "1.?3% between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses. This includespeople with oland as a country of birth, who were the second lar!est !roup of non5#$ born residents in 2011 and increased by 0.4 &illion "a nine5fold increase%between 2001 and 2011.

Residents !orn in 2001"2011 #ccession Countries$ %here they ha&e settled

The third lar!est ethnic !roup in Hackney is black +frican "11.3% which has shownan absolute increase of 143 "7?% since 2001 althou!h the proportion of this!roup &akin! up the population has dropped sli!htly "0.3%. The lar!est !roup within

this cate!ory are the -i!erian co&&unity. $in!s ark and Chatha& wards both fallwithin the top 20 wards in (n!land with the hi!hest nu&bers of -i!erian residents

3


4/13

with around ,62 of Hackney residents listin! -i!eria as their country of birth. Theincrease in the )lack +frican !roup has been seen at a re!ional and national level,both proportionately and absolutely. The )lack +frican population has increased fro&13 percent to 1.?3 across (n!land, and fro& 4.23 to 3 across ondon. This!rowth &i!th be partially as a result of natural fertility patterns in as far as +fricanresidents who have co&e to Hackney, settled and have started a fa&ily resultin! in

children. It is clear, however, that so&e of these residents were born in +frica andhave arrived in Hackney since 2001 "1?,0?? residents listed an +frican country astheir country of birth in 2001 and this fi!ure rose to 21,40 in 2011%. The increase in)lack +frican residents &i!th therefore also be partially attributed to new &i!rants.

Changes in Ethnicity since 2001>ost ethnic !roup populations have shown !rowth which &irrors the 213 population!rowth overall, with the e:ceptions of Irish "5143%, akistani "5123%, Caribbean "5?3%and 9hite )ritish "513% !roups which fell in both absolute and relative ter&s between2001 and 2011.

In contrast, all D;therE ethnic !roups have shown si!nificant !rowth, with ;ther +sian

" 70?3, an increase of 4062 persons%, ;ther (thnic i:ed "1223, an increase of 27 persons% &ore than doublin! in si8e.

The reasons behind the increase in &i:ed ethnic !roups are co&ple:. The optionsfor self identification on the Census 2011 for& included &ore di&ensions than inprevious years enablin! residents &ore choice in how they chose to identifythe&selves. 9here residents now have the option to include both their country of birth and national identity, they &i!ht have chosen to separate their national identityand=or country of birth fro& their ethnic identity. It &i!ht be that the uestion of ethnicity was considered less specific and therefore less i&portant than the self5perceived uestion of national identity and the factual uestion of where they wereborn. This increased choice in Census 2011 &i!ht have led to residents feelin! lesspressure to be so prescriptive in describin! their ethnic identity, and could, therefore,be a factor in e:plainin! the increase in D;therE ethnicities.

erhaps a &ore co&pellin! reason for the increase in &i:ed ethnicities is that of Hackney’s increased diversity and &ulticulturalis& since 2001. There has beenincreased ethnic inte!ration in Hackney over the past 10 years with fa&ilies andpartnerships are beco&in! increasin!ly ethnically &i:ed. In 2011 6.73 of Hackney’shouseholds were for&ed of &i:ed ethnic partnerships, a 23 increase since 2001.The trends in increased &i:ed partnerships are also evident at a re!ional andnational level' since 2001, ondon has seen a 2.23 increase in &i:ed partnerships

and a 1.3 increase in households with ethnic differences, takin! the total fi!ures to6.43 and 4.63 respectively whilst (n!land as a whole has seen &ore &odestincreases of 0.63 and 0.3 takin! the total fi!ures to .3 and 2.73.

Aust 763 of Hackney’s households are &ade up of &e&bers of the sa&e ethnic!roup, the ei!hth lowest fi!ure across all local authorities in (n!land and lower thanboth the re!ional ".63% and national "0.63% avera!es. Hackney has, overall, seenan ?,126 increase in &ultiple ethnic households across all cate!ories, euatin! to anoverall 43 increase between 2001 and 2011. +cross (n!land, the proportion of &i:ed households has increased in 7 out of 7? local authorities since 2001.(:cludin! one5person households, 1 in ? households in (n!land now contain &orethan one ethnic !roup.

4


5/13

Hackney's (i&ersity Inde) *!y LS+#

5


6/13

-a!le 1$ Ethnic rou/s 2011

2001 Census 2011 Census Chan!e between2001 5 2011

Ethnic rou/ u!er u!er u!er

Change

#LL 202,24 100 245,260 100 43,445 21

%hite120,45 78.4 134,516 74.6 14,148 12

)ritish ?6,60 .1 ?6,070 7.2 50 513

;ther white 2,?1 12.7 76,?6 1.2 14,07 03

Irish ,11 7.0 4,21 2.1 5601 5143


7/13

2. Country o; 9irth and i!rants born in (# countries co&prise 123 of Hackney’s population, with olishborn residents &akin! up the lar!est sin!le co&&unity within this !roup at 1.3",207 people%. /esidents born in Turkey represent 7.3 of Hackney’s population"?,6?2% and are the lar!est sin!le &i!rant !roup in the borou!h, followed by -i!eriaat 2.3 ",62% and Aa&aica 1.?3 ",%.

-a!le 2$ -o/ 10 Countries o; 9irth *e)cluding =>

2011 2001

Rank Country u!er % Number

1 Turkey 7. ?,6?2 Turkey 7.? 26

2 -i!eria 2. ,62 -i!eria 7.7 77

7 Aa&aica 1.? , Aa&aica 2.2 4

oland 1. ,207 Ireland 2.1 2

4 Ireland 1. 7,6 India 1.4 7111

India 1.2 2,644 )an!ladesh 1.4 7002

)an!ladesh 1.1 2,46 Cyprus 1.1 22?7

? #nited tates 1.1 2,


8/13

The &a@ority of the borou!h’s &i!rants arrived in the #$ when they were youn!adults, with ?3 a!ed less than 70 years old at arrival. 243 of &i!rant residents inthe )orou!h arrived in Hackney between 10 and 20 years a!o "166152001% whilst43 were &ore recent arrivals who have arrived in Hackney since 2001. i&ilarly,the national fi!ures show that 403 of &i!rant residents arrived in (n!land in the last10 years, the lar!est period of &i!ration since 161.

Changes since 2001There has been a !eneral increase in the proportion born abroad for all re!ions over the period 200152011F the increase in nu&ber is especially notable for ondon whichhas seen a 103 increase over the past decade. The chan!e in Hackney has beenless e:tre&e, which at .3 which is &ore inline with the national increase of 3.

+lthou!h Census 2011 reported hi!h nu&bers of Hackney residents born in Turkey,-i!eria, Aa&aica and Ireland, the fi!ures for residents born in these countries havenot chan!ed si!nificantly since 2001. These co&&unities are well established withinHackney and have been settled in the borou!h for several decades' Turkishresidents arrived in three phases startin! in the1670s then the 160s and 16?0sF the

Irish co&&unity be!an settlin! in the 160s and the Aa&aican and -i!erianco&&unities be!an arrivin! in Hackney in the 160s.

In contrast, the nu&ber of residents born in oland has increased fro& 420 in 2001to 207 in 2011 "?0?3%, representin! the fastest !rowin! co&&unity in Hackney.olish born residents are the second fastest !rowin! !roup "after Indian bornresidents% across ondon and (n!land as a whole and this increase across the boardcan be e:plained with the accession of oland to the (# in 200 which enabledolish residents free &ove&ent across (urope, the &a@ority of who& have arrived asecono&ic &i!rants.

/esidents born in Brance, Italy and the #nited tates have increased si!nificantly in

Hackney since 2001, althou!h not on the scale of olish &i!rants.


9/13

are #$ passports, hi!hli!htin! that althou!h Hackney has a hi!h proportion of forei!nborn residentsF take up of )ritish citi8enship is also hi!h.

The hi!hest proportions of non #$ passports in Hackney are fro& (# countries"6.?3% +frican countries "7.3% and -orth +&erica and the Caribbean "2.?3%.

The proportion of Hackney residents with passports fro& -on5(# countries is the 7rd

hi!hest in the country, after 9est&inster "2.23% and $ensin!ton "2.3%. Hackneyranks th hi!hest in the country for +frican passport holders "7.3% with outhwarkshowin! the hi!hest proportion at .3.

4. ational Identity + new uestion was introduced in the 2011 Census to assess people’s Lnational

identity’. The uestion was LHow would you describe your national identityM’ and wasasked @ust before the ethnicity uestion. In response, residents could tick one or &ore of the followin! si: cate!ories' )ritish, (n!lish, 9elsh, cottish, -orthern Irishor ;ther. There was also a write in section to describe national identity where the tickoptions were not sufficient. The uestion was intended to assess which country or nation"s% that people feel &ost affiliated to and enabled residents to provide Censuswith a self perceived, personal cate!orisation of national identity, allowin! the& toseparate identity fro& country of birth and ethnic herita!e if necessary.

In Hackney .3 of residents identified as havin! a #$ national identity and 27.73identified as Dother identities onlyE N it is worth notin! that people could tick as &anybo:es as they wished of the !roups listed. 9ithin the DotherE cate!ory, 11.73

identified as (uropean, 7.3 identified as +frican, 2.63 identified as

9


10/13

+&erican=Caribbean, 2.43 identified as >iddle (astern=+sian, 2.23 identified as +ustralasian and 0.3 identified as DotherE.

eople in Hackney were &ore likely to identify as L)ritish’ than ondoners !enerally"2.?3 vs. 7?3%, but less likely to identify as (n!lish "7.63 vs. 3%. Theproportion identifyin! as Lother’ in Hackney was @ust under the ondon avera!e

"27.73 vs. 24 3%, but si!nificantly above the national avera!e of 63.

7. LanguageThe 2011 Census reveals that 03 of households were (n!lish lan!ua!ehouseholds "all adults with &ain lan!ua!e as (n!lish%F 123 were &i:ed householdswhere (n!lish and other lan!ua!es were the &ain lan!ua!es and 13 werehouseholds (n!lish was not a &ain lan!ua!e. Hackney has a low proportion of (n!lish lan!ua!e households co&pared with the national avera!e "613% but sitsinline with the ondon avera!e "3%. The lowest proportion of (n!lish lan!ua!ehouseholds are in -ewha& "473% and )rent "43%.

Gespite a hi!h proportion of households where (n!lish is not the &ain lan!ua!e,

(n!lish is the &ost widely spoken lan!ua!e in Hackney "4.63%. The proportion of (n!lish speakers is si!nificantly lower than the national fi!ure of 623 and two pointslower than ondon’s fi!ure which stands at .63, and can be attributed toHackney’s diverse &i!rant population.

Hackney’s second &ost widely spoken lan!ua!e is Turkish ".43%, the third hi!hestrate in ondon, after (nfield ".73% and Harin!ey ".63% and is &ore than four ti&esthe rate of ondon as a whole "0.63%, reflectin! Hackney’s lon! established, lar!eTurkish co&&unity. olish "1.3% is the third &ost widely spoken lan!ua!e, hi!her than the proportion for (n!land "13% althou!h lower than the proportion in ondon"1.63%. panish is spoken by 1.43 of Hackney’s population, despite @ust 146"0.3 of the population% listin! pain as their country of birth, providin! further

evidence of an increasin! outh +&erican co&&unity within the borou!h.

-a!le 2$ -o/ ten languages s/oken in Hackney

Language o; ?o/ulation in Hackney

(n!lish 4.6

Turkish .4

olish 1.

panish 1.4

Brench 1.

*iddish 1.7

)en!ali1.7ortu!uese 1.2


11/13

Gespite hi!h levels of proficiency in (n!lish, Hackney has the fifth hi!hest proportionof residents in the country who cannot speak (n!lish at all, althou!h this proportionaccounts for @ust 13 "2,0% of the population. Tower Ha&lets has the hi!hestproportion of residents who cannot speak (n!lish "1.3% in (n!land.

?ro;iciency in English Hackney London England

>ain lan!ua!e is (n!lish4.6 .6 62.0

>ain lan!ua!e is not (n!lish ' Canspeak (n!lish very well 6.6 6.? 7.7

>ain lan!ua!e is not (n!lish' Canspeak (n!lish well ?.2 ?.2 7.0

>ain lan!ua!e is not (n!lish' Cannotspeak (n!lish well 4.0 7.4 1.

>ain lan!ua!e is not (n!lish' Cannotspeak (n!lish 1.0 0. 0.7

Co&parisons to previous Census data are not possible due to the 2011 Census

bein! the first to address lan!ua!es infor&ation.

Households @here no one s/eaks English as a ain language

11


12/13

5. ReligionChristianity re&ains the leadin! belief syste& in Hackney, followed by residents withno reli!ion, >usli&s, Aews and lastly )uddhists, ikhs, Hindus and residents of other reli!ions which to!ether &ake up 7.13 of Hackney’s population. -early one in ten

residents "6.?3% did not state their reli!ion on their Census for&.

Hackney has the third hi!hest proportion of Aewish residents across (n!land"accountin! for .73 of the population% after )arnet "14.23% and Herts&ere "1.73%,si!nificantly hi!her than the ondon avera!e of 1.?3 and the national avera!e of 0.43. ;ver ?43 "17,22% of Hackney’s Aewish residents live in prin!field, -ew/iver, ordship and Ca8enove wards and &ost likely for& part of the lon! standin!orthodo: "Charedi% co&&unity in the north of the borou!h. +ll these wards fall intothe top 20 wards in the country for the hi!hest nu&bers of Aewish residents.

+lthou!h the proportion of Aewish residents is hi!h co&pared to re!ional and nationalfi!ures, it is low co&pared with other population studies that &ake up Hackney’sevidence base. The &ost recent population study, carried out by >ayhew Harper +ssociates was conducted in >arch 2011 "on the sa&e day as Census 2011% andfound that Aewish residents &akeup at least 3 of the population. The low fi!urefound by Census for Aewish residents could be as a result of Aewish residents either bein! less likely to answer the uestion on reli!ion on the Census for& "it is anoptional uestion% and therefore those residents fallin! under the Dreli!ion not statedcate!oryE or the possibility that Aewish residents, alon!side other harder to reach!roups, &ay have been less likely to fill in the Census for& at all.

12


13/13

Changes since 2001;ver one in four residents "2?.23% in Hackney have no reli!ion, up fro& 163 in2001. The increase in people reportin! no reli!ion is inline with the national fi!ure of 24.13 up fro& 1.?3 in 2001. The Dno reli!ionE !roup was the only cate!ory to showsi!nificant !rowth over the past decade, althou!h there has been a &odest increasein the proportion of >usli&, Aewish and )uddhist residents in Hackney since 2001.

The proportion of residents identifyin! as Christian has decreased by ?3 since the2001 Census and now stands at 7?.3. +!ain, this decrease in the proportion of Christian residents &irrors the national trend which has seen a decrease in Christianresidents fro& 1.3 in 2001 to 46.73 in 2011.

The decline in Christianity and increase in residents with no reli!ion is part of anon!oin! local, re!ional and national trend towards &ulticulturalis& and inte!rationthat is happenin! on a national, as well as local and re!ional, scale. +s noted earlier,Hackney saw an increase in &i:ed partnerships and an increase in residents with&i:ed ethnic back!rounds between 2001 and 2011. It &i!ht be e:pected that thesechan!es, to!ether with the fact that around 03 of Hackney’s residents were born

abroad, have resulted in a reduction in the Christian population, or rather an increasein residents with no reli!ious faith and a reduced Christian followin!.

Religion 2001"2011

Religion 2001 * 2011 *

Christian . 7?.

-o reli!ion 16 2?.2

>usli& "3% 17.? 1.1

/eli!ion not stated 12 6.

Aewish 4.7 .7

)uddhist 1.1 1.2ikh 0.6 0.?

Hindu 0.? 0.

+ny other reli!ion 0. 0.4

13

Ethnicity_Identity_Religion_Language_-_Census_Analysis_Paper

Documents

Transcript of Ethnicity_Identity_Religion_Language_-_Census_Analysis_Paper