Why It Matters
Communal Establishment Living
Summary
We have measured the percentage of the local population in a given postcode living in communal living establishments.
Definition
A Communal Establishment is an establishment providing managed residential accommodation. ‘Managed’ in this context means full-time or part-time supervision of the accommodation. Communal establishments include sheltered accommodation units (including homeless temporary shelter), care homes, children’s homes, educational accommodation, as well as prisons, probation or detention centers.
Interpretation
| Dataset | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Percentage of total postcode population living in communal establishments | This tells you the estimated percentage of a postcode’s total population living in communal establishments. |
| Number of residents in Hospitals (including secure units) and in Other Medical and care establishments | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in hospitals, including in secure units, and in other medical and care establishments. |
| Number of residents in Care Homes | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in care homes. |
| Number of residents in Children’s homes (including secure units) | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in children’s care homes (including secure units). While the majority of children in care live with foster carers, about one in 10 children in care live in a residential children’s home. These children often have complex needs that require specialist care and support and a residential home is a better option for them. |
| Number of residents in Educational accommodation | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in educational accommodation. |
| Number of residents in Military and defense establishments | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in military and defense establishments. |
| Number of residents in Prison, probation or detention centres | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in prisons, probation or detention centres. |
| Number of residents in Travel or other temporary accommodation | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in travel or other temporary accommodation. |
| Number of residents in Temporary shelter for the homeless | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in temporary shelter for the homeless. |
| Number of residents in Religious establishments | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in religious establishments. |
| Number of residents in Staff or worker accommodation | This tells you the estimated number of a postcode’s population who reside in staff or worker accommodation. |
| Number of residents in Registered Social Landlord/Housing Association: Sheltered housing only | This tells you the estimated total percentage of all usual residents in this postcode living in sheltered housing units operated by a Registered Social Landlord or Housing Association. These entities are generally non-profit distributing organisations that provide affordable homes (for rent or to purchase) to people that qualify. |
Why the metric matters from a commercial inhabitant’s perspective
Commercial inhabitants would be at a huge advantage if they knew the proportion of people in the immediate vicinity who lived in communal establishments. Of course some of these residents are more visible where they are in a high number in an area associated with this land use for some time-such as an area with a high number of students living in halls of residency- but in most cases it will not be apparent, other than to those in the know, if an area is one where a high proportion of its residents live in communal establishments.
If commercial enterprises are aware of these populations, they can be aware of their particular service needs, requirements for certain goods and services and any possible additional social or security requirements that their presence creates a need for.
Why the metric matters from a residential inhabitant’s perspective
Residents will be interested to know how a high proportion of their fellow residents living in communal establishments will affect the levels of cohesion in their immediate community. Residents living in communal establishments already have existing, pre-defined, hyper-local communities and therefore, do not generally mix with the wider community outside of their establishment as readily as residents who are not part of an institution.
So, if you live in an area which has a high number of nursing homes, for example, then this portion of the community will be less accessible and not at liberty to form their own bonds with their community because the opportunity for those happenstance moments where we meet neighbours have been lessened. The same would be true if a large number of your neighbours in your postcode live in a hall of residence.
General Commentary
Of the approximately 8.2 million usual residents in London, only around 1 per cent live in communal establishments as opposed to households. This is a smaller proportion than is normal in the rest of England and Wales where the figure is closer to 2 per cent, and in real terms means that around 95,000 people are resident in these establishments with around 6,000 staff.
More than four in ten communal establishment residents were in the 15 to 24 age group. The 75 years of age and over age group were the next most well-represented in communal establishments, with this age group accounting for one in four persons in communal establishments.
38 per cent of communal establishment residents were living in a facility that provided medical care or care of some description and the majority of these were private care homes. The next most common type is medical function. This category covers a diverse range of establishments and accounted for 62 per cent of communal establishment residents in the capital in 2011. The largest sub-group was the population resident in educational institutions. Over four in ten (42 per cent) of all communal establishment residents in London were living in an educational establishment in 2011. This group includes both children at boarding school and students in university halls of residence; 86 per cent of residents in an educational establishment were aged 16 to 24.
This is a shift from the previous decade where a higher proportion of those in communal establishments were in facilities providing medical care such as nursing homes and NHS hospitals. Also, those resident in local authority or NHS institutions decreased and those in private hospitals increased. Those in non-care and non-medical establishments increased. Notably the populations of those in prisons and educational establishments increased.
The proportions of various ethnicities also differed between communal establishments and household populations - for instance care homes are overwhelmingly White British/ Irish - they make up 80 per cent of the population, whereas households in London generally are only 47 per cent White British/Irish. The population resident in educational establishments also had a different ethnic mix than the usual household population, at 40 per cent White British/Irish, whereas 29 per cent were Asian and 17 per cent Other White. It will be interesting to see how this mix changes further when Brexit comes into effect and it becomes harder for overseas students to study here due to tougher student visa conditions currently being considered.
Southgate Beaumont care home is an example of private communal living (Photograph: Wikimedia Commons)
Trivia
London is home to one of the country’s oldest, busiest and most overcrowded prisons. Opened in 1842, Pentonville, named after Henry Penton who developed the area, situated on the edge of Clerkenwell in Islington, sees 33,000 movements a year through its reception.
History
The history of the care home as we know it today is relatively recent. The Act for the Relief of the Poor, introduced in England in 1601, was one of the world’s first government-sponsored welfare programs. It distinguished between those who were unable to work and those who refused employment. Under the Poor Law systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, workhouses were created where people who were unable to support themselves, could go to live and work. These were not prisons and people could come and go, but conditions were tough and as being a vagrant was still illegal, many had little choice but to admit themselves.
By the eighteenth century a full sixty per cent of Londoners were still likely to find themselves in receipt of charity, or aid from the local parish when out of work, elderly or infirm. By 1760 approximately 2 per cent of the population of London resided in workhouses, more of which had been created by parishes of London.
By 1905, a Royal Commission recognised that workhouses were unsuitable for the widely differing residents’ needs, but it wasn’t until 1930 that this type of establishment was abolished. By the 1920s, an increasing number of elderly and the infirm were being looked after in convalescent and nursing homes. Despite this increase in numbers (from around 26,000 patients in 1921 to around 55,000 a decade later), the care received was rudimentary and not of high quality. People of means still continued to employ nurses privately to care for their elderly or ill relatives at home where possible. In the decades following, the standard of care in nursing and convalescing homes improved steadily, with services such as central heating, single-occupancy bedrooms and en-suite toilet facilities becoming mandatory.
By 1948, most of the remaining workhouses had been converted into old people’s homes run by local authorities. During the 1980s, private nursing homes surged in number and a greater number of the elderly were being cared for in this sector than in local authority care homes. The change in the provision of care from public to private sector looks set to continue, with around 85 per cent of care being private by the end of the twentieth century as compared to just 18 per cent in the 1980s.