Life Opportunities Survey - Interim results, 2009/10

Life Opportunities Survey

Interim Results 2009/10

Edition No.: 2010

Editor: Tom Howe

Office for National Statistics

Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

ISBN 978-1-85774-710-2

About us

The Office for National Statistics

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial department which reports directly to Parliament. ONS is the UK government’s single largest statistical producer. It compiles information about the UK’s society and economy, and provides the evidence-base for policy and decision-making, the allocation of resources, and public accountability. The Director-General of ONS reports directly to the National Statistician who is the Authority's Chief Executive and the Head of the Government Statistical Service.

The Government Statistical Service

The Government Statistical Service (GSS) is a network of professional statisticians and their staff operating both within the Office for National Statistics and across more than 30 other government departments and agencies.

Contacts

This publication

For information about the content of this publication, contact Tom Howe Tel: 01633 456330 Email: [email protected]

Other customer enquiries ONS Customer Contact Centre Tel: 0845 601 3034 International: +44 (0)845 601 3034 Minicom: 01633 812399 Email: [email protected] Fax: 01633 652747 Post: Room 1015, Government Buildings, Cardiff Road, Newport, South Wales NP10 8XG www.ons.gov.uk


ii

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.ons.gov.uk/



iii

Media enquiries

Tel: 0845 604 1858 Email: [email protected]

Copyright and reproduction

© Crown copyright 2009

Published with the permission of the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI)

You may use this publication (excluding logos) free of charge in any format for research, private study or internal circulation within an organisation providing it is used accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

For re-use of this material you must apply for a Click-Use Public Sector Information (PSI) Licence from:

Office of Public Sector Information, Crown Copyright Licensing and Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU

Tel: 020 8876 3444

www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm


Contents

List of figures and tables xiii

List of contributors xxxi

Acknowledgements xxxii

Executive Summary xxxiii

1 Introduction 1

Background 1

The survey design 3

Defining disability 6

Royal Statistical Society award 9

Interpreting the survey results 9

Standard errors 11

Availability of detailed and unpublished data 12

2 Household characteristics 13

Number of persons per household by region/country 14

Households by age of household head and region/country 14

Households by age and gender of household head 14

Ethnic group of household head by regions/country 15

Age of household head by employment status 15

Marital status of household head 15


iv


3 Participation Restrictions 17

Participation restriction by life area 18

Participation restriction by leisure activity 19

Participation restriction by mode of transport 19

Participation Restriction Index 20

Mean Participation Restriction Index 20

Participation Restriction Index by region 20

Participation Restriction Index by age group 21

Participation Restriction Index by gender 21

Participation Restriction Index by employment status 21

Participation Restriction Index by ethnicity 21

Participation Restriction Index by marital status 21

4 Prevalence of impairments 33

Prevalence of different types of impairments 34

Prevalence of impairments by age 34

Prevalence of impairments by region 35

Prevalence of impairments by gender 35

Prevalence of impairments by ethnicity 35

Prevalence of impairments by employment status 35

5 DDA prevalence rates 45

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by region 46


v


Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Age Group 47

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Gender 47

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Ethnicity 47

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Employment status 47

6 Education and training participation 53

Disabled People as defined by the DDA 53

Educational attainment 53

People with impairments 54

Educational attainment 54

Barriers to learning opportunities by impairment status 54

7 Employment 59


Employment status 59


Employment status 60

Adults in employment 61

Barriers to employment opportunities by impairment status 61

Employment enablers 61

Unemployed adults seeking work 62


Employment enablers by impairment status 62


vi


Economically inactive adults 63


Employment enablers by impairment status 63

8 Economic life and living 73


Financial burden of loan repayments 74


Financial burden of loan repayments 74

Deprivation of items and services: ability to afford expenses 75

Ability to pay usual expenses 75

Reasons for households having difficulty managing financially

76

9 Transport 83

Modes of transport 84





Barriers to using motor vehicles 86

Barriers to using local buses 86

Barriers to using long distance buses 87

Barriers to using the underground 87


vii


Barriers to using local trains 88

Barriers to using long distance trains 88

Barriers to using taxis/minicabs 89

10 Leisure, community and civic life 101

Participation in community, leisure and civic life 101





Barriers to going on holiday 103

Barriers to visiting friends 104

Barriers to spending time with family 105

Barriers to playing sport 105

Barriers to taking part in charitable or voluntary work 106

Barriers to going to museums or historical places of interest 107

Barriers to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity 107

Barriers to going to the library or archive 108

Choice over use of free time 109

11 Social contact 123


Close contacts 123



viii


Close contacts 124

Contact in the last week 124

Frequency of contact 125

Reason for less contact than would like 126

12 Housing 131


Accessing rooms within own home 131


Accessing rooms within own home 132

Barriers to accessing rooms within own home 132

Barriers to getting in or out of your own home 133

13 Accessibility - outside the home 139


Buildings where difficulty with access was experienced 140


Buildings where difficulty with access was experienced 140

Barriers to accessing buildings by impairment status 141

14 Accessibility of public services 145

Experience of accessing public services 145


Experience of using public services 146


ix



Experience of using public services 147

Barriers to accessing health services 147

Barriers to accessing justice services 148

Barriers to accessing benefits and pensions services 148

Barriers to accessing culture, sports and leisure services 149

Barriers to accessing tax services 150

Barriers to accessing social services 150

15 Domestic life and social care 161

Assistance received with everyday activities 161


Source of assistance received 162


Source of assistance received 163

Frequency of assistance received 163

Having a say over assistance received 163

Care provided for other people 164

Time spent caring for others 164

16 Discrimination 173

Discrimination experienced in the past 12 months 173

People identified as being responsible for health or disability related discrimination

174


x


Workplace discrimination experienced 174

17 Crime 179


Experience of crime 179


Experience of crime 180

Hate crime 181

Motivations for hate crime by impairment status 181

18 Children (aged 11 to 15) 185

Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 185

Participation restrictions by DDA defined disability status 186


Participation Restrictions by impairment status 186

Barriers to participation 187

Special Educational Needs (SEN) 187

19 Severity of impairment 191

Severity score 191

Number of impairments 192

Review of method 193

Overview of results 193

Severity of impairment by region 194


xi


Severity of impairment by age group 194

Severity of impairment by gender 195

Severity of impairment by employment status 195

Severity of impairment by life area 196

Severity of impairment by participation restriction 198

20 Methodology 207

Weighting procedure 207

Presentation and interpretation of weighted data 208

Data reliability 209

21 Glossary 213

Appendix A: Links to tables by chapter 223

Appendix B: Links to standard error tables by chapter 225


xii


List of figures and tables

2 Household characteristics

Table 2.1 Number of persons per household by region/country, 2009/10

Table 2.2 Households by age of head and region/country, 2009/10

Table 2.3 Households by age and gender of head, 2009/10

Table 2.4 Households by ethnic group of head and region/country, 2009/10

Table 2.5 Households by age of head and employment status, 2009/10

Table 2.6 Households by marital status of head, 2009/10

3 Participation Restrictions

Figure 3.1 Participation restriction prevalence of adults by life area and impairment status, 2009/10

23

Figure 3.2 Participation restriction prevalence of adults by leisure activity and impairment status, 2009/10

24

Figure 3.3 Participation restriction prevalence of adults by mode of transport and impairment status, 2009/10

25

Figure 3.4 Participation restriction index score of adults by impairment status, 2009/10

26

Figure 3.5 Mean PRI score of adults by GOR and impairment status, 2009/1

27

Figure 3.6 Mean PRI score of adults by age group and impairment status, 2009/10

28

Figure 3.7 Mean PRI score of adults by gender and impairment status, 2009/10

29


xiii

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/downloads/table-2.1.xls







Figure 3.8 Mean PRI score of adults by employment status and impairment status, 2009/10

30

Figure 3.9 Mean PRI score of adults by ethnicity and impairment status, 2009/10

31

Figure 3.10 Mean PRI score of adults by marital status and impairment status, 2009/10

32

Table 3.1 Participation restriction prevalence of adults by life area and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.2 Participation restriction prevalence of adults by leisure activity and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.3 Participation restriction prevalence of adults by mode of transport and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.4 Participation restriction index score of adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.5 Mean PRI score of adults by GOR and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.6 Mean PRI score of adults by age group and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.7 Mean PRI score of adults by gender and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.8 Mean PRI score of adults by employment status and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.9 Mean PRI score of adults by ethnicity and impairment status, 2009/10

Table 3.10 Mean PRI score of adults by marital status and impairment status, 2009/10


xiv












4 Prevalence of impairments

Figure 4.1 Prevalence of different types of impairments for adults by type, 2009/10

37

Figure 4.2 Prevalence of impairments by age for adults, 2009/10

38

Figure 4.3 Eight most common impairment types for adults by age, 2009/10

39

Figure 4.4 Prevalence of impairments for adults by GOR, 2009/10

40

Figure 4.5 Prevalence of impairments for adults by gender, 2009/10

41

Figure 4.6 Eight most common impairment types for adults by gender, 2009/10

42

Figure 4.7 Prevalence of impairments for adults by ethnicity, 2009/10

43

Figure 4.8 Prevalence of impairments for adults by employment status, 2009/10

44

Table 4.1 Prevalence of different types of impairments for adults by type, 2009/10

Table 4.2 Prevalence of impairments for adults by age, 2009/10

Table 4.3 Prevalence of impairment types for adults by age, 2009/10

Table 4.4 Prevalence of impairments for adults by GOR, 2009/10

Table 4.5 Prevalence of impairments for adults by gender, 2009/10

Table 4.6 Prevalence of impairment types for adults by gender, 2009/10

Table 4.7 Prevalence of impairments for adults by ethnicity, 2009/10


xv









Table 4.8 Prevalence of impairments adults by employment status, 2009/10

5 DDA prevalence rates

Figure 5.1 DDA prevalence for adults by GOR, 2009/10 48

Figure 5.2 DDA prevalence for adults by age group, 2009/10 49

Figure 5.3 DDA prevalence for adults by gender, 2009/10 50

Figure 5.4 DDA prevalence for adults by ethnicity, 2009/10 51

Figure 5.5 DDA prevalence for adults by employment status, 2009/10

52

Table 5.1 DDA prevalence for adults by GOR, 2009/10

Table 5.2 DDA prevalence for adults by age group, 2009/10

Table 5.3 DDA prevalence for adults by gender, 2009/10

Table 5.4 DDA prevalence for adults by ethnicity, 2009/10

Table 5.5 DDA prevalence for adults by employment status, 2009/10

6 Education and training participation

Figure 6.1 Summary of educational attainment for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

56

Figure 6.2 Summary of educational attainment of adults by impairment status, 2009/10

57

Figure 6.3 Eight most common barriers to learning opportunities of adults by impairment status, 2009/10

58


xvi








Table 6.1 Summary of educational attainment for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

Table 6.2 Summary of educational attainment of adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 6.3 Barriers to learning opportunities of adults by impairment status, 2009/10

7 Employment

Figure 7.1 Summary of employment status for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

65

Figure 7.2 Summary of employment status for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

66

Figure 7.3 Eight most common barriers to employment opportunities for employed adults by impairment status, 2009/10

67

Figure 7.4 Employment enablers for employed adults by impairment status, 2009/10

68

Figure 7.5 Eight most common barriers to employment opportunities for unemployed adults seeking work by impairment status, 2009/10

69

Figure 7.6 Employment enablers for unemployed adults seeking work by impairment status, 2009/10

70

Figure 7.7 Eight most common barriers to employment opportunities for economically inactive adults by impairment status, 2009/10

71

Figure 7.8 Employment enablers for economically inactive adults by impairment status, 2009/10

72

Table 7.1 Summary of employment status for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10


xvii

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/downloads/table-6.1





Table 7.2 Summary of employment status for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 7.3 Barriers to employment opportunities for employed adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 7.4 Employment enablers for employed adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 7.5 Barriers to employment opportunities for unemployed adults seeking work by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 7.6 Employment enablers for unemployed adults seeking work by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 7.7 Barriers to employment opportunities for economically inactive adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 7.8 Employment enablers for economically inactive adults by impairment status, 2009/10

8 Economic life and living

Figure 8.1 Financial burden of loan repayments for households by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

77

Figure 8.2 Financial burden of loan repayments by household impairment status, 2009/10

78

Figure 8.3 Deprivation of items and services: inability of households to afford expenses, by impairment status, 2009/10

79

Figure 8.4 Ability to pay usual expenses by household impairment status, 2009/10

80

Figure 8.5 Reasons for households having difficulty managing financially by household impairment status, 2009/10

81


xviii









Table 8.1 Financial burden of loan repayment for households by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

Table 8.2 Financial burden of loan repayments by household impairment status, 2009/10

Table 8.3 Deprivation of items and services: inability of households to afford expenses, by impairment status 2009/10

Table 8.4 Ability to pay usual expenses by household impairment status, 2009/10

Table 8.5 Reasons for households having difficulty managing financially by household impairment status, 2009/10

9 Transport

Figure 9.1 Modes of transport used by adults, 2009/10 90

Figure 9.2 Modes of transport used by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults, 2009/10

91

Figure 9.3 Modes of transport used by adults by impairment status, 2009/10

92

Figure 9.4 Eight most common barriers to using a motor vehicle for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

93

Figure 9.5 Eight most common barriers to using a local buses for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

94

Figure 9.6 Eight most common barriers to using a long distance buses for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

95

Figure 9.7 Eight most common barriers to using the underground for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

96

Figure 9.8 Eight most common barriers to using local trains for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

97


xix







Figure 9.9 Eight most common barriers to using long distance trains for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

98

Figure 9.10 Eight most common barriers to using taxis/minicabs for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

99

Table 9.1 Modes of transport used by adults, 2009/10

Table 9.2 Modes of transport used by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults, 2009/10

Table 9.3 Modes of transport used by adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.4 Barriers to using a motor vehicle for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.5 Barriers to using local buses for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.6 Barriers to using long distance buses for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.7 Barriers to using the underground for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.8 Barriers to using local trains for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.9 Barriers to using long distance trains for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 9.10 Barriers to using taxis/minicabs for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

10 Leisure, community and civic life

Figure 10.1 Participation in community, leisure and civic life for all adults, 2009/10

110


xx












Figure 10.2 Participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

111

Figure 10.3 Participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

112

Figure 10.4 Eight most common barriers to going on holiday for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

113

Figure 10.5 Eight most common barriers to visiting friends for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

114

Figure 10.6 Eight most common barriers to spending time with family for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

115

Figure 10.7 Eight most common barriers to playing sport for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

116

Figure 10.8 Eight most common barriers to taking part in charitable or voluntary work for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

117

Figure 10.9 Eight most common barriers to going to museums or historical places of interest for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

118

Figure 10.10 Eight most common barriers to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

119

Figure 10.11 Eight most common barriers to going to the library or archive for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

120

Figure 10.12 Choice over use of free time for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

121

Table 10.1 Participation in community, leisure and civic life for all adults, 2009/10

Table 10.2 Participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10


xxi




Table 10.3 Participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.4 Barriers to going on holiday for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.5 Barriers to visiting friends for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.6 Barriers to spending time with family for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.7 Barriers to playing sport for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.8 Barriers to taking part in charitable or voluntary work for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.9 Barriers to going to museums or historical places of interest for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.10 Barriers to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.11 Barriers to going to the library or archive for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 10.12 Choice over use of free time for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

11 Social Contact

Figure 11.1 Number of close contacts adults reported that they could rely on if they had a problem by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

126

Figure 11.2 Number of close contacts adults reported that they could rely on if they had a problem by impairment status, 2009/10

127

Figure 11.3 Number of close contacts adults met in the past week by impairment status, 2009/10

128


xxii












Figure 11.4 Frequency of social contact by adults in the past week, by impairment status 2009/2010

129

Figure 11.5 Eight most common barriers for adults having less contact than they would like by impairment status 2009/10

130

Table 11.1 Number of close contacts adults reported that they could rely on if they had a problem by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

Table 11.2 Number of close contacts adults reported that they could rely on if they had a problem by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 11.3 Number of close contacts adults met in the past week by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 11.4 Frequency of social contact by adults in the past week by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 11.5 Barriers to adults having less contact than they would like by impairment status, 2009/10

12 Housing

Figure 12.1 Summary of the rooms adults had difficulty getting into by DDA disabled and non disabled, 2009/10

134

Figure 12.2 Summary of the rooms adults had difficulty getting into by impairment status, 2009/10

135

Figure 12.3 Eight most common barriers to accessing rooms within the home for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

136

Figure 12.4 Eight most common barriers to getting in or out of own home for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

137


xxiii







Table 12.1 Summary of the rooms adults had difficulty getting into by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

Table 12.2 Summary of the rooms adults had difficulty getting into by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 12.3 Barriers to accessing rooms within the home for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 12.4 Barriers to getting in or out of own home for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

13 Accessibility outside the home

Figure 13.1 Eight most common buildings where difficulty with accessibility was experienced by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults, 2009/10

142

Figure 13.2 Eight most common buildings where difficulty with accessibility was experienced for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

143

Figure 13.3 Eight most common barriers to accessing buildings for adults by impairment status, 2009

144

Table 13.1 Buildings where difficulty with accessibility was experienced by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults, 2009/10

Table 13.2 Buildings where difficulty with accessibility was experienced for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 13.3 Barriers to accessing buildings for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

14 Accessibility of public services

Figure 14.1 Level of difficulty using public services for all adults, 2009/10

151


xxiv









Figure 14.2 Level of difficulty using public services for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

152

Figure 14.3 Level of difficulty using public services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

153

Figure 14.4 Eight most common barriers to accessing health services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

154

Figure 14.5 Eight most common barriers to accessing justice services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

155

Figure 14.6 Eight most common barriers to accessing benefits and pensions services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

156

Figure 14.7 Eight most common barriers to accessing culture, sports and leisure services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

157

Figure 14.8 Eight most common barriers to accessing tax services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

158

Figure 14.9 Eight most common barriers to accessing social services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

159

Table 14.1 Level of difficulty using public services for all adults, 2009/10

Table 14.2 Level of difficulty using public services for adults by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

Table 14.3 Level of difficulty using public services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 14.4 Barriers to accessing health services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 14.5 Barriers to accessing justice services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 14.6 Barriers to accessing benefits and pensions services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10


xxv








Table 14.7 Barriers to accessing culture, sports and leisure services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 14.8 Barriers to accessing tax services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 14.9 Barriers to accessing social services for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

15 Domestic life and social care

Figure 15.1 Summary of adults level of difficulty with completing everyday activities, 2009/10

165

Figure 15.2 Source of assistance for adults who require it by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

166

Figure 15.3 Source of assistance for adults who require it by impairment status, 2009/10

167

Figure 15.4 Summary of frequency of assistance received for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

168

Figure 15.5 How often adults had a say over the assistance received by impairment status, 2009/10

169

Figure 15.6 Summary of adults caring for other household members (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status, 2009/10

170

Figure 15.7 Summary of adults providing care for other people not living in the household (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status, 2009/10

171

Figure 15.8 Summary of time adults spent caring for others per week by impairment status, 2009/10

172

Table 15.1 Summary of adult's level of difficulty with completing everyday activities, 2009/10

Table 15.2 Source of assistance for adults who require it by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10


xxvi







Table 15.3 Source of assistance for adults who require it by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 15.4 Summary of frequency of assistance received for adults by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 15.5 How often adults had a say over the assistance received by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 15.6 Summary of adults caring for other household members (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 15.7 Summary of adults providing care for other people not living in the household (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 15.8 Summary of time adults spent caring for others per week by impairment status, 2009/10

16 Discrimination

Figure 16.1 Type of discrimination experienced by adults in previous 12 months, 2009/10

175

Figure 16.2 People identified as being responsible for discrimination related to a health condition, illness, impairment or disability in previous 12 months, 2009/10

176

Figure 16.3 Type of discrimination identified by employed adults who experienced workplace discrimination due to a health condition, illness or impairment, or disability in previous 12 months, 2009/10

177

Table 16.1 Type of discrimination experienced by adults in previous 12 months, 2009/10

Table 16.2 People identified as being responsible for discrimination related to a health condition, illness, or impairment, or disability in previous 12 months, 2009/10


xxvii










Table 16.3 Type of discrimination identified by employed adults who experienced workplace discrimination due to a health condition, illness or impairment, or disability in previous 12 months, 2009/10

17 Crime

Figure 17.1 Experience of crime amongst adults in previous 12 months by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

182

Figure 17.2 Experience of crime amongst adults in previous 12 months by impairment status, 2009/10

183

Figure 17.3 Motivations for hate crime experienced by adults in previous 12 months by impairment status, 2009/10

184

Table 17.1 Experience of crime amongst adults in previous 12 months by DDA disabled and non-disabled, 2009/10

Table 17.2 Experience of crime amongst adults in previous 12 months by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 17.3 Motivations for hate crime experienced by adults in previous 12 months by impairment status, 2009/10

18 Children (aged 11-15)

Figure 18.1 Participation Restrictions experienced by DDA disabled and non-disabled children, 2009/10

188

Figure 18.2 Participation Restrictions experienced by children by impairment status, 2009/10

189

Figure 18.3 Eight most common barriers to participation experienced by children by impairment status, 2009/10

190


xxviii






Table 18.1 Participation Restrictions experienced by DDA disabled and non-disabled children, 2009/10

Table 18.2 Participation Restrictions experienced by children by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 18.3 Barriers to participation experienced by children by impairment status, 2009/10

Table 18.4 Children identified as having Special Educational Needs (SEN) and those that are still thought to have Special Educational Needs (SEN), 2009/10

19 Severity of impairment

Figure 19.1 Severity of impairments for adults by GOR, 2009/10 200

Figure 19.2 Severity of impairments for adults by age group, 2009/10

201

Figure 19.3 Severity of impairments for adults by gender, 2009/10

202

Figure 19.4 Severity of impairments for adults by employment status, 2009/10

203

Figure 19.5 Severity of impairments for adults by participation restriction in different areas of life, 2009/10

204

Figure 19.6 Severity of impairments for adults by participation restriction index score, 2009/10

205

Table 19.1 Severity of impairments for adults by GOR, 2009/10

Table 19.2 Severity of impairments for adults by age group, 2009/10

Table 19.3 Severity of impairments for adults by gender, 2009/10

Table 19.4 Severity of impairments for adults by employment status, 2009/10


xxix











xxx

Table 19.5 Severity of impairments for adults by life area, 2009/10

Table 19.6 Severity of impairments for adults by participation restriction index score, 2009/10



Contributors Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

List of contributors

Authors: David Duncan-Fraser

Joanna Bulman

Kara Banahan

Rachael Ryan

Tom Howe

Life Opportunities Survey team: Buffy Matthews

Field Team and Interviewers

Reviewers: Colleagues at the Office for Disability Issues (ODI)

Peter Fullerton

Mike Prestwood


xxxi

Acknowledgments Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Report, 2009/10

Acknowledgments A large scale survey is a collaborative effort and the authors wish to thank the interviewers and other ONS staff who contributed to the study. The authors would also like to thank the Life Opportunities Survey Reference Group for both their contribution and ongoing commitment to the project. Also, the help of respondents who gave up their time to be interviewed is gratefully appreciated, without their cooperation the survey would not be possible.


xxxii

Executive Summary Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Executive Summary The Life Opportunities Survey (LOS) is a new large-scale longitudinal survey of disability in Great Britain. It is the first major ONS social survey in Great Britain to explore disability in terms of the social barriers to participation that people experience, rather than only measuring disability in terms of impairments or health conditions. The LOS compares the experiences of people with and without impairments across a range of areas, including education and training, employment, transport, leisure, social and cultural activities, and social contact.

The LOS is able to produce a variety of estimates based on different definitions of disability, which are explained below.

Defining disability The LOS provides a robust data source for understanding the multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of disability. The social model of disability makes a clear distinction between impairment and disability. Impairments are long-term characteristics of an individual that affect their functioning and/or appearance. Disability, however, is viewed as the disadvantage, or restriction of activity and participation, caused by aspects of society that take little or no account of the needs of people with impairments. In line with the social model, LOS is designed to assess the barriers to participation that people with impairments face.

Disabled people as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act Section 1(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) defined someone as disabled if ‘he or she has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her or his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. The Equalities Act 2010 has subsequently replaced the DDA, although the definition of disability in the Act is similar to that which applied for the purposes of the DDA.

The DDA definition of disability has been the starting point for several government sponsored surveys that assess outcomes for people with rights under the legislation. To allow comparison with other surveys, LOS also included a number of questions based on the DDA definition.1

1 See the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.


xxxiii


People with impairments LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without it limiting their activities, and they may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, as used in the LOS, people must have an impairment and have experienced barriers to participation.2

Participation restrictions An adult has a participation restriction if they experience at least one social barrier to taking part in at least one of the following areas of life (referred to in this report as ‘life areas’):

education and training

employment

economic life and living standards

transport

leisure, social and cultural activities

social contact

accessibility of housing

accessibility outside the home

Examples of social barriers include: discrimination; the attitudes of other people; inaccessible buildings, public transport and information; as well as lack of support, equipment and adjustments.

LOS explores the differences in participation restrictions between people with and without impairments and identifies the range of social barriers to participation.

A participation restriction index (PRI) has been calculated to indicate the level of restrictions experienced by adults in Great Britain. The PRI is a score of between zero and eight that is calculated for each respondent as the sum of their participation restrictions across eight life areas. Please see chapter 3 for further information about the participation restriction index and methodology.

2 See the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.


xxxiv


For more information on the approach taken by LOS for defining disability, please see the LOS User Guide3.

Key findings The key findings of the LOS between June 2009 and March 2010 are presented below.

Disabled people as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act

26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA.

People with impairments

29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment.

Participation restrictions for key life areas

17 per cent of adults with impairments experienced participation restrictions in their learning opportunities compared with 9 per cent of adults without impairments

56 per cent of adults with impairments experienced restrictions in the type or amount of paid work they did, compared with 26 per cent of adults without impairments

74 per cent of adults with impairments experienced restrictions in using transport compared with 58 per cent of adults without impairments

45 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment experienced a participation restriction to economic life and living standards (that is, being able to afford expenses or make loan repayments). This compares with 29 per cent of households without any people with impairments

83 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction in leisure, social and cultural activities compared with 78 per cent of adults without impairments

24 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction to social contact (that is, being able to meet with close contacts as much as they would like) compared to 22 per cent of adults without impairments

12 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction to housing (that is, difficulty accessing rooms within their home or difficulty getting in or out of their home) compared with 1 per cent of adults without impairments

3 The LOS User Guide is available to download from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/life-opp-survey.asp


xxxv


29 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction to accessing buildings outside their home compared with 7 per cent of adults without impairments

Barriers to life areas experienced by adults in Great Britain The following section summarises the top two barriers to participating in different life areas for people with impairments compared with those without impairments. Other reasons related to health conditions, illness or impairment, or disability were also reported by respondents to the survey, as outlined in the main report. The LOS also reported on a variety of social barriers, such as lack of help or assistance, attitudes of other people and caring responsibilities. Where appropriate, enablers to participating in life areas are reported.

Education 12 per cent of all adults reported that they did not have access to all of the learning opportunities they wanted. Around a fifth (17 per cent) of adults with impairments could not access learning opportunities as much as they would like to, compared with around a tenth (9 per cent) of adults without impairments. Of those experiencing participation restrictions to learning opportunities:

The main barrier to learning for adults with impairments was financial reasons (46 per cent). This was also the main barrier among adults without impairments (52 per cent)

Too busy/not enough time was the second most common barrier to learning for adults with impairments (23 per cent). This was also the second most common barrier for adults without impairments (40 per cent)

Employment Employment was reported by 34 per cent of all adults as a life area in which they experienced a participation restriction. 56 per cent of adults with impairments were limited in the type or amount of paid work they did compared with 26 per cent of adults without impairments. This section compares employment outcomes and barriers for people with and without impairments who are in employment, unemployed and seeking work, or economically inactive and not seeking work.

Adults in employment Key findings for employed adults who were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did are outlined in this section.

21 per cent of employed adults were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did. A higher proportion of employed adults with


xxxvi


impairments were limited in this way (33 per cent) than employed adults without impairments (18 per cent)

The most common barrier for adults with impairments was family responsibilities (29 per cent). This was also the most common barrier for adults without impairments (42 per cent)

The second most common barrier for adults with impairments was lack of job opportunities (18 per cent)

The most common enabler for improving employment opportunities for adults with impairments was modified hours or days or reduced work hours. This was identified by 22 per cent of adults with impairments, compared with 16 per cent of adults without impairments

Tax credits was the second most common enabler for improving employment opportunities; identified by 11 per cent of adults with impairments and 7 per cent of adults without impairments

Unemployed adults who were seeking work Key findings for unemployed adults seeking work who were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did are described in this section.

35 per cent of all unemployed adults seeking work were limited in the type or amount of paid work they could do. 50 per cent of unemployed adults with impairments who were seeking work were limited in this way, compared with 29 per cent of unemployed adults without impairments who were seeking work

The most common barrier to work was lack of job opportunities, reported by 41 per cent of adults with and without impairments

The second most common barrier for adults with impairments was difficulty with transport (31 per cent)

The most common enabler that would improve employment opportunities for adults with impairments was modified hours or days or reduced work hours (36 per cent). This was also the most common enabler for adults without impairments (50 per cent)

Tax credits was the second most common enabler identified by 21 per cent of adults with impairments and 12 per cent of adults without impairments

Economically inactive adults Key findings for unemployed adults not seeking work who were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did are described in this section. For adults with impairments the most common reason stated for not seeking work was related to their health condition or impairment (70 per cent). This section


xxxvii



xxxviii

presents findings on other barriers to work, among those experiencing any limitation in the type or amount of work they did.

The most common barrier was family responsibilities, reported by 23 per cent of adults with impairments. This was higher among adults without impairments (68 per cent)

The second most common barrier was anxiety and lack of confidence; identified as a barrier by 19 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 4 per cent of adults without impairments

The most common enabler for adults with impairments was modified hours or days or reduced work hours (26 per cent) compared with 30 per cent of adults without impairments

Having access to equipment to help with a health condition or disability was the second most common enabler identified by 19 per cent of adults with impairments, compared with 1 per cent of adults without impairments

Economic life and living standards Households where at least one person had an impairment found making loan repayments more of a burden and were less able to afford usual expenses compared with households where no one had an impairment. The inability to afford the usual expenses4 provides an indication of material deprivation.

27 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment reported that they found making loan repayments a heavy burden. This compared with 15 per cent of households where no one had an impairment

38 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment could not afford to pay an unexpected but necessary expense of £500 compared with 26 per cent of households where no one had an impairment

32 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment could not afford to pay for a week’s annual holiday away from home compared with 20 per cent of households where no one had an impairment

Transport Respondents to the survey were asked about their usage of a range of different modes of transport. At least one mode of transport was either ‘not used at all’ or ‘used less than they would like’ by 74 per cent of adults with impairments. This compared with 58 per cent of adults without impairments.

4 This list of expenses has been constructed to reflect consumption goods and activities that are typical in a society at a given point in time, irrespective of people’s preferences with respect to these items. These questions are also asked on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and General Lifestyle Survey (GLF).


The main barriers included costs and anxiety or lack of confidence in using transport.

The top two modes of transport that were used ‘less than would like’ or ‘not at all’ for adults with impairments were:

Long distance buses: this was reported fairly similarly by adults with impairments (87 per cent) and those without impairments (85 per cent)

Long distance trains, reported by a higher proportion of adults with impairments (85 per cent) than those without impairments (72 per cent)

The two main barriers for adults with impairments to using long distance buses were:

Cost: identified by 34 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 40 per cent of adults without impairments

Anxiety and lack of confidence: identified by 13 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 3 per cent of adults without impairments

The two main barriers for adults with impairments to using long distance trains were:

Cost: identified by 48 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 65 per cent of adults without impairments

Anxiety and lack of confidence: identified by 12 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 2 per cent of adults without impairments

Leisure, social and cultural activities A higher proportion of adults with impairments (83 per cent) experienced at least one barrier to participation in community, leisure and civic life compared with adults without impairments (78 per cent). Of those experiencing participation restrictions to community, leisure or civic life:

72 per cent of adults with impairments did not play sports as much as they would like to compared with 52 per cent of adults without impairments

35 per cent of adults with impairments reported that they were too busy or didn’t have enough time to play sport as much as they would like to compared with 71 per cent of adults without impairments

18 per cent of adults with impairments reported that it was too expensive to play sport as much as they would like to. Similarly, 18 per cent of adults without impairments gave this reason

69 per cent of adults with impairments did not do charitable or voluntary work as much as they would like to compared with 65 per cent of adults without impairments


xxxix


6 per cent of adults with impairments reported caring responsibilities as a barrier to doing voluntary or charitable work as much as they would like to. Similarly, 6 per cent of adults without impairment reported this barrier

15 per cent of all adults reported having little choice over the use of their free time. A higher proportion of adults with impairments (21 per cent) reported having little choice compared with those without impairments (13 per cent)

Social contact Adults with impairments had contact with fewer people that they were close to and met with them less frequently than adults without impairments.

54 per cent of adults with impairments had six or more close contacts compared with 64 per cent of adults without impairments

A higher proportion of adults without impairments had contact with at least six close contacts in the past week compared with adults with impairments (43 per cent and 35 per cent respectively)

24 per cent of adults with impairments did not meet with close contacts as much as they would like to compared with 22 per cent of adults without impairments

The most common barrier for meeting with close contacts less than they would have liked or not at all, for all adults, was being too busy/not enough time: 77 per cent of adults without impairments and 51 per cent of adults with impairments

For adults with impairments, the second most common barrier for meeting with close contacts less than they would have liked or not at all was other people being too busy, 49 per cent, compared with 45 per cent of adults without impairments

Accessibility of housing A higher proportion of adults with impairments (8 per cent) experienced difficulty getting into at least one room in their own home compared with adults without impairments (less than 1 per cent). Of these:

The most common barrier to accessing rooms for all adults was ‘stairs, lack of ramps/stairlift’: 52 per cent of adults with impairments and 26 per cent of adults without impairments

6 per cent of adults with impairments reported lack of handrails as a barrier to accessing rooms

Accessibility outside the home A higher proportion of adults with impairments (29 per cent) experienced difficulty accessing buildings outside their home compared with adults without


xl


impairments (7 per cent). Shops and hospitals were the most common buildings where difficulty with accessibility was identified for all adults (53 per cent and 31 per cent respectively).

13 per cent of adults experienced one or more of the following difficulties with accessibility:

Getting into all the buildings that they needed to

Moving about and finding their way around buildings

Using the facilities within buildings, for example, using the toilets or purchasing items over the counter

29 per cent of adults with impairments experienced difficulty accessing buildings compared with 7 per cent of adults without impairments.

For the top two categories of buildings where difficulties with accessibility were experienced:

About a half of all adults experienced difficulty accessing shops (53 per cent)

About a third of all adults experienced difficulty accessing hospitals (31 per cent). A greater proportion of adults with impairments (34 per cent) experienced difficulty accessing hospitals compared with adults without impairments (26 per cent)

The barriers identified most often to accessing buildings were:

Moving around the building (stairs, doors, narrow corridors). A greater proportion of adults with impairments identified this as barrier (42 per cent), than those without impairments (30 per cent)

Inadequate lifts or escalators. This was a barrier for 23 per cent of adults with impairments


xli



xlii

Chapter 1 Introduction Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Introduction The Life Opportunities Survey (LOS) is a new large scale longitudinal survey of disability in Great Britain. It is the first major ONS social survey to explore disability in terms of the social barriers to participation that people experience. The survey compares the experiences of disabled people to non-disabled people.

The LOS collects information on:

the participation of disabled people in different areas of life

the barriers that disabled people face to participation

how levels of participation and barriers to participation change over time

This report presents the results from year one of the LOS baseline survey (wave one), for which fieldwork was conducted during 2009/10. The baseline survey takes two years to complete. Full baseline results will be published in autumn 2011. Once the follow up survey (wave two) to the baseline is complete in 2012, change over time will be reported.

The households included in the baseline survey have been randomly selected. This provides a general population sample that includes both disabled and non-disabled people. Therefore the LOS can be used to monitor social barriers according to protected characteristics such as age, gender and ethnicity, as well as disability status.

A broad range of topics are included in the LOS questionnaire. These include: education and training; employment; transport; leisure, discrimination, crime, social and cultural activities; and social contact.

Chapter one of this report provides an introduction to the LOS, describing the background and development of the survey and outputs that can be produced. Chapters 2 to 19 present the interim baseline survey results. Chapter 20 describes the methodology of the survey including adjustments for non-response using weights, and measures of sampling variability.

Background

Requirement for a new survey The last major survey of disability in Great Britain was the Family Resources Survey (FRS) Disability follow up in 1996/97. Prior to that were the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) national surveys of disability

Office for National Statistics 1



carried out during 1985-88. In 2005, the DWP sponsored a feasibility study which recommended that a new dedicated disability survey was required1. The new survey was needed to meet the following long term information needs on experiences of disabled people living in Great Britain:

dynamics of disability over time, including the factors associated with transitions and onsets of disability

social participation by disabled people, and

up-to-date prevalence rates of impairments

Following this, in 2007 the Office for Disability Issues (ODI) commissioned the ONS to develop a new longitudinal survey of disability.

The development of the survey Development began in November 2007. An Expert Advisory Group (EAG) of international experts on disability studies was set up. The EAG provided guidance on design issues such as: the content, length and structure of the questionnaire, sampling, and longitudinal follow-up. The questionnaire has been through numerous rounds of review by disabled people, the EAG, ONS experts, the ODI and other government departments.

The Reference Group Input from disabled people was secured through regular consultation with a Reference Group of 60 disabled people. This reference network has been involved with every stage of the development process. The group has:

influenced the design of the questionnaire in terms of what topics to include

provided invaluable advice on ways of making the survey accessible to as many people as possible

As a result of the reference group’s advice regarding accessibility of the survey, the following survey materials were developed: Braille showcards for respondents who have a sight impairment and read Braille; a large print advance letter inviting sampled households to take part in the survey, which includes a text phone number for respondents to contact the ONS field office; Easy Read documents for people with learning difficulties and/or literacy difficulties; BSL interpreters available for people with hearing difficulties. In addition, the group highlighted that the survey may not be accessible for people with severe learning disabilities or communication difficulties because of the requirement to read detailed show cards. Therefore, a qualitative follow up study was commissioned to collect views of respondents who would not be able to take part in the standard LOS survey. An outline of this study is provided later in this section. 1 Purdon, S., 2005, Meeting DWP’s long-term information needs on disability: A feasibility report



Qualitative testing A phase of qualitative assessment of the questionnaire was completed by qualitative testing experts from Independent Social Research (ISR). The aim of the testing was to explore: how respondents reacted to the proposed questions; how well they understood them; and if they were able and willing to answer them. The questionnaire was tested with: seven focus groups comprised of people with a range of impairments, and one focus group with non-impaired participants. A series of in-depth cognitive interviews were then carried out with people with and without impairments.

Following the cognitive testing improvements were made to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then tested in a feasibility trial undertaken during October 2008. Interviews at 118 addresses took place. The addresses were purposively sampled from the ONS Opinions Survey so that the questionnaire was tested by people with different impairments types and a smaller group of respondents without impairments.

The findings from the qualitative testing and the feasibility trial, summarised in a previous report2, fed into a larger scale pilot in February 2009. The pilot was based on a sample of 610 randomly selected households across Great Britain designed to reflect the design of the national survey. The national survey was launched in June 2009.

Ethical approval The LOS has attained independent ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) for both the development work and the national survey. NRES are a national body funded by the National Health Service and are responsible for granting research projects ethical approval. Attaining ethical approval ensures that ONS has taken appropriate measures so that respondents are fully informed about what taking part in the survey means. It also helps to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable respondents. The LOS was awarded ethical approval by Research Ethics Committees (REC) in England and Wales, and Scotland.

The survey design The LOS has sampled private households in Great Britain, using the small users Postcode Address File (PAF). This means that people in residential institutions, such as: retirement homes, nursing homes, prisons, barracks, university halls of residence, and homeless people, are not in the scope of the survey.

2 Cuddeford, J., Duncan, D., Howe, T. and Glen, F., 2008, Life Opportunities Survey: Developmental Findings, ONS.


The first wave of data collection commenced in June 2009 and will be completed in March 2011. A total of 37,500 households were selected from a random sample from the Postcode Address File. This interim report is based on a total of 18,050 interviews with adults (those aged 16 and over) across 9,950 households, a response rate of 60 per cent from the 16,620 eligible households approached in the first year of wave one fieldwork. The first year of the baseline data collection was conducted quarterly: in June, September, December and March 2009/10.

The longitudinal design Wave two of the survey began in June 2010 and is scheduled for completion in March 2012. Wave two is the first follow up interview for respondents from wave one, and will take place approximately one year after their initial interview.

The longitudinal design of the survey allows comparisons of changes over time between successive waves of the survey. The LOS intends to interview households until they naturally leave the sample (non-contact, death, refusal etc).

Box 1 provides an overview of the longitudinal design of the survey.

Box 1 LOS longitudinal design

June 2009

March 2011

Wave one

Autumn 2011- Interim data and resultsAutumn 2012- Complete wave two data and results

Wave two

March 2012

June 2010

December 2010- Interim data and results December 2011- Complete wave one data and results

The questionnaire Data was collected in the field by Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). The interviewers used a laptop to record the respondents’ answers.




The LOS questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part is the Integrated Household Survey (IHS)3 core module. The core module collects basic demographic information and other household information for all members of the household.

The second part of the questionnaire is the LOS module. This module is administered to each adult4 in the household and they are asked questions about:


employment

economic life and living standards

transport


social contact

housing

accessibility in the home

accessibility of public services

domestic life and social care

discrimination

crime

impairments and health conditions

disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act

income and benefits

Information about impairments and health conditions of children aged 11 to 15 was collected by parental proxy. As well as information about barriers to participation in: education; leisure or play; transport; or personal relationships. Proxy interviews with adults were carried out as a last resort, information about impairments and health conditions is collected.

Qualitative follow up study In order to make the LOS more accessible to learning disabled people, people with a mental health condition or a neuro-diverse condition, a qualitative follow up study was also developed. The intention of the study was to make the LOS inclusive and accessible, by adapting the interviewing

3 The IHS is a composite survey combining questions asked on a number of ONS social surveys. For more information see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15381 4 Adults are defined as persons aged 16 or over. LOS interviews all people aged 16 and over in sampled private households.



methods (in-depth interviewing and ethnography) and survey materials used. The study gathered information about the ways people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions or neuro-diverse conditions participated in education and training; employment; transport; leisure and personal relationships. In addition, the enablers and barriers to participation in each of these life areas were identified. The findings from this study are presented in a separate report5.

Defining disability This section outlines the approach taken by the LOS for defining disability. The approach taken was to design a survey which adheres to the social model and provides a robust data source for understanding the multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of disability. Other models of disability are the bio-psychosocial model and the medical model.

The social model The social model makes a clear distinction between impairment and disability. Impairments are long-term characteristics of an individual that affect their functioning and/or appearance. Disability however, is viewed as the disadvantage, or restriction of activity and participation, caused by aspects of society which take little or no account of the needs of people with impairments.

ICF: The bio-psychosocial model The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (also referred to as the bio-psychosocial model), was developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The ICF presents disability as a process bringing together medical, societal and individual factors. When developing the LOS questionnaire, we learned from the extensive international work that has been carried out to implement the ICF in other countries6. This has been useful for standardising international comparisons on outcomes for people with impairments, which is of increasing importance following ratification of the UN Convention of Rights of Disabled People. Our methods of classifying impairments are compatible with this approach.

5 The Life Opportunities of Disabled People: Qualitative research with people with learning, memory and neuro-diversity impairments report is available to download from http://www.odi.gov.uk/ disability-statistics-and-research/life-opportunities-survey.php 6 See UN Statistics Division: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/citygroup/washington.htm

http://www.odi.gov.uk/%20disability-statistics-and-research/life-opportunities-survey.php

http://www.odi.gov.uk/%20disability-statistics-and-research/life-opportunities-survey.php

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/citygroup/washington.htm


The medical model The medical model defines disability with reference to what is ‘wrong’ with the person, and how they are thought to differ from what is ‘normal’. The implication is that the way to overcome barriers to inclusion is to treat or cure the individuals medical conditions and impairments.

The approach used by the LOS In the LOS data are collected on impairments but the presence of an impairment is not equated with disability. In the survey, disability is measured as any additional disadvantage that may be experienced by people with impairments when compared to people without impairments. Disability is therefore a product of the social barriers to participation in different life areas experienced by people with impairments. Social barriers to participation in work, education or leisure activities may include: discrimination; the attitudes of other people; inaccessible buildings, public transport or information; as well as lack of support, assistance and adjustments. In the survey, the additional disadvantage experienced in each area is referred to as a participation restriction.

The questionnaire was developed using the ICF as a model to classify impairments and measure participation restrictions. The social and environmental topics outlined in the ICF Framework were developed, expanded and tailored to the common social barriers experienced by disabled people in Great Britain. Advice from the Reference Group of disabled people and questionnaire testing was used in this process.

The questionnaire asks respondents about their participation in a number of life areas, including employment, education and leisure activities. For each life area, the questionnaire ascertains whether respondents participate as much as they would like to. In cases where people don’t, respondents are asked what is stopping them from taking part. Respondents choose from a variety of social and economic options; as well as a health condition, illness or impairment; or disability. The latter response options were included because findings from qualitative questionnaire testing showed that some respondents preferred to use terms such as ‘health condition, illness or impairment’ or ‘a disability’ to explain reasons for their participation restriction.

This approach will enable the LOS to identify the differences in participation restrictions between people with and without impairments and identify the range of barriers to participation. Estimates are provided for each of the topics included in the LOS questionnaire.



This report provides estimates of the proportion of people with impairments who experience additional disadvantage compared to people without impairments. Estimates are provided for each of the topics included in the LOS questionnaire.

Estimates are also provided of the prevalence of different physical and mental impairments. This is important for identifying which groups are more/less likely to experience social disadvantage. Details of how impairment status is determined are given below.

In addition, an estimate of people with rights according to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) is provided. Section 1(2) of the DDA generally defined someone as disabled if “he or she has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her or his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”. From 1 October 2010, provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (EA) replaced the majority of provisions in the DDA. In general, the definition of disability in the EA is similar to that which applied for the purposes of the DDA. Unlike the DDA, it does not require a disabled person to demonstrate that, where their impairment adversely affects their ability to carry out a normal day-to-day activity, that activity involves one of a specified list of capacities, such as mobility, speech, or the ability to understand.

The Disability Equality Duty 2006 (DED) is part of the DDA 2005 and requires public authorities to pay due regard to disability issues when carrying out their functions. Its accompanying codes of practice provided good practice guidance on how government departments and other public bodies can meet the DED and assess the impact of their policies and services on disabled people and measure progress towards disability equality7.

The DDA definition of disability has therefore been the starting point for several government sponsored surveys, such as the Family Resources Survey8, in order to assess outcomes for people with rights under the legislation. LOS has also included a short suite of DDA definition questions, which will allow comparison of statistics on outcomes for disabled people with other surveys.

The questions are based upon the wording of the DDA definition, as described above. Everyone in these survey estimates would meet the definition of disability in the DDA; although these estimates do not reflect the total number of people who were covered by the DDA, or who are now covered by the EA. 7 http://www.dotheduty.org 8 For further information about the Family Resources Survey see: http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/




Disability discrimination legislation also extends rights to other groups, including; people with impairments who would meet the definition of a disabled person in the absence of medication or treatment, people with progressive conditions, the effects of which are likely to meet the definition, and people who, in the past, met the definition of a disabled person. For full details see the EA9. In this interim report, LOS estimates on the prevalence of DDA defined disabled people are based upon people who are currently disabled, although the questionnaire does cover questions on other groups, so further analysis on outcomes for the wider population of people with rights under the EA will be possible.

More information about the approach taken by the LOS for defining disability can be seen in the LOS User Guide10.

Royal Statistical Society award The LOS was awarded the Excellence in Official Statistics for Innovation and Development award by the Royal Statistical Society in June 2010. The award recognised the innovative approach the LOS has taken in measuring disability across Great Britain. It also reflects the use of improved data collection methods, in order to ensure the survey is accessible to respondents with impairments.

Interpreting the survey results

Terms used The terms and categories used in this report are generally the same as those used in the survey questions. Detailed definitions of these terms and categories are provided in the glossary at the end of the report.

Impairment status Impairments relate to the loss of physiological and psychological functions of the body such as loss of sight, hearing, mobility or learning capacity. Impairments should be distinguished from medical conditions or loss of bodily structure. For example glaucoma is a medical condition; loss of vision is the impairment it causes. Activity limitations are restrictions an individual may have in executing physical or mental tasks or actions as a result of their impairment, for example, being unable to read newsprint at arms length without glasses or other aids and adaptations.

9 http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx 10 The LOS User Guide is available to download from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/life-opp-survey.asp


The LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves, as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

Impairment status is defined from responses to the Impairments and health conditions section of the LOS questionnaire. The approach we have taken is similar to the Northern Ireland Survey of Activity Limitation and Disability (NISALD)11, which uses a similar set of impairment screener questions. A respondent is defined as having an impairment if they indicated the following within the impairments and health conditions section of the questionnaire:

they experience either moderate, severe or complete difficulty within at least one area of physical or mental functioning, and

certain activities are limited in any way as a result. ‘Activities’ refer to different areas of physical or mental functioning, such as walking, climbing stairs or reading a newspaper12

It is therefore possible for adults to have more than one impairment. The survey includes questions about physical, mental and long term health conditions. Within the report impairment status will be described as adults/household with or without impairments.

The derivation of impairment status applied was carried out after data collection. However, all respondents could select a health condition, illness or impairment, or a disability as a reason related to participation restriction. Therefore, the tables and charts included in the report could show adults defined as without impairments who have selected these reasons.

Data validation and weighting The results shown in this report reflect the data collected by the LOS, following a process of validation and adjustment for non-response using weights that control for a number of factors. For more information see chapter 20: Methodology.

All percentages presented in the tables or charts are based on weighted data. The unweighted bases are given and represent the number of 11 Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2007, The Prevalence of Disability and Activity Limitations amongst adults and children living in private households in Northern Ireland 12 This differs from the NISALD impairment definition as those who have indicated that they had a number of mild difficulties with each limiting their activities 'sometimes' are excluded.



people/household interviews in the specified group, rounded to the nearest 10.

Standard errors Figures in the report are subject to sampling variability. Standard errors for estimates provided in each table are available in spreadsheet format linked within appendix B. For more description about standard errors, see chapter 20: Methodology. Figures shown for particular groups of households (e.g. household composition groups), regions or other subsets of the sample are subject to larger sampling variability. So these figures are more sensitive to possible extreme values than figures for the sample as a whole.

The standard errors can be used to calculate confidence intervals around the estimates, which give a range in which the true value for the population is likely to fall. For more detail on how to calculate confidence intervals see chapter 20: Methodology. For estimates based on small sample sizes the standard errors and resulting confidence intervals will be larger, indicating the estimate is less reliable. Confidence intervals should be taken into consideration when making comparisons between figures.

Calculating percentages Percentages reported throughout the document have been calculated using population estimates rounded to integers. For the full baseline report unrounded population estimates will be used. When calculating percentages, the values of residual categories such as ‘no answer’ or ‘don’t know’ have been excluded in the denominator. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest 1 per cent, so in some cases the sum of individual percentages differs slightly from 100 per cent. Percentages are rounded to zero when there are less than three adults contributing to an estimate.

Non response and missing information The information from a household which co-operates in the survey may be incomplete. This can be because of: a partial refusal (e.g. to income); or because information was collected by proxy, therefore certain questions were omitted from the interview; or because a particular item was missed because of a lack of understanding or an error.

Households who did not co-operate at all are omitted from all the analysis. Those who omitted whole sections because they were partial refusals or interviewed by proxy are omitted from the analyses of that section. The ‘no answers’ arising from omission of particular items have been excluded from the base numbers shown in the tables and from the bases used when




calculating percentages. The number of ‘no answers’ is generally less than 0.5 per cent of the total.

Missing answers are excluded from the tables and in some cases this is reflected in the sample bases, i.e. these numbers vary between tables. For this reason, the weighted bases are excluded from tables as they are not recommended as a source for population estimates. Recommended data sources for population estimates for most socio-demographic groups are: ONS mid-year estimates, the Labour Force Survey, or Housing Statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Statistical significance Unless otherwise stated, changes and differences mentioned in the text have been found to be statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level.

Availability of detailed and unpublished data The charts in this report provide summary results. Each of these is linked to a spreadsheet giving the source data, and often more detailed results. The spreadsheets can be accessed by clicking on the chart.

It is also possible to request the Executive Summary of this report in alternative formats such as Large Print, Braille, Audio or Easy Read. Hard copies of the full report can also be purchased. Contact the LOS team by email [email protected], by telephoning 01633 456330, or using the following minicom number +44 (0) 1633 815044 .

At the time of writing this report it is planned to make publicly available a baseline (year one) dataset from February 2011 via the UK Data Archive. Details on access arrangements and associated costs can be found at http://www.data-archive.ac.uk or by telephoning +44 (0) 1206 872001.


http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/

Chapter 2 Household characteristics Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Household characteristics This chapter presents summary characteristics of households in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. The data presented in this chapter are grossed to the private household population in Great Britain. This means that people in residential institutions, such as retirement homes, nursing homes, prisons, barracks or university halls of residences, and also homeless people are excluded from the analysis in this report. Between June 2009 and March 2010 the LOS achieved 9,950 household interviews across Great Britain. Grossed to the population this represents approximately 25 million private households.

For some topics it is necessary to select one person in the household to indicate the characteristics of the whole household. The LOS uses the Household Reference Person (HRP) for this purpose. The HRP is either the sole occupier of the household, the person with the highest income or the oldest member of the household (for further information see the Glossary, Chapter 21).Throughout this chapter the HRP is referred to as the Household head.

This chapter has been included to provide information about the demographics of the households included within the sampled population. The following demographic characteristics of households are presented in this chapter:

Household size by region/country

Age of household head by region/country

Age of household head by gender

Ethnic group of household head by region

Age of household head by employment status

Marital status of household head

Breakdowns by religion and sexual identity are not provided due to the small sample sizes for some of the categories available in the interim dataset. When the full wave one dataset is available these breakdowns should be provided.

Unless otherwise stated, changes and differences mentioned in the text have been found to be statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level.



Figures in the report are subject to sampling variability. Standard errors for estimates provided in each table are available in spreadsheet format linked within appendix B.

Number of persons per household by region/country Table 2.1 gives a summary of the number of people per household by region/country. Across Great Britain there were a larger proportion of two person households (35 per cent), than any other household size. This was followed by one person households (30 per cent). In terms of countries, Scotland had a greater proportion of one person households (38 per cent), than England (29 per cent) or Wales (33 per cent). Scotland also had the highest proportion of two person households (37 per cent) compared with 30 per cent of households in Wales. Wales had a higher proportion of three or more person households (37 per cent) than Scotland (25 per cent).

Looking at the regions in England, the North East had the highest proportion of one and two person households (70 per cent) compared with the South East which had the lowest proportion (61 per cent). London had the highest proportion of five or more person households (9 per cent) compared with the South West which had the lowest proportion (4 per cent).

Households by age of household head and region/country Table 2.2 shows that there was little difference in the proportion of household heads from each age group for Great Britain and for England, Wales and Scotland. Looking at the regions in England, London had the highest proportion of household heads aged 25 to 34 (21 per cent), followed by Yorkshire and Humberside (16 per cent). For all other regions within England there was little difference in the proportion of household heads for this age group.

Households by age and gender of household head Table 2.3 gives a summary of households by the age and gender of the household head. The household head was more likely to be male (61 per cent) than female (39 per cent). The majority of household heads were aged 45 and over (62 per cent) with 29 per cent of all household heads being over state pension age (60 and over for females and 65 and over for males).






Ethnic group of household head by regions/country Table 2.4 shows that the majority of household heads in Great Britain (92 per cent) were white. This varied slightly by country, for England 91 per cent of household heads were white compared with 99 per cent in Wales and 98 per cent in Scotland. Looking at the regions in England, the North East had the highest proportion of household heads that were white (98 per cent) compared with London which had the lowest proportion (70 per cent).

Age of household head by employment status Table 2.5 shows that 51 per cent of household heads were employees, with a further 26 per cent being workless-retired from paid work. For those that were full-time self employed the household head was more likely to be 40 to 44 years old (17 per cent). Household heads were also more likely to be 40 to 44 years old for full-time employees (15 per cent) and for workless-unemployed (16 per cent). For those that were workless-retired from paid work the household heads were more likely to be 70 to 74 years old (22 per cent). For those that were workless-other inactive, the household head was more likely to be younger than for the other groups with 15 per cent aged 20 to 24.

Marital status of household head Table 2.6 shows that 46 per cent of household heads were married and living with their husband/wife. 25 per cent of household heads were single, that is never married, 13 per cent were divorced and 12 per cent were widowed.







Chapter 3 Participation restrictions Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Participation Restrictions This chapter presents a summary of the participation restrictions faced by adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. An adult has a participation restriction if they experience at least one social barrier to taking part in at least one of the following life areas:


employment

economic life and living standards, for example being able to afford expenses or make loan repayments

transport


social contact



The social barriers to participating in each life area are described in chapters 6 to 13. Examples of social barriers include: discrimination; the attitudes of other people; inaccessible buildings, public transport and information; limited income; not having anyone to meet or speak to; as well as lack of support, equipment and adjustments.

All results in this chapter are presented using the barriers to participation (social model) approach to measuring disability. LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To satisfy the social model of disability LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

This chapter includes a summary of participation restriction by a number of protected characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity and disability. Breakdowns by religion and sexual identity are not provided due to the small sample sizes for some of the categories available in the interim dataset. When the full wave one dataset is available these breakdowns should be provided.



The charts which appear at the end of this chapter provide summary results. Each of these is linked to a spreadsheet giving the source data, and often more detailed results. The spreadsheets can be accessed by clicking on the chart.



Participation restriction by life area Figure 3.1 shows participation restriction prevalence by life area and impairment status.

87 per cent of adults reported they had a participation restriction in one or more life area; 93 per cent of adults with impairments, compared with 84 per cent of adults without impairments. 13 per cent of all adults did not have any participation restrictions.

Leisure, social and cultural activities (after this shortened to leisure activities) was the life area where most adults experienced at least one participation restriction (79 per cent of adults), followed by transport (63 per cent of adults). Breakdowns of participation restriction prevalence rates by leisure activity and mode of transport are provided in the next two sections of this chapter.

Employment was reported by 34 per cent of all adults as a life area in which they experienced a participation restriction. 56 per cent of adults with impairments were limited in the type or amount of paid work they could do; compared with 26 per cent of adults without impairments.

Economic life was reported by 34 per cent of all households as a life area in which they experienced a participation restriction, for example by not being able to afford usual expenses or make loan repayments. 45 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment experienced a participation restriction to economic life, compared with 29 per cent of households without any people with impairments.

The additional disadvantage experienced by people with impairments is presented in table 3.1 and other relevant tables as a ratio. The ratio is calculated by dividing the percentage of people with impairments who experienced at least one participation restriction, by the percentage of people without impairments who also experienced at least one participation



restriction. Thus a ratio of one would indicate that people with impairments and people without impairments experience the same level of participation restriction. The more the ratio exceeds one, the greater the additional disadvantage experience by people with impairments.

The life area in which the ratio was highest is housing. Adults with impairments were 13 times more likely than adults without impairments to experience a participation restriction to housing (getting into at least one room in their home). Adults with impairments were four times more likely to experience a participation restriction to accessing buildings than adults without impairments. Adults with impairments were twice as likely to experience a participation restriction to employment than adults without impairments.

Participation restriction by leisure activity Figure 3.2 shows participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity and impairment status.

The activity reported most often by all adults (66 per cent) as something they experienced a restriction to participating in was charitable or voluntary work; 69 per cent of adults with impairments, compared with 65 per cent of adults without impairments. 72 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction to playing sport, compared with 52 per cent of adults without impairments. Therefore adults with impairments were almost one and a half times more likely to experience a participation restriction to playing sport than adults without impairments.

Adults with impairments were 1.2 times more likely to experience a participation restriction than adults without impairments to each of the following leisure activities: going on holiday; visiting friends; spending time with family; going to a museum or place of historic interest; and going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity.

Participation restriction by mode of transport Figure 3.3 shows participation restriction prevalence by mode of transport and impairment status.

Local buses, long distance buses and the underground were each identified by 25 per cent of all adults as a mode of transport they experienced a participation restriction to using. 36 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction to using long distance buses, compared with 21 per cent of adults without impairments. Local buses and the underground were both identified by 34 per cent of adults with



impairments as a mode of transport they experienced a participation restriction to using, compared with 21 per cent of adults without impairments.

26 per cent of adults with impairments experienced a participation restriction to using a motor vehicle compared with 12 per cent of adults without impairments. Therefore adults with impairments were just over twice as likely to experience a participation restriction to using a motor vehicle as adults without impairments. Similarly, adults with impairments were just under twice as likely to experience a participation restriction to using taxis or minicabs as adults without impairments.

Participation Restriction Index The Participation Restriction Index (PRI) is a score of between zero and eight that is calculated for each respondent as the sum of their participation restrictions across eight life areas (those listed on page 18). For example, if an individual was restricted in the work that they could do, and in the learning opportunities they could take part in, their PRI score would be two.

Table 3.4 shows the percentage of adults with each PRI score by impairment status. 87 per cent of all adults reported they had a participation restriction in one or more life area. 20 per cent of all adults had a participation restriction in only one life area; 13 per cent of adults with impairments, compared with 23 per cent of adults without impairments. 66 per cent of all adults had a participation restriction in more than one life area; 80 per cent of adults with impairments, compared with 61 per cent of adults without impairments.

Mean Participation Restriction Index The remainder of the chapter presents the mean PRI score by impairment status for the following demographic characteristics: Government Office Region (GOR); age group; gender; economic status; ethnicity; religion and marital status.

Adults with impairments had a higher mean PRI score than adults without impairments, 3.0 compared with 2.0.

Participation Restriction Index by Government Office Region Figure 3.5 shows the mean PRI score by GOR and impairment status.

Adults with impairments living in the North West, London and the South West had a mean PRI score of 3.1 (compared with 2.0, 2.2 and 2.1 for adults without impairments respectively). Adults with impairments living in the West Midlands had a mean PRI score of 2.7 (compared with a mean PRI score of 1.9 for adults without impairments).



Participation Restriction Index by age group Figure 3.6 shows the mean PRI score by age group and impairment status.

Adults with impairments aged between 16 and 39 had a mean PRI score of 3.3 compared with 2.2 for adults without impairments. Adults with impairments aged between 40 and 64 had a mean PRI score of 3.3 compared with 2.0 for adults without impairments. Adults with impairments aged 65 and over had a mean PRI score of 2.5, compared to 1.4 for adults without impairments.

Participation Restriction Index by gender Figure 3.7 shows the mean PRI score by gender and impairment status.

The mean PRI score for all female adults was 2.5 compared with 2.1 for all male adults. The mean PRI score was higher for females with impairments; 3.1 compared with 2.2 for females without impairments. Similarly, the mean PRI score for males with impairments was 2.9; compared with 1.8 for males without impairments.

Participation Restriction Index by employment status Figure 3.8 shows the mean PRI score by employment status.

Adults classified as ‘workless- sick or disabled’ had the highest mean PRI score of 4.2; 4.3 for adults with impairments compared with 3.0 for adults without impairments. Adults classified as ‘workless- unemployed’ had the second highest mean PRI score of 3.0; 3.6 for adults with impairments compared with 2.7 for adults without impairments. When comparing adults with impairments in full-time work, self employed adults had a lower mean PRI score when compared with employed adults (2.4 and 2.7 respectively).

Participation Restriction Index by ethnicity Figure 3.9 shows the mean PRI score by ethnicity and impairment status. Asian or Asian British adults with impairments had a mean PRI score of 3.5 compared with 2.3 for Asian or Asian British adults without impairments. White adults with impairments had a mean PRI of 3.0 compared with 2.0 for white adults without impairments.

Participation Restriction Index by marital status Figure 3.10 shows the mean PRI score by marital status and impairment status. Adults with impairments who were single, that is never married, had a mean PRI of 3.2 compared with 2.1 for adults without impairments who were single, that is never married. Adults with impairments who were married and living with their husband or wife had a mean PRI of 2.8 compared with 1.9 for



adults without impairments who were married and living with their husband or wife.



Figure 3.1 Participation restriction3 prevalence of adults¹ by life area and impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Education andtraining

Employment

Economic life andliving standards³

Transport

Leisure, social andcultural activities

Social contact

Housing

Accessibilityoutside the home

Percentage

adults without impairments² adults with impairments² all adults

1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the

LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 3 Participation restriction to economic life and living standards is calculated at household

level. For the definition of household please see Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report,

2009/10. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 3.2 Participation restriction prevalence of adults1 by leisure activity and impairment status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Going on holiday

Visiting friends

Spending time withfamily

Playing sport

Charitable orvoluntary work

Going to a museumor place of historic

interest

Going to the theatre,cinema or other arts

activity

Percentage



LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 3.3 Participation restriction prevalence of adults1 by mode of transport and impairment status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Motor vehicle

Local buses

Long distance buses

Underground

Local trains

Long distance trains

Taxis/minicabs

Percentage







Figure 3.4 Participation restriction index1 score of adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PR

I sco

re

Percentage

adults without impairments³ adults with impairments³ all adults

1 Participation Restriction Index (PRI) is a score of between zero and eight that is

calculated for each respondent as the sum of their participation restrictions across eight life areas.






Figure 3.5 Mean PRI score1 of adults2 by Government Office Region and impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

North East

North West

Yorkshire andHumberside

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Mean PRI

adults without impairments³ adults with impairments³ all adults 1 Participation Restriction Index (PRI) is a score of between zero and eight that is







Figure 3.6 Mean PRI score1 of adults2 by age group and impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

16-39

40-64

65+

Ag

e g

rou

p

Mean PRI









Figure 3.7 Mean PRI score1 of adults2 by gender and impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Male

Female

Mean PRI









Figure 3.8 Mean PRI score¹ of adults² by employment status and impairment status³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Full-time - selfemployed

Full-time - employee

Part-time -employee

W orkless - retiredfrom paid work

W orkless -unemployed

W orkless - sick ordisabled

W orkless - otherinactive

M ean PRI

adults w ithout impairments³ adults w ith impairments³ all adults

4




LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 4 All respondents regardless of impairment status could belong to this group. Source: Office for National Statistics





Figure 3.9 Mean PRI score1 of adults2 by ethnicity and impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.

White

Mixed

Asian or AsianBritish

Black or BlackBritish

Chinese or OtherEthnic Group

Mean PRI

0









Figure 3.10 Mean PRI score1 of adults² by marital4 status and impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Single, that is nevermarried

Married and livingwith your

husband/wife

A civil partner in alegally-recognisedCivil Partnership

Married andseparated from your

husband/wife

Divorced

Widowed

Mean PRI





LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 4 People that are cohabiting could be included in all response options apart from ‘Married

and living with husband/wife’ and ‘A civil partner in a legally recognised Civil Partnership’.

Source: Office for National Statistics


Chapter 4 Impairments and health conditions Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Prevalence of impairments This chapter presents a summary of the prevalence of impairments and health conditions for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Prevalence of impairments are reported by type of impairment, age group, Government Office Region (GOR), gender, ethnicity and employment status.

LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

Impairment status is defined from responses to the Impairments and health conditions section of the LOS questionnaire. The approach taken is similar to the Northern Ireland Survey of Activity Limitation and Disability (NISALD)1, which uses a similar set of impairment screener questions. A respondent is defined as having an impairment if they indicated the following within the impairments and health conditions section of the questionnaire:

they experience either moderate, severe or complete difficulty within at least one area of physical or mental functioning, and

certain activities are limited in any way as a result. ‘Activities’ refer to different areas of physical or mental functioning, such as walking, climbing stairs or reading a newspaper 2

It is therefore possible for adults to have more than one impairment. The survey includes questions about physical, mental and long term health conditions. Within the report impairment status will be described as adults/household with or without impairments.

The derivation of impairment status applied was carried out after data collection. However, all respondents could select a health condition, illness or impairment, or a disability as a reason related to participation restriction.

1 Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2007, The Prevalence of Disability and Activity Limitations amongst adults and children living in private households in Northern Ireland 2 This differs from the NISALD impairment definition as those who have indicated that they had a number of mild difficulties with each limiting their activities 'sometimes' are excluded.




Therefore, the tables and charts included in the report could show adults defined as without impairments who have selected these reasons.

The following sections present a summary of impairment prevalence for adults with and without impairments. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.




Prevalence of different types of impairments Figure 4.1 shows the prevalence of different types of impairments for all adults. The highest prevalence of impairments or health conditions was an impairment associated with long-term pain (18 per cent). This was followed by chronic health conditions3 (12 per cent). Intellectual impairments had the lowest prevalence rate (less than 1 per cent).

Prevalence of impairments by age Figure 4.2 shows the breakdown of impairment prevalence rates by age group for adults. The prevalence of impairments was found to increase with age. The highest prevalence of impairments was reported for adults aged 85+ (66 per cent). The lowest adult age group presented (16 to 19 year olds) had the lowest prevalence of impairments (11 per cent). Figure 4.3 illustrates the eight most prevalent impairments amongst all adults by type and age group. As reported in Figure 4.1, the most prevalent impairment for all adults was long-term pain. 31 per cent of adults aged 75+ reported experiencing long-term pain compared to 6 per cent of 16 to 34 year

3 The chronic health conditions listed in the questionnaire were: asthma or severe allergies; heart condition or disease; kidney condition or disease; cancer; diabetes; epilepsy; cerebral palsy; spina bifida; cystic fibrosis; muscular dystrophy; migraines; arthritis or rheumatism; multiple sclerosis (MS); paralysis of any kind; any other long-term condition not already covered.


olds. For the 16 to 34 year old age group long-term pain was the most prevalent impairment type (6 per cent). For adults aged 75+ the second highest reported impairment was chronic health conditions (29 per cent). Adults aged 35 to 54 reported the highest prevalence of mental health conditions (6 per cent), followed by the 55 to 74 year old age group (4 per cent).

Prevalence of impairments by Government Office Region Figure 4.4 shows the prevalence of one or more impairments among adults by type and GOR. Within England there was some regional variation of impairment prevalence. The lowest prevalence rate was in London (25 per cent). The highest prevalence of impairments was reported in the North East (34 per cent). This was followed by Yorkshire and Humberside and the East Midlands (both 31 per cent).

Prevalence of impairments by gender Figure 4.5 shows the prevalence of one or more impairments among adults by gender. About a quarter of male adults (26 per cent) and almost a third of adult females (31 per cent) had one or more impairments.

Figure 4.6 shows the eight most prevalent impairments among all adults by type and gender. Women had a higher prevalence of long-term pain than men (20 per cent and 15 per cent respectively). Women also had a higher prevalence of chronic health conditions than men (14 per cent and 11 per cent respectively).

Memory impairments were experienced fairly equally by men and women (both 3 per cent).

Prevalence of impairments by ethnicity Figure 4.7 shows the prevalence of one or more impairments among adults by ethnicity. White adults and those of a mixed ethnicity had the highest prevalence of impairments (both 29 per cent).

Prevalence of impairments by employment status Figure 4.8 illustrates the prevalence of one or more impairments among adults by employment status. The highest prevalence of impairments was for those who were classified as workless-sick or disabled. For this group 93 per cent had one or more impairments.




The second highest prevalence rate was for adults who were classified as workless-retired from paid work (48 per cent). This is consistent with the results in Figure 4.5 where prevalence is shown to increase with age. The third highest prevalence rate was for adults who were unemployed (27 per cent).

Those with the lowest prevalence rate were full-time employees (16 per cent). There was a higher prevalence rate for adults in part-time3 work than adults in full time employment (21 per cent).

3 Includes employees and self employed.


Figure 4.1 Prevalence of different types of impairments1 for adults2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20

Sight

Hearing

Speaking

Mobility

Dexterity

Long term pain

Breathing

Learning

Intellectual

Behavioural

Memory

Mental health condition

Chronic health conditions

Other impairment or health condition

Percentage

all adults

1 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10.

2 Persons aged 16 and over. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 4.2 Prevalence of impairments1 by age for adults2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

16-19

25-29

35-39

45-49

55-59

65-69

75-79

85+

Percentage

adults with impairments¹ adults without impairments¹

1 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the

LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 4.3 Eight most common impairment1 types for adults2 by age, 2009/10

Great Britain

Percentage

all adults 75+55 - 7435 - 54 16 - 34

Hearing

Memory

Sight


Dexterity

Mobility


Long term pain

3530 25 2015105 0






Figure 4.4 Prevalence of impairments¹ for adults2 by Government Office Region, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

North East

North West

Yorkshire and the Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London (Inner & Outer)

South East

South West

England

Wales

Scotland

Great Britain

Percentage








Figure 4.5 Prevalence of impairments¹ for adults2 by gender, 2009/10

Great Britain



0 20 40 60 80 100

Male

Female


Percentage



Figure 4.6 Eight most common impairment types1 for adults2 by gender, 2009/10

Great Britain

Percentage

all adultsFemaleMale

Hearing

Memory

Sight


Dexterity

Mobility


Long-term pain

2015 1050


LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 4.7 Prevalence of impairments1 for adults2 by ethnicity, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

White

Mixed




Percentage








Figure 4.8 Prevalence of impairments1 for adults² by employment status, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Full-time self-employed

Full-time employee

Part-time work³

Workless - retiredfrom paid work

Workless -unemployed

Workless - sick ordisabled

Workless - otherinactive

Percentage


4


LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Includes employees and self employed. 4 International Labour Organisation definition. Source: Office for National Statistics


Chapter 5 DDA prevalence rates Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

DDA prevalence rates This chapter presents a summary of disabled adults, as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Section 1(2) of the DDA 1995 generally defined someone as disabled if ‘he or she has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her or his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. From 1 October 2010, provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (EA) replaced the majority of provisions in the DDA. In general, the definition of disability in the EA is similar to that which applied for the purposes of the DDA. Unlike the DDA, it does not require a disabled person to demonstrate that, where their impairment adversely affects their ability to carry out a normal day-to-day activity, that activity involves one of a specified list of capacities, such as mobility, speech, or the ability to understand.

Everyone in these survey estimates would meet the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA); although these estimates do not reflect the total number of people covered by the DDA or the EA. Disability discrimination legislation also extends rights to other groups, including; people with impairments who would meet the definition of a disabled person in the absence of medication or treatment, people with progressive conditions, the effects of which are likely to meet the definition, and people who, in the past, met the definition of a disabled person. For full details see the EA1.

In order to assess outcomes for people who are likely to have rights under the legislation, the DDA definition of disability has been the starting point for several government sponsored surveys. To allow comparison of outcomes with other surveys, the LOS has also included a short suite of DDA definition questions, based on the Family Resources Survey2 questions. For more details of disability definitions in LOS please see the Introduction of the LOS Interim Report 2009/10.

In this interim report, LOS estimates on the prevalence of DDA defined disabled people are based upon people who are currently disabled, although the questionnaire does cover questions on other groups mentioned in the paragraphs above, so further analysis on outcomes for the wider population of people with rights under the EA will be possible.

1 http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx 2 http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/



26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA.

This chapter provides breakdowns of DDA prevalence by the following groups:

• Government Office Region (GOR)

• Age group

• Gender

• Ethnicity

• Employment Status




Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Government Office Region Figure 5.1 shows the breakdown of the DDA prevalence rates by Government Office Region (GOR). There were no statistically significant differences in the DDA prevalence rates between England, Wales and Scotland.

Within England there was some regional variation in the DDA prevalence rate. The lowest reported prevalence rate was in London, with a DDA prevalence of 21 per cent. The highest rates of DDA prevalence were reported in the North East and North West (33 per cent and 29 per cent respectively).



Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Age Group Figure 5.2 shows the breakdown of DDA prevalence rates by age group. The DDA prevalence rate was found to increase with age. Adults aged below 25 had a DDA prevalence rate of 8 per cent; the lowest of all age groups. The highest DDA prevalence rate was observed for those adults aged 85 and over, with a DDA prevalence rate of 69 per cent.

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Gender Figure 5.3 shows the breakdown of DDA prevalence rates by gender. The DDA prevalence rate for females was 27 per cent compared with a lower rate of 24 per cent for males.

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Ethnicity Figure 5.4 shows the breakdown of DDA prevalence rates by ethnicity. The DDA prevalence rate for white adults was 27 per cent, higher than Asian or Asian British adults (19 per cent).

Prevalence rates of DDA defined disability by Employment status Figure 5.5 shows the breakdown of DDA prevalence rates by employment status. The DDA prevalence rate for adults who were ‘workless-sick or disabled’ was 91 per cent; higher than any other employment status group. The second highest DDA prevalence rate was observed amongst workless-retired from paid work adults (52 per cent); this is consistent with the results in figure 5.1 where DDA prevalence is shown to increase with age. The third highest DDA rate was observed amongst adults who were workless-ILO3 unemployed (20 per cent). The remaining employment status groups all had similar DDA prevalence rates below 20 per cent.

3 International Labour Organisation definition. Please refer to definition included in Chapter 21 of the LOS interim report.



Figure 5.1 DDA prevalence2 for adults¹ by Government Office Region, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

North East

North West

Yorkshire and Humberside

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

England

Wales

Scotland

Great Britain

Percentage

DDA disabled adults² Non-disabled adults²

1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 Please refer to the definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS

Interim Report, 2009/10. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 5.2 DDA prevalence2 for adults¹ by Age Group, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

16 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 to 69

70 to 74

75 to 79

80 to 84

85 and over

Percentage 0


0 20 40 60 80 10

16 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 to 69

70 to 74

75 to 79

80 to 84

85 and over

Percentage

0


1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 Please refer to the definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS

Interim Report, 2009/10. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 5.3 DDA prevalence2 for adults¹ by Gender, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Female

Male

Percentage


1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim

Report, 2009/10. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 5.4 DDA prevalence2 for adults¹ by Ethnicity, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

White

Mixed




Percentage

0







Figure 5.5 DDA prevalence2 for adults¹ by Employment Status, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

Full time self-employed

Full timeemployee

Part-time work

Workless - retiredfrom paid work

Workless - ILOUnemployed³

Workless - sick ordisabled

Workless - otherinactive

Percentage

0


4


Report, 2009/10. 3 International Labour Organisation definition.

Please refer to definition included in Chapter 21 of the LOS interim report. 4 Includes employees and self employed. Source: Office for National Statistics




Chapter 6 Education and training participation Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Report, 2009/10

Education and training participation This chapter presents a summary of educational attainment and the barriers to learning opportunities for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Results for educational attainment are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.




Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of estimates of educational attainment for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Educational attainment Figure 6.1 shows the breakdown of educational attainment by disabled adults, aged 16-69, as defined by the DDA. The table summarises the highest level of qualification that adults have received from school, college or since leaving education.

14 per cent of DDA disabled adults had a degree level qualification compared with 25 per cent of non-disabled adults. 30 per cent of disabled adults, as

1 Everyone in these survey estimates would meet the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA); however, these estimates do not reflect the total number of people covered by the DDA or the Equalities Act 2010.



defined by the DDA, stated they had no formal qualifications compared with 13 per cent of non-disabled adults.

People with impairments LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

The following sections present a summary of educational attainment and the barriers to learning opportunities for adults with and without impairments. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Educational attainment Figure 6.2 shows the breakdown of educational attainment for adults, aged 16-69, with and without impairments. The table summarises the highest level of qualification that adults have received from school, college or since leaving education.

15 per cent of adults with impairments had a degree level qualification compared with 25 per cent of adults without impairments. 14 per cent of adults with impairments stated they had ‘other qualifications’2 compared with 11 per cent of adults without impairments.

Barriers to learning opportunities by impairment status This section presents results for the 12 per cent of all adults who reported that they did not have access to all of the learning opportunities they wanted. Around a fifth (17 per cent) of adults with impairments were restricted for some reason compared with around a tenth (9 per cent) of adults without impairments. Therefore adults with impairments were around twice as likely to experience a participation restriction to learning opportunities than adults without impairments.

Figure 6.3 shows the eight most common barriers to learning opportunities by impairment status. The reason given most often by all adults was financial 2 The qualifications listed in the questionnaire were degree level; higher educational level; A-levels or Highers; ONS/National Level BTEC; O Level or GCSE equivalent (Grade A-C) or O Grade/CSE equivalent (Grade 1) or Standard Grade level 1-3; GCSE grade D-G or CSE grade 2-5 or Standard Grade level 4-6.


reasons (49 per cent); 52 per cent of adults without impairments gave this reason compared with 46 per cent of adults with impairments.

Difficulty with transport was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (18 per cent) than those without impairments (8 per cent). Similarly adults with impairments gave attitudes of other people as a barrier more often than adults without impairments (9 per cent and 4 per cent respectively). Too busy/not enough time was identified as a barrier more often by adults without impairments (40 per cent) than those with impairments (23 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (32 per cent) and disability (20 per cent) were also given in relation to why they could not access learning opportunities as much as they would like to. 15 per cent of adults with impairments gave both these reasons.



Figure 6.1 Summary of educational attainment for adults¹ by DDA disabled² and non-disabled adults, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Degree level qualification (or equivalent)

Higher educational qualification belowdegree level

A-Levels or Highers

ONC / National Level BTEC

O Level or GCSE equivalent (Grade A-C)or O Grade/CSE equivalent (Grade 1) or

Standard Grade level 1-3

GCSE grade D-G or CSE grade 2-5 orStandard Grade level 4-6

Other qualifications (including foreignqualifications below degree level)

No formal qualifications

Percentage

Non-disabled adults² DDA Disabled adults² all adults

1 Persons aged between 16 and 69. 2 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim





Figure 6.2 Summary of educational attainment of adults1 by impairment status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Higher educational qualification belowdegree level

A-Levels or Highers

ONC / National Level BTEC

O Level or GCSE equivalent (Grade A-C)or O Grade/CSE equivalent (Grade 1) or

Standard Grade level 1-3

GCSE grade D-G or CSE grade 2-5 orStandard Grade level 4-6

Other qualifications (including foreignqualifications below degree level)


Percentage


1 Persons aged between 16 and 69. 2 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim






Figure 6.3 Eight most common barriers1 to learning opportunities for adults2 by impairment3 status, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Financial reasons

Too busy/not enough time

Lack of information

No learning opportunitiesavailable

A health condition, illness orimpairment

Lack of help or assistance

Difficulty with transport

Other

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all barriers that applied to them from the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options. 2 Persons aged 16 and over with a barrier to learning opportunities. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. Source: Office for National Statistics



Chapter 7 Employment Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Report, 2009/10

Employment This chapter presents a summary of employment status and the barriers to employment opportunities and employment enablers for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Results for employment status are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.




Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of employment status for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. For the purpose of comparability with other datasets and employment indicators this section presents results using the old working age definition (males 16 to 64 and females 16 to 59). Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Employment status Figure 7.1 shows the breakdown of employment status for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 48 per cent of all working age adults were in full-time employment. 51 per cent of non-disabled adults of working age were in full-time employment compared with 31 per cent of DDA disabled adults. 69 per




cent of working age non-disabled adults were either in full-time employment or part-time work2 compared with 46 per cent of working age disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. The proportion of adults who were unemployed was about the same for working age DDA disabled and non-disabled adults (7 per cent and 6 per cent respectively). Similarly, the proportion of full-time self employed was fairly similar for working age DDA disabled and non-disabled adults (5 per cent and 7 per cent respectively).


The following sections present a summary of employment status for adults with and without impairments, along with employment barriers and enablers. Employment barriers and enablers are reported for the following groups:

adults in employment, who were restricted in the type or amount of paid work that they did

unemployed adults seeking work, who were restricted in the type or amount of paid work that they could do, and

economically inactive adults

29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Employment status Figure 7.2 shows the breakdown of employment status for all adults aged 16 and over, with and without impairments. 43 per cent of adults without impairments were in full-time employment compared with 21 per cent of adults with impairments. The proportion of adults unemployed was the same for adults with and without impairments (5 per cent). 37 per cent of adults with impairments were workless-retired from paid work compared with 16 per cent of adults without impairments which reflects the age distribution of adults with




impairments. The proportion of full-time self employed was fairly similar for both adults with and without impairments (4 per cent and 6 per cent respectively).

Adults in employment This section presents results for employed adults who were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did.

21 per cent of employed adults were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did. 33 per cent of employed adults with impairments were limited compared with 18 per cent of employed adults without impairments. Therefore employed adults with impairments were around twice as likely to experience a participation restriction to work than employed adults without impairments.

Barriers to employment opportunities by impairment status Figure 7.3 shows the eight most common barriers to employment for employed adults by impairment status. The reasons given most often by all employed adults were family responsibilities and lack of job opportunities (38 per cent and 16 per cent respectively). Lack of job opportunities were given fairly equally by adults with impairments (18 per cent) and those without impairments (16 per cent). Lack of qualifications, experiences and skills were identified as a barrier to employment more often by people with impairments (16 per cent) than those without impairments (11 per cent).

Anxiety/lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (9 per cent) than those without impairments (2 per cent). Family responsibilities were identified as a barrier more often by adults without impairments than those with impairments (42 per cent and 29 per cent respectively).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (35 per cent) and disability (15 per cent) were also given in relation to why they were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they did. 9 per cent of adults with impairments gave both of these reasons.

Employment enablers Figure 7.4 shows the breakdown of employment enablers for employed adults by impairment status. The most common enabler reported for all employed adults was modified hours or days or reduced work hours (17 per cent); this enabler was reported by 22 per cent of adults with impairments and 16 per cent of adults without impairments. Tax credits was the second most common enabler for all employed adults (8 per cent); identified by 11 per cent of adults with impairments and 7 per cent of adults without impairments. Building



modifications were only identified by 1 per cent of adults with impairments as helping them at work. The proportion of adults with impairments who received some form of assistance or adjustments at work was higher than the proportion of adults without impairments.

Unemployed adults seeking work This section presents results for unemployed adults seeking work who were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they could do3.

35 per cent of all unemployed adults seeking work were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they could do. 50 per cent of unemployed adults with impairments who were seeking work were limited compared with 29 per cent of unemployed adults without impairments who were seeking work. Therefore unemployed adults with impairments seeking work were around twice as likely to experience a participation restriction to work than unemployed adults without impairments seeking work.

Barriers to employment opportunities by impairment status Figure 7.5 shows the eight most common barriers to employment opportunities for unemployed adults seeking work by impairment status. The reason given most often by all unemployed adults seeking work was lack of job opportunities (41 per cent). Anxiety/lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (16 per cent) than those without impairments (7 per cent). The most common barrier for adults without impairments was lack of job opportunities (41 per cent), followed by family responsibilities (36 per cent). Difficulty with transport was identified as a barrier fairly equally by adults with impairments (31 per cent) and those without impairments (27 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (43 per cent) were given most often in relation to why they were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they could do.

Employment enablers by impairment status Figure 7.6 shows the breakdown of employment enablers for unemployed adults seeking work by impairment status. The top two enablers given were the same as for adults in employment: modified hours or days or reduced work hours and tax credits (44 per cent and 16 per cent respectively).

Modified hours or days or reduced work hours were given as an enabler more often by adults without impairments (50 per cent) than those with impairments

3 The definition of unemployed in this section is not consistent with the ILO definition as availability to start work in the two weeks after interview is not checked.



(36 per cent). Tax credits were given as an enabler more often by adults with impairments (21 per cent) than those without impairments (12 per cent). Modified duties, and changes to work area or work equipment were identified as enablers more often by unemployed adults with impairments (13 per cent and 8 per cent respectively) than those without impairments (both 3 per cent). A job coach or personal assistant was given as an enabler fairly equally for both adults with and without impairments (6 per cent and 7 per cent respectively).

Economically inactive adults This section presents results for economically inactive adults4.

Barriers to employment opportunities by impairment status Figure 7.7 shows the eight most common barriers to employment opportunities for economically inactive adults by impairment status. Anxiety/lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (19 per cent) than those without impairments (4 per cent). Similarly adults with impairments gave difficulty with transport as a barrier more often than adults without impairments (11 per cent and 3 per cent respectively). Family responsibilities were identified as a barrier more often by adults without impairments (68 per cent) than those with impairments (23 per cent). Caring responsibilities, lack of qualifications/experience/skills and lack of job opportunities were reported as a barrier more or less equally by adults with and without impairments.

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (70 per cent) and disability (42 per cent) were given most often in relation to why they were limited in the type or amount of paid work that they could do.

Employment enablers by impairment status Adults who were economically inactive were asked what factors, if any, would enable them to work. Figure 7.8 shows the breakdown of employment enablers for economically inactive adults by impairment status. The most common enabler for all economically inactive adults was modified hours or reduced work hours (28 per cent). This is in line with the enablers identified by employed adults and unemployed adults seeking work.

For adults with impairments the second most common enabler identified was equipment to help with a health condition or disability (19 per cent). A job

4 Please refer to definition of economically inactive included in Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10.



coach or personal assistant was identified as an enabler more often by adults with impairments (7 per cent) than those without impairments (1 per cent). For adults without impairments the second most common enabler was tax credits (9 per cent).



Figure 7.1 Summary of employment status for adults¹ by DDA disabled² and non-disabled, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Full-time - self employed


Part-time work

Workless - retired from paidwork

Workless - unemployed

Workless - sick or disabled³

Workless - other inactive

Percentage

Non-disabled adults² DDA disabled adults² all adults

4

1 Old working age definition (males aged 16-64, females aged 16-59). 2 Please refer to the definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS

Interim Report, 2009/10. 3 All respondents regardless of disability status could belong to this group. 4 Includes employees and self employed. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 7.2 Summary of employment status for adults¹ by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Full-time - self employed


Part-time work

Workless - retired from paidwork

Workless - unemployed

Workless - sick or disabled³

Workless - other inactive

Percentage


4


LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 3 All respondents regardless of impairment status could belong to this group. 4 Includes employees and self employed. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 7.3 Eight most common barriers1 to employment opportunities for employed adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Family responsibilities

Other reasons

Lack of job opportunities


Lack ofqualifications/experience/skills

Attitudes of employers

Caring responsibilities


Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all barriers that applied to them from the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options.

2 Persons aged 16 and over in employment who were limited in the type or amount of paid work they did.






Figure 7.4 Employment enablers1 for employed adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25

Modified hours or days orreduced work hours

Modified duties

A job coach or personalassistant

Changes to work area or workequipment

Equipment to help with a healthcondition or disability

Building modifications

Tax credits

Other equipment or services

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all enablers that applied to them from the list of

options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options.

2 Persons aged 16 and over and in employment. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 7.5 Eight most common barriers1 to employment opportunities for unemployed adults2 seeking work by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50






Other reasons

Anxiety/lack of confidence


Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who were unemployed and seeking work and were limited in the type and amount of paid work that they could do. The definition of unemployed in this chart is not consistent with the ILO definition as availability to start work in the two weeks after interview is not checked.






Figure 7.6 Employment enablers1 for unemployed adults2 seeking work by impairment3 status, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50


Modified duties

A job coach or personal assistant




Tax credits


Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all enablers that applied to them from the list of


2 Persons aged 16 and over who were unemployed and seeking work. The definition of unemployed in this chart is not consistent with the ILO definition as availability to start work in the two weeks after interview is not checked.






Figure 7.7 Eight most common barriers1 to employment opportunities for economically inactive adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80



A disability


Other reasons




Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who were economically inactive. Please refer to definition of economically inactive included in Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10.






Figure 7.8 Employment enablers1 for economically inactive adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


Modified duties

A job coach or personal assistant




Tax credits


Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all enablers that applied to them from the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options.

2 Persons aged 16 and over who were economically inactive. Please refer to definition of economically inactive included in Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10.





Chapter 8 Economic life and living Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Economic life and living This chapter presents a summary of how households are managing financially in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Breakdowns of households’ ability to make loan repayments are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

The results in this chapter are reported at household level, with questions having been answered by either the Household Reference Person (HRP), or the spouse of the HRP. The HRP is either the sole occupier of the household, the person with the highest income or the oldest member of the household (for further information see the Glossary, Chapter 21).




Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of the financial burden experienced making loan repayments by households with at least one disabled person, as defined by the DDA. 22 per cent of households in Great Britain had at least one DDA disabled person. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.



Financial burden of loan repayments Figure 8.1 shows a breakdown of the financial burden experienced making loan repayments by households with at least one disabled person, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of households with at least one DDA disabled person reported that they found making loan repayments a heavy burden. This is higher than those households with no DDA disabled people (16 per cent). Almost half of households with no DDA disabled people reported that they found making loan repayments no burden at all (46 per cent). This compares with 43 per cent of households with at least one DDA disabled person.


The following sections present a summary of the financial burden experienced making loan repayments and managing financially by household impairment status. Further breakdowns of households’ ability to afford both material items and usual expenses are also reported. Finally, the reasons for households having difficulty managing financially are also examined. 26 per cent of households in Great Britain had at least one person with an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Financial burden of loan repayments Figure 8.2 shows a breakdown of the financial burden experienced making loan repayments by household impairment status. 27 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment reported that they found making loan repayments a heavy burden. This is higher than those households without any people with impairments (15 per cent). Almost half of households without any people with impairments reported that they found making loan repayments no burden at all (48 per cent). This compares to 40 per cent of households where at least one person had an impairment.




Deprivation of items and services: ability to afford expenses Figure 8.3 shows a breakdown of the inability of households to afford expenses2 by household impairment status.

6 per cent of all households could not afford to eat meat, chicken or fish every second day (or vegetarian equivalent); this result did not vary by household impairment status. 9 per cent of all households could not afford to keep their home adequately warm. Households where at least one person had an impairment were less able to keep their home warm (12 per cent) compared with households with no people with impairments (6 per cent).

25 per cent of all households could not afford to pay for an annual week’s holiday away from home. A higher proportion of households where at least one person had an impairment could not afford an annual week’s holiday away from home (32 per cent) compared with those households without any people with impairments (20 per cent). Similarly, households where at least one person had an impairment were less able to afford to pay for an unexpected, but necessary, expense of £500 (38 per cent) compared with those households without a person with impairments (26 per cent). 2 per cent of all households could afford none of the expenses listed.

Ability to pay usual expenses² Figure 8.4 provides a breakdown of households’ ability to pay their usual expenses by household impairment status. Households without people with impairments found it easier to afford their usual expenses than households with either some or all people having impairments.

46 per cent of all households were able to pay their usual expenses fairly easily. A lower proportion of households where all people had impairments (40 per cent) were able to pay usual expenses fairly easily compared with households with no people with impairments (49 per cent). Similarly, a higher proportion of households without people with impairments were able to pay usual expenses very easily (23 per cent) compared with households where at least one person had an impairment (16 per cent).

A lower proportion of households with people with no impairments reported great difficulty paying their usual expenses (5 per cent) compared with those households where at least one person had an impairment (10 per cent). 13 per cent of households with all people having impairments reported great difficulty paying usual expenses; higher than those households with one but not all people in the household having impairments (10 per cent). 2 This list of expenses has been constructed to reflect consumption goods and activities that are typical in a society at a given point in time, irrespective of people’s preferences with respect to these items. These questions are also asked on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and General Lifestyle Survey (GLF).


Reasons for households having difficulty managing financially Figure 8.5 shows a breakdown of the reasons households had difficulty managing financially by household impairment status. Only households which reported some (26 per cent) or great (8 per cent) difficulty making ends meet are included in this analysis.

80 per cent of all households reported limited income as the main reason for having a difficulty managing financially. This result was similar for all households, regardless of impairment status. An increase in the cost of living was the second most prevalent reason for households having difficulty managing financially (62 per cent). Households where at least one person had an impairment had more difficulties managing financially due to an increased cost of living (64 per cent) than those households without any people with impairments (60 per cent).

14 per cent of households reported that they had a difficulty budgeting, this did not vary by household impairment status.

Financial difficulty caused by costs related to a health condition, illness or impairment was reported by 13 per cent of those households where at least one person had an impairment. 9 per cent of households with at least one person with impairments reported other costs related to disability as the cause for financial difficulty.




Figure 8.1 Financial burden of loan repayments1 for households2 with DDA disabled3 and non-disabled people, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 5

A heavyburden/struggle

A slightburden/struggle

Not aburden/struggle

at all

Percentage

0

households with all non-disabled people³

households with at least one DDA disabled person³

all households

1 Based on households who have at least one person responsible for repaying a credit

card, hire purchase or other loans (excluding mortgage repayments or other loans connected with the accommodation).

2 Please refer to definition included in Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim





Figure 8.2 Financial burden of loan repayments1 by household2 impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 5

A heavyburden/struggle

A slightburden/struggle

Not aburden/struggle

at all

Percentage

0

households without any people with impairments³households where at least one person had an impairment³all households

1 Based on households who have at least one person responsible for repaying a credit card, hire purchase or other loans (excluding mortgage repayments or other loans connected with the accommodation).

2 Please refer to definition included in Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the




Figure 8.3 Deprivation of items and services: inability of households1 to afford expenses by impairment status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40

To pay for a weeks annual holidayaway from home

To eat meat, chicken or fish everysecond day (or vegetarian

equivalent)

Pay an unexpected, but necessaryexpense of £500

To keep your home adequatelywarm

Percentage

households without any people with impairments³households where at least one person had an impairment³all households







Figure 8.4 Ability to pay usual expenses by household1 impairment status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 5

With greatdifficulty

With somedifficulty

Fairly easily

Very easily

Percentage

0

households without any people with impairments²households where at least one but not all people have impairments²households where all people have impairments²all households





Figure 8.5 Reasons for households1 having difficulty2 managing financially4 by household impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Limited income

Increased cost of living

Difficulty in budgeting

Costs related to a health condition,illness or impairment

Costs related to a disability

Percentagehouseholds without any people with impairments³households where at least one person had an impairment³all households

1 Please refer to definition included in Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 2 Households who reported some or great difficulty making ends meet. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the

LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 4 Question answered by the Household Reference Person (HRP) or Spouse of HRP;

respondents were asked to choose all reasons that applied. Source: Office for National Statistics





Chapter 9 Transport Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Transport This chapter presents a summary of the modes of transport used, and the barriers to these modes of transport for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Results for the modes of transport used in the 12 months prior to the interview taking place are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction to this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

The modes of transport presented in this chapter are:

motor vehicles (car, van, motorcycle or moped)

local buses

long distance buses

the underground

local trains

long distance trains, and

taxis/minicabs

The charts in this chapter include barriers to using the modes of transport listed above for the following groups:

adults who have not used any of the transport types above as much as they would like and have experienced at least one barrier using that mode of transport, and

adults who do not use the transport types above because of at least one barrier experienced when using the mode of transport

The option ‘do not need or want to’ was available for respondents to select as a reason for not using different modes of transport. This option has not been classified as a barrier and has been excluded from both the reporting and charts within this chapter. This option has been included in the tables for information purposes only.





Unless otherwise stated, changes and differences mentioned in the text have been found to be statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level,


Modes of transport This section presents results for adults who have used each of the modes of transport. Figure 9.1 shows a breakdown of whether adults aged 16 and over in Great Britain have used different modes of transport:

more than they would like

as much as they would like

less than they would like, or

not at all

The most frequently used mode of transport by all adults was motor vehicles. 97 per cent of all adults reported using this mode of transport in the past 12 months. Motor vehicles had the highest proportion of all adults reporting using this mode of transport as much as they would like (70 per cent).

Following motor vehicles, other frequently used modes of transport were local buses and taxis/mini cabs (both 60 per cent). Of these adults, a higher proportion reported using taxis/minicabs (47 per cent) as much as they would like compared with local buses (42 per cent). The mode of transport used the least was long distance buses (17 per cent).

Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of modes of transport used by disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Modes of transport Figure 9.2 presents results for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, who have used each mode of transport:




as much as they would like, or

less than they would like or not used at all

63 per cent of DDA disabled adults used motor vehicles as much as they would like compared with 72 per cent of non-disabled adults. A higher proportion of non-disabled adults used the underground as much as they would like (33 per cent) compared with disabled adults, as defined by the DDA (17 per cent). 39 per cent of DDA disabled adults used taxis/minicabs as much as they would like compared with 50 per cent of non-disabled adults.

A higher proportion of DDA disabled adults (28 per cent) used motor vehicles less than they would like or not all compared with non-disabled adults (14 per cent). A higher proportion of DDA disabled adults reported using the underground less than they would like or not at all (80 per cent) compared with non-disabled adults (62 per cent). 73 per cent of DDA disabled adults reported using local trains less than they would like to or not at all compared with 54 per cent of non-disabled adults. 86 per cent of DDA disabled adults reported using long distance trains less than they would like to or not at all compared with 72 per cent of non-disabled adults.


The following sections present a summary of the modes of transport used, and barriers to these modes of transport for adults with and without impairments. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Modes of transport 74 per cent of adults with impairments did not use at least one mode of transport either at all, or as much as they would like because of experiencing at least one barrier, compared with 58 per cent of adults without impairments.

Figure 9.3 presents results for adults who have used each mode of transport by impairment status:



as much as they would like, or

less than they would like or not used at all

61 per cent of adults with impairments used motor vehicles as much as they would like compared with 73 per cent of adults without impairments. 39 per cent of adults with impairments used taxis/minicabs as much as they would like compared with 50 per cent of adults without impairments.

A higher proportion of adults with impairments (27 per cent) used motor vehicles less than they would like or not at all compared with adults without impairments (14 per cent). Adults with impairments were more likely to report using the underground less than they would like or not at all (78 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (62 per cent). 71 per cent of adults with impairments reported using local trains less than they would like to or not at all compared with 54 per cent of adults without impairments. 85 per cent of adults with impairments reported using long distance trains less than they would like to or not at all compared with 72 per cent of adults without impairments.

Barriers to using motor vehicles This section presents results for the 16 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty accessing motor vehicles. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced difficulty accessing motor vehicles (26 per cent) than those without impairments (12 per cent).

Figure 9.4 reports the eight most common barriers to using a motor vehicle for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was cost (50 per cent). This was followed by too busy or not having enough time (15 per cent).

The motor vehicle not being available when needed was identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (15 per cent) than those with impairments (11 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (29 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not use motor vehicles as much as they would like.

Barriers to using local buses This section presents results for the 25 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty accessing local buses. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced difficulty using local buses (34 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (21 per cent).



Figure 9.5 reports the eight most common barriers to using local buses for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was the transport being unavailable (33 per cent). This was identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (39 per cent) than those with impairments (24 per cent).

The second most common barrier experienced by all adults was cost (26 per cent). This was reported as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (29 per cent) than those with impairments (22 per cent).

Difficulty getting in or out of transport was identified as a barrier more frequently by adults with impairments (19 per cent) than those without impairments (3 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (30 per cent) and disability (25 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not use local buses as much as they would like.

Barriers to using long distance buses This section presents results for the 25 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty using long distance buses. A higher proportion of adults with impairments (36 per cent) experienced difficulties accessing local buses compared with adults without impairments (21 per cent).

Figure 9.6 reports the eight most common barriers to using long distance buses for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was cost (37 per cent). This was identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (40 per cent) than those with impairments (34 per cent).

Difficulty getting in or out of transport was identified as a barrier more frequently by adults with impairments (11 per cent) than those without impairments (3 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons associated with a health condition, illness or impairment (31 per cent) and disability (22 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not use long distance buses as much as they would like.

Barriers to using the underground This section presents results for the 25 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty using the underground. A higher proportion of adults with impairments (34 per cent) experienced difficulty accessing the underground compared with adults without impairments (21 per cent).



Figure 9.7 reports the eight most common barriers to using the underground for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was the transport being unavailable (68 per cent). The second most common barrier was cost (10 per cent), and was experienced fairly equally by adults with (9 per cent) and without impairments (10 per cent per cent).

Anxiety or lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (9 per cent) than those without impairments (4 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (15 per cent) and disability (12 per cent) were also given to why they did not use the underground as much as they would like.

Barriers to using local trains This section presents results for the 20 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty using local trains. A higher proportion of adults with impairments (30 per cent) experienced difficulty using local trains compared with adults without impairments (16 per cent).

Figure 9.8 reports the eight most common barriers to using local trains for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was cost (35 per cent). This was identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (37 per cent) compared with adults with impairments (33 per cent). The second most common barrier experienced by all adults was transport being unavailable (27 per cent). This was reported as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (33 per cent) compared with adults with impairments (19 per cent).

Anxiety or lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (10 per cent) than those without impairments (2 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (25 per cent) and disability (20 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not use local trains as much as they would like.

Barriers to using long distance trains This section presents results for the 22 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty using long distance trains. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced difficulty using long distance trains (31 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (18 per cent).

Figure 9.9 reports the eight most common barriers to using long distance trains for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was cost (58 per cent). This was identified as a barrier by a



higher proportion of adults without impairments (65 per cent) compared with adults with impairments (48 per cent). The second most common barrier was transport unavailable (12 per cent). This was reported as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults with impairments (10 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (14 per cent).

Anxiety or lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more frequently by adults with impairments (12 per cent) than those without impairments (2 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons associated with a health condition, illness or impairment (25 per cent) and disability (20 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not use long distance trains as much as they would like.

Barriers to using taxis/minicabs This section presents results for the 16 per cent of all adults who reported experiencing difficulty using taxis/minicabs. A higher proportion of adults with impairments (23 per cent) experienced difficulty using taxis/minicabs compared with adults without impairments (14 per cent).

Figure 9.10 reports the eight most common barriers to using taxis/minicabs for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier experienced by all adults was cost (85 per cent). This was identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (90 per cent) compared with adults with impairments (79 per cent).

Anxiety or lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (5 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (1 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons associated with a health condition, illness or impairment (12 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not use taxis/minicabs as much as they would like.



Figure 9.1 Modes of transport used by adults1, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

Motor vehicle²

Local buses

Long distancebuses

Underground

Local trains

Long distancetrains

Taxis/minicabs

Percentage

0

More than would like As much as would like

Less than would like Not used at all

1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 Motor vehicles (car, van, motorcycle or moped). Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 9.2 Modes of transport used by DDA disabled2 and non-disabled adults1, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Motor vehicle³

Local buses

Long distancebuses

Underground

Local trains

Long distancetrains

Taxis/minicabs

Percentage

As much as they would like for non-disabled adults²As much as they would like for DDA disabled adults²Less than they would like/not used at all for non-disabled adults²Less than they would like/not used at all for DDA disabled adults²


Report, 2009/10. 3 Motor vehicles (car, van, motorcycle or moped). Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 9.3 Modes of transport used by adults1 by impairment² status, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

Motor vehicle³

Local buses

Long distancebuses

Underground

Local trains

Long distancetrains

Taxis/minicabs

Percentage

0

As much as they would like for adults without impairments²As much as they would like for adults with impairments²Less than they would like/not used at all for adults without impairments²Less than they would like/ not used at all for adults with impairments²


LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 3 Motor vehicles (car, van, motorcycle or moped). Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 9.4 Eight most common barriers1 to using a motor vehicle for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cost

Too busy/not enoughtime

A health condition,disability or impairment

Parking problems

Vehicle not availablewhen needed

A disability


Difficulty getting in orout of the vehicle

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all barriers to using motor vehicles (car, van, motorcycle or moped) that applied to them from the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options.

2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using a motor vehicle. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 9.5 Eight most common barriers1 to using local buses for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40

Transport unavailable

Cost

Delay and disruption to service


Other reasons

Difficulty getting to stop or station

Difficulty getting from stop orstation to destination


Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all barriers that applied to them from the list of options

provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options.

2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using local buses. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 9.6 Eight most common barriers1 to using long distance buses for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40

Cost

Other reasons


Overcrowding





Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using long distance buses. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 9.7 Eight most common barriers1 to using the underground for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Cost

Overcrowding



Fear of crime

A disability

Other reasons

Percentage



provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using the underground. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 9.8 Eight most common barriers1 to using local trains for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cost




Difficulty getting from stop or stationto destination

A disability

Other reasons


Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using local trains. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 9.9 Eight most common barriers1 to using long distance trains for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cost




A disability

Overcrowding


Difficulty getting from stop or stationto destination

Percentage

adults without impairments³ adults with impairments³ all adults 1 Respondents were asked to select all barriers that applied to them from the list of options


2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using long distance trains. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 9.10 Eight most common barriers1 to using taxis/minicabs for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cost


A disability


Other reasons


Difficulty getting in or out of thetransport

Fear of crime

Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced barriers to using taxis/minicabs. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Chapter 10 Leisure Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Leisure, community and civic life This chapter presents a summary of the reasons that adults in Great Britain did not take part in leisure activities as much as they would have liked to between June 2009 and March 2010. The activities that people would have liked to participate in are compared with the activities they have actually taken part in during the 12 months prior to the interview taking place.

Results for those who experienced a barrier to leisure activities are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

The option ‘do not need or want to’ was available for respondents to select as a reason for not taking part in the leisure activities covered in this chapter. This option has not been classified as a barrier and has been excluded from both the reporting and charts within this chapter. This option has been included in the tables for information purposes only.




Participation in community, leisure and civic life Figure 10.1 shows the breakdown of activities that adults in Great Britain would like to do in an ideal world against what they had actually done in the 12 months prior to the interview taking place.

A higher proportion of all adults wanted to take part in the activities listed more than they did over the past 12 months. 90 per cent of all adults reported that they would have liked to go on holiday compared with 37 per cent of all adults who had actually gone on holiday as much as they wanted to. 82 per cent of all adults reported they would have liked to spend time with family




compared with 57 per cent who had spent time with family as much as they wanted to. Similarly, 75 per cent of all adults said they would like to have visited friends compared with 47 per cent who had visited friends as much as they wanted to.

Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of the leisure activities where barriers were experienced for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Participation in community, leisure and civic life Figure 10.2 shows the breakdown of leisure activities where barriers to participation were experienced by DDA disabled adults.

Charitable or voluntary work was reported as being the leisure activity adults were least able to take part in as much as they would have liked to (66 per cent). Barriers to taking part in this activity were experienced fairly equally by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults (66 per cent and 65 per cent respectively). 65 per cent of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, experienced barriers to going to a museum or places of historic interest compared with 59 per cent of non-disabled adults.

A higher proportion of DDA disabled adults experienced barriers to playing sport than non-disabled adults (70 per cent and 54 per cent respectively). Barriers to spending time with family were experienced by the lowest proportion of all adults (35 per cent); this was reported fairly equally by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults (37 per cent and 34 per cent respectively).

People with impairments LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS




requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

The following sections present a summary of the leisure activities where barriers were experienced by adults with and without impairments. Where adults have taken part in activities less than they would have liked to, the reasons for this are also reported. Finally, a breakdown of the overall choice adults in Great Britain have over their use of free time by impairment status is provided.


Participation in community, leisure and civic life This section presents results for the 79 per cent of all adults who experienced a barrier to at least one leisure activity. Figure 10.3 shows the breakdown of leisure activities where barriers were experienced to participation for adults by impairment status.

Charitable or voluntary work was reported as being the leisure activity adults were least able to take part in as much as they would have liked to (66 per cent). Barriers to taking part in this activity were experienced fairly equally by adults with and without impairments (69 per cent and 65 per cent respectively).

68 per cent of adults with impairments experienced barriers to going to a museum or places of historic interest compared with 58 per cent of adults without impairments.

A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers to playing sport than adults without impairments (72 per cent and 52 per cent respectively).

Barriers to spending time with family were experienced by the lowest proportion of all adults (35 per cent); 39 per cent of adults with impairments reported not being able to spend as much time as they would have liked to with family compared with 33 per cent of adults without impairments.

Barriers to going on holiday This section presents results for the 58 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to going on holiday as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments



experienced barriers to going on holiday than adults without impairments (66 per cent and 55 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.4 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to going on holiday by impairment status. The main barrier to not going on holiday as much as they would have liked to for all adults was cost (72 per cent). The second most frequent barrier reported was being too busy or not having enough time (39 per cent). This barrier was given by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (45 per cent) than those with impairments (25 per cent).

Other barriers reported by all adults included caring responsibilities (6 per cent), no one to go with (6 per cent) and difficulty with transport (5 per cent). Difficulty with transport was reported more frequently by those with impairments (9 per cent) than those without impairments (3 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition illness or impairment (27 per cent) and disability (15 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not go on holiday as much as they would have liked to. A small proportion of adults without impairments also cited these reasons (2 per cent and 1 per cent respectively).

Barriers to visiting friends This section presents results for the 41 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to visiting friends as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers to visiting friends than adults without impairments (48 per cent and 38 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.5 presents a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to visiting friends by impairment status. The main barrier for all adults not visiting friends as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (68 per cent). This result varied by impairment status: 79 per cent of adults without impairments reported this as a barrier compared with 46 per cent of adults with impairments.

The second most frequent barrier reported was cost with 21 per cent of adults saying visiting friends was too expensive. 8 per cent of adults reported transport as a barrier which varied by impairment status: 13 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 5 per cent of adults without impairments.

Other barriers reported by all adults included caring responsibilities (6 per cent) and lack of availability (2 per cent). These barriers were experienced fairly equally by adults with and without impairments.



For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition illness or impairment (26 per cent) and disability (15 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not visit friends as much as they would have liked to. 1 per cent of adults without impairments also reported health conditions, illness or impairment as a reason.

Barriers to spending time with family This section presents results for the 35 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to visiting family as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers to visiting family than adults without impairments (39 per cent and 33 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.6 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to spending time with family by impairment status. The main barrier for all adults not spending time with family as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (64 per cent). This result varied by impairment status; 74 per cent of adults without impairments compared with 43 per cent of adults with impairments.

The second most frequent barrier reported was cost with 21 per cent of all adults saying spending time with family was too expensive. This barrier was given by 25 per cent of adults with impairments; compared with 19 per cent of adults without impairments.

8 per cent of all adults reported that transport was a barrier, which varied by impairment status; 15 per cent of adults with impairments compared with 4 per cent of adults without impairments.

Other barriers reported by all adults included caring responsibilities (3 per cent), lack of availability (2 per cent) and not feeling welcome (1 per cent). These barriers were experienced fairly equally by adults with and without impairments.

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (21 per cent) and disability (11 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not spend as much time with family as they would have liked to. 1 per cent of adults without impairments also reported health conditions, illness or impairment as a reason.

Barriers to playing sport This section presents results for the 57 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to playing sport as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments



experienced barriers to playing sport than adults without impairments (72 per cent and 52 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.7 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to playing sport by impairment status. The main barrier for all adults not playing sport as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (60 per cent). This result varied by impairment status; 71 per cent of adults without impairments compared with 35 per cent of adults with impairments.

18 per cent of all adults reported that it was too expensive to play sport as much as they would have liked to. 7 per cent of all adults reported having no-one to go with as a barrier.

Other barriers reported by all adults included lack of availability (7 per cent), caring responsibilities (5 per cent) and difficulty with transport (2 per cent). These barriers were experienced fairly equally by adults with and without impairments.

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (47 per cent) and disability (23 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not play sport as much as they would have liked to. 9 per cent of adults without impairments also reported health conditions, illness or impairment as a reason and 1 per cent reported a disability as a reason.

Barriers to taking part in charitable or voluntary work This section presents results for the 66 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to participating in charitable or voluntary work as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers participating in charitable or voluntary work than adults without impairments (69 per cent and 65 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.8 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to taking part in charitable or voluntary work by impairment status. The main reason for all adults not taking part in charitable or voluntary work as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (76 per cent). This result varied by impairment status; 85 per cent of adults without impairments compared with 54 per cent of adults with impairments.

Other barriers reported by all adults included caring responsibilities and cost (6 per cent and 4 per cent respectively).



For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (27 per cent) and disability (15 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not take part in voluntary or charity work as much as they would have liked to. 1 per cent of adults without impairments also stated reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment as a barrier.

Barriers to going to museums or historical places of interest This section presents results for the 61 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to going to museums or historical places of interest as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers to going to museums or historical places of interest than adults without impairments (68 per cent and 58 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.9 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to going to museums or historical places of interest by impairment status. The main barrier for all adults not going to museums or historical places of interest as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (64 per cent). This result varied by impairment status; 75 per cent of adults without impairments compared with 42 per cent of adults with impairments. 28 per cent of adults reported that visiting museums or historical places of interest was too expensive, which was reported by 33 per cent of adults with impairments and 25 per cent of adults without impairments.

Other barriers reported by all adults included difficulty with transport (8 per cent) and no-one to go with (7 per cent). Difficulty with transport was reported as a barrier more frequently by adults with impairments (14 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (5 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (24 per cent) and disability (15 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not go to museums or historical places of interest as much as they would have liked to. 1 per cent of adults without impairments also stated health condition, illness or impairment as a reason.

Barriers to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity This section presents results for the 58 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activities as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activities than adults without impairments (66 per cent and 55 per cent respectively).



Figure 10.10 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activities by impairment status. The main barrier to all adults not going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activities as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (53 per cent). This result varied by impairment status; 62 per cent of adults without impairments compared with 34 per cent of adults with impairments. 48 per cent of all adults reported that going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activities was too expensive.

Other barriers reported by all adults included caring responsibilities and no-one to go with (both 7 per cent). Difficulty with transport was given as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults with impairments (11 per cent) than those without impairments (4 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (20 per cent) and disability (14 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not go to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity as much as they would have liked to. 1 per cent of adults without impairments also stated health condition, illness or impairment as a reason.

Barriers to going to the library or archive This section presents results for the 44 per cent of all adults who experienced at least one barrier to going to the library or archive as much as they would have liked to in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced barriers to going to the library or archive than adults without impairments (47 per cent and 43 per cent respectively).

Figure 10.11 shows a breakdown of the eight most common barriers to going to the library or archive by impairment status. The main barrier to all adults not going to the library or archive as much as they would have liked to was being too busy or not having enough time (69 per cent). This result varied by impairment status; 81 per cent of adults without impairments compared with 45 per cent of adults with impairments.

Other barriers reported by all adults included being too expensive (7 per cent) and caring responsibilities (6 per cent); these barriers were experienced fairly equally by adults with and without impairments. Adults with impairments reported difficulty with transport as a barrier more frequently than those without impairments (11 per cent and 3 per cent respectively).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (24 per cent) and disability (17 per cent) were also given in relation to why they did not go to the library or archive as much as they have



would have liked to. 1 per cent of adults without impairments also gave a health condition, illness or impairment as a reason.

Choice over use of free time Figure 10.12 shows the breakdown of the choice adults in Great Britain felt they had over the use of their free time by impairment status.

47 per cent of all adults reported that they had a lot of choice over the use of their free time. This varied by impairment status with 41 per cent of adults with impairments reporting having a lot of choice compared with 50 per cent of adults without impairments. 35 per cent of all adults reported having some choice, which was fairly equal for those with (33 per cent) and without (36 per cent) impairments.

15 per cent of all adults reported having little choice over the use of their free time. A higher proportion of adults with impairments (21 per cent) reported having little choice compared with those without impairments (13 per cent). 3 per cent of all adults reported having no choice over the use of their free time. This was slightly higher for adults with impairments (5 per cent) compared with those without impairments (2 per cent).



Figure 10.1 Participation in community, leisure and civic life1 for all adults2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Going on holiday

Visiting friends

Spending time with family

Playing sport

Charitable or voluntary work

Going to a museum or place of historicinterest

Going to the theatre, cinema or otherarts activity

Going to the library or archive

Percentage

In an ideal world, would like to do

Have done as much as would like in past 12 months

1 Respondents were asked to select all activities that applied to them from the list of options provided.





Figure 10.2 Participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity1 for adults2 by DDA disabled3 and non-disabled, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

Going on holiday

Visiting friends


Playing sport



interest


activity

Going to the library orarchive

Percentage

0

Non-disabled adults³ DDA disabled adults³ all adults

1 Respondents were asked to select all activities that applied to them from the list of

options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported having a participation restriction to at least one

leisure activity. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim





Figure 10.3 Participation restriction prevalence by leisure activity1 for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Going on holiday

Visiting friends


Playing sport



interest


activity

Going to the libraryor archive

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all activities that applied to them from the list of

options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported having a participation restriction to at least one

leisure activity. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 10.4 Eight most common barriers¹ to going on holiday for adults² by impairment status³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Too expensive



Other reasons


No-one to go with

A disability


Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t been on holiday as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.5 Eight most common barriers1 to visiting friends for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Too expensive


Other reasons


Other reasons


A disability

Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t visited friends as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.6 Eight most common barriers1 to spending time with family for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Too expensive

Other reasons



A disability


Lack of availability

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t spent as much time with family as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.7 Eight most common barriers1 to playing sport for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80



Too expensive

Other reasons

A disability

No-one to go with



Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t played sport as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.8 Eight most common barriers1 to taking part in charitable or voluntary work for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100



Other reasons


A disability

Too expensive



Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t taken part in charitable or voluntary work as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.9 Eight most common barriers1 to going to museums or historical places of interest for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Too expensive



No-one to go with


A disability

Other reasons

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t gone to museums or places of historical interest as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.10 Eight most common barriers1 to going to the theatre, cinema or other arts activity for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Too expensive



No-one to go with


Other reasons

A disability

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t gone to the theatre, cinema or other arts activities as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.11 Eight most common barriers1 to going to the library or archive for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100



Other reasons

Too expensive


A disability



Percentage



2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported that they hadn’t gone to the library or archive as much as they would have liked to.






Figure 10.12 Choice over free time for adults1 by impairment status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 5

A lot of choice

Some choice

Little choice

No choice

Percentage

0


1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 Please refer to the definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the






Chapter 11 Social contact Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Social contact This chapter presents a summary of the social contact adults had with other people between June 2009 and March 2010. Social contact (such as social contact with close friends and relatives) is analysed by the number of close contacts people have, the number of close contacts people met or spoke with in the past week and the frequency of this contact.

Results for the number of close contacts adults reported they could rely on if they had a problem are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.


Unless otherwise stated, changes and differences mentioned in the text have been found to be statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.


Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of estimates of the number of close contacts disabled adults had, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Close contacts Figure 11.1 shows how many close contacts disabled adults had, as defined by the DDA. 61 per cent of all adults reported that they could count on at least




six other people if they had a problem. A higher proportion of non-disabled adults reported that they could count on at least six other people if they had a problem compared with DDA disabled adults (64 per cent and 54 per cent respectively). 12 per cent of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, had one or two close contacts compared with 8 per cent of non-disabled adults.


The following sections present a summary of the number of close contacts adults had by impairment status. It first looks at the number of close contacts people had, that is, people they feel they could count on if they had a problem and how many of these people they had contact with in the past week. Following this the frequency of social contact is also reported. Finally, this chapter reports on the reasons adults had no contact or less contact with close contacts than they would have liked.


Close contacts Figure 11.2 shows how many close contacts adults with and without impairments had. 64 per cent of adults without impairments had six or more close contacts compared with 54 per cent of adults with impairments. 12 per cent of adults with impairments had one or two close contacts compared with 7 per cent of adults without impairments.

Contact in the last week Figure 11.3 shows how many close contacts adults met or spoke with in the week prior to interview by impairment status. 40 per cent of all adults reported that they had contact with at least six other people they could rely on. A higher proportion of adults without impairments had contact with at least six close contacts in the past week compared with adults with impairments (43 per cent and 35 per cent respectively).



Frequency of contact Figure 11.4 shows the frequency of contact adults had with those they feel close to by impairment status2. 76 per cent of all adults felt that they had contact with their close contacts as much as they would like to in the week prior to interview. 74 per cent of adults with impairments had met or spoken with their close contacts as much as they would like to compared with 77 per cent of adults without impairments. 25 per cent of adults with impairments had met or spoken with people they could rely on less than they would have liked compared with 22 per cent of adults without impairments. 1 per cent of all adults reported they had met or spoken with close contacts more frequently than they would have liked.

Reason for less contact than would like 99 per cent of all adults reported having at least one close contact that they could rely on if they had a problem. Of these adults, 22 per cent reported meeting or speaking to these contacts less than they would like. This was reported fairly similarly for adults with and without impairments (24 per cent and 22 per cent respectively).

Figure 11.5 reports the reasons why people had no or less contact with close contacts than they would have liked by impairment status. The reason reported most often by all adult respondents for not meeting was being too busy or not having enough time (69 per cent); 51 per cent of adults with impairments and 77 per cent of adults without impairments reported this reason. Financial reasons were identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (14 per cent) than those without impairments (10 per cent). Similarly adults with impairments were more likely to identify difficulty with transport as a barrier compared with adults with impairments (11 per cent and 6 per cent).

2 Figure 11.4 excludes those who did not meet with close contacts in the week prior to interview.



Figure 11.1 Number of close contacts adults¹ reported that they could rely on if they had a problem, by DDA disabled² and non-disabled, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

None

1 or 2

3 to 5

6+

Percentage

Non-disabled adults² DDA disabled adults² all adults






Figure 11.2 Number of close contacts adults¹ reported that they could rely on if they had a problem by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

None

1 or 2

3 to 5

6+

Percentage







Figure 11.3 Number of close contacts adults¹ met in the past week by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

None

1 or 2

3 to 5

6+

Percentage


1 Persons aged 16 and over who reported having at least one close contact. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 11.4 Frequency of social contact by adults¹ in the past week by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80

As much as youwould like

Less than youwould like

More than youwould like

Percentage


1 Persons aged 16 and over who reported meeting at least one close contact. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 11.5 Eight most common barriers¹ for adults² having less contact than they would like by impairment status³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


Other people too busy

Financial reasons

Other reasons



A health condition, illness or impairment

A disability

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who reported no, or less contact with others than they would have liked.





Chapter 12 Housing Life opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Housing This chapter presents a summary of the different rooms within the home that adults had difficulty accessing in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. A breakdown of the rooms that adults experienced difficulty accessing are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.




Disabled people as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of the rooms that disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, had difficulty accessing. Results are presented for all adults who reported a difficulty getting into one or more rooms within their home. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Accessing rooms within own home Figure 12.1 shows a breakdown of the rooms disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, had difficulty getting into. The room that all adults reported the most difficulty accessing was the bedroom (65 per cent). 68 per cent of DDA disabled adults had difficultly getting into the bedroom compared with 46 per



cent of non-disabled adults. 56 per cent of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, had difficulty getting into the toilet/bathroom compared with 39 per cent of non-disabled adults. The rooms that all adults reported the least difficulty accessing were the kitchen (10 per cent) and the living area (9 per cent).


The following sections present a summary of the rooms that adults had difficulty getting into and the barriers to accessing these rooms. Results are presented for adults who reported a difficulty getting into one or more rooms within their home by impairment status. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

This section presents results for the 3 per cent of all adults who reported that they had experienced difficulty getting into at least one room in their home. 8 per cent of adults with impairments experienced difficulty getting into at least one room within their own home compared with less than 1 per cent of adults without impairments.

Accessing rooms within own home Figure 12.2 shows a breakdown of the rooms adults, with and without impairments, had difficulty getting into. 57 per cent of adults with impairments experienced difficulty getting into the toilet/bathroom compared with 31 per cent of adults without impairments. 68 per cent of adults with impairments reported difficulty getting into the bedroom compared with 48 per cent of adults without impairments. 34 per cent of adults without impairments reported difficulty getting into a room that was not specified in the questionnaire compared with 17 per cent of adults with impairments.

Barriers to accessing rooms within own home Figure 12.3 shows the eight most common barriers that adults faced accessing rooms within their own home by impairment status. The most common barrier to accessing rooms for all adults was ‘stairs, lack of ramps/stair lift’; 52 per cent of adults with impairments and 26 per cent of



adults without impairments. Adults with impairments also reported lack of help or assistance (5 per cent) and door width (4 per cent) as a barrier.

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (51 per cent) and disability (45 per cent) were also given in relation to why they experienced difficulty accessing rooms within their own home. 17 per cent of adults without impairments also reported a health condition, illness or impairment as a reason.

Barriers to getting in or out of your own home Figure 12.4 shows the eight most common barriers that adults experienced getting in or out of their home by impairment status. For adults without impairments the most common barrier was stairs, lack of ramps/stair lift (58 per cent), with 41 per cent of adults with impairments also stating this option.

Adults without impairments reported door width being a barrier to getting in or out of their home (9 per cent) more often than adults with impairments (4 per cent). The option ‘other’ was given by more adults without impairments (27 per cent) compared with adults with impairments (11 per cent), thus they experienced a barrier to getting in or out of their home for reasons not given in the questionnaire.

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (52 per cent) and disability (40 per cent) were also given in relation to why they experienced difficulty getting in or out of their own home. 11 per cent of adults without an impairment also gave a health condition, illness or impairment as a reason.



Figure 12.1 Summary of the rooms1 adults2 had difficulty getting into by DDA disabled3 and non-disabled, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Bedroom

Toilet/Bathroom

Other

Kitchen

Living area

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all rooms that they had difficulty accessing from the

list of options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim





Figure 12.2 Summary of the rooms1 adults2 had difficulty getting into by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Bedroom

Toilet/Bathroom

Other

Kitchen

Living area

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all rooms that they had difficulty accessing from the

list of options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 12.3 Eight most common barriers1 to accessing rooms within the home for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Stairs, lack of ramps/stair lift


A disability

Other

Lack of handrails


Door width

Uneven floor levels

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced accessibility difficulties within the home. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 12.4 Eight most common barriers1 to getting in or out of own home for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


Stairs, lack of ramps/stair lift

A disability

Other

Lack of handrails

Uneven floor levels


Door width

Percentage



provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced difficulties getting in or out of their home. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the







Chapter 13 Accessibility – Outside the home Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Accessibility – outside the home This chapter presents a summary of the experiences of accessing, moving about or using facilities in buildings for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Buildings where access difficulties were experienced are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

Results are presented for the 13 per cent of adults who experienced one or more of the following difficulties with accessibility:

getting into all the buildings that they needed to

moving about and finding their way around buildings, or

using the facilities in buildings, for example, using the toilets or purchasing items over the counter




Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of the eight most common buildings where difficulty with access were experienced by disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. Results are presented for adults who experienced difficulty going into all the buildings that they needed to. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the



Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Buildings where difficulty with access was experienced Figure 13.1 shows the eight most common buildings where difficulty with access was experienced by disabled adults, as defined by the DDA.

The building where difficulty with access was experienced most often by all adults was shops (53 per cent); this was experienced fairly equally by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults (53 per cent and 52 per cent respectively). The second most common building for all adults was hospitals (31 per cent); 34 per cent of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, experienced difficulties gaining access to this building compared with 26 per cent of non-disabled adults.


The following sections present a summary of accessibility of buildings outside the home and the barriers to moving around, or using facilities inside buildings for adults by impairment status. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

A higher proportion of adults with impairments experienced difficulty accessing buildings (29 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (7 per cent).

Buildings where difficulties with access was experienced Figure 13.2 shows the eight most common buildings where difficulty with access was experienced by impairment status.

The building where difficulty with access was experienced most often by all adults was shops (53 per cent). The second most common building for all adults was hospitals (31 per cent of adults). More adults with impairments



identified experiencing difficulty with access when using hospitals (33 per cent) than those without impairments (26 per cent).

Barriers to accessing buildings by impairment status Figure 13.3 shows the eight most common barriers to accessing buildings for adults by impairment status. The most common barrier for all adults was moving around the building (stairs, doors, narrow corridors) (38 per cent). Moving around the building was identified as a barrier more often by adults with impairments (42 per cent) than those without impairments (30 per cent).

Parking problems were experienced as a barrier by 23 per cent of all adults; this was experienced fairly equally by adults with and without impairments (22 per cent and 25 per cent respectively).

More adults without impairments identified difficulty using the bathroom facilities (24 per cent) as a barrier than those with impairments (17 per cent). Inadequate lifts or escalators were identified fairly equally as causing accessibility difficulties by both adults without impairments (20 per cent) and adults with impairments (23 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (39 per cent) and disability (31 per cent) were also given in relation to why they experienced difficulty accessing buildings.



Figure 13.1 Eight most common buildings1 where difficulty with access was experienced by DDA disabled3 and non-disabled adults2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Shops

Hospital

Pubs, bars orrestaurants

GP surgery

Other people’shomes

Theatres orcinemas

Your bank

Other

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all buildings that applied to them from the list of

options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced accessibility difficulties with buildings. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim





Figure 13.2 Eight most common buildings1 where difficulty with accessibility was experienced for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Shops

Hospital

Pubs, bars orrestaurants

GP surgery

Other people’shomes

Theatres orcinemas

Your bank

Other

Percentage



options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced accessibility difficulties with buildings. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the






Figure 13.3 Eight most common barriers1 to accessing buildings for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Moving around the building (Stairs,doors, narrow corridors)


Parking problems

Inadequate lifts or escalators

A disability

Bathroom facilities (Location, layout,size)

Approach areas (lack oframps/handrails)


Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced accessibility difficulties with buildings. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the



Chapter 14 Accessibility of public services Life Opportunity Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Accessibility of public services This chapter presents a summary of the experiences of accessing public services for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Results for the experience of using public services are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

The following public services are reported in this chapter:

Health services

Justice services

Benefits and Pensions services

Culture, sports and leisure services

Tax services, and

Social services




Experience of accessing public services Figure 14.1 shows the level of difficulty experienced by adults in obtaining access to public services in the 12 months prior to interview. The response options used to identify the level of difficulty that the respondent experienced were:

None

Some, or

A lot




Figure 14.1 combines those who experienced some difficulty with access and those who experienced a lot of difficulty, categorising this as ‘at least some difficulty’. The purpose of this was to present some high level findings without cluttering up the tables or charts. Further analysis to look at the different levels of difficulty experienced within each type of service will be possible.

The public services where the highest proportion of all adults reported experiencing at least some difficulty were benefits and pensions services (27 per cent), followed by social services (26 per cent). The public services where all adults were least likely to experience difficulties were culture, sports and leisure services (7 per cent experiencing at least some difficulty).

Disabled people as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of the experience of using public services for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Experience of using public services Figure 14.2 shows a breakdown of the level of difficulty using public services for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. For the purposes of this analysis those who experienced some difficulty and those who experienced a lot of difficulty are combined and categorised as those who experienced ‘at least some difficulty’.

The public services where the highest proportion of all adults reported experiencing at least some difficulty accessing were benefits and pensions services (29 per cent of DDA disabled adults and 26 per cent of non-disabled adults). A higher proportion of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, reported experiencing at least some difficulty with access to health services (27 per cent) and justice services (23 per cent) compared with non-disabled adults (18 per cent and 16 per cent respectively).

People with impairments LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the 1 Everyone in these survey estimates would meet the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA); however, these estimates do not reflect the total number of people covered by the DDA or the Equalities Act 2010.


social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

The following sections present a summary of the experience of using public services for adults with and without impairments. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Experience of using public services Around a third (36 per cent) of adults with impairments experienced difficulty accessing public services compared with around a fifth (22 per cent) of adults without impairments.

Figure 14.3 shows a breakdown of the level of difficulty using public services for adults with and without impairments. For the purposes of this analysis those who experienced some difficulty and those who experienced a lot of difficulty are combined and categorised as those who experienced ‘at least some difficulty’.

The public services where the highest proportion of adults with impairments reported experiencing at least some difficulty were benefits and pensions services (32 per cent). For adults without impairments, the public service where the highest proportion of adults reported experiencing at least some difficulty was social services (24 per cent), closely followed by benefits and pensions services (23 per cent). A higher proportion of adults with impairments reported experiencing at least some difficulty with the health services (28 per cent), justice services (23 per cent) and tax services (24 per cent) compared with adults without impairments (17 per cent, 16 per cent and 19 per cent respectively).

Barriers to accessing health services This section presents results for adults who experienced at least some difficulty accessing health services in the 12 months prior to interview. Figure 14.4 shows the eight most common barriers experienced when accessing health services for adults by impairment status.

The most common barrier given by all adults was difficulty in getting an appointment (68 per cent). A higher proportion of adults without impairments experienced difficulties getting an appointment than those with impairments



(73 per cent compared with 62 per cent). The second most common barrier to accessing health services for all adults was difficulty making contact by phone (37 per cent). This was experienced fairly equally by adults with impairments (36 per cent) and those without impairments (38 per cent).

A higher proportion of adults with impairments identified difficulty with transport (12 per cent) as a barrier than those without impairments (5 per cent). Anxiety and lack of confidence was identified as a barrier by 9 per cent of those with impairments compared with 2 per cent of those without impairments. Difficulty contacting health services by email, post and internet were identified least frequently as causing accessibility difficulties by all adults (2 per cent). This was experienced equally by adults with impairments and for those without impairments.

A higher proportion of adults with impairments (10 per cent) identified lack of help with communication as a barrier than adults without impairments (7 per cent). More adults with impairments (9 per cent) identified not providing home visits as a barrier to health services than those without impairments (4 per cent). Also, a higher proportion of adults with impairments found difficulty using facilities as a barrier than those without impairments (5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively).

Barriers to accessing justice services This section presents results for adults who experienced at least some difficulty accessing justice services in the 12 months prior to interview. Figure 14.5 shows the eight most common barriers experienced when accessing justice services for adults by impairment status.

The most common barrier given by all adults was difficulty contacting by phone (45 per cent). This was experienced fairly equally by adults with impairments (46 per cent) and those without impairments (45 per cent). The second most common barrier for accessing justice services was unhelpful or inexperienced staff (40 per cent). This was experienced equally by adults with and without impairments.

Adults with and without impairments experienced very little difference in the level or experience of barriers to accessing justice services.

Barriers to accessing benefits and pensions services This section presents results for adults who experienced at least some difficulty accessing benefits and pensions services in the 12 months prior to interview. Figure 14.6 shows the eight most common barriers experienced



when accessing benefits and pensions services for adults by impairment status.

The most common barrier given by all adults was difficulty making contact by phone (62 per cent). This was experienced fairly equally by adults with impairments (61 per cent) and those without impairments (63 per cent). The second most common barrier for accessing benefits and pensions services was unhelpful or inexperienced staff (48 per cent). Again, this was experienced fairly equally by adults with impairments (47 per cent) and those without impairments (49 per cent).

A higher proportion of adults with impairments (7 per cent) identified difficulty with transport as a barrier than those without impairments (2 per cent). Anxiety and lack of confidence was identified as a barrier more frequently by adults with impairments (10 per cent) than those without impairments (3 per cent).

Barriers to accessing culture, sports and leisure services This section presents results for adults who experienced at least some difficulty accessing culture, sports and leisure services in the 12 months prior to interview. Figure 14.7 shows the eight most common barriers experienced when accessing culture, sports and leisure services for adults by impairment status.

Excluding ‘other difficulties’ the most common barrier given by all adults was difficulty making contact by phone (23 per cent). The second most common barrier for accessing culture, sports and leisure services was unhelpful or inexperienced staff (22 per cent). This was experienced fairly equally by adults with impairments (21 per cent) and those without impairments (22 per cent).

Anxiety and lack of confidence was identified as a barrier by 6 per cent of all adults. This barrier was experienced more frequently for adults with impairments (11 per cent) than for those without impairments (2 per cent). Accessing culture, sports and leisure services via email was identified as a barrier more commonly by adults without impairments (7 per cent) than for adults with impairments (1 per cent).

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (26 per cent) and disability (16 per cent) were also given in relation to why they experienced difficulty accessing culture, sports and leisure services.



Barriers to accessing tax services This section presents results for adults who experienced at least some difficulty accessing tax services in the 12 months prior to interview. Figure 14.8 shows the eight most common barriers experienced when accessing tax services for adults by impairment status.

The most common barrier given by all adults was difficulty contacting by phone (68 per cent). The second most common barrier for accessing tax services for all adults was unhelpful or inexperienced staff (37 per cent). This was experienced fairly equally by adults with impairments (38 per cent) and those without impairments (36 per cent).

Adults with and without impairments experienced very little difference in the level of barriers experienced accessing the tax service.

Barriers to accessing social services This section presents results for adults who experienced at least some difficulty accessing social services in the 12 months prior to interview. Figure 14.9 shows the eight most common barriers experienced when accessing social services for adults by impairment status.

The most common barrier given by all adults was difficulty making contact by phone (55 per cent). This was experienced more often by adults without impairments (57 per cent) than those with impairments (52 per cent). The second most common barrier to accessing social services for all adults was unhelpful or inexperienced staff (48 per cent). This barrier was experienced more frequently by adults without impairments (54 per cent) than for adults with impairments (42 per cent). The least common barrier given by all adults was difficulty getting into buildings (1 per cent).

Accessing social services via the internet was identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (9 per cent) than for adults with impairments (2 per cent). Contact via email was also identified as a barrier by a higher proportion of adults without impairments (12 per cent) than for adults with impairments (4 per cent).




Figure 14.1 Level of difficulty3 using public services1 for all adults2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

Health service

Justice services

Benefits andpensions service

Culture, sports andleisure services

Tax services

Social services

Percentage

0

None At least some difficulty³

1 Respondents were asked to select all services that applied to them from the list of options provided.

2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Combines the response options ‘some difficulty’ and ‘a lot of difficulty’. Source: Office for National Statistics



Figure 14.2 Level of difficulty4 using public services1 for adults2 by DDA disabled3 and non-disabled, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Health service

Justice services

Benefits and pensions service

Culture, sports and leisureservices

Tax services

Social services

Percentage

Non-disabled adults³ DDA disabled adults³

1 Respondents were asked to select all services that applied to them from the list of

options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim

Report, 2009/10. 4 Combines the response options ‘some difficulty’ and ‘a lot of difficulty’. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 14.3 Level of difficulty4 using public services1 for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Health service

Justice services

Benefits andpensions service

Culture, sports andleisure services

Tax services

Social services

Percentage

adults without impairments³ adults with impairments³

1 Respondents were asked to select all services that applied to them from the list of

options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the

LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 4 Combines the response options ‘some difficulty’ and ‘a lot of difficulty’. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 14.4 Eight most common barriers¹ to accessing health services for adults² by impairment status³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Difficulty getting an appointment

Difficulty contacting by phone

Unhelpful or inexperienced staff

Other difficulties

Lack of accessible information



Lack of help with communication

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced at least some difficulty accessing health services.






Figure 14.5 Eight most common barriers1 to accessing justice services for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50




Other difficulties


Not providing a home visit



Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced at least some difficulty accessing justice services.






Figure 14.6 Eight most common barriers1 to accessing benefits and pensions services for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70






Other difficulties

Difficulty contacting by post


Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced at least some difficulty accessing benefits and pensions services.






Figure 14.7 Eight most common barriers1 to accessing culture, sports and leisure services for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other difficulties







A disability

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced at least some difficulty accessing culture, sports and leisure services.






Figure 14.8 Eight most common barriers1 to accessing tax services for adults2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70






Difficulty contacting by internet

Difficulty contacting by email

Other difficulties

Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced at least some difficulty accessing tax services.






Figure 14.9 Eight most common barriers¹ to accessing social services for adults² by impairment status³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60






Not providing a home visit

A disability


Percentage




2 Persons aged 16 and over who experienced at least some difficulty accessing social services.







Chapter 15 Domestic life and social care Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Domestic life and social care This chapter presents a summary of the assistance received with everyday activities by adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. It also presents results for time spent providing care for other adults. Results for the source of assistance required for completing everyday activities are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.




Assistance received with everyday activities Figure 15.1 shows the breakdown of how adults completed a list of everyday activities, including: the proportion of adults who carried out the everyday activities with or without assistance and those that carried out daily activities without any assistance, but with some difficulty. Where respondents chose ‘some difficulty’ this meant that the activity took time, a lot of effort, was painful, or they needed to use special equipment.

77 per cent of all adults carried out all of the activities listed without assistance and with no difficulty. For 7 per cent of all adults at least one everyday activity caused them some difficulty. 16 per cent of all adults required assistance with at least one activity listed. Only 82 per cent of adults were able to carry out minor household repairs unassisted and without difficulty. Figure 15.1 shows a more detailed breakdown of assistance required by type of activity.




Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following sections present a summary of the source of assistance for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, who stated that they required assistance with everyday activities. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Source of assistance received Figure 15.2 shows the breakdown of the source of assistance required for completing activities for daily living by disabled adults, as defined by the DDA.

The source of assistance received most often by all adults who required assistance completing everyday activities was from a family member or relative (76 per cent). 79 per cent of DDA disabled adults received assistance from a family member or relative compared with 70 per cent of non-disabled adults.

The second most common source of assistance for all adults was from a friend or neighbour (21 per cent). 24 per cent of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, received assistance from a friend or neighbour compared with 13 per cent of non-disabled adults.

A higher proportion of DDA disabled adults received paid assistance for activities for daily living inside the home compared with non-disabled adults (12 per cent and 6 per cent respectively). 15 per cent of all adults received paid assistance for activities for daily living outside of the home; 16 per cent of DDA disabled adults received paid assistance compared with 12 per cent of non-disabled adults.

People with impairments LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS



requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

The following sections present a summary of assistance received with everyday activities and care provided for adults with and without impairments. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Source of assistance received Figure 15.3 shows the breakdown of the source of assistance for adults who required assistance completing activities for daily living by impairment status.

The source of assistance received most often by all adults who required assistance completing everyday activities was from a family member or relative (76 per cent); 80 per cent of adults with impairments received assistance from a family member or relative compared with 67 per cent of adults without impairments.

The second most common source of assistance for all adults was from a friend or neighbour (21 per cent). 24 per cent of adults with impairments received assistance from a friend or neighbour compared with 15 per cent of adults without impairments.

A higher proportion of adults with impairments received assistance from a NHS nurse/medical carer compared with adults without impairments (11 per cent and 5 per cent respectively).

Frequency of assistance received Figure 15.4 shows a summary of how often people received assistance with daily activities when they required it, broken down by impairment status.

79 per cent of adults with impairments received assistance often or always when it was required compared with 66 per cent of adults without impairments. 4 per cent of adults with impairments rarely received assistance when they required it compared with 10 per cent of adults without impairments.

Having a say over assistance received Figure 15.5 shows how often people who received some form of assistance with daily living felt that they had a say over this care provision. Results are broken down by impairment status.



19 per cent of adults with impairments often had a say over the assistance that they received compared with 13 per cent of adults without impairments. 3 per cent of adults with impairments never had a say over the assistance that they received compared with 5 per cent of adults without impairments.

62 per cent of adults with impairments always had a say over the assistance that they received. 12 per cent of adults with impairments sometimes had a say over the assistance that they received.

Care provided for other people Figure 15.6 shows the proportion of adults who provided care for other household members (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status. 15 per cent of adults with impairments provided care compared with 8 per cent of adults without impairments.

Figure 15.7 shows the proportion of adults who provided care for people not living in the household (in a non-professional capacity). 15 per cent of adults with impairments provided care compared with 13 per cent of adults without impairments.

Time spent caring for others Figure 15.8 shows the time spent caring for people who lived inside or outside their own household by impairment status.

67 per cent of adults without impairments provided care for between 0 and 19 hours compared with 56 per cent of adults with impairments. 11 per cent of adults with impairments provide care for more than 100 hours compared with 7 per cent of adults without impairments.




Figure 15.1 Summary of adults¹ level of difficulty with completing everyday activities, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 10

Washing and drying whole body

Using the toilet

Cutting your toenails

Dressing and undressing

Eating a prepared meal

Shopping for everyday necessities

Preparing meals

Doing housework

Carrying out minor household repairs

Percentage

0

Unassisted without any difficultyWith some difficulty²Require assistance from someone

1 Persons aged 16 and over. 2 ‘With some difficulty’ consists of the following responses: takes time, a lot of effort, is

painful or special equipment is needed. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 15.2 Source of assistance¹ for adults² who require it, by DDA disabled and non-disabled³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 8

Family member orrelative

Friend or neighbour

NHS nurse/medicalcarer

Social worker

Paid help inside thehome

Paid help outside thehome

Unpaid carer(volunteer)

Other person

No-one

Percentage

0


1 Respondents were asked to select all sources of assistance that applied to them from the

list of options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who required assistance completing everyday activities. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim




Figure 15.3 Source of assistance¹ for adults² who require it by impairment status³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Family member orrelative

Friend or neighbour

NHS nurse/medicalcarer

Social worker

Paid help inside thehome

Paid help outside thehome

Unpaid carer(volunteer)

Other person

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all sources of assistance that applied to them from the

list of options provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who required assistance completing everyday activities. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 15.4 Summary of frequency of assistance received for adults¹ by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Per

cen

tag

e


1 Persons aged 16 and over who required assistance completing everyday activities. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 15.5 How often adults¹ had a say over the assistance received by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Per

cen

tag

e


1 Persons aged 16 and over who required assistance completing everyday activities. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 15.6 Summary of adults¹ caring for other household members (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Per

cen

tag

e


1 Persons aged 16 and over who provided care for others. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the





Figure 15.7 Summary of adults¹ caring for other people not living in the household (in a non-professional capacity) by impairment status², 2009/10

Great Britain

05

1015

20

Pe

rcen

tag

e


1 Persons aged 16 and over who provided care for others. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the






Figure 15.8 Summary of time adults1 spent caring for others per week by impairments status2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80

0-19hr per week

20-34hrs perweek

35-49hrs perweek

50-99hrs perweek

100+ hrs perweek

Varies – under20hrs

Varies – over20hrs

Percentage


1 Persons aged 16 and over who provided care for people who lived in/or outside their

household. 2 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the




Chapter 16 Discrimination Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Discrimination Discrimination occurs when a particular person or group of people are treated less favourably because of their personal characteristics. The Equality Act 20101 provides an accessible framework of disability law which protects individuals from unfair treatment due to their: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. The discrimination reported is in relation to experiences during the 12 months prior to the interview taking place.

This chapter presents the types of discrimination experienced by adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. It reports the types of people identified as being responsible for discrimination (for example, employer, health staff, police officer etc) and different types of workplace discrimination in relation to a health condition, illness or impairment, or disability.

The charts which appear at the end of this chapter provide summary results. Each of these is linked to a spreadsheet providing the source data, and often more detailed results. The spreadsheets can be accessed by clicking on the chart.



Discrimination experienced in the past 12 months This section presents the results for the 11 per cent of adults who reported being treated unfairly by others in the 12 months prior to interview in relation to any of the characteristics listed:

age

sex

a health condition, illness or impairment

disability

1 http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx


ethnicity

religion

sexual orientation

Figure 16.1 shows the types of discrimination experienced by all adults in the 12 months prior to interview. Age was identified as the most common reason for discrimination with 5 per cent of all adults giving this reason. Discrimination due to a health condition, illness or impairment was reported by 3 per cent of all adults and discrimination due to disability related reasons was reported by 2 per cent of all adults. The least common type of discrimination reported was sexual orientation: less than 1 per cent of the adult population reported discrimination due to their sexual orientation.

People identified as being responsible for health or disability related discrimination Figure 16.2 shows a breakdown of the people identified as being responsible for health or disability related discrimination in the 12 months prior to interview. Only adults who specified discrimination due to a health condition, illness or impairment or disability were asked to identify who treated them unfairly (4 per cent). Health staff were most frequently identified as being responsible for discrimination; reported by 30 per cent of these adults. Employers and strangers in the street were reported by 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. Only 2 per cent of these adults identified rail staff as being responsible for health or disability related discrimination.

Workplace discrimination experienced Figure 16.3 shows the types of workplace discrimination experienced by employed adults who reported health or disability related discrimination in the 12 months prior to interview (1 per cent). Of these adults 44 per cent reported some type of workplace discrimination. The most frequently reported type of workplace discrimination experienced was being given fewer responsibilities than wanted; this was reported by 19 per cent of these adults. The least common workplace discrimination reported was being denied a transfer (5 per cent).



Figure 16.1 Type of discrimination1 experienced by adults2 in previous 12 months, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 1 2 3 4 5

Age

Sex

Ethnicity

Religion

Sexual orientation

A health condition, illness or impairment

A disability

Percentage

1 Respondents were asked to select all types of discrimination that applied to them from

the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 16.2 People identified as being responsible for discrimination1 related to a health condition, illness or impairment or disability in previous 12 months2, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Health staff

Employer

Strangers in the street

Others

Friends or neighbours

Work colleagues

Family or relatives

Retail staff

Bus drivers

Police officers

Social workers

Teacher or lecturer

Taxi drivers

Care workers

Rail staff

Percentage

all adults

1 Respondents were asked to select the people responsible for discrimination that applied to them from the list of options provided.

2 Responses from adults aged 16 and over who reported health/disability related discrimination.





Figure 16.3 Type of discrimination1 identified by employed adults2 who experienced workplace discrimination due to a health condition, illness or impairment, or disability in previous 12 months, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20

Been given fewer responsibilitiesthan you wanted

Not been promoted

Been refused a job interview

Been denied other work-relatedbenefits

Been refused a job

Been paid less than others in similarjobs working similar hours

Been denied a transfer

Percentage

all adults

1 Respondents were asked to select all types of discrimination that applied to them from the list of options provided.

2 Persons aged 16 and over in employment and reporting workplace discrimination due to a health condition, illness or impairment or disability.







Chapter 17 Crime Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Crime This chapter presents a summary of the experience of crime amongst adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. That is, a crime where the respondent themselves were the victim. Results for the most common experience of crime amongst adults in the previous 12 months are presented using the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

The charts which appear at the end of this chapter provide summary results. Each of these is linked to a spreadsheet providing the source data, and often more detailed results. The spreadsheets can be accessed by clicking on the chart.



Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act1 The following section presents a summary of the experiences of crime in the previous 12 months amongst disabled adults, as defined by the DDA. 26 per cent of adults in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Experience of crime Figure 17.1 shows the types of crime experienced by disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, in the 12 months prior to interview.

Of all adults, 19 per cent reported that they had personally experienced a crime in the 12 months prior to interview. The most common type of crime experienced by all adults was deliberate damage to their home, vehicle or



belongings (8 per cent). Similarly for DDA disabled and non-disabled adults this was also the most common type of crime experienced (9 and 8 per cent respectively).

‘Something else stolen from you’ was the second most common type of crime experienced by DDA disabled and non-disabled adults (both 6 per cent). ‘Violence or force used or threatened against you’ and ‘someone entering your home without permission’ were both experienced by a higher proportion of disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, (6 per cent and 3 per cent respectively) compared with non-disabled adults (4 per cent and 2 per cent).


The following sections present a summary of the most common experiences of crime amongst adults with and without impairments. The motivations for hate crimes experienced by adults are also reported. Respondents were asked to consider experiences of crime during the 12 month period leading up to the time of the interview. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Experience of crime Figure 17.2 shows the types of crime experienced by adults in the 12 months prior to interview. Of all adults, 19 per cent reported that they had personally experienced a crime in the past 12 months. The most common type of crime experienced by all adults was deliberate damage to their home, vehicle or belongings (8 per cent). Similarly for adults with and without impairments this was also the most common type of crime experienced (10 per cent and 8 per cent respectively).

‘Something else stolen from you’ was the second most common type of crime experienced by adults (6 per cent): given by 6 per cent of adults with impairments and 5 per cent of adults without impairments. ‘Violence or force used or threatened against you’ and ‘someone entering your home without permission’ were both experienced more by adults with impairments (6 per



cent and 3 per cent respectively) compared with adults without impairments (4 per cent and 2 per cent).

Hate Crime This section presents results for adults who reported that they felt they had been a victim of a hate crime in the 12 months prior to interview. A hate crime is one committed against someone or their property on the grounds of their personal characteristics, for example religion, ethnic origin, disability or sexual orientation. 2 per cent of all adults felt that they had been a victim of a hate crime over the past 12 months.

Motivations for hate crime by impairment status Figure 17.3 shows the motivations for hate crime experienced by adults in the 12 months prior to interview. The most common motivation, for all adults who experienced hate crime, was ethnicity (38 per cent): with 50 per cent of adults without impairments and 27 per cent of adults with impairments giving this reason.

For adults with impairments, reasons related to a health condition, illness or impairment (20 per cent) and disability (15 per cent) were also given in relation to why they were a victim of a hate crime.

Religion was the third most common motivation for a hate crime for all adults (11 per cent): 11 per cent of adults with impairments and 10 per cent of adults without impairments reported this characteristic as the motivation for a hate crime. 34 per cent of adults with and without impairments gave the answer ‘none of these reasons’. Thus they felt they were the victim of a hate crime in relation to other factors not covered by the questionnaire.



Figure 17.1 Experience of crime1 amongst adults2 in previous 12 months by DDA disabled3 and non-disabled, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 2 4 6 8 10

Theft of a car, van, motorcycle orbicycle

Something else stolen from you

Someone entering your home withoutpermission

Deliberate damage to your home,vehicle or belongings

Violence or force used or threatenedagainst you

Any other crimes

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all crimes that applied to them from the list of options

provided. 2 Persons aged 16 and over. 3 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim





Figure 17.2 Experience of crime1 amongst adults2 in previous 12 months by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Theft of a car, van, motorcycle orbicycle

Something else stolen from you

Someone entering your homewithout permission

Deliberate damage to your home,vehicle or belongings

Violence or force used orthreatened against you

Any other crimes

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all crimes that applied to them from the list of options provided.







Figure 17.3 Motivations1 for hate crime experienced by adults2 in previous 12 months by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Age

Sex


A disability

Ethnicity

Religion

Sexual Orientation

None of these reasons

Percentage


1 Respondents were asked to select all motivations that applied to them from the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options.





Chapter 18 Children (Aged 11-15) Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Children (Aged 11 to 15) This chapter presents a summary of the prevalence of participation restrictions across the range of International Classification of Functioning (ICF)1 domains for children (aged 11 to 15) in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. The chapter will focus specifically on four key areas of a child’s life; education, leisure and play, transport and personal relationships. Results for participation restrictions are presented using both the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) definition and the barriers to participation (the social model) approach to measuring disability. Each definition is described in the Introduction of this report and summarised in the relevant sections below.

The questions included in the analysis for this chapter were asked by parental proxy2 for children aged 11 to 15, as there was no personal completion for this age group.




Disabled People as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act3 The following section presents a summary of participation restrictions experienced by disabled children, as defined by the DDA. 9 per cent of children aged 11 to 15 in Great Britain were disabled, as defined by the DDA. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how DDA disability is defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

1 For further information on ICF please see: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ 2 A selection of questions were asked about children aged 11-15, which were answered by their parents. 3 Everyone in these survey estimates would meet the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA); however, these estimates do not reflect the total number of people covered by the DDA or the Equalities Act 2010.


Participation Restrictions by DDA defined disability status Figure 18.1 shows the participation restrictions that children aged 11 to 15 experienced in the 12 months prior to interview. The areas of participation restriction reported by parents to be experienced most frequently by DDA disabled and non-disabled children were leisure or play activities; with parents of 37 per cent of disabled children, as defined by the DDA, and 8 per cent of non-disabled children reporting a restriction in this area.

Parents of DDA disabled children reported more restrictions to education (30 per cent), transport (21 per cent) and personal relationships (22 per cent) than parents of non-disabled children (3 per cent, 5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively).


The following section presents a summary of the participation restrictions children with and without impairments experienced and the reasons for these restrictions. Finally this section looks at the prevalence of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and whether children previously identified as having SEN are still thought to have them. 10 per cent of children aged 11 to 15 in Great Britain were reported to have an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Participation Restrictions by impairment status Figure 18.2 shows the participation restrictions that children aged 11 to 15 experienced in the 12 months prior to interview. The area of participation restriction experienced most frequently for children with and without impairments was in leisure or play activities, with parents of 29 per cent of children with impairments and 8 per cent of children without impairments reporting a restriction in this area.

Parents of children with impairments reported more restrictions to education (28 per cent), transport (21 per cent) and personal relationships (18 per cent)



than parents of children without impairments (3 per cent, 5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively).

Barriers to participation This section presents results for the 16 per cent of children where parents reported a participation restriction in the 12 months prior to interview. 44 per cent of children with impairments were reported to have experienced a restriction compared with 13 per cent of children without impairments.

Figure 18.3 illustrates the barriers to participation experienced by children, aged 11 to 15, in the 12 months prior to interview. Parents of children with impairments selected attitudes of others (35 per cent), lack of help or assistance (20 per cent) and lack of special aids or equipment (14 per cent) more often than parents of children without impairments (7 per cent, 6 per cent and 1 per cent respectively).

Financial reasons were reported by parents as the main cause of participation restrictions experienced by children without impairments (40 per cent) compared with 25 per cent of children with impairments. The second most frequent barrier reported for participation restrictions among children without impairments was poor services (32 per cent).

Parents of children with impairments also reported reasons for their participation restriction as being in relation to a disability or a health condition, illness or impairment with 41 per cent of parents of these children selecting either of these options.

Special Educational Needs The following section presents results on the prevalence of Special Educational Needs (SEN) for all children aged 11 to 15. Table 18.4 shows that 23 per cent of all children aged 11 to 15 were identified, either by their school or by someone else, to have had Special Educational Needs at some time in their life. Of these, 62 per cent were still thought to have Special Educational Needs at the time of the interview, also shown in table 18.4.




Figure 18.1 Participation Restrictions¹ experienced by DDA disabled² and non-disabled children³, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40

Education

Leisure or play

Transport

Personalrelationships

Percentage

Non-disabled children² DDA disabled children² all children

1 Respondents were asked to select all restrictions that applied to their child from the list of options provided. For further information on ICF please see: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en

2 Please refer to definition of DDA disability included in the Introduction of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10.

3 Children aged 11-15. Source: Office for National Statistics


http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en



Figure 18.2 Participation Restrictions1 experienced by children2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Education

Leisure or play

Transport

Personalrelationships

Percentage

children without impairments³ children with impairments³

all children

1 Respondents were asked to select all restrictions that applied to their child from the list of

options provided. For further information on ICF please see: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en

2 Children aged 11-15. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the







Figure 18.3 Eight most common barriers1 to participation experienced by children2 by impairment status3, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 10 20 30 40 50

Financial reasons

Poor services

Other reasons

Attitudes of others



A disability


Percentage

children without impairments³ children with impairments³

all children

1 Respondents were asked to select all barriers to participation that applied to their child

from the list of options provided. All respondents regardless of impairment status could select these response options. For further information on ICF please see: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en 2 Children aged 11-15. 3 Please refer to definition of adults with impairments included in the Introduction of the




Chapter 19 Severity of Impairment Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Severity of Impairment This chapter presents a summary of severity of impairments for adults in Great Britain between June 2009 and March 2010. Breakdowns1 of severity of impairments are reported by Government Office Region (GOR), age group, gender, employment status, life areas2 and participation restriction index3.

LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered or consider themselves as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment. Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Severity of impairment is defined from responses to the Impairments and health conditions section of the LOS questionnaire. The questions provide a measure of the following for each respondent:

if they experience either moderate, severe or complete difficulty within each area of physical or mental functioning, and

if certain activities are limited in any way as a result. ‘Activities’ refer to different areas of physical or mental functioning, such as walking, climbing stairs or reading a newspaper at arms length

Severity score Respondents with impairments were ranked into a severity category of one to four (with one being least severe and four being most severe). This has primarily been based on responses to questions asking about respondent’s level of difficulty in each of the 14 areas4 of physical or mental functioning.

1 A breakdown by marital status is not provided due to the small sample sizes for some categories available in the interim dataset. When the full wave one dataset is available this breakdown may be provided. 2 The life areas considered were education and training; employment; economic life and living standards; transport; leisure, social and cultural activities; social contact; accessibility of housing; and accessibility outside the home. 3 The Participation Restriction Index (PRI) is a score between zero and eight that is calculated for each respondent as the sum of their participation restrictions across eight life areas. For more information see Chapter 3: Participation restrictions of the LOS Interim report, 2009/10. 4 Sight, hearing, speaking, mobility, dexterity, long term pain, breathing, learning, intellectual, behavioural, memory, mental health condition, chronic health condition, other impairment or health condition.



For example, their reported level of difficulty with climbing stairs, reading a newspaper at arms length or remembering things.

In recognition that people have fluctuating impairments with different levels of frequency, the classification of severity of impairment has also taken into account the frequency of activity limitation. For example, whether the respondent has difficulty with activities related to mobility; rarely, sometimes, often or always.

To give an example: a respondent with a mild level of difficulty with activities related to mobility, which they experienced ‘rarely’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ would be coded into severity category one. Respondents with a mild level of difficulty with mobility that they experienced ‘always’ would be coded into severity category two.

A summary of how the severity score has been defined is given in table 19.1 below.

Table 19.1 Severity score ranking

Frequency

Difficulty Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Mild difficulty Category 1 Category 1 Category 1 Category 2

Moderate difficulty Category 1 Category 2 Category 2 Category 3

Severe difficulty Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 Category 4

Cannot do Category 3 Category 4 Category 4 Category 4

Number of impairments Respondents can have more than one impairment, with different levels of severity in each. In cases of multiple impairments, the respondent is coded according to their highest severity category of impairment. For example a respondent who is permanently blind (category four) may also sometimes have mild difficulty remembering things (category one). This respondent would remain coded in category four.

Therefore, the severity scores calculated for each of the respondents’ impairments were used to create an overall severity measure as follows:



Severity category one: respondents with one or more impairments within severity category one (and no impairments within a higher severity category).

Severity category two: respondents with one or more impairments within severity category two (and no impairments within a higher severity category).

Severity category three: respondents with one or more impairments within severity category three (and no impairments within a higher severity category).

Severity category four: respondents with one or more impairments within severity category four.

Review of method Previous surveys5 have taken more complex methods to calculate severity of impairment, using mean scores of numbers of impairments. The experimental statistics on severity presented in this interim report are intended to provide an indicative overview of levels of severity of impairments among the adult population and to outline the potential for analysis of severity in LOS, based on the questionnaire used. The method of scoring severity in LOS will be reviewed ahead of publication of the full baseline survey report (expected in autumn 2011).

Overview of results The following sections present a summary of impairment by severity for adults. 29 per cent of adults in Great Britain had an impairment. 10 per cent of these adults with impairments were within severity category one; 45 per cent with impairments were within severity category two; 25 per cent with impairments were within severity category three; and 20 per cent with impairments were within severity category four.



5 Grundy, E. et al (1999). Disability in Great Britain: results of the 1996/7 Disability Follow-Up to the Family Resources Survey. DWP. Sweeny, K. and Furphy, M. (2008). The Northern Ireland Survey of Activity Limitation and Disability: an exercise in surveying a non-universally defined group in the population.




Severity of impairment by Government Office Region Figure 19.1 shows a breakdown of severity of impairments by Government Office Region.

Severity category one 7 per cent of adults with impairments living in the North East were within severity category one. This compared with 12 per cent living in the East Midlands, and 13 per cent living in the South East.

Severity category two 42 per cent of adults with impairments living in the North East were within severity category two, compared with 49 per cent living in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Severity category three There were no statistically significant variations by regions in the proportion of adults with impairments who were within severity category three.

Severity category four 15 per cent of adults with impairments living in the South East were within severity category four. This compared with 22 per cent living in the North East, and 25 per cent living in the West Midlands.

Severity of impairment by age group Figure 19.2 shows a breakdown of severity of impairments by age group. The severity of adult’s impairments was found to increase with age.

Severity category one 14 per cent of adults with impairments aged between 16 and 39 were within severity category one. This compared with 10 per cent aged between 40 and 64, and 8 per cent aged 65 and over.

Severity category two 50 per cent of adults with impairments aged between 16 and 39 were within severity category two. This compared with 46 per cent aged between 40 and 64, and 41 per cent aged 65 and over.

Severity category three




23 per cent of adults with impairments aged between 16 and 39 were within severity category three, compared with 27 per cent aged 65 and over.

Severity category four 12 per cent of adults with impairments aged between 16 and 39 were within severity category four. This compared with 20 per cent aged between 45 and 64, and 24 per cent aged 65 and over.

Severity of impairment by gender Figure 19.3 shows a breakdown of severity of impairments by gender.

Severity category one 12 per cent of male adults with impairments were within severity category one, compared with 9 per cent of females.

Severity category two 43 per cent of male adults with impairments were within severity category two, compared with 47 per cent of females.

Severity category three 25 per cent of both male and female adults with impairments were within severity category three.

Severity category four 20 per cent of both male and female adults with impairments were within severity category four.

Severity of impairment by employment status Figure 19.4 shows a breakdown of severity of impairments by employment status6. Adults with more severe impairments were less likely to be in work.

Severity category one Among adults with impairments who were within severity category one:

7 per cent were in full-time self employment

40 per cent were in full-time employment

13 per cent were in part-time work7

40 per cent were workless

6 Due to small sample sizes employment status categories for workless (adults who are retired from paid work; unemployed; sick or disabled and other inactive) have been combined. 7 Includes employees and self employed.



Severity category two Among adults with impairments who were within severity category two:





Severity category three Among adults with impairments who were within severity category three:





Severity category four Among adults with impairments who were within severity category four:





Severity of impairment by life area Figure 19.5 shows a breakdown of severity of impairments by life area. Adults with more severe impairments were more likely to experience participation restrictions in the life areas described below.

Severity category one Among adults with impairments who were within severity category one and were restricted in one or more life areas:

13 per cent experienced a participation restriction in their learning opportunities

30 per cent experienced a participation restriction in the type or amount of paid work they did

64 per cent experienced a participation restriction in using transport

31 per cent experienced a participation restriction to economic life and living standards (that is being able to afford expenses or make loan repayments)



79 per cent experienced a participation restriction in leisure, social and cultural activities

Severity category two Among adults with impairments who were within severity category two and were restricted in one or more life areas:






Severity category three Among adults with impairments who were within severity category three and were restricted in one or more life areas:






Severity category four Among adults with impairments who were within severity category three and were restricted in one or more life areas:








Severity of impairment by participation restriction The Participation Restriction Index (PRI) is a score of between zero and eight that is calculated for each respondent as the sum of their participation restrictions across the following life areas:


employment


transport


social contact



For example, if an individual was restricted in the work that they could do, and in the learning opportunities they could take part in, their PRI score would be two. See Chapter 3 of this report for more information about the PRI.

Figure 19.6 shows a breakdown of severity of impairments by PRI score. Adults with impairments who were within severity category three or four were more likely to experience participation restrictions across a number of life areas.

Severity category one Among adults with impairments who were within severity category one:

11 per cent experienced no participation restrictions

17 per cent experienced one participation restriction

26 per cent experienced two participation restrictions

27 per cent experienced three participation restrictions

10 per cent experienced four participation restrictions

8 per cent experienced five or more participation restrictions



Severity category two Among adults with impairments who were within severity category two:







Severity category three Among adults with impairments who were within severity category three:







Severity category four Among adults with impairments who were within severity category four:









Figure 19.1 Severity of impairments1 for adults2 by Government Office Region, 2009/10

Great Britain

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and Humberside

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

England

Wales

Scotland

Great Britain

severity³ category 1 severity³ category 2



LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 2 Persons aged 16 and over who had impairments. 3 Please refer to Chapter 19 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, for more information about the derivation of severity of impairment. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 19.2 Severity of impairments1 for adults2 by age groups, 2009/10

Great Britain

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16-39

40-64

65+




2 Persons aged 16 and over who had impairments. 3 Please refer to Chapter 19 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, for more information about the derivation of severity of impairment. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 19.3 Severity of impairments1 for adults2 by gender, 2009/10

Great Britain

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Male

Female




2 Persons aged 16 and over who had impairments. 3 Please refer to Chapter 19 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, for more information about the derivation of severity of impairment. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 19.4 Severity of impairments1 for adults4 by employment status, 2009/10

Great Britain

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Full-time - selfemployed

Full-time -employee

Part-time work

Workless³

without impairments¹ severity² category 1 severity² category 2

severity² category 3 severity² category 4

5


LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 2 Please refer to Chapter 19 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, for more information about the derivation of severity of impairment. 3 Due to small sample sizes employment status categories for workless adults have been

combined. Workless includes adults who are retired from paid work; unemployed; sick or disabled and other inactive.

4 Persons aged 16 and over. 5 Includes employees and self employed. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 19.5 Severity of impairments1 for adults4 by participation restriction in different areas of life, 2009/10

Great Britain

0 20 40 60 80 100

Education and training

Employment

Economic life and livingstandards³

Transport

Leisure, social and culturalactivities

Social contact

Housing

Accessibility outside the home

Percentage

without impairments¹ severity² category 1 severity² category 2

severity² category 3 severity² category 4


2 Please refer to Chapter 19 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, for more information about the derivation of severity of impairment. 3 Participation restriction to economic life and living standards is calculated at household

level. For the definition of household please see Chapter 21 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10.

4 Persons aged 16 and over who were restricted in one or more life area. Source: Office for National Statistics




Figure 19.6 Severity of impairments2 for adults1 by Participation Restriction Index score4, 2009/10

Great Britain

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0

1

2

3

4

5 or more

Percentage

without impairments² severity³ category 1 severity³ category 2



LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. 3 Please refer to Chapter 19 of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, for more information about the derivation of severity of impairment. 4 Participation Restriction Index (PRI) is a score of between zero and eight that is








Chapter 20 Methodology Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Methodology This chapter describes the process used to create the interim results within this report, and the supporting data tables. The first section describes the procedure used to weight the LOS data and the second section describes data quality and the factors that affect the reliability of the LOS estimates.

Detailed information on the LOS sampling strategy, survey development, and data collection methods, can be found in the LOS Technical Report.

Weighting Procedure Survey data are routinely weighted to compensate for the different probabilities of individual households and people being included in the analysis data and to help reduce the random variation in survey estimates. Weighting the data also means that the results derived from the sample selected are representative of the population from which they were drawn.

The 2009/10 LOS data is weighted using a three-step approach. In the first step the data is weighted to account for the chance of a household being selected. The second stage weights the data to compensate for non-response. Finally, the third phase re-weights the data so that it matches the population totals in terms of individuals’ region, age group and sex. Detailed information of the weighting process can be found in the LOS Technical Report. Each step is summarised below.

Selection weights Weighting for selection is carried out in order to determine the relative probability that each address would be sampled for the survey. This is calculated by dividing the population count (the sum of the number of delivery points1 in England, Wales and Scotland) by the number of dwellings2 selected for the sample and then multiplying this by the number of households at each delivery point.

Weighting for non-response Sampled households may not respond to the survey, for example if they are too busy or do not want to take part. To ensure that the results are not biased by this missing information the data is weighted for non-response. Each respondent is given a weight so that they represent non-responders who

1 Houses with one front door. 2 A dwelling is a unit of accommodation, which can be occupied by more than one household, containing a kitchen, bath/shower room, or WC.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/downloads/los-technical-report-09-10.pdf



have similar characteristics. In order to adjust for non-response on the LOS the selection weights are adjusted at the Outcome Area Code (OAC) group level3. This was deemed the most appropriate basis for non-response adjustment due to the reasonably high level of variability in the impairment rate of OAC groups, and a high level of variability in the response rate. The non-response adjustment was made by calculating a response rate for each OAC group and then multiplying the selection weights of the dwellings that responded in these groups by the inverse of this.

Population weighting The LOS sample is based on private households4, which means that the population totals used in the weighting need to relate to people in private households. The population totals used for the LOS were for June 2009 and were taken from the ONS mid-year population estimates.

The population information from the mid-year totals and the LOS data were grouped into twelve age by sex categories and eleven Government Office Region categories to form a series of weighting classes. The population-based weighting consisted of adjusting the existing weights, using a process called calibration, so that the final weights ensured that weighted totals for the three demographic categories (age, sex and region) matched the population totals.

Presentation and interpretation of weighted data Missing answers are excluded from the tables and in some cases this is reflected in the sample bases, i.e. these numbers vary between tables. For this reason, the weighted bases are excluded from the tables as they are not recommended as a source for population estimates. This is because the LOS weighted bases would underestimate the number of people in the population. Recommended data sources for population estimates for most socio-demographic groups are: ONS mid-year estimates, the Labour Force Survey, or Housing Statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The weights derived for the interim dataset will be adjusted for the full baseline report.

3 OAC is a hierarchical classification created using cluster analysis on 41 Census variables - the first character relates to the 7 'super-groups', the first and second characters then relate to the 21 'groups' and then all three characters relate to the 52 'clusters'. 4 This excludes people living in residential institutions, such as retirement homes, nursing homes, prisons, barracks or university halls of residences as well as homeless people.


Data Reliability All reasonable attempts have been made to ensure that the results in this report are as accurate as possible; however there are certain factors that affect the reliability of estimates and for which no adequate adjustments can be made. These two potential sources of error are known as sampling and non-sampling errors and should be kept in mind when interpreting the LOS results.

Sampling error The estimates in this report are based on information obtained from a random sample of the population and are therefore subject to sampling variability. A total of 18,7515 households were issued in year one of baseline interviewing. Of these, full participation (i.e. interviews obtained in person or by proxy with every eligible adult in the household) was obtained from 60 per cent (9954) of eligible households. Further information on sample selection and response rates can be found in the LOS Technical Report.

Sampling error refers to the difference between the results obtained from the sample population and the results that would be obtained if the entire population were fully enumerated. The estimates may therefore differ from the figures that would have been produced if information had been collected for all households or individuals in Great Britain.

Standard errors and estimates of precision One measure of sampling variability is the standard error. Standard errors are one of the key measures of survey quality, showing the extent to which the estimates should be expected to vary over repeated random sampling. In order to estimate standard errors correctly, the survey design and calibration of the weight to the population totals need to be accounted for. The size of the standard error depends on the sample size of the estimate and sample design. For estimates based on small sample sizes the standard errors will be larger, indicating the estimate is less reliable.

Standard errors for the 2009/10 LOS Appendix B of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10, provides more detail about the calculation of standard errors and includes the standard errors for LOS survey estimates, including a summary table of key estimates.

5 341 of these addresses were not allocated to interviewers in December 2009. These were subsequently re-issued in September 2010 and are therefore not included in the interim wave one results.



Using the standard errors- confidence intervals The estimate produced from a sample survey will rarely be identical to the population value, but statistical theory allows us to measure its accuracy. A confidence interval can be calculated around the estimated value, which gives a range in which the true value for the population is likely to fall. The standard error measures the precision with which the estimates from the sample approximate to the true population values and is used to construct the confidence interval for each survey estimate.

For the LOS, it is possible to create 95 per cent confidence intervals for each estimated value presented. These can be taken to mean that there is only a 5 per cent chance that the true population value lies outside that confidence interval. The 95 per cent confidence interval is calculated as 1.96 times the standard error on either side of the mean. For example 16 per cent of all employed adults reported lack of job opportunities as a barrier to employment opportunities with the corresponding standard error being 0.9%. The amount either side of the mean for 95 per cent confidence is then:

1.96 x 0.9 = 1.76

Lower limit is 16% - 1.76 = 14% (rounded to the nearest percentage point).

Upper limit is 16% + 1.76= 18% (rounded to the nearest percentage point).

Similar calculations can be carried out for other survey estimates.

The size of the confidence interval depends on the sample size of the estimate and sample design. For estimates based on small sample sizes the standard errors and resulting confidence intervals will be larger, indicating the estimate is less reliable. Confidence intervals should be taken into consideration when making comparisons between figures.

Design factor The design factor, or deft, of an estimate is the ratio of the observed standard error of the estimate to the standard error of the estimate that would have resulted had the survey design been a simple random sample of the same size. The LOS sample is a systematic sample, and therefore implicitly stratified by region.

The size of the design factor varies between survey variables reflecting the degree to which a characteristic of interest is distributed between strata. For a single variable the size of the design factor also varies according to the size of the subgroup on which the estimate is based, and on the distribution of that subgroup between strata. Design factors equal to 1.0 indicate no difference in



the survey design on the reliability of the estimate when compared to a simple random sample. Design factors below 1.0 show that the systematic sample design improved on the estimate that we would have expected from a simple random sample. Design factors greater than 1.0 show less reliable estimates than might be gained from a simple random sample.

Design factors of survey estimates, including a summary table of design factors for key estimates, can be found in Appendix B of the LOS Interim Report, 2009/10. When using the LOS data to calculate estimates not provided in the LOS Interim Report, the design factor can be assumed to be 1.0 for the purposes of estimating standard errors.

Non-sampling error Additional inaccuracies which are not related to sampling variability may occur for reasons such as errors in response and reporting. Inaccuracies of this kind are collectively referred to as non-sampling errors and may occur in any data collection whether it’s a sample survey or a census. The main sources of non-sampling error are:

response errors such as misleading questions, interviewer bias or respondent misreporting

bias due to non-response as the characteristics of non-responding persons may differ from responding persons

data input errors or systematic mistakes in processing the data

Non-sampling errors are difficult to quantify in any data collection. However every effort was made to minimise their impact through careful design and testing of the questionnaire, training of interviewers and extensive editing and quality control procedures at all stages of data processing. Characteristics of non-responders will also be examined to improve the weighting method and response rates for future waves of the survey. For more details about how these potential sources of error were minimised in the LOS see Chapter 5 of the Technical Report.

External source validation In the final stages of validating the LOS data, comparative checks were undertaken to ensure that the survey estimates were broadly consistent with data from other sources. The following guidelines were followed when undertaking the external source validation process:

identify alternative sources of comparable data

produce frequencies and cross tabulations to compare proportions in the LOS dataset to those from external sources




if differences were found ensure that reference periods, populations, geography, samples, modes of collection, questions, concepts and derivations were comparable

A lot of the questions on the LOS have not been asked before and therefore no sources are available for comparison. Where data were available, the external validation process indicated that estimates from LOS were broadly consistent with estimates from other survey sources. DDA estimates from LOS have been compared against the 2008/09 Family Resources Survey (FRS) to ensure that DDA prevalence is similar across a variety of economic and social characteristics. Other LOS modules have been validated against external sources. For example impairments questions have been validated against the Northern Ireland Survey of Activity Limitation and Disability (NISALD) 2007, and economic life against the General Lifestyle Survey (GLF) 2008/09.

Chapter 21 Glossary Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Report, 2009/10

Glossary Adults Adults are defined as persons aged 16 or over. LOS interviews all people aged 16 and over in sampled private households.

Age A LOS respondent’s age was their age on the date of the interview and is provided in one of the following ways:

from the respondent’s date of birth

if date of birth is not given, respondent’s are asked their age

if age is not given the interviewer will estimate the respondent’s age

Barriers Social, economic or physical barriers that stop people taking part in activities as much as they would like to. Disabled people may face a range of barriers, for example: attitudinal, for example discriminatory or prejudicial attitudes and

practices among employers, health professionals and service providers policy, resulting from policy design and delivery which do not take

disabled people into account physical, for example through the design of the built environment,

transport systems, or as a result of the provision of inaccessible information about services

Respondents to the LOS were asked to select all barriers that applied to them from the list of options provided.

Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) CAPI is an interviewing technique where the interview takes place in person. The interviewer enters the respondent’s answers directly into a computer and the programming used ensures that the interviewer does not ask any irrelevant questions.



Confidence Interval A confidence interval is the range of values between which the population parameter is estimated to lie (also referred to as margin of error). Surveys produce statistics that are estimates of the real figures for the population under study. These estimates are always surrounded by a margin of error plus or minus a given range. At the 95 per cent confidence level, over many repeats of a survey under the same conditions, one would expect that these confidence intervals would contain the true population value in 95 per cent of cases. When assessing the results of a single survey it is assumed that there is a 5 per cent chance that the true population value will fall outside the 95 per cent confidence interval calculated for the survey estimate.

Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) The DDA is a piece of legislation that promoted civil rights for disabled people and protects disabled people from discrimination.

The DDA generally defined someone as disabled if “he or she has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her or his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”. From 1 October 2010, provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (EA) replaced the majority of provisions in the DDA. In general, the definition of disability in the EA is similar to that which applied for the purposes of the DDA. Unlike the DDA, it does not require a disabled person to demonstrate that, where their impairment adversely affects their ability to carry out a normal day-to-day activity, that activity involves one of a specified list of capacities, such as mobility, speech, or the ability to understand.

Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how people with rights under the DDA are defined and the purpose for including this additional measure in LOS.

Discrimination Discrimination occurs when a particular person or group of people are treated less favourably because of their personal characteristics such as: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sexual orientation.

Easy Read The Easy Read format was created to make the report accessible people with learning disabilities. Easy Read uses pictures to support the meaning of text. It can be used by a carer or support worker to talk through a communication



so that they can understand it, for example a letter from the council about council tax charges. Easy Read is often also preferred by readers without learning disabilities, as it provides the essential information on a topic without a lot of background information. It can be especially helpful for people who are not fluent in English. See http://www.officefordisability.gov.uk/iod/formats/easy-read.php for more information.

Economically inactive People who are neither in employment nor unemployed, and who are not actively seeking work. These include people looking after a home or family, and the long-term sick or disabled, and other inactive. Students and retired are excluded from the LOS definition.

Employment People who are in employment may be employees, self-employed, on a government supported training programme, or unpaid family workers. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines people as being employed if they are in one or more hours of paid employment a week.

Employment status Employment status in LOS consists of the following six categories:

Full-time self-employed: A person earning income directly from their own business, trade or profession

Full-time employee: A person employed by another person or a company for wages or a salary

Part-time work: Includes people employed by another person or a company for wages or a salary, and people earning income directly from their own business, trade or profession

Full/part-time working is self reported by the respondent.

Workless - retired from paid work: LOS classifies anybody who is retired from paid work and is inactive whether or not they would like to work

Workless - unemployed: LOS uses the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition of unemployment. This classifies anyone as unemployed if he or she was out of work and had looked for work in the four weeks before the interview, or would have but for temporary sickness or injury, and was available to start work in the two weeks after the interview

Workless - sick or disabled: LOS uses this classification for anybody who is temporarily sick or injured and for people who are long term sick or disabled whether they are seeking or not seeking work


http://www.officefordisability.gov.uk/iod/formats/easy-read.php


Enablers Factors that help people to take part in the activities they want to. An enabler may be the opposite of a barrier, for example, making modifications to buildings to make them more accessible for people with impairments or providing people with the support and assistance they require to live independently.

Ethnic group Harmonised questions on ethnicity, in line with recommended output classification of ethnic groups for National Statistics data sources, have been introduced to LOS. Questions on ethnic groups are concerned with the descent rather than country of birth and are therefore classified as:

White Mixed Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Chinese Other ethnic group

Government Office Region (GOR) The nine Government Office Regions (GORs) are the primary statistical subdivisions of England and also the areas in which the Government Offices for the Regions fulfil their role. Each GOR covers a number of local authorities. Government Office Regions were established in 1994. They replaced the Standard Statistical Regions as the primary classification for the presentation of English regional statistics. There are nine GORs within England: North East; North West; East Midlands; South West; Yorkshire and Humberside; East of England; West Midlands; South East and London. In addition to these further breakdowns are also provided for Great Britain (GB), England, Wales and Scotland.

Great Britain Great Britain in LOS refers to the whole of England, and Wales, including off shore islands, and Scotland; not including North of the Caledonian Canal. It does not include Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.



Hate Crime A hate crime is one committed against a person or their property on the grounds of their personal characteristics, such as religion, ethnic origin, disability or sexual orientation.

Household A household is defined as a single person or a group of people who have the address as their only or main residence and who either share one meal a day or share the living accommodation.

A group of people is not counted as a household solely on the basis of a shared kitchen or bathroom.

A person is generally regarded as living at the address if he or she (or the respondent providing the proxy information) considers the address to be his or her main residence. There are, however, certain rules which take priority over this criterion.

Children aged 16 or over who live away from home for purposes of either work or study and come home only for holidays are not included at the parental address under any circumstances.

Children of any age away from home in a temporary job and children under 16 at boarding school are always included in the parental household. Anyone who has been away from the address continuously for six months or longer is excluded.

Anyone who has been living at the address for six months or longer is included even if he or she has his or her main residence elsewhere. Addresses used only as second homes are never counted as a main residence.

Household Reference Person (HRP) For some topics it is necessary to select one person in the household to indicate the characteristics of the household more generally. In common with other government surveys LOS uses the Household Reference Person (HRP) for this purpose. The HRP is defined as follows:

in households with a sole householder that person is the household reference person

in households with joint householders the person with the highest income is taken as the household reference person



if both householders have exactly the same income, the older is taken as the household reference person

Note that when income is used to determine the HRP this definition does not require a question about people’s actual incomes, only a question about who in the household has the highest income.

Impairment status Impairments relate to the loss of physiological and psychological functions of the body such as loss of sight, hearing, mobility or learning capacity. Impairments should be distinguished from medical conditions or loss of bodily structure. For example glaucoma is a medical condition; loss of vision is the impairment it causes. Activity limitations are restrictions an individual may have in executing physical or mental tasks or actions as a result of their impairment, for example, being unable to read newsprint at arms length without glasses or other aids and adaptations.

The LOS does not equate having an impairment with being disabled. A person may have some form of impairment without having any activity limitation and may not be considered themselves, or be considered by others, as disabled. Following the social model, disability is understood as the disadvantage people with impairments experience due to barriers that restrict their participation in different areas of life. To meet the social model definition of disability, LOS requires someone to have experienced barriers to participation and have an impairment.

Please see the Introduction of this report for discussion of how impairment status is defined and the reasons for its inclusion in LOS.

Income Personal income is the amount of money received by individuals from all sources. Income includes wages and salaries as well as amounts received from state pensions and benefits, tax credits, private pensions, investments and self-employment income. Household income, the total personal income of household members, is a widely used indicator of living standards.

Longitudinal Survey A survey where respondents are regularly re-interviewed after a set interval (e.g. one year).



Long standing illness An illness which has lasted 12 months or more, or is likely to last more than 12 months.

Participation restriction In LOS, an adult has a participation restriction if they experience at least one social barrier to taking part in at least one of the following life areas:


employment


transport


social contact



Examples of social barriers include: discrimination; the attitudes of other people; inaccessible buildings, public transport and information; limited income; not having anyone to meet or speak to; as well as lack of support, equipment and adjustments.

Prevalence Prevalence is the proportion of individuals within a defined population that exhibit a particular characteristic at one point in time.

Proxy Interview Interviewers can take a proxy interview rather than lose information about a member of the household. This information is best obtained from someone who has a reasonable amount of knowledge about the respondent’s affairs. Whenever possible, interviewers ask the respondent for permission to take the proxy information before interviewing another member of the household on his or her behalf.

Qualification levels The LOS asks for the highest level of qualification that the respondent has achieved from school, college or since leaving education. This includes any work based training. The breakdown of qualifications is outlined below:




Higher educational qualification below degree level

A-Levels or Highers

ONC/National Level BTEC

O Level or GCSE equivalent (Grade A-C) or O Grade/CSE equivalent (Grade 1) or Standard Grade level 1-3

GCSE grade D-G or CSE grade 2-5 or Standard Grade level 4-6

Other qualifications (including foreign qualifications below degree level)


Qualitative Research The LOS is complemented by two qualitative research projects to gather information about disabled people that would not be possible by using the survey itself. In contrast to the structured approach used for survey data collection, qualitative research uses more informal methods to gather rich information on the experiences, opinions and feelings of research participants. The methods used in the two qualitative research projects included in-depth semi-structured interviewing and ethnography.

Reference group A group of 60 disabled people and representatives of organisations of disabled people who have been actively involved in guiding decisions about the accessibility of LOS, its design (including topic coverage) and the dissemination of results.

Sexual identity Sexual identify refers to how individuals think of themselves. This does not necessarily match their sexual behaviour or attraction and can change over time. The question within the core module of LOS has been developed to collect data on sexual identity, that is how people see themselves at the time the interview takes place.



Sexual orientation There are different dimensions of sexual orientation including attraction, behaviour and identity. Legislation refers to sexual orientation and therefore questions within the discrimination section of the LOS questionnaire refers to sexual orientation. See the following report for more information: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/measuring-sexual-identity-report.pdf

Sampling error A sample, as used in LOS, is a small-scale representation of the population from which it is drawn. As such, the sample may produce estimates that differ from the figures that would have been obtained if the whole population had been interviewed. The size of the error depends on the sample size, the size of the estimates and the design of the survey.

Standard errors This is a measure of possible error in the estimate and is important because the value of the error reflects how much sampling variability the estimate shows. The size of the standard error is dependant on the sample size, so in general the larger the sample size the smaller the standard error. The standard error is computed and used to construct confidence intervals. The standard error is also taken into account in tests of statistical significance.

Statistical significance This indicates the probability with which we are confident that the difference between the estimates under examination did not occur by chance. Unless stated, all significance referred to in this report is at the 95% level. This means that the probability that the difference happened by chance is low (1 in 20).

Tax credits Tax credits are payments from the government. Respondents may qualify for a Working Tax Credit if they work, but earn low wages and/or a Child Tax Credit if they are responsible for at least one child or young person who normally lives with them.

Unclustered sample The sample design for the LOS employs a single-stage (unclustered) sample of addresses. With a clustered sample, the sample is drawn from within




selected postcode sectors in order to minimise the travelling required by survey interviewers. When a sample is unclustered, addresses are spread out across all postcode sectors, rather than a subset. The unclustered sample allows greater statistical precision to be achieved than using a clustered sample because it should represent all groups of society equally. With a clustered sample, the results can be biased by households with similar characteristics clustering within selected postcode sectors.

Underground The underground refers exclusively to the inner city underground metro systems of London, Glasgow and Tyne and Wear.

Unemployed The International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines unemployed people as those who are:

without a job, want a job, have actively sought work in the last four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks, or

are out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks. See also: employment status

Wave A wave is a discrete period of interviewing. In order to cover all the sampled households it is necessary to spread each LOS wave over two years. The first wave started in June 2009 and will finish at the end of June 2011.

Weighting All percentages and means presented in the tables are based on data weighted to compensate for differential non-response. The un-weighted base number are included in the tables and represent the number of people/households interviewed in the specified group. A full description of the method of weighting and the effects on data are in chapter 20 Methodology.

Working-age population This is defined as those aged 16 to 59 for females and 16 to 64 for males for the creation of the employment status tables for disabled adults, as defined by the DDA, and non-disabled adults within the employment chapter of this report. However for all other tables within the employment chapter all adults 16 and over are included for analytical purposes.

Life Opportunities Survey 2009/10

Chapter tables

Appendix A

Crown copyright


Government Buildings

Cardiff Rd

Newport

NP10 8XG

Tel: 01633 456330

Email: [email protected]

Office for National Statistics: December 2010 223 223

Appendix A: Link to chapter tables Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Appendix A Many tables were produced during the analysis. To have included these in this report would have added to its length considerably. However, the tables will be of interest to some readers, and have therefore been made available on the website and links to them are included this appendix. The tables for each chapter can be accessed by clicking on the chapter references below:

Chapter 2: Household Characteristics

Chapter 3: Participation Restrictions

Chapter 4: Health and Impairment Conditions

Chapter 5: DDA prevalence rates

Chapter 6: Education and training participation

Chapter 7: Employment

Chapter 8: Economic life and living

Chapter 9: Transport

Chapter 10: Leisure, community and civic life

Chapter 11: Social contact

Chapter 12: Housing

Chapter 13: Accessibility – Outside the home

Chapter 14: Accessibility of public services

Chapter 15: Domestic life and social care

Chapter 16: Discrimination

Chapter 17: Crime

Chapter 18: Children (Aged 11 – 15)

Chapter 19: Severity of impairment


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/downloads/chapter-2-tables.xls


















Life Opportunities Survey 2009/10

Standard error tables

Appendix B

Crown copyright


Government Buildings

Cardiff Rd

Newport

NP10 8XG

Tel: 01633 456330

Email: [email protected]

Office for National Statistics: December 2010 225 225

Appendix B: Link to standard error tables Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10

Appendix B To enable the reader to gain an appreciation of the variability of the results presented in this report, estimates of the standard errors for each estimate have been produced.

A summary table of key estimates has also been produced including estimates of the standard errors and confidence intervals. The size of the confidence interval depends on the sample size of the estimate and sample design. For estimates based on small sample sizes the standard errors and resulting confidence intervals will be wider, indicating the estimate is less reliable than estimates based on a larger sample size. Confidence intervals should be taken into consideration when making comparisons between figures.

Design factors are also provided in the tables which are calculated as the ratio of the observed standard error of the estimate to the standard error of the estimate that would have resulted had the survey design been a simple random sample of the same size. When using the LOS data to calculate estimates not provided in the LOS Interim Report, the design factor can be assumed to be 1.0 for the purposes of estimating standard errors.

See Chapter 20: Methodology for more information about the calculation of standard errors, confidence intervals and design factors. The standard error estimates are in spreadsheets that can be accessed by clicking here: Key estimates

Chapter 2: Household Characteristics

Chapter 3: Participation Restrictions

Chapter 4: Health and Impairment Conditions

Chapter 5: DDA prevalence rates

Chapter 6: Education and training participation

Chapter 7: Employment

Chapter 8: Economic life and living

Chapter 9: Transport

Chapter 10: Leisure, community and civic life

Chapter 11: Social contact


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/downloads/chapter-2-standard-errors.xls










http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/methodology_by_theme/downloads/table-b1.1.xls

Appendix B: Link to standard error tables Life Opportunities Survey: Interim Results, 2009/10


Chapter 12: Housing

Chapter 13: Accessibility – Outside the home

Chapter 14: Accessibility of public services

Chapter 15: Domestic life and social care

Chapter 16: Discrimination

Chapter 17: Crime

Chapter 18: Children (Aged 11 – 15)

Chapter 19: Severity of impairment









Life Opportunities Survey - Interim results, 2009/10

Documents