London Borough Fertility Rates and Life Tables
(2000-02)
BSPS
14 September 2004
John Hollis and Georgia Hay
Demography Team
Data Management and Analysis Group
Data Management and Analysis
Outline
• Why is GLA doing this?
• Fertility
– Data issues
– Hadwiger smoothing of rates
– Findings
• Life Tables
– Data Issues
– Findings and Comparisons
• Conclusions and Discussion
Data Management and Analysis
What are the results for?
• GLA prepares annual rounds of demographic
projections at borough level
– Need local fertility and survival rates
– Projections act as constraints for ward level and ethnic
group projections
• London has over 100k births and about 60k
deaths per year
– therefore sufficient data for local analyses
• Fertility differs across the boroughs
– partly due to marital status, ethnic and social
differences
• Mortality also differs considerably
– due to smaller numbers of events the results used in
projections
are for 3 borough groupings
Data Management
and Analysis
Fertility - Data
• Births by single years of age of mother (<16 to
49+) for 2000, 2001, and 2002
– Confidentiality issues in 2002 affect City of London and
youngest ages and 45+ in several boroughs
– 2002 data was received ‘under license’ from ONS
– NB rates not prepared for City (only 57 births in 2002).
Models use Central London rates for City
• ONS MYE for females 15(1)49 for 2001 (revised)
– Impact of Sept. 9th re-revisions (mainly for Southwark,
Wandsworth and Westminster) to be followed up
Data Management and Analysis
Hadwiger Smoothing
• Use of single-peak Hadwiger expression is
embedded in GLA population projection model
• 4-parameter expression
–
–
–
–
TFR
Modal Age of fertility
Mean Age of fertility
Variance
• New inputs last prepared using 1995-97 births
– For some boroughs the 1995-97 raw data exhibited
signs of a second (lower) fertility peak, or ‘shoulder’, in
the early 20s
Data Management and Analysis
Example of the 'Shoulder'
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
0.12
HADWINGER VALUE
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Findings
• Many boroughs now clearly exhibit two peaks
– The rest show a ‘shoulder’
• TFRs have mostly declined (only 9 exceptions)
• Modal and Mean ages have increased
– 1995-97 8 boroughs had mode over 30 cf. 20 (highest
34.3)
– Modal age in London is now 31.2
– 1995-97 4 boroughs had mean over 30 cf. 6 (highest
32.0)
• Double peaks appear to have held means down
• Variance has increased in most boroughs
– Poorer fit a consequence of double peaks
Data Management and Analysis
Greater London ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age of mother
Data Management and Analysis
Central Boroughs ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Rest of Inner London Boroughs ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Outer London Boroughs ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Lambeth ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Newham ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Tower Hamlets ASFR 2000-02
0.14
FERTILITY RATE
HADWINGER VALUE
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Age
Data Management and Analysis
Next Steps?
• Investigating 2 (and 3) Peak Hadwiger model
• ‘Slice out’ the early peak from raw rates and
smooth the rest?
– Then add back the peak before projecting
• Split births into two distributions and smooth
each?
• Ignore smoothed rates entirely in GLA models?
– Use ‘raw’ 2000-02 rates as starting point
– Integrate changing rates just by the use of GAD
projected TFR as a scaling factor to all base year rates
• Any more ideas?
Data Management and Analysis
The Life Table
• Shows a hypothetical cohort, usually 100,000
people, diminished gradually by deaths
• Contains members of only one sex
• Is a standardised way of comparing different
populations
• Offers population survival rates for use in
population projections
Data Management and Analysis
Life Table - Data
• Deaths by gender and single year of age,
calendar years 2000 to 2002 – Vital Statistics,
ONS
– 2002 data received ‘under license’ from ONS
• Deaths by age of children under 1 – calendar
years 2000 and 2001
– 2002 data not supplied by ONS
• Mid-year population estimates by gender and
single year of age, mid-2000 to mid-2002,
Population Estimates, ONS
Data Management and Analysis
Why not use just the 2001 MYE?
It is more usual to use a single year of MYE ie
mid-2001
However, there were unusually low numbers of
82 and 83 year olds in 2001 – resulting from
low births at the end of the First World War
ONS revised mid-2000 estimates recalculated
by GLA to conform to changes to the mid-2001
revised estimates – mostly affects males aged
25-49
Therefore, averaged three years population
estimates as well as deaths
Data Management and Analysis
Female deaths by age – Vital Statistics
1,400
1,200
Number of deaths
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
76
77
78
79
80
81
2000
Data Management and Analysis
82
2001
83
84
2002
85
average
86
87
88
89
Female population by age – Mid-Year Estimates
25
20
Thousands
15
10
5
0
76
77
78
79
80
81
2000
Data Management and Analysis
82
2001
83
84
2002
85
average
86
87
88
89
Female death rates - mx
0.160
0.140
mx - death rate
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
mx - 2001 MYE
Data Management and Analysis
83
84
mx - Average MYE
85
86
87
88
89
Female Life Table mortality rates - qx
0.160
0.140
qx - Life Table mortality rate
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
qx - 2001 MYE
Data Management and Analysis
83
84
qx - Average MYE
85
86
87
88
89
Expectation of Life at Birth by London Borough - Males
England & Wales: 75.9
Highest: Rutland, East Dorset, Hart: 79.5
Lowest: Manchester: 71.0
Expectation of Life at Birth
Greater London: 75.83
Central Boroughs: 76.20
Rest of Inner Boroughs: 74.01
Inner Boroughs: 74.47
Outer Boroughs: 76.55
Data Management and Analysis
Males
77.07 to 78.49
(7)
75.64 to 77.07
(11)
74.21 to 75.64
(8)
72.79 to 74.21
(6)
No data available (1)
Expectation of Life at Birth by London Borough - Females
England & Wales: 80.6
Highest: Kensington & Chelsea: 83.9
Lowest: Manchester: 77.3
Greater London: 80.74
Central Boroughs: 81.96
Rest of Inner Boroughs: 79.50
Inner Boroughs: 80.07
Outer Boroughs: 81.15
Data Management and Analysis
Expectation of Life at Birth
Females
82.66 to 83.92
(2)
81.39 to 82.66
(10)
80.13 to 81.39
(7)
78.87 to 80.13
(13)
No data available (1)
To
we
rH
am
La lets
m
So bet
ut h
hw
Re
Ne ark
st
w
of
Inn Isl ham
i
er ng
Bo ton
rou
Le ghs
w
Gr isha
ee m
nw
Ha ich
c
Wa C kney
a
Inn ltha md
er m en
Bo For
ro es
ug t
W
Ba
an hs
rki
ds *
w
ng
an Ha orth
d D rin
Ha
mm
ag gey
en
ers
mi Ho ham
th u
Gr an nslo
d
e
We ate Fu w
r
stm Lo lha
ins ndo m
ter n
,C *
it y
o
Ce
Ea f
nt
lin
ral
g
Bo Br
ro en
ug t
Ou Hill hs *
ter ing
Bo don
ro
u
Cr ghs
oy
Re do
db n
r
Ha idge
ve
rin
En g
f ie
l
Be d
xle
Su y
Kin
tt
Me on
gs
to
n u B rt on
po rom
Ric
n T le
hm
ha y
on
me
du
s
po Ba
Ke
r
n
n
ns
Th et
ing
am
ton
e
H
an ar s
d C ro
he w
lse
a
Years
Expectation of life at birth - male
80.0
78.0
76.0
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
1990-92
Data Management and Analysis
1995-97
2000-02
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
To Ne
we wh
r H am
am
Le let
wi s
sh
Re
Isl am
st
i
n
g
of
Inn La ton
er mb
Bo eth
ro
W
Ba
a ug
rki Wa nds hs
ng lth wo
an am rth
d D Fo
ag res
en t
So ham
ut
hw
Inn
er Ha ark
Bo ck
ro ney
ug
Ho hs *
un
s
Ha low
rin
Gr ge
ee y
nw
Cr ich
oy
Gr
do
ea
ter Su n
Lo tton
nd
on
Ca *
md
Ha en
ve
rin
Ea g
lin
Ou
ter En g
Bo field
ro
ug
Kin
h
gs
Be s
to
H
x
n u ill ley
po ing
n T do
ha n
Ha We
me
mm stm
ers ins B s
mi ter ren
th , C t
an ity
d F of
u
Re lha
db m
rid
ge
M
Ce
ert
nt
on
ral
Bo Bar
Ric
ro net
hm
ug
on
h
d u B s*
ro
p
Ke
on ml
ns
Th ey
ing
am
ton
es
H
an ar
d C row
he
lse
a
Years
Expectation of life at birth - female
86.0
84.0
82.0
80.0
78.0
76.0
74.0
1990-92
Data Management and Analysis
1995-97
2000-02
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
To Ne
we wh
r H am
am
Le let
wi s
s
Re
Isl ham
st
i
n
g
of
Inn La ton
er mb
Bo et
h
W rou
Ba
a
g
n
h
rk Wa ds s
ing lth wo
an am rth
d
Da Fore
ge st
So nham
ut
hw
In
ne H ark
r B ac
or kne
ou y
g
Ho hs *
un
s
Ha low
rin
Gr ge
ee y
nw
Cr ich
oy
Gr
do
ea
te Su n
r L tto
on n
do
n
Ca *
md
Ha en
ve
rin
Ea g
lin
Ou
te En g
r B f ie
or ld
ou
gh
Ki
ng
Be s
sto
n Hill xley
up ing
on do
Th n
Ha We
am
m stm
es
me i
n
rsm st Br
ith er, ent
an City
dF o
u f
Re lha
db m
rid
g
M e
Ce
er
nt
t
on
ral
Bo Bar
Ri
n
ch
ro
ug et
m
on
hs
d
up Bro *
Ke
on m
ns
Th ley
ing
am
to
es
n
H
an ar
d C row
he
lse
a
Years
Expectation of life at birth – comparison of males and females
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
Male
Data Management and Analysis
Female
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
W
alt
ha
m
F
Ho ore
un st
Gr slo
ee w
Re nwic
d
h
W
es H brid
tm ill ge
ins ing
te do
r,
C n
So ity
ut of
hw
Isl ark
ing
to
Ba n
rn
e
Be t
xle
En y
fi
B eld
W rom
an
ds ley
wo
La rth
m
Ou H bet
a
te ri h
r
n
Ki
ng T Bor gey
sto ow ou
n er H ghs
up a
on ml
Th ets
am
Ca es
m
Ha den
ve
Gr
ea Cr ring
te oy
Ri
r L do
ch
on n
m
do
Re ond
n
*
st
of upo Eali
n
n
Inn T g
er ham
Bo e
ro s
ug
In
ne
h
r B Su s
or tto
ou n
gh
Ne s *
w
Le ham
w
Ce
ish
nt
am
ral
Bo Br
ro en
ug t
hs
Ba
rk
M *
ing
e
an H rt on
d ac
Ke
Da kn
n
ge ey
Ha sin
nh
m gto
am
me n
H
rsm an arr
ith d Ch ow
an els
d F ea
ulh
am
Years
Change in life expectation at birth between 1995-97 and 2000-02
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
Males
Data Management and Analysis
Females
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
W
es
tm Is
ins ling
te to
r,
C n
Ho ity o
u f
Hi nslo
llin w
So gdo
ut n
hw
W La ark
alt m
ha be
m t
W Fo h
an re
ds st
w
Re ort
db h
rid
Re
st To Hari ge
of we ng
Inn r H ey
er am
Bo let
ro s
ug
Ca hs
md
En en
In
f
ne H ield
r B ac
or kn
ou ey
gh
s*
Ba
Ha rne
ve t
r
Ne ing
wh
a
Su m
tto
Ea n
Gr
ea Lew ling
te
i
Ou r Lo sham
te nd
r B on
Ri
ch
or *
m
ou
on
gh
d
up M s
e
on rt
Th on
Ce
am
Ki nt
es
ng ra
l
sto B Be
x
o
n
up roug ley
on hs
Th *
am
es
Gr Bre
ee nt
Ha
nw
m
me
Br ich
om
rsm
ith H ley
an arr
Ba
d F ow
rk
ulh
Ke ing
ns an Cr am
ing d D oy
to ag don
n
an enh
d C am
he
lse
a
Years of life left after age 75
Change in expectation of life left at age 75 between 1995-97 and 2000-02
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
Males
Data Management and Analysis
Females
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
er
Ha
La mle
So mb ts
ut eth
Re
h
st
Ne wa
of
w rk
In
ne Isl ha m
r B ing
or to
Le o ug n
w h
G ish s
re a
en m
Ha w ic
W
c h
a l C kne
t
a
h
In a m y
ne m d
r B F en
o or
Ba
W r ou e st
rk
a n gh
in
ds s
g
Ha
an H wo *
m
d a rth
m
D rin
er
ag g
sm
e e
it h H n h y
o
a
W Gre and uns m
e s at F lo
tm er ulh w
in Lo am
st n
er do
,C n
ity *
Ce
o
E
nt
al f
ra
l B B ing
o r re
o
O H ug n t
ut il hs
er lin *
Bo gd
ro on
u
Cr gh
o
Re yd s
db on
Ha rid g
ve e
r
En ing
f
Be ie ld
xle
Ki
Su y
ng
t
st
M ton
on
e
r
Ri
u p B to
ch
on rom n
m
Th ley
on
am
d
Ke
up
B
ns
on a es
in
Th rn e
gt
on
am t
an H es
d a rr
C o
he w
lse
a
To
w
Age
79.0
10.0
78.0
9.0
77.0
8.0
76.0
7.0
75.0
6.0
74.0
5.0
73.0
4.0
72.0
3.0
71.0
2.0
70.0
1.0
69.0
0.0
Expectation of life at birth
Data Management and Analysis
% with 'not good' health and a limiting long-term illness
Per cent
Comparison of expectation of life at birth and percentage of people
with 'not good' health and a limiting long-term illness - males
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
To N
w ew
er h
H am
Le aml
Re
wi ets
s
st
Is h am
of
l
In L ing
ne a to
r B mb n
Ba
o et
W
rk Wa a n ro u h
in lt d gh
g ha sw s
an m o
r
d
D Fo th
ag re
s
So en h t
a
u
t m
In
ne H hwa
a
r B c rk
or kn
o ey
Ho ugh
un s *
Ha slo
G rin w
re ge
en y
Cr w ic
G
oy h
re
d
at
er Su on
Lo tto
nd n
Ca on
m *
Ha d e
ve n
r
Ea ing
O
ut
er E ling
Bo nfie
Ki
ro ld
ng
ug
st
Be hs
on
u p Hill xle
Ha W
on ing y
m es
Th d o
m tm
am n
e r in
sm s
e
ith ter, Br s
e
an Ci n t
d ty
F o
Re ulha f
db m
rid
Ce
g
M
nt
er e
ra
Ri
t
l B B on
ch
o r arn
m
on
ou e
d
g t
Ke
up Br hs
ns
on om *
in
Th ley
gt
on
am
an H es
a
d
C rro
he w
lse
a
Age
85.0
82.0
81.0
6.0
80.0
79.0
76.0
Expectation of life at birth
Data Management and Analysis
% with 'not good' health and a limiting long-term illness
Per cent
Comparison of expectation of life at birth and percentage of people
with 'not good' health and a limiting long-term illness - females
12.0
84.0
10.0
83.0
8.0
4.0
78.0
2.0
77.0
0.0
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
To L
w am
er b
H et
So am h
ut let
h s
Ha wa
ck rk
Ca ne
Re
m y
st
Is d e
of
In Gr ling n
n e t
In er en on
ne Bo w
r B ro ich
or ug
o h
Ha
Le ugh s
m Ce
w
m n
ish s *
e r tr
N
sm al e am
ith Bo wh
an rou a m
W
e s W d F g hs
tm a ulh *
in nd a
W ste sw m
a l r, or
Ba
th C th
rk
a m ity
in
g
F o
an H ore f
G d D a r st
re a in
at ge ge
er n y
Lo ha
m
Ho n do
n
un *
sl
Ea ow
Hi li
llin ng
gd
on
O
B
ut C re
er r o n t
Bo yd
Ke
ro on
ns
ug
in
h
gt
on R Enf s
an e db ie ld
d rid
C g
he e
Br lse
om a
Be ley
xl
Ba e y
r
Ki
M ne
ng
er t
t
st
Su on
on
t
Ri
u p Ha to
ch
on ve n
m
Th r in
on
a g
d
up H me
on a s
Th rro w
am
es
Years lived during working age (16-64)
48.0
47.0
10.0
8.0
46.5
6.0
45.5
Expectation of years lived between 16 and 64
Data Management and Analysis
Unemployment rate
Unemployment rate
Comparison of unemployment rate and average number
of years lived during working age - male (16-64)
16.0
14.0
47.5
12.0
4.0
46.0
2.0
0.0
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
Is
l
Le ing
wi ton
s
La h a
Re
m
m
st
Ne b e
of
t
In So wh h
ne u a m
r B thw
or a r
To Gr o ug k
e
In w e en hs
ne r H w
r B a ich
or mle
ou ts
Ha gh s
Ba
Ha rk
c *
Ha kne
m ing
m
y
e r an C ring
sm d a e
ith D a md y
an gen en
d h
W F a
W Wa a n ulh m
e s lt d am
tm ha sw
in m or
st Fo th
er r
, C es
ity t
o
G
B f
re
at E ren
er n t
Lo fie
n d ld
o
Ce
Ba n *
nt
r
ra C n
l B r o et
o r yd
ou on
gh
s
S
O
ut *
ut
er E ton
Bo ali
ro ng
Ha ugh
s
Ho ver
i
n
un g
B r s lo
w
Re om
db ley
Hi rid
llin g
gd e
Ke
o
M
n
er n
Ri sing
t
o
Be n
ch to
x
m n
Ki on an H le y
ng d d a r
st up C ro
on o he w
u p n T lse
on ha a
Th me
am s
es
Years lived during working age (16-59)
43.6
43.5
8.0
43.3
6.0
43.2
43.0
42.9
Expectation of years lived between 16 and 59
Data Management and Analysis
Unemployment rate
Unemployment rate
Comparison of unemployment rate and average number
of years lived during working age - female (16-59)
12.0
10.0
43.4
43.1
4.0
2.0
0.0
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
er
Ha
La mle
So mb ts
ut eth
Re
hw
st
N
of
e w a rk
In
ne Isl ha m
r B ing
or to
Le o ug n
w h
G ish s
re a
en m
Ha w ic
W
c h
a C kn
In ltha a m ey
ne m d
r B F en
o or
Ba
W r ou e st
rk
a n gh
in
ds s
g
Ha
an H wo *
m
d a rth
m
D rin
er
ag g
sm
e e
it h H n h y
o
a
W Gre and uns m
e s at F lo
tm er ulh w
in Lo am
st n
er do
,C n
ity *
Ce
Ea of
nt
ra
l
l B B ing
o r re
o
O H ug n t
ut il hs
er lin *
Bo gd
ro on
u
Cr gh
o
Re yd s
db on
Ha rid g
ve e
r
En ing
fie
B e ld
xl
Ki
Su e y
ng
t
st
M ton
on
e
Ri
u p B rto
ch
on rom n
m
Th ley
on
am
d
Ke
up
e
B
ns
on a s
in
rn
T
gt
ha et
on
m
an H es
d a rr
C o
he w
lse
a
To
w
Age
79.0
100.0
78.0
90.0
77.0
80.0
76.0
70.0
75.0
60.0
74.0
50.0
73.0
40.0
72.0
30.0
71.0
20.0
70.0
10.0
69.0
0.0
Expectation of life at birth
Data Management and Analysis
% White
Per cent
Comparison of life expectancy at birth and percentage of population
in White ethnic group - males
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
er
Ha
La mle
t
So mb s
e
u
Re
th th
st
Ne wa
of
w rk
In
ne Isl ha m
r B ing
or ton
Le o ug
wi hs
s
Ca h am
m
G
re d e
e n
In
ne H nw
Ba
r B a c ich
k
rk
in W or o ne
y
g
u
an a n gh
d ds s
W D w *
a l ag ort
th e h
Ha
am nh
m
Fo am
m
er
r
H
sm
a e st
ith Ho ring
G an un e y
re d s
at F low
er ul
W
Lo ham
es
nd
tm
on
Ce in
nt ste Ea *
ra r, lin
l B Ci g
o r ty
ou of
Hi g h
llin s
O
gd *
ut
on
er
Bo Bre
ro n t
Ha ugh
ve s
Cr r in
Re oyd g
db on
rid
En ge
f
Ki
Be ie ld
ng
xle
st
Su y
on
u p M tto
on e n
Ri
Th rton
ch
a
m
B r me
on
o
d
m s
Ke
up
le
ns
on Ba y
r
in
n
Th e
gt
am t
on
an H es
d a rr
C o
he w
lse
a
To
w
Years lived after age 16
64.0
50.0
63.0
45.0
62.0
40.0
61.0
35.0
60.0
30.0
59.0
25.0
58.0
20.0
57.0
15.0
56.0
10.0
55.0
5.0
54.0
0.0
Expectation of years lived after age 16
Data Management and Analysis
% working 49 hours per week and over
Per cent
Comparison of expectation of years lived after age 16 and percentage of people
aged 16 to 74 working 49 hours per week or more - males
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
To N
w ew
er h
Ha a m
Le ml
Ba
wi ets
s
rk
Is h am
in
lin
g
an L gt
d a m on
Re
D
st
a b
o f W ge eth
a
In n n h
n d a
W er B sw m
a l o or
th ro th
a m ug
h
So For s
e
ut s
t
Ho hwa
In G un rk
ne re slo
r B en w
or w i
ou ch
Ha gh s
ri *
Ha nge
ck y
n
G
Su ey
re
t
at Cr ton
er oy
Lo d o
nd n
Ha on
ve *
Ca r in
m g
d
En en
fie
E a ld
O
ut
l
er Be ing
Ha Kin
x
B
or le y
m gst
m on
o
e r u Hi ug
sm p llin hs
ith on gd
an Tha on
d m
Fu es
lh
a
M m
W
Re ert
es
db on
tm
rid
i
Ri
ns
g
ch
te Ba e
m
r, rn
on
Ci et
ty
d
up
o
on B f
r
Ce
e
Th n
nt
a t
ra B me
Ke
l
ns
Bo rom s
in
ro le
gt
ug y
on
an H hs *
d a rr
C o
he w
lse
a
Years lived after age 16
65.0
Per cent
Comparison of expectation of years lived after age 16 and percentage of people
aged 16 to 74 working 49 hours per week or more - females
69.0
25.0
68.0
20.0
67.0
66.0
15.0
64.0
10.0
63.0
5.0
62.0
61.0
0.0
Expectation of years lived after age 16
Data Management and Analysis
% working 49 hours per week and over
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
To L
w am
er b
H et
So am h
ut lets
h
Ha wa
ck rk
n
C
Re
a m ey
st
Is d e
of
l
In Gr ingt n
ne e e on
In r n
ne Bo w
r B ro ich
or ug
o h
Ha
Le ugh s
m Ce
wi s
m n
e r tra N sh a *
sm l e m
ith Bo r wha
an oug m
W
e s W d F hs
tm a ulh *
in nd am
W ste sw
a l r, ort
Ba
th C h
a m ity
rk
in
F of
g
an H ore
G d D a ri st
re a ng
at ge e
er n y
Lo ha
n m
Ho do
un n *
sl
Ea ow
Hi li
llin ng
gd
o
O
Br n
ut C e
er r o n t
Bo yd
Ke
ro on
ns
ug
in
gt
E h
on R nf s
an e db ie ld
d rid
C g
he e
Br lse
om a
Be ley
xl
Ba e y
r
Ki
M n et
ng
er
t
st
Su on
on
t
Ri
u p Ha to
ch
on ve n
m
Th r in
on
a g
d
up H me
on a s
Th rro w
am
es
Years lived
48.0
47.0
20.0
46.5
45.5
Expectation of years lived between 16 and 64
Data Management and Analysis
% with no qualification
Per cent
Comparison of percentage of working age people with no qualifications and
average number of years lived during working age - male (16-64)
40.0
35.0
47.5
30.0
25.0
15.0
46.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
* includes data for the City of
London, which has too small a
population to provide a
statistically significant Life Table.
Conclusions and Issues
• Problems with disclosure control
• We need to investigate whether in future ONS will be
able to provide us with unadjusted data ‘under license’
• Fertility
• How to cope with the double peak, and
• How to best incorporate into the model
• Life Tables
• Continuing problem with the low numbers of births at
the end of the First World War, although this will
diminish as this cohort ages
Data Management and Analysis