Chapter Three Survey Sample Population
3.1 This chapter presents information about the general nature of the households that were surveyed during the second year's research into the impact of the CHP on fuel poverty. Where possible, the survey population is compared to overall statistics available for the CHP for 2002/2003 9.
Tenure
3.2 The CHP is comprised of three separate schemes operating independently of one another, in the private, local authority, and the housing association sectors respectively. Households were asked about their tenure through the questionnaire. The breakdown of the sample population by owner-occupied, local authority, housing association and private rented tenures 10 is set out in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Breakdown of sample population by tenure
Tenure | Number of households surveyed (%) | Overall Number of Households (%) |
|---|
(Y1 n=470) | (Y2 n=475) | CHP 2001/2002
(Y1 n= 8,508) | CHP 2002/2003
(Y2 n= 11,200) |
|---|
owner occupied | 209 | 217 | 3305 | 4950 |
|---|
(44.5%) | (45.7%) | (38.8%) | (44%) |
local authority | 170 | 155 | 4000 | 4085 |
|---|
(36.2%) | (32.6%) | (47.0%) | (36%) |
housing association | 58 | 81 | 948 | 1635 |
|---|
(12.3%) | (17.1%) | (11.1%) | (15%) |
private rented | 30 | 22 | 255 | 565 |
|---|
(6.4%) | (4.6%) | (3.0%) | (5%) |
other (tied cottage) | 1 | 0 | no information |
|---|
(0.2%) | (*) |
local authority at time of CHP but since purchased under right to buy | 2 | 0 | no information |
|---|
(0.4%) | (*) |
3.3 Compared to the overall number of 11,200 heating systems installed under the CHP during 2002/2003 of the CHP:
- the private sector was slightly over represented in the sample population (50.3% of the households surveyed compared to only 49% of the heating systems installed);
- the local authority sector is slightly under-represented in the sample (32.6% of the households surveyed compared to 36% of the heating systems installed); and,
- the housing association sector, despite the poorer success rate with completed surveys (see Chapter 2) is slightly over-represented in the sample population (17.1% of the households compared to 15% of the heating systems installed).
3.4 Compared to the Year 1 sample survey, the second year sample included the same number of private sector (when owner occupiers are combined with private rented households) surveys (see Table 3.1). There are slightly more social sector surveys overall, though with fewer local authority surveys and more housing association surveys in Year 2 when compared with Year 1 survey.
Locality
3.5 Households that are surveyed are classified as being either urban or rural, based on the postcode of their dwelling. The breakdown of the sample population into urban or rural properties is set out in Table 3.2.
3.6 During the first two years of the CHP, the numbers are dominated heavily by heating systems being installed in urban areas, with the local authority installations dominated by 4 urban local authorities, and almost all of the housing associations being based in Glasgow or Edinburgh. This predominance of urban areas is reflected in the overall CHP statistics and in the households surveyed. However, the effect of boosting the number of rural households surveyed is seen in the much higher number of rural dwellings surveyed compared to the actual CHP programme numbers.
Table 3.2: Breakdown of sample population by urban or rural locality
Locality | Number of households surveyed (%) | Overall Number of Households (%) |
|---|
(Y1 n=470) | (Y2 n=475) | CHP 2001/2002 | CHP 2002/2003 (%) |
|---|
(Y1 n= 8,508) | (Y2 n= 11,200) |
|---|
urban | 391 | 327 | 7151 | 9420 |
|---|
(83.2%) | (69.8%) | (89.1%) | (84.1%) |
rural | 79 | 148 | 872 | 1680 |
|---|
(16.8%) | (31.2%) | (10.9%) | (14.9%) |
Household Composition
3.7 During the questionnaire, information was collected on the age of all the members of the household. Household composition is presented below in two ways:
- by age of adult householders (see Table 3.3); and,
- by the number of adults and children living at each address (see Table 3.4)
3.8 What emerges from the breakdown is the predominance of pensioner households within both the overall CHP statistics and the sample population (see Table 3.3). Households with at least one adult over the age of 60 accounted for an estimated 66% of the beneficiaries of the CHP in 2002/2003, and 80.8% of those surveyed. Over a third of all households surveyed (34.1%) contained at least one person aged 75 or older.
3.9 It is not unexpected that the households with at least one person over the age of 60 dominate both the CHP generally, and the sample population. In the private sector, the CHP is only open to households with at least one person over 60 years of age. In the local authority and housing association sectors, where the scheme is not limited by age of the householders, over half of all the households surveyed (54%) included at least one person over the age of 60, compared to at least 34% within the CHP overall 11.
Table 3.3: Breakdown of sample population by age of adult householders
Age of adult householders | Number of households surveyed |
|---|
(Y1 n=46912) | (Y2 n = 475) |
|---|
no adult over 60 years of age | 105 | 91 |
|---|
(22.4%) | (19.2%) |
single adult over 75 years of age | 124 | 125 |
|---|
(26.4%) | (26.3%) |
couple (both over 60), with at least one over 75 years of age | 49 | 37 |
|---|
(10.4%) | (7.8%) |
single adult between 60 and 74 years of age | 75 | 101 |
|---|
(16.0%) | (21.3%) |
couple between 60 and 74 years of age | 68 | 84 |
|---|
(14.5%) | (17.7%) |
other households: all occupants over 60, and at least one over 75 years of age | 2 | 0 |
|---|
(0.4%) | (*) |
mixed households: adults over 60 years of age and adults under 60 years of age | 46 | 37 |
|---|
(9.8%) | (7.8%) |
3.10 In terms of household composition, adult-only households (that is, households with no one under 16 years of age) dominated the sample in both years. Households without any children comprised 92.4% of all the households surveyed in Year 2, a slight increase on the number interviewed in Year 1(see Table 3.4) 13.
Table 3.4: Breakdown of sample population by household composition
Household composition (adults / children) | Number of households surveyed (%) |
|---|
(Y1 n=469) | (Y2 n = 475) |
|---|
adult only households | 418 | 439 |
|---|
(89.1%) | (92.4%) |
households with 1 child | 27 | 13 |
|---|
(5.8%) | (2.7%) |
households with 2 children | 18 | 16 |
|---|
(3.8%) | (3.4%) |
households with 3 children | 6 | 5 |
|---|
(1.3%) | (1.1%) |
households with 4 or more children | 0 | 2 |
|---|
(*) | (0.4%) |
Household Socio-Economic Status
3.11 All households were asked about the socio-economic status of the adults living in the dwelling, and their main sources of income. This information 14 is presented here in two ways:
- the socio-economic status of the main respondent, their partner or spouse, and other adults is set out in Table 3.5, and,
- the main sources of income are broken down for the main respondent, their partner or spouse, and other economically active adults in the household in Table 3.6
3.12 Given the large number of pensioner households within the sample, it is not surprising that 'permanently retired from work' accounted for the largest socio-economic status group amongst all of the adult householders (see Table 3.5). 'Other' adults 15 living in the home (that is, neither the main respondent nor their spouse or partner), had a more varied socio-economic profile, but these adults represented only a small percentage (5.7%) of all of the adult householders within the surveyed households.
Table 3.5: Breakdown of sample population by socio-economic status of adults
Socio-economic Status | main respondent (%)
(n = 473) | partner or spouse (%)
(n= 188) | other adults (%)
(n=40) | all adult occupants (%)
(n=701) |
|---|
Self-employed | 4
(0.8%) | 0
(*) | 0
(*) | 4
(0.3%) |
|---|
employed over 30 hours per week | 31
(6.6%) | 16
(8.5%) | 14
(35%) | 61
(8.7%) |
|---|
employed less than 30 hours per week | 13
(2.7%) | 15
(8.0%) | 3
(7.5%) | 31
(4.4%) |
|---|
looking after family | 9
(1.9%) | 17
(9%) | 3
(7.5%) | 29
(4.1%) |
|---|
permanently retired from work | 363
(76.7%) | 123
(65.4%) | 0
(*) | 486
(69.3%) |
|---|
unemployed and seeking work | 13
(2.7%) | 5
(2.7%) | 3
(7.5%) | 21
(3.0%) |
|---|
in further / higher ed., college / school | 3
(0.6%) | 3
(1.6%) | 6
(15%) | 12
(1.7%) |
|---|
permanently sick or disabled | 36
(7.6%) | 9
(4.8%) | 11
(27.5%) | 56
(8.0%) |
|---|
unable to work due to short term illness/injury | 1
(0.2%) | 0
(*) | 0
(*) | 1
(0.1%) |
|---|
3.13 Again, given the large number of pensioner households within the sample, it is not unexpected that pensions in various forms account for a significant percentage (62.4%) of all the sources of income identified by the households surveyed 16 (see Table 3.6). When aggregated with other benefits, only 11.1% of the 1040 primary sources of identified household income are neither pension-related nor state benefit-related. The preponderance of pensioner households, and pensioner households that are retired from work (as opposed to those that may still be working) and the reliance on pensions as sources of income, as well as other state benefits, may have implications for total household income. Exactly how much income households have is examined in more detail in Chapter 6 of this report, while the impact on fuel poverty is examined in detail in Chapter 7.
Table 3.6: Breakdown of Sample Population: By Sources of Income
Socio-economic Status | main respondent
(n = 470) | partner or spouse
(n= 188) | other adults
(n=34) | All adults
(n=692) |
|---|
state retirement pension, Income support + state retirement pension or supplementary pension | 285
(60.6%) | 103
(54.8%) | 0
(*) | 388
(56.1%) |
|---|
Pension credit | 57
(12.1%) | 15
(8.0%) | 0
(*) | 72
(10.4%) |
|---|
Private, employer's or occupational pension | 174
(37.0%) | 15
(8.0%) | 0
(*) | 189
(27.3%) |
|---|
Incapacity benefit | 33
(7.0%) | 4
(2.1%) | 0
(*) | 37
(5.3%) |
|---|
Widows payments or pensions | 14
(3.0%) | 0
(*) | 0
(*) | 14
(2.0%) |
|---|
Income support (not pension related) | 64
(13.6%) | 16
(8.5%) | 0
(*) | 80
(11.6%) |
|---|
Working Family tax credit / Working Tax Credit | 7
(1.5%) | 2
(1.1%) | 0
(*) | 9
(13.0%) |
|---|
Job seekers allowance | 4
(0.8%) | 3
(1.6%) | 2
(5.9%) | 9
(13.0%) |
|---|
Disability Living Allowance - care component | 51
(10.9%) | 3
(1.6%) | 2
(5.9%) | 56
(8.1%) |
|---|
Disability Living Allowance -mobility component | 14
(3.0%) | 3
(1.6%) | 0
(*) | 17
(2.5%) |
|---|
Attendance allowance | 36
(7.7%) | 6
(3.2%) | 2
(5.9%) | 44
(6.9%) |
|---|
No benefits, allowances or pensions | 29
(6.2%) | 43
(22.9%) | 29
(85.3%) | 101
(0.7%) |
|---|
Student Loan | 1
(0.2%) | 0
(*) | 0
(*) | 1
(0.1%) |
|---|
Child Tax Credit | 3
(0.6%) | 2
(1.1%) | 0
(*) | 5
(0.7%) |
|---|
Disabled Tax Credit / other disablement benefit | 4
(0.8%) | 0
(*) | 0
(*) | 4
(0.6%) |
|---|
Trust | 2
(0.4%) | 3
(1.6%) | 1
(2.9%) | 6
(0.9%) |
|---|
Investments | 2
(0.4%) | 0
(*) | 0
(*) | 2
(0.3%) |
|---|
Rent | 3
(0.6%) | 3
(1.6%) | 0
(*) | 6
(0.9%) |
|---|
Council Tax Bands
3.14 Council Tax Bands are not a fuel poverty indicator in their own right. However, in the assessment of total household income as set out in the SFPS, the amount of Council Tax paid is removed from the calculation. Thus, two households with the same income may be categorised differently in terms of their total household income depending on their council tax band, their eligibility for a rebate, and variations in Council Tax across council areas.
3.15 The breakdown of the sample population by Council Tax Band, and by tenure, as identified by the householder, is set out in Table 3.7. It can be seen that overall, over two-thirds of all households fall within Bands A and B, that is, the two lowest bands. Some 83% of all housing association and local authority tenants fall within Bands A and B, compared to just over half of owner-occupied households, and only 61% of private rented tenants. About 15% of owner-occupiers and private-rented tenants fall within the three highest bands encountered during the survey - that is, Bands D, E, and F. Owner-occupiers account for over 85% of all the households falling into Bands D, E and F, although these three bands only account for less than 10% of all the dwellings surveyed.
Table 3.7: Breakdown of sample population: by Council Tax band and tenure
Council Tax Band | Overall sample
(n=473) | Owner occupied
(n=217) | Local authority
(n=155) | Housing association
(n=81) | Private rented
(n=22) |
|---|
a | 138
(29.2%) | 45
(20.7%) | 59
(38.1%) | 29
(35.8%) | 5
(22.7%) |
|---|
b | 204
(43.1%) | 92
(42.4%) | 77
(49.7%) | 31
(38.3%) | 4
(18.2%) |
|---|
c | 87
(18.4%) | 48
(22.1%) | 17
(11.0%) | 16
(19.7%) | 6
(27.3%) |
|---|
d | 30
(6.3%) | 20
(9.2%) | 2
(1.3%) | 4
(4.9%) | 4
(18.2%) |
|---|
e | 7
(1.5%) | 7
(3.2%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|---|
f | 5
(1.1%) | 5
(2.3%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|---|
don't know | 2
(0.4%) | 0 | 0 | 1
(1.2%) | 3 17
(13.6%) |
|---|
Overall Comment on Chapter Three
3.16 Households reliant upon pensions or on state benefits are not considered to be among the more affluent groups in society generally. Pensioner households accounted for the largest group of households surveyed, and various pensions and state benefits accounted for the most frequently cited sources of household income. Such factors have potential implications for the assessment of the number of households in fuel poverty, both before and after the CHP improvements, for two reasons:
- first, pensioner households are assessed against a higher heating standard, which results in higher fuel costs being assessed than would be if a non-pensioner household lived in the same dwelling; and,
- the lower the income, the greater the risk of fuel poverty, regardless of how the fuel costs are calculated.
The impact of the CHP on fuel poverty is examined in detail in Chapter 7.