Local unemployment

[ianr]

From the latest Commons Library research paper "Unemployment by constituency, June 2010" available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/research-papers/research-papers-2010/

Dulwich & W Norwood constituency

JSA claimants May 2010: 3,879 - annual increase of 10.1%

Claiming more than 12 months: 745 - annual increase of 93.5%

Claimants aged over 50: 580 - annual increase of 26.1%

ONS claimant rate May 2010: 5.5%

Employment rate, year to Sept 2009: 73.9%

Camberwell & Peckham constituency

JSA claimants May 2010: 5,121 - annual increase of 8.8%

Claiming more than 12 months: 1,130 - annual increase of 34.5%

Claimants aged over 50: 755 - annual increase of 14.4%

ONS claimant rate May 2010: 6.2%

Employment rate, year to Sept 2009: 66.6%

[Penguin68]

Do the figures also show what the 'base' is for each constituency - the growth rates in each class may appear large, but where the start point is very low (as it must have been for those claiming more than 12 months in Dulwich and Norwood) this is an anomoly. (i.e. If the figure moved from 1 to 2 it would be a 100% increase, but that might have been 2 out of a million - hence not really significant in the grand scheme of things).

What percentage of those not in full time education or at state retirement age does the JSA claimant level (for instance) represent for each constituency?

[dbboy]

I tend to use NOMIS teh Government website for national statistics to find such info for business nees, i.e. researching for writing reports

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038431870/report.aspx

[Penguin68]

Sadly the NOMIS figures - which are trended estimates or survey based (they come from multiple sources) do not publish (readily) significance ranges (which at least on the survey based figures they should). They also include in their 'available for employment' figures adults 16+, but do not overtly exclude from these figures those 16-21 in full time education - an increasingly large number as University entrants stagger towards 45% nationally of the teenage population. Of course many of these are part-time emlpoyed, which further skews the figures. They do indicate a number who have made themselves unavailable for work, but they do need to make clear why they are unavailable.

They do not make it clear whether their employed figures are full and part-time, of whether part-timer figures have been adjusted to create an FTE (full-time equivalent) number.

The figures also exlude those (necessarily) within the undeclared (black) economy.

Without this sort of detail only the grossest reported changes can be considered of interest/ value - others lesser changes may well be statistical quirks the results of differing estimates, survey results or changing definitions.

But you all knew that anyway.