5.2 Characteristics of Gypsy and Traveller communities are often hidden or not widely known. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments present an ideal opportunity to get to know more about the community at large,
particularly in terms of living circumstances, age, Gypsy and Traveller groups and household composition. The following aims to provide some information about the composition of Gypsy and Traveller households in the sample.
Age of interviewees
5.3 The age profile of the sample can be seen from Table 9. The 25–39 age group was the most consulted during the assessment, forming 36% of the total sample. This was followed by the 40–49 age group (20%) and then the 50–59 age group (18%). A total of 13% of the sample were aged 60 years and over.
Table 9: Age of interviewees
Age Group No. %
16–24 19 13 25–39 53 36 40–49 30 20 50–59 27 18 60–74 17 11 75–84 2 1 85+ 1 1 Total 149 Household size
5.4 In total, the survey sample accounts for 491 members of the Gypsy and Traveller community in the Study Area. The average household size for the whole sample is 3.3 persons – larger than the household size of the non- Traveller population. However, this hides a range in household sizes as indicated in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Household size distribution
Household Size No. %
1 Person 26 17 2 Persons 28 19 3 Persons 25 17 4 Persons 36 24 5 Persons 21 14 6 Persons 8 5 7 Persons 3 2 8 Persons 2 1 Total 149
5.5 There was significant variation in the size of households in relation to their current accommodation type as well. As can be seen from Table 11,
respondents from authorised private sites (residential and transit) tended to have the largest households. This is followed by households living in bricks and mortar accommodation (3.3 persons) and then by households from unauthorised sites (3.1 persons). Those households living on socially rented sites had slightly smaller households (3.0 persons). Travelling Showpeople living on yards had a significantly smaller household size (1.8 persons) in comparison to the other types of accommodation.
Table 11: Average household size by accommodation type
Accommodation type Average household size
Private sites 3.7 Bricks and Mortar 3.3 Unauthorised sites18 3.1 Socially rented sites 3.0 Travelling Showpeople 1.8
Household type
5.6 Table 12 shows the household type by type of accommodation. Families have been classified as follows:
Family type Definition
Single person - 1 adult
Couple - 2 adults, no children or young adults
Young family - 1 or 2 adults, 1 or more children aged up to 16 years; no young adults
Older family - All adult family with 1 or more children classified as ‘young adults’ (over 16 years but living within another household) Mixed family - Family with children under and over 16 years
Other - 3 or more adults, none classified as young adults
18
Unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments have been grouped together due to the small sample size (1 respondent) of households on unauthorised developments.
Table 12: Household type by type of accommodation Household type Socially rented sites Private sites Showpeople Yards Bricks and mortar Unauthorised sites19 Total Number in sample 20 54 10 53 12 149 Percentage % % % % % % Single 30 11 40 13 25 17 Couple 10 11 40 15 8 14 Young family 50 39 10 58 42 46 Older family 5 17 10 4 8 9 Mixed family - 20 - 8 8 11 Other 5 2 - 2 8 3
5.7 Table 12 shows that:
• Young families are currently the predominant household type in the Study Area.
• There are a large number of small households on the Travelling Showpeople Yards in the Study Area.
• Authorised private sites accommodate a diverse spread of household types.
• There are more young families in bricks and mortar housing than in any other accommodation type.
• There are a number of older families from pitch-based households in the Study Area which may indicate that there is some pressing need for additional pitch accommodation from household growth.
Marital status
5.8 In total, 65% of the interviewees were married with a further 2% (3
respondents) living with their partner. The remainder described their marital status as divorced/separated (14%), widowed (11%) or single (7%).
Table 13: Marital status of the interview sample
Marital status No. %
Married 97 65 Divorced/Separated 21 14 Widowed 16 11 Single 11 7 Living together 3 2 Missing information 1 1 Total 149 19
Local connections to the Study Area
5.9 When asked, the majority of households felt that they were local to the area where they were currently accommodated (71%). See Table 14 for a
breakdown by current accommodation type.
Table 14: Local to the area?
Accommodation type No. households local % of total sample
Private sites 42 78
Bricks and Mortar 39 74 Socially rented sites 13 65 Unauthorised sites20 5 42
5.10 As Table 14 shows, the majority of all households consider the area of residence, the area where they were interviewed, their ‘local’ area – different respondents may, of course, have interpreted ‘this area’ more widely than others. However, being ‘local’ was particularly the case for households on private residential sites and bricks and mortar housing. Interestingly,
households on private transit sites and socially rented sites all report similar levels of local connection to the area. Households on unauthorised sites were the least local to the area. Table 15 below looks in further detail at the
reasons households gave for living in the Study Area.
Table 15: Reasons for residing in the Study Area (figures in % of sample)
Current Accommodation Type
Reason Bricks and mortar Socially rented sites Private sites Unauthorised sites Total
Family lives here 92 85 85 58 119
Place of birth 38 35 37 25 50
Work 36 5 19 25 33
Schooling 32 10 11 25 28
Other 4 10 2 33 9
Family/community event 9 10 - 25 8
Only place available 2 5 6 17 7
Holiday - - - - -
5.11 The presence of family in the Study Area was a major reason why households were residing where they were. This was particularly the case for households in bricks and mortar accommodation, socially rented sites and private sites. These findings are broadly consistent with findings from other GTAAs. Households on unauthorised sites cited both family presence and ‘other’ as major reasons for being where they were. Family links is a factor which reverberates through all Gypsy and Traveller groups and is a consistent finding from the majority of GTAAs the authors’ have been involved in. We asked households on unauthorised sites to specify what their ‘other reasons’
20Again, the data for unauthorised developments and unauthorised encampments has been
combined as a result of the small number of interviews conducted on unauthorised developments.
were and we received a variety of responses. For example one household staying in Billingham were there because they kept getting evicted from areas of Stockton-on-Tees. Another respondent told us she was in the area to attend hospital appointments as she had just had a baby.
5.12 The second most cited reason for being local to the area was because the respondents were born in the Study Area. Interestingly, no households said they were in the area due to a holiday. Thus, from these findings the majority of Gypsies and Travellers on sites and in housing can be seen to ‘belong’, in some way, to the Study Area.
Gypsy and Traveller groups
5.13 The largest single group was from the Romany/Gypsy (English) community (75%), followed by Irish Travellers (14%), Showpeople (7%), and smaller comparable numbers of Traveller (not specified) (4%) and Scottish Gypsy/Traveller (1%).
Table 16: Interviewees by Gypsy and Traveller group
Gypsy and Traveller groups No. of
households %
Romany/Gypsy (English) 111 75 Irish Traveller 21 14
Showperson 10 7
Traveller (not specified) 6 4 Scottish Gypsy/Traveller 1 1
Total 149