Community life

People reporting bad or very bad health

21 March 2021 · Birmingham

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised

68,625 out of 1,144,919.

Households facing at least one measured disadvantage

59.6%

21 March 2021 · Birmingham

The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All households

252,339 out of 423,456.

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages

24.9%

21 March 2021 · Birmingham

The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All households

105,574 out of 423,456.

People aged 16+ with no qualifications

23.9%

21 March 2021 · Birmingham

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

Residents aged 16 and over

212,198 out of 889,623.

People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent

29.9%

21 March 2021 · Birmingham

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

Residents aged 16 and over

265,806 out of 889,623.

Different needs within the area

People reporting bad or very bad health

2.9% to 10.6%

People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.9% in Bournbrook & Selly Park to 10.6% in Castle Vale — a gap of 7.6 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 69 of 69 current wards with comparable figures.

Residents described their own health. Differences in age matter, so this is a prompt to investigate needs, not a score for local health services.

See each ward and the workings

These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.

People reporting bad or very bad health · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
Bournbrook & Selly Park	2.9%	660	22,374
Edgbaston	3.4%	642	18,730
Sutton Four Oaks	3.6%	337	9,329
Sutton Trinity	3.9%	366	9,485
Ladywood	4.2%	1,073	25,738
Newtown	4.2%	680	16,290
Sutton Roughley	4.2%	503	11,965
Sutton Walmley & Minworth	4.3%	696	16,318
Hall Green South	4.3%	476	10,987
Sutton Vesey	4.4%	881	20,112
Sutton Mere Green	4.5%	459	10,147
Bordesley & Highgate	4.9%	741	15,058
Harborne	4.9%	1,137	23,002
Handsworth Wood	5%	1,011	20,398
Nechells	5%	801	16,146
Perry Barr	5.1%	1,043	20,609
Soho & Jewellery Quarter	5.1%	1,291	25,476
Hall Green North	5.1%	1,259	24,555
Northfield	5.2%	542	10,406
Sutton Wylde Green	5.4%	498	9,295
Stirchley	5.5%	553	10,122
Ward End	5.5%	756	13,716
Bromford & Hodge Hill	5.5%	1,235	22,383
South Yardley	5.6%	601	10,782
North Edgbaston	5.6%	1,265	22,563
Sheldon	5.6%	1,121	19,941
Quinton	5.7%	1,209	21,377
Brandwood & King's Heath	5.7%	1,072	18,788
Bournville & Cotteridge	5.8%	1,115	19,176
Holyhead	5.8%	659	11,316
Oscott	5.8%	1,203	20,566
Sparkhill	5.9%	1,262	21,460
King's Norton North	6%	697	11,642
Aston	6.1%	1,489	24,446
Moseley	6.1%	1,330	21,834
Sutton Reddicap	6.1%	613	10,035
Highter's Heath	6.1%	658	10,744
Small Heath	6.1%	1,351	21,970
Handsworth	6.2%	738	11,822
Rubery & Rednal	6.3%	646	10,319
Allens Cross	6.3%	699	11,122
Birchfield	6.3%	784	12,470
Yardley East	6.3%	698	11,052
Stockland Green	6.3%	1,498	23,596
Alum Rock	6.4%	1,780	28,018
Yardley West & Stechford	6.4%	865	13,593
Erdington	6.4%	1,385	21,550
Lozells	6.5%	792	12,119
Tyseley & Hay Mills	6.6%	768	11,688
Weoley & Selly Oak	6.6%	1,549	23,509
Billesley	6.7%	1,421	21,175
Acocks Green	6.7%	1,652	24,488
Bordesley Green	6.9%	890	12,986
Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East	6.9%	1,880	27,334
Heartlands	7.1%	955	13,395
Longbridge & West Heath	7.1%	1,545	21,649
Glebe Farm & Tile Cross	7.2%	1,774	24,530
Druids Heath & Monyhull	7.3%	848	11,643
Bartley Green	7.4%	1,687	22,670
Gravelly Hill	7.5%	785	10,498
Pype Hayes	8%	880	11,060
Frankley Great Park	8.1%	1,020	12,657
Kingstanding	8.2%	1,727	21,153
Balsall Heath West	8.2%	1,000	12,153
Perry Common	8.3%	1,000	12,045
Garretts Green	8.4%	966	11,498
King's Norton South	8.5%	986	11,581
Shard End	8.6%	1,065	12,325
Castle Vale	10.6%	1,052	9,935

People aged 65 or over

4.8% to 27.3%

People aged 65 or over ranged from 4.8% in Newtown to 27.3% in Sutton Wylde Green — a gap of 22.5 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 69 of 69 current wards with comparable figures.

Age helps locate demand for accessible homes, transport and support. Being older does not itself mean someone needs care.

See each ward and the workings

These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.

People aged 65 or over · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
Newtown	4.8%	779	16,285
Bordesley & Highgate	4.8%	721	15,060
Ladywood	5.1%	1,300	25,738
Nechells	6%	964	16,146
Bournbrook & Selly Park	6.4%	1,424	22,376
Soho & Jewellery Quarter	6.8%	1,737	25,478
Lozells	6.9%	840	12,118
Alum Rock	7.2%	2,030	28,019
Ward End	7.3%	1,006	13,715
Bordesley Green	7.4%	960	12,986
Heartlands	7.7%	1,031	13,391
Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East	7.8%	2,145	27,329
Small Heath	8.3%	1,827	21,970
Aston	8.4%	2,058	24,442
Sparkhill	9.1%	1,954	21,462
Birchfield	9.1%	1,139	12,472
Tyseley & Hay Mills	9.4%	1,098	11,688
Holyhead	9.8%	1,113	11,319
Handsworth	10%	1,181	11,820
North Edgbaston	10%	2,265	22,565
Yardley West & Stechford	10.3%	1,404	13,593
Balsall Heath West	10.3%	1,258	12,156
Stockland Green	11%	2,593	23,596
Glebe Farm & Tile Cross	11.7%	2,859	24,529
Gravelly Hill	11.7%	1,226	10,498
Bromford & Hodge Hill	11.8%	2,630	22,381
Garretts Green	12.2%	1,401	11,499
Stirchley	12.6%	1,274	10,121
Hall Green North	12.6%	3,103	24,553
Acocks Green	12.7%	3,111	24,487
Handsworth Wood	13.3%	2,704	20,396
South Yardley	13.3%	1,436	10,779
Kingstanding	13.7%	2,890	21,153
Edgbaston	13.7%	2,574	18,731
Shard End	14.5%	1,781	12,325
Pype Hayes	14.7%	1,621	11,063
Frankley Great Park	14.7%	1,856	12,657
Perry Common	14.9%	1,795	12,045
Rubery & Rednal	15.1%	1,556	10,318
Perry Barr	15.1%	3,109	20,609
King's Norton South	15.1%	1,749	11,579
Billesley	15.2%	3,211	21,171
Druids Heath & Monyhull	15.2%	1,769	11,643
Allens Cross	15.2%	1,696	11,122
Oscott	15.4%	3,177	20,566
Weoley & Selly Oak	15.5%	3,637	23,510
Moseley	15.5%	3,391	21,838
Erdington	15.9%	3,423	21,553
Castle Vale	15.9%	1,582	9,937
Harborne	16%	3,672	23,001
Highter's Heath	16%	1,717	10,745
Brandwood & King's Heath	16.3%	3,058	18,789
Bartley Green	16.3%	3,696	22,670
Quinton	17%	3,633	21,377
Sheldon	17.3%	3,442	19,943
Yardley East	17.4%	1,927	11,052
Hall Green South	17.8%	1,952	10,985
Sutton Reddicap	17.8%	1,784	10,035
Longbridge & West Heath	18%	3,893	21,649
King's Norton North	19%	2,208	11,643
Bournville & Cotteridge	19%	3,642	19,178
Northfield	19.7%	2,045	10,402
Sutton Roughley	20.2%	2,412	11,969
Sutton Trinity	21.8%	2,071	9,485
Sutton Vesey	22.4%	4,499	20,108
Sutton Mere Green	24.3%	2,461	10,145
Sutton Walmley & Minworth	24.3%	3,960	16,318
Sutton Four Oaks	26.6%	2,482	9,329
Sutton Wylde Green	27.3%	2,538	9,296

People aged 16+ with no qualifications

8.6% to 37.2%

People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 8.6% in Bournbrook & Selly Park to 37.2% in Alum Rock — a gap of 28.7 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 69 of 69 current wards with comparable figures.

Formal qualifications are only one part of someone's skills. Training decisions also need current vacancies, employment and residents' experience.

See each ward and the workings

These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.

People aged 16+ with no qualifications · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
Bournbrook & Selly Park	8.6%	1,763	20,589
Edgbaston	10.4%	1,677	16,064
Sutton Trinity	12.5%	976	7,815
Sutton Four Oaks	12.8%	992	7,762
Sutton Roughley	13%	1,230	9,433
Sutton Mere Green	13.6%	1,110	8,150
Ladywood	13.6%	3,028	22,208
Sutton Wylde Green	14%	1,097	7,820
Sutton Vesey	14.6%	2,409	16,493
Harborne	15.2%	2,792	18,424
Bournville & Cotteridge	16.7%	2,602	15,607
Brandwood & King's Heath	17.1%	2,561	15,004
Sutton Walmley & Minworth	17.4%	2,357	13,571
Stirchley	17.6%	1,436	8,157
Hall Green South	18%	1,559	8,659
Moseley	18.2%	3,258	17,894
Sutton Reddicap	18.7%	1,476	7,897
Northfield	19.2%	1,637	8,510
Quinton	20%	3,394	16,972
Nechells	20.9%	2,600	12,435
Newtown	21%	2,606	12,405
King's Norton North	21.1%	1,948	9,234
Rubery & Rednal	21.6%	1,736	8,039
Perry Barr	21.7%	3,509	16,207
Weoley & Selly Oak	21.7%	3,987	18,383
Handsworth Wood	22.3%	3,672	16,476
South Yardley	22.3%	1,862	8,335
Soho & Jewellery Quarter	22.5%	4,629	20,555
Erdington	22.8%	3,888	17,026
Hall Green North	22.8%	4,227	18,501
Bordesley & Highgate	22.9%	2,559	11,195
Billesley	23.4%	3,789	16,214
North Edgbaston	23.4%	4,258	18,183
Oscott	23.9%	3,854	16,102
Highter's Heath	23.9%	2,045	8,540
Sheldon	24%	3,841	15,988
Allens Cross	24.1%	2,066	8,580
Longbridge & West Heath	24.1%	4,155	17,246
Druids Heath & Monyhull	24.7%	2,240	9,053
Bartley Green	25.3%	4,453	17,591
Yardley East	25.7%	2,249	8,743
King's Norton South	25.8%	2,244	8,691
Acocks Green	25.9%	4,854	18,758
Stockland Green	26.1%	4,776	18,333
Frankley Great Park	26.7%	2,600	9,728
Pype Hayes	27.3%	2,351	8,620
Perry Common	27.5%	2,566	9,326
Bromford & Hodge Hill	27.6%	4,508	16,346
Gravelly Hill	28.6%	2,377	8,301
Kingstanding	28.8%	4,667	16,184
Balsall Heath West	29.2%	2,697	9,248
Shard End	29.5%	2,768	9,377
Yardley West & Stechford	29.8%	2,902	9,738
Garretts Green	29.9%	2,535	8,470
Birchfield	30.3%	2,849	9,410
Glebe Farm & Tile Cross	30.3%	5,413	17,869
Tyseley & Hay Mills	30.9%	2,583	8,349
Castle Vale	31.3%	2,424	7,734
Holyhead	31.7%	2,684	8,459
Sparkhill	33.1%	5,211	15,729
Ward End	33.4%	3,216	9,636
Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East	34.3%	6,758	19,720
Small Heath	34.3%	5,411	15,783
Handsworth	34.4%	3,094	8,982
Heartlands	34.5%	3,257	9,438
Lozells	34.8%	3,008	8,656
Aston	35.3%	6,298	17,818
Bordesley Green	35.8%	3,238	9,036
Alum Rock	37.2%	7,378	19,824

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages

10.7% to 37.9%

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 10.7% in Sutton Wylde Green to 37.9% in Alum Rock — a gap of 27.2 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 69 of 69 current wards with comparable figures.

These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.

See each ward and the workings

These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages · 21 March 2021
Ward	Share	Count	Population or households covered
Sutton Wylde Green	10.7%	407	3,790
Sutton Four Oaks	10.8%	417	3,858
Sutton Trinity	11.6%	481	4,162
Sutton Roughley	11.6%	547	4,728
Sutton Vesey	12.8%	1,065	8,298
Sutton Mere Green	12.9%	549	4,250
Edgbaston	13.6%	859	6,313
Sutton Walmley & Minworth	13.7%	962	7,033
Hall Green South	15.3%	612	3,997
Ladywood	17.1%	2,231	13,036
Harborne	18%	1,786	9,949
Bournbrook & Selly Park	18.4%	1,089	5,931
Northfield	18.4%	818	4,444
Perry Barr	18.5%	1,436	7,783
Bournville & Cotteridge	19.2%	1,588	8,290
Stirchley	19.2%	836	4,364
Brandwood & King's Heath	19.5%	1,524	7,805
Moseley	20.7%	1,892	9,160
Quinton	20.8%	1,824	8,770
Soho & Jewellery Quarter	21.3%	2,284	10,715
South Yardley	21.5%	914	4,248
Sutton Reddicap	21.6%	919	4,247
King's Norton North	21.8%	1,065	4,890
Handsworth Wood	21.9%	1,480	6,764
Sheldon	22.1%	1,802	8,166
Oscott	22.2%	1,905	8,586
Hall Green North	22.5%	1,771	7,884
Erdington	23.1%	2,120	9,183
Highter's Heath	23.3%	1,022	4,384
Yardley East	24.4%	1,026	4,211
Rubery & Rednal	24.7%	1,095	4,441
Bordesley & Highgate	24.8%	1,372	5,522
Weoley & Selly Oak	25%	2,414	9,653
North Edgbaston	25.5%	2,139	8,382
Billesley	25.6%	2,091	8,170
Longbridge & West Heath	25.7%	2,488	9,693
Allens Cross	26%	1,149	4,422
Stockland Green	26.3%	2,423	9,211
Pype Hayes	27.2%	1,247	4,587
Acocks Green	27.2%	2,465	9,058
Bromford & Hodge Hill	27.6%	1,959	7,088
Frankley Great Park	28.4%	1,468	5,173
Druids Heath & Monyhull	28.5%	1,412	4,957
Holyhead	29.1%	1,060	3,646
Perry Common	29.2%	1,441	4,933
King's Norton South	29.3%	1,438	4,902
Bartley Green	29.9%	2,892	9,667
Gravelly Hill	30.5%	1,239	4,064
Kingstanding	30.8%	2,503	8,126
Tyseley & Hay Mills	31.6%	1,281	4,050
Yardley West & Stechford	31.7%	1,362	4,290
Nechells	32%	1,571	4,913
Handsworth	32.4%	1,151	3,554
Birchfield	32.7%	1,303	3,988
Glebe Farm & Tile Cross	33%	2,978	9,033
Sparkhill	33%	1,791	5,427
Shard End	33.9%	1,786	5,266
Aston	34%	2,302	6,772
Garretts Green	34.1%	1,405	4,116
Ward End	34.2%	1,264	3,691
Balsall Heath West	34.7%	1,348	3,883
Castle Vale	34.8%	1,464	4,212
Heartlands	35.1%	1,244	3,546
Newtown	35.7%	1,595	4,469
Lozells	36.5%	1,252	3,427
Small Heath	37.2%	1,989	5,353
Bordesley Green	37.3%	1,380	3,696
Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East	37.4%	2,893	7,742
Alum Rock	37.9%	2,692	7,097

Archaeology works begin at Smithfield Birmingham ahead of major regeneration →

Local places and initiatives

Smithfield and the Bull Ring Markets

Smithfield regeneration

The former wholesale-market area is planned to become a neighbourhood with homes, workspaces and replacement Bull Ring market buildings. Archaeology is part of preparing the site.

Plans approved; archaeological preparation confirmed · evidence dated 2025-11-26

Responsible body: Birmingham City Council and Lendlease

What the source says: The council confirms archaeological work began and says the regeneration plans were approved in June 2024. Main redevelopment was expected in 2026; this source does not confirm that later milestone.

Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: Not established by the evidence checked.
Area covered: Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Keep market access central to Smithfield delivery →

Make room for homes people can afford →

Connect local skills to local opportunities →

Birmingham Central Heart Prospectus 2026 →

Central Birmingham retail core near Curzon Street

Central Heart prospectus

A proposal to reuse underused shopping and office sites for homes, workplaces and greener public spaces. It sets out investment opportunities rather than a finished building programme.

Investment prospectus published · evidence dated 2026-03-10

Responsible body: Birmingham City Council, landowners and development partners

What the source says: The page, updated 10 March 2026, describes eight investment sites and potential development. It does not establish consent, contracted funding or a completion date for every site.

Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: Not established by the evidence checked.
Area covered: Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Make room for homes people can afford →

Connect local skills to local opportunities →

Check whether recovery funding improves everyday services →

Birmingham council area

2026/27 service budget

The approved budget provides additional service funding, including cleaner streets, libraries and youth services. The budget is a commitment to spend, not proof that every improvement has happened.

Budget approved; service outcomes need monitoring · evidence dated 2026-03-03

Responsible body: Birmingham City Council

What the source says: The council reports approval of its 2026/27 budget, including an additional £130 million for council services. It identifies an extra £40 million for cleaner streets. These allocations must not be read as audited expenditure or outcomes.

Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: The council reports an additional £130 million for services in the approved 2026/27 revenue budget. This is not the total council budget.
Area covered: No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named site or council-wide remit is not proof of benefits to every ward.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

2026/27 service budget →

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Target safety work where problems repeat →

Commissioners’ recovery assurance plan →

Birmingham City Council

Commissioners’ recovery assurance plan

Commissioners have set out the outcomes they need to see before recommending an end to intervention. Publishing the plan does not establish that those conditions have been met.

Assurance plan published; completion not established · evidence dated 2026-02-03

Responsible body: Birmingham City Council and appointed commissioners

What the source says: The dated council announcement says the plan specifies outcomes needed before commissioners can recommend ending intervention. This source does not announce that intervention has ended.

Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: Not established by the evidence checked.
Area covered: No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named site or council-wide remit is not proof of benefits to every ward.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Check whether recovery funding improves everyday services →

Homelessness Prevention Strategy 2024–2029 →

Birmingham council area

Homelessness Prevention Strategy 2024–2029

The adopted strategy focuses on earlier help and coordination across housing, health and other services. Its stated goals need to be tested against current housing outcomes.

Strategy approved; current results need separate evidence · evidence dated 2024-07-23

Responsible body: Birmingham City Council and housing, health and community partners

What the source says: The council confirms cabinet approval on 23 July 2024. The strategy aims to prevent homelessness and make any homelessness brief and non-recurring. Older need figures in the launch are not presented as current totals.

Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?

Progress, funding and source

Cost: Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding: Not established by the evidence checked.
Area covered: No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named site or council-wide remit is not proof of benefits to every ward.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.

Questions for the next progress report

Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?

Reduce long stays in temporary housing →

Make room for homes people can afford →

Plan homes and care around an older population →

Bring support closer to people in poor health →