1

Office for Fair Access (OFFA) Access Agreement 2017-18:

Use of Output Area Classification 2011 (OAC2011)

Summary

The Output Area Classification (OAC) classifies geographical areas using census variables including

socio-economic and occupation measures, and can be used to identify applicants to the University

who live in areas with less advantaged socio-economic characteristics.

In the 2012-13 and 2013-14 application cycles, applicants to the collegiate University from areas

classified into certain less advantaged OAC2001 subgroups received a contextual “flag” for the

attention of academic assessors in the collegiate University’s admissions process.

A newer version of the OAC based on 2011 census data – OAC2011 – was released in 2014.

This paper details our assessment of OAC2011’s ability to identify those applicants to the University

of Cambridge whose circumstances we know to be associated with relative disadvantage, and the

evidence-based selection of the specific OAC2011 subgroups that should receive the OAC flag.

32 out of the 76 OAC2011 subgroups were found to have high relative levels of socio-economic

disadvantage based on the balance of evidence pertaining to three indicators of relative

disadvantage: under-representation among Cambridge applicants, low NS-SEC ratio of heads of

household in professional and managerial occupations (also for applicants), and low household

income (income or bursary amount; for entrants only).

Applicants in these 32 OAC2011 subgroups account for around 11% of applications to Cambridge,

and have received the OAC contextual flag since the 2014-15 application cycle

2

Introduction

The collegiate University takes account of several types of contextual data in its admissions process; for

each of these a “flag” may be appended to an application for the attention of academic assessors1. The

University of Cambridge has been using geodemographic segmentation models to flag applicants who

live in neighbourhoods with relatively high levels of socio-economic disadvantage since the 2011-12

cycle, when the flag was derived from A Classification Of Residential Neighbourhoods (ACORN)2. The flag

was based on Output Area Classification (OAC) 20013 in application years 2012-13 and 2013-14, but

OAC2001 was becoming progressively outdated with the passage of time since the 2001 census on which

it was based. A newer version of the classification based on 2011 census data – OAC20114 – was created

by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), together with UCL’s Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, and

was released in July 2014. Dr Sumnall (then Research Officer in the Cambridge Admissions Office)

undertook the research detailed here in August 2014, including an assessment of OAC2011’s ability to

identify those applicants to the University of Cambridge whose circumstances we know to be associated

with relative disadvantage5, and the evidence-based selection of the specific OAC2011 subgroups that

receive the OAC flag appended to their applications. As a result of this research, the collegiate University’s

OAC flag was based on OAC2011 instead of OAC2001 from 2014-15 onwards.

OAC2011

Geodemographic segmentation models such as POLAR36 and OAC have been given primacy in the

implementation of contextual data policies in higher education admissions processes, partly because of

their ease of use, but also because they are believed to serve as a proxy for socio-economic circumstances

where individual- or household-level data are not accessible. The OAC is a freely available classification,

built entirely using census data, and with a published methodology that has national statistic status. It

was first developed after the 2001 census to augment and replace previous, more disparate national area

statistics. OAC has advantages over other geodemographic segmentation models, including a high level

of replicability, defensible methodology and transparency.

Details on the composition and methodology of OAC2011 can be found online7, including an interactive

map8 and a postcode lookup tool9. OAC2011 uses Output Areas – the smallest geographical unit at which

1 http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/decisions/contextual-data 2 http://acorn.caci.co.uk/ 3 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/area-classifications/national-statistics-area-classifications/national-statistics-2001-area-classifications/index.html 4 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/area-classifications/ns-area-classifications/ns-2011-area-classifications/index.html 5 We can of course make no absolute judgments about disadvantage from the information available to us from CBS and NS-SEC data. 6 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/analysis/yp/POLAR/ 7 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/area-classifications/ns-area-classifications/ns-2011-area-classifications/methodology-and-variables/index.html http://geogale.github.io/2011OAC/ 8 http://maps.cdrc.ac.uk/#/geodemographics/oac11/default/BTTTFTT/10/-0.1500/51.5200/

3

census data are published – as its key geography, comprising around 125 households each. The

aggregated characteristics of the households which make up each Output Area are analysed, and the

resulting classification assigns each Output Area a nested classification within OAC2011. The characteristics

considered are sixty variables which are derived from census data, and which can be divided into five

‘domains’: demographic structure, household composition, housing, socio-economic indicators, and

employment. The nested classification system comprises eight supergroups, 26 groups, and 76 subgroups;

the full structure of the classification is shown in Appendix A. The supergroups represent broad differences

in the national population, but contain considerable internal variability, while the subgroups can be quite

similar to one another (especially to those within the same group and supergroup), but are internally

relatively homogeneous10.

OAC2011 has some limitations, although most are common among geodemographic segmentation models.

Each Output Area can be linked to the postcodes which are contained within it, which means that the

OAC2011 classification of individuals can be identified from their postcode using a postcode lookup tool.

However, there is a slight mismatch between the geography which users employ when using OAC2011 (the

postcode) and the scale to which the data in OAC refer (the Output Area). Additionally, the peak period of

relevance and accuracy for OAC (and for any area classification based on the most recent census) is in the

early years of the decade; new postcodes or changes in the neighbourhood composition of existing

postcodes since the 2011 census will not be captured by OAC2011. Thus, faith in the ability of OAC to

adequately differentiate between areas and identify areas of relative socioeconomic advantage will decline

with time. Finally, it is important to note that OAC categorises individuals on the basis of their postcode,

but of course individuals do not necessarily share characteristics with others in their postcode.

Testing OAC2011

In order to test the ability of OAC2011 to adequately identify applicants whose socio-economic

circumstances suggest relative disadvantage, we researched the relationship between OAC2011 subgroups

and applicants to the University of Cambridge whose circumstances we knew to be associated with relative

disadvantage according to three indicators: National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification, under-

representation, and household income.

National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC)

Clear indicators of socio-economic status are surprisingly rare in the admissions process, and the University

of Cambridge relies upon the information collected as part of the application process through the

Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)11. The primary measure used by UCAS (apart from

POLAR3, which, as another geodemographic measure, and indeed one calculated for relatively large

electoral wards areas, cannot be used to assess the accuracy of OAC for adequately identifying relatively

9 http://www.opengeodemographics.com/#OAC-section 10 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/area-classifications/ns-area-classifications/ns-2011-area-classifications/pen-portraits-and-radial-plots/index.html 11 https://www.ucas.com/

4

disadvantaged individuals) is the NS-SEC12, which it derives from an applicant’s declaration of the

occupation of their household reference person (HRP; in the case of most young applicants, the household

reference person is a parent or guardian).

NS-SEC is usually reported in research on relative socio-economic status as the observed ratio in a

population of the categories 1 to 3 (professional and managerial occupations) to categories 4 to 7 (non-

professional and managerial occupations)13. This ratio was calculated for applicants to the University of

Cambridge in each OAC subgroup14, using the UCAS-derived NS-SEC coding of their HRP occupation, for

applicants in UCAS cycles 2011 (application year 2010-11) to 2013 inclusive (Table 1).

Table 1. NS-SEC ratio (1-3:4-7) for 2011-13 applicants to Cambridge in each OAC subgroup.

Subgroup NS-SEC ratio

7b1 0.0

4b2 0.9

7a1 1.0

2c2 1.0

7d2 1.0

7b2 1.0

3c2 1.0

3b1 1.1

8c3 1.2

7a3 1.3

3b2 1.5

3a1 1.5

7c2 1.5

8d1 1.5

4b1 1.6

7d3 1.6

3a2 1.7

8b1 1.7

8d2 1.7

4a1 1.8

8b2 1.9

7c3 2.0

3c1 2.0

8d3 2.0

12 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-classifications/soc2010/soc2010-volume-3-ns-sec--rebased-on-soc2010--user-manual/index.html 13 Categories 8 (long-term unemployed) and 9 (unclassified) are usually excluded 14 The analysis was necessarily limited to applicants with a known NS-SEC category and a known UK postcode from which their OAC subgroup could be derived

5

8c2 2.1

8a2 2.3

4c2 2.5

2b1 2.5

7c1 2.6

8c1 2.7

4a2 2.9

3b3 3.0

8a1 3.1

7a2 3.1

1a4 3.2

1b3 3.4

3d2 3.5

1a1 3.6

4a3 3.7

6b3 3.7

3d1 3.8

2a2 3.9

4c1 4.1

1b1 4.2

6b1 4.3

2b2 4.4

1a3 4.4

6b4 4.6

5a1 4.7

1c1 4.9

2c1 5.0

7b3 5.0

6b2 5.7

5a3 6.0

5b3 6.1

1c3 6.3

3d3 6.5

1a2 6.6

7d1 7.0

4c3 7.0

6a3 7.1

5b2 7.3

1c2 7.4

1b2 7.4

5a2 7.4

2a3 8.1

6

6a2 9.4

2d1 9.5

2a1 9.7

6a4 10.8

6a1 10.9

5b1 11.5

2c3 12.3

2d3 14.2

2d2 14.8

Overall 5.1

It was striking that for the vast majority of OAC subgroups, the observed population of Cambridge

applicants tended to come from households headed by a person in a professional or managerial occupation

(i.e. ratio > 1). However, it was evident that among these three years of applicants to Cambridge, there was

a clear relationship between those subgroups that are part of supergroups 7 and 8 (codes beginning with 7

or 8) and lower ratios of professional and managerially headed households. This was unsurprising, because

the names and “pen portraits”15 of supergroups 7 (“Constrained City Dwellers”) and 8 (“Hard-pressed

Living”) and their constituent groups and subgroups are highly suggestive of disadvantage relative to the

national average. Based on this analysis, supergroups 7 and 8 emerged as obvious candidates for the

OAC2011 flag.

Under-representation among Cambridge applicants

We investigated under-representation of OAC subgroups among Cambridge applicants using national 2011

figures for the number of people in each OAC subgroup, and Cambridge 2011-13 figures for the number of

applications received from each subgroup16, from which we calculated the proportions of each population

that were in each subgroup (Appendix B). Table 2 below shows the ratio of the Cambridge population

proportion to the national population proportion for each subgroup: ratios under 1 indicate relative under-

representation of a subgroup in Cambridge, compared to prevalence in the national population. The

subgroup name provided by the ONS is shown in the right-hand column, and provides a general indication

of the nature of the subgroup.

15 Provided by the ONS to accompany the OAC classification: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/products/area-classifications/ns-area-classifications/ns-2011-area-classifications/pen-portraits-and-radial-plots/index.html 16 The analysis was necessarily limited to Cambridge applicants with known UK postcodes from which their OAC subgroup could be derived.

7

Table 2. Ratio of Cambridge applicant population proportion (2011-13) to national population proportion

(2011), by OAC subgroup.

Ratio Subgroup Subgroup name

0.00 7d4 Retired City Hardship

0.05 7b1 Eastern European Communities

0.07 7b2 Deprived Neighbourhoods

0.08 7b3 Endeavouring Flat Dwellers

0.09 3c2 Constrained Commuters

0.09 7c2 Constrained Young Families

0.09 8d1 Young Hard-Pressed Families

0.11 8b2 Hard-Pressed Rented Terraces

0.14 7d2 Retired Independent City Dwellers

0.14 7c1 Challenged Transitionaries

0.17 7a1 Transitional Eastern European Neighbourhoods

0.17 7a3 Multi-Ethnic Hardship

0.18 8a2 Industrious Hardship

0.19 8c3 Renting Hard-Pressed Workers

0.19 7c3 Outer City Hardship

0.20 7d3 Retired Communal City Dwellers

0.21 2c2 Migrant Commuters

0.22 8d3 Hard-Pressed European Settlers

0.25 8b1 Deprived Blue-Collar Terraces

0.25 3c1 Constrained Neighbourhoods

0.26 8d2 Hard-Pressed Ethnic Mix

0.30 8c2 Ageing Rural Industry Workers

0.30 7a2 Hampered Aspiration

0.31 4b2 Pakistani Communities

0.33 2b1 Students and Commuters

0.39 4a1 Private Renting Young Families

0.39 8c1 Ageing Industrious Workers

0.43 8a1 Industrious Transitions

0.45 2a2 Student Digs

0.45 7d1 Ageing Communities and Families

0.49 4a2 Social Renting New Arrivals

0.58 2b2 Multicultural Student Neighbourhoods

0.61 6b3 Semi-Detached Ageing

0.66 3b1 Striving Service Workers

0.67 3a2 Young Families and Students

0.70 3a1 Established Renting Families

0.70 5a1 White Professionals

0.70 3b3 Multi-Ethnic Professional Service Workers

8

0.74 4b1 Asian Terraces and Flats

0.81 2c1 Migrant Families

0.86 1a1 Rural Workers and Families

0.86 6b4 Older Workers and Retirement

0.86 2c3 Professional Service Cosmopolitans

0.87 3b2 Bangladeshi Mixed Employment

0.92 5a3 Families in Terraces and Flats

0.95 2a1 Student Communal Living

0.95 1b1 Rural Life

0.97 6b2 White Suburban Communities

0.98 1b3 Ageing Rural Flat Tenants

1.03 4a3 Commuters with Young Families

1.04 1a4 Older Farming Communities

1.06 5b3 Self-Sufficient Retirement

1.14 2a3 Students and Professionals

1.19 1c2 Renting Rural Retirement

1.20 6b1 Multi-Ethnic Suburbia

1.31 3d2 Established Tech Workers

1.36 4c1 Achieving Minorities

1.40 6a3 Detached Retirement Living

1.41 1c3 Detached Rural Retirement

1.41 3d1 New EU Tech Workers

1.52 1a3 Agricultural Communities

1.55 4c2 Multicultural New Arrivals

1.57 5b2 Communal Retirement

1.61 5a2 Multi-Ethnic Professionals with Families

1.72 3d3 Old EU Tech Workers

1.72 2d2 Highly-Qualified Quaternary Workers

1.87 1c1 Rural Employment and Retirees

1.89 6a2 Comfortable Suburbia

2.16 1b2 Rural White-Collar Workers

2.24 1a2 Established Farming Communities

2.44 2d1 Urban Cultural Mix

2.56 4c3 Inner City Ethnic Mix

2.61 6a4 Ageing in Suburbia

2.90 5b1 Delayed Retirement

3.15 2d3 EU White-Collar Workers

3.47 6a1 Indian Tech Achievers

It was apparent from this analysis that nearly two thirds of all OAC subgroups were actually under-

represented among applicants to Cambridge, whilst a minority of subgroups are over-represented. The

names of some of the subgroups, particularly those in group 7d, which refer to “retired” and “ageing”

9

residents, highlight the possibility that under-representation of a subgroup may not be due to low

application rates (per potential applicant), but rather to there being low numbers of potential applicants

(i.e. young people of typical “applicant age”) within it. Nevertheless, the most powerful examples of under-

representation were concentrated in supergroups 7 and 8, which provided additional support for flagging

supergroups 7 and 8. Some other subgroups were significantly under-represented too, particularly 3c2, and

taken with the names and pen portraits of each subgroup provided by the ONS which discuss their

characteristics, this indicated that it would be reasonable to consider these subgroups for a contextual data

flag too.

Household income

Finally, we assessed the association between OAC2011 subgroup and household income, which is an

obvious indicator of socio-economic status. This data was available to us for admitted applicants to the

University only, from the Cambridge Bursary Scheme (CBS)17, which uses household income data from the

Student Loans Company to make means-tested awards on a sliding scale based on the perceived need of

the admitted student for financial support. Because the data from CBS were only for students who had

made an application for means-tested support, they had an inevitable bias towards those students from

the lower end of the income distribution.

Figure 1 shows the mean household income of each OAC2011 subgroup, insofar as it is captured in the data

from CBS. We also looked at bursary amount instead of household income, although the potential range of

bursary amount is more restricted than the potential range of income; these data are given in a figure in

Appendix C, and in Table 3 (below). The number of students in each subgroup that were captured in this

data are also given in Appendix C. As expected, there was limited variation in income among these CBS

data, which did not provide a full picture of high incomes, making the mean incomes calculated particularly

unreliable for affluent subgroups. Furthermore, some subgroups contained very few observations (or even

none at all: 2c2, 2c3, 3c2, 7b3), making the means calculated for them unreliable; we might speculate that

the low number of admitted applicants in the CBS data for these subgroups was due to under-

representation in the case of the less affluent subgroups, and the omission of individuals with high

household incomes in the CBS dataset in the case of the more affluent subgroups. Nonetheless, most of the

subgroups in supergroups 7 and 8 fell within the lower half of the income distribution here, and the

household incomes of some other subgroups were notably low too, such as 3b2 and 3b3, which suggests

that these subgroups should also be considered for the OAC2011 flag.

17 http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/cambridgebursary/

10

Figure 1: Household income, by OAC subgroup of CBS bursary recipient, using data from students admitted

to Cambridge and in receipt of a means-tested bursary in 2012 and 2013.

Flagging of OAC2011 subgroups

The final exercise in this piece of research was to pull together the three strands pertaining to NS-SEC,

representation and household income, in order to identify those OAC2011 subgroups that appear to have

the highest relative levels of socio-economic disadvantage based on the balance of evidence, and which are

therefore most deserving of a flag in the University’s admissions process.

Table 3 below shows the data presented above for NS-SEC and (under-)representation, alongside the CBS

mean bursary awards from Appendix C18, for each OAC2011 subgroup. Accompanying each of these three

columns of data is a ranking column, in which the most relatively disadvantaged subgroup received rank 1

(e.g., lowest NS-SEC ratio, highest bursary award). The table is sorted in reverse supergroup order, with 8

and 7 at the top. Finally, the rankings are colour-coded: the highest ranked quarter of subgroups are red, in

order to provide a visual reference for the consistency of relative disadvantage across measures and

subgroups.

18 In this case, the bursary award data was used instead of household income, because the narrower distribution of observations allows for more straightforward interpretation of relative position.

11

Table 3: Ranked representation ratio, NS-SEC ratio and average bursary for each OAC2011 subgroup

Subgroup Representation ratio Rank NS-SEC ratio Rank Average bursary Rank

8d3 0.2 18.0 2.0 24.0 3030.0 30.0

8d2 0.3 21.0 1.7 19.0 3242.9 18.0

8d1 0.1 7.0 1.5 14.0 3000.0 32.5

8c3 0.2 14.0 1.2 9.0 3175.0 24.0

8c2 0.3 22.0 2.1 25.0 2933.3 37.0

8c1 0.4 27.0 2.7 30.0 3140.0 25.0

8b2 0.1 8.0 1.9 21.0 2925.0 38.0

8b1 0.2 19.0 1.7 18.0 3177.3 23.0

8a2 0.2 13.0 2.3 26.0 3385.7 14.0

8a1 0.4 28.0 3.1 33.0 2786.7 51.0

7d4 0.0 1.0 1.0 3200.0 19.5

7d3 0.2 16.0 1.6 16.0 3500.0 8.5

7d2 0.1 9.0 1.0 5.0 3000.0 32.5

7d1 0.4 30.0 7.0 59.0 2650.0 57.0

7c3 0.2 15.0 2.0 22.5 2870.0 41.0

7c2 0.1 6.0 1.5 12.5 3500.0 8.5

7c1 0.1 10.0 2.6 29.0 1600.0 72.0

7b3 0.1 4.0 5.0 52.0 N/A

7b2 0.1 3.0 1.0 5.0 5600.0 1.0

7b1 0.1 2.0 0.0 1.0 3500.0 8.5

7a3 0.2 12.0 1.3 10.0 2633.3 58.0

7a2 0.3 23.0 3.1 34.0 3053.8 28.0

7a1 0.2 11.0 1.0 5.0 3250.0 16.0

6b4 0.9 42.0 4.6 48.0 2632.5 59.0

6b3 0.6 33.0 3.7 40.0 2625.0 62.5

6b2 1.0 48.0 5.7 53.0 2841.1 42.0

6b1 1.2 55.0 4.3 45.0 2805.7 50.0

6a4 2.6 73.0 10.8 70.0 2736.7 53.0

6a3 1.4 58.0 7.1 61.0 2661.3 56.0

6a2 1.9 68.0 9.4 67.0 2837.9 43.0

6a1 3.5 76.0 10.9 71.0 2818.9 46.0

5b3 1.1 52.0 6.1 55.0 3036.7 29.0

5b2 1.6 63.0 7.3 62.0 2676.4 54.0

5b1 2.9 74.0 11.5 72.0 2763.5 52.0

5a3 0.9 45.0 6.0 54.0 2882.5 40.0

5a2 1.6 64.0 7.4 65.0 2808.6 49.0

5a1 0.7 37.0 4.7 49.0 2440.7 68.0

4c3 2.6 72.0 7.0 60.0 2966.2 34.0

4c2 1.5 62.0 2.5 27.0 2810.3 48.0

4c1 1.4 57.0 4.1 43.0 2828.3 45.0

4b2 0.3 24.0 0.9 2.0 3244.4 17.0

4b1 0.7 39.0 1.6 15.0 2629.3 60.0

12

4a3 1.0 50.0 3.7 39.0 2946.3 36.0

4a2 0.5 31.0 2.9 31.0 2626.7 61.0

4a1 0.4 26.0 1.8 20.0 2834.6 44.0

3d3 1.7 65.0 6.5 57.0 3029.4 31.0

3d2 1.3 56.0 3.5 37.0 2913.6 39.0

3d1 1.4 60.0 3.8 41.0 2625.0 62.5

3c2 0.1 5.0 1.0 5.0 N/A

3c1 0.3 20.0 2.0 22.5 3500.0 8.5

3b3 0.7 38.0 3.0 32.0 3500.0 8.5

3b2 0.9 44.0 1.5 11.0 3510.0 5.0

3b1 0.7 34.0 1.1 8.0 3200.0 19.5

3a2 0.7 35.0 1.7 17.0 3710.0 3.0

3a1 0.7 36.0 1.5 12.5 3423.5 13.0

2d3 3.1 75.0 14.2 74.0 2495.5 66.0

2d2 1.7 66.0 14.8 75.0 3110.0 26.0

2d1 2.4 71.0 9.5 68.0 3321.4 15.0

2c3 0.9 43.0 12.3 73.0 N/A

2c2 0.2 17.0 1.0 5.0 N/A

2c1 0.8 40.0 5.0 51.0 3454.5 12.0

2b2 0.6 32.0 4.4 46.0 3725.0 2.0

2b1 0.3 25.0 2.5 28.0 3500.0 8.5

2a3 1.1 53.0 8.1 66.0 3666.7 4.0

2a2 0.4 29.0 3.9 42.0 2133.3 70.0

2a1 0.9 46.0 9.7 69.0 2450.0 67.0

1c3 1.4 59.0 6.3 56.0 1780.0 71.0

1c2 1.2 54.0 7.4 63.0 2420.8 69.0

1c1 1.9 67.0 4.9 50.0 2603.3 64.0

1b3 1.0 49.0 3.4 36.0 2962.5 35.0

1b2 2.2 69.0 7.4 64.0 3109.7 27.0

1b1 1.0 47.0 4.2 44.0 2662.9 55.0

1a4 1.0 51.0 3.2 35.0 3180.0 22.0

1a3 1.5 61.0 4.4 47.0 3190.9 21.0

1a2 2.2 70.0 6.6 58.0 2813.0 47.0

1a1 0.9 41.0 3.6 38.0 2518.8 65.0

This table shows that our research consistently identified supergroups 7 and 8 (which comprise 23

subgroups) as having high levels of relative disadvantage; this was reflected in the preponderance of highly

ranked (low) NS-SEC ratios and (low) Cambridge representation ratios, and to some extent by the bursary

award rankings (although these were considered less reliable in any case, as discussed). Furthermore, this

picture of relative disadvantage was support by the names and pen portraits of the national characteristics

13

of the populations of these supergroups provided by the ONS19. Thus, we concluded that applicants from

supergroups 7 and 8 should receive the OAC2011 flag; these groups are shaded in Table 3.

Additionally, a concentration of high rankings was evident in groups 3a, 3b and 3c, and again, the pen

portraits provided by the ONS indicated a degree of constrain in the socio-economic opportunities typically

available to households in areas classified into these groups. For example, the description of supergroup 3

notes: “Residents are more likely to live in flats and more likely to rent. A higher proportion of people use

public transport to get to work, with lower car ownership, and higher unemployment.” In contrast, group

3d appeared to possess somewhat different socio-economic characteristics, which were reflected in its

lower rankings for all three indicators of relative disadvantage, and in its name (“aspirational techies”) and

pen portrait provided by the ONS. We concluded that applicants from groups 3a-c should receive the

OAC2011 flag too; these groups are shaded in Table 3.

A final pocket of relative disadvantage was evident in group 4b. Although there was little evidence of

relative disadvantage observed in the supergroup as a whole, subgroups 4b1 and 4b2 were among the

most under-represented at Cambridge (compared to the national population), and the ONS name

(“challenged Asian terraces”) and pen portraits reflected the relative disadvantage of this group. Thus, we

concluded that applications from group 4b should also receive the OAC2011 flag; these groups are shaded

in Table 3.

Although supergroup 2 contained several subgroups ranked highly for bursary awards, we considered this

the least reliable of the three indicators (as previously explained), and there was little support for any

relative disadvantage of this group from the NS-SEC and representation indicators, nor from the names20

and pen portraits provided by the ONS. Thus, we concluded that applications from supergroup 2 should not

receive the flag based on OAC2011.

19 The supergroup and group names are as follows: 7 “constrained city dwellers”; 7a “challenged diversity”; 7b “constrained flat dwellers”; 7c “white communities”; 7d “aging city dwellers”; 8 “hard-pressed living”; 8a “industrious communities”; 8b “challenged terraced workers”; 8c “hard-pressed ageing workers”; 8d “migration and churn” 20 The supergroup and group names are as follows: 2 “cosmopolitans”; 2a “students around campus”; 2b “inner city students”; 2c “comfortable cosmopolitan”; 2d “aspiring and affluent”

14

Conclusion

Based on the research and analysis presented here, using data for applicants to Cambridge in UCAS years

2011 to 2013 inclusive, we decided that, on balance, there was sufficiently compelling evidence of relative

disadvantage for applicants from (super)groups 7, 8, 3a-c and 4b to justify their receiving the OAC2011 flag

in our admissions process. Between them, these (super)groups comprise 32 subgroups out of a total of 76

subgroups, but typically accounted for only around 11% of undergraduate applications to Cambridge, which

is a testament to their under-representation21. This means that around 11% of Cambridge applicants will

receive the OAC2011 flag, which is similar to the proportion that received the previous ACORN and

OAC2001-based flags, which will facilitate comparability.

Co-authored by Dr Alexa Horner (Research Officer, Cambridge Admissions Office)

Dr Catherine Sumnall (former Research Officer, Cambridge Admissions Office) October 2016

21 Although, as can be seen in Appendix B, the subgroups are not of equal size

15

Appendix A – OAC 2011 structure

2011 AREA CLASSIFICATION FOR OUTPUT AREAS STRUCTURE

SUPERGROUPS GROUPS SUBGROUPS 1 - Rural Residents

1a - Farming Communities

1a1 - Rural Workers and Families

1a2 - Established Farming Communities

1a3 - Agricultural Communities

1a4 - Older Farming Communities 1b - Rural Tenants

1b1 - Rural Life

1b2 - Rural White-Collar Workers

1b3 - Ageing Rural Flat Tenants 1c - Ageing Rural Dwellers

1c1 - Rural Employment and Retirees

1c2 - Renting Rural Retirement

1c3 - Detached Rural Retirement 2 - Cosmopolitans

2a - Students Around Campus

2a1 - Student Communal Living

2a2 - Student Digs

2a3 - Students and Professionals 2b - Inner-City Students

2b1 - Students and Commuters

2b2 - Multicultural Student Neighbourhoods

2c - Comfortable Cosmopolitans

2c1 - Migrant Families

2c2 - Migrant Commuters

2c3 - Professional Service Cosmopolitans 2d - Aspiring and Affluent

2d1 - Urban Cultural Mix

2d2 - Highly-Qualified Quaternary Workers 2d3 - EU White-Collar Workers

3 - Ethnicity Central

3a - Ethnic Family Life

3a1 - Established Renting Families

3a2 - Young Families and Students 3b - Endeavouring Ethnic Mix

3b1 - Striving Service Workers

3b2 - Bangladeshi Mixed Employment

3b3 - Multi-Ethnic Professional Service Workers

3c - Ethnic Dynamics 3c1 - Constrained Neighbourhoods

3c2 - Constrained Commuters 3d - Aspirational Techies

3d1 - New EU Tech Workers

3d2 - Established Tech Workers

3d3 - Old EU Tech Workers 4 - Multicultural Metropolitans

4a - Rented Family Living

4a1 - Private Renting Young Families

4a2 - Social Renting New Arrivals

4a3 - Commuters with Young Families 4b - Challenged Asian Terraces

4b1 - Asian Terraces and Flats

4b2 - Pakistani Communities 4c - Asian Traits

4c1 - Achieving Minorities

4c2 - Multicultural New Arrivals

4c3 - Inner City Ethnic Mix

16

5 - Urbanites

5a - Urban Professionals and Families

5a1 - White Professionals

5a2 - Multi-Ethnic Professionals with Families 5a3 - Families in Terraces and Flats

5b - Ageing Urban Living

5b1 - Delayed Retirement

5b2 - Communal Retirement

5b3 - Self-Sufficient Retirement 6 - Suburbanites

6a - Suburban Achievers

6a1 - Indian Tech Achievers

6a2 - Comfortable Suburbia

6a3 - Detached Retirement Living

6a4 - Ageing in Suburbia 6b - Semi-Detached Suburbia

6b1 - Multi-Ethnic Suburbia

6b2 - White Suburban Communities

6b3 - Semi-Detached Ageing

6b4 - Older Workers and Retirement 7 - Constrained City Dwellers

7a - Challenged Diversity

7a1 - Transitional Eastern European Neighbourhoods

7a2 - Hampered Aspiration

7a3 - Multi-Ethnic Hardship 7b - Constrained Flat Dwellers

7b1 - Eastern European Communities

7b2 - Deprived Neighbourhoods

7b3 - Endeavouring Flat Dwellers 7c - White Communities

7c1 - Challenged Transitionaries

7c2 - Constrained Young Families

7c3 - Outer City Hardship 7d - Ageing City Dwellers

7d1 - Ageing Communities and Families

7d2 - Retired Independent City Dwellers

7d3 - Retired Communal City Dwellers

7d4 - Retired City Hardship 8 - Hard-Pressed Living

8a - Industrious Communities

8a1 - Industrious Transitions

8a2 - Industrious Hardship 8b - Challenged Terraced Workers

8b1 - Deprived Blue-Collar Terraces

8b2 - Hard-Pressed Rented Terraces 8c - Hard-Pressed Ageing Workers

8c1 - Ageing Industrious Workers

8c2 - Ageing Rural Industry Workers

8c3 - Renting Hard-Pressed Workers 8d - Migration and Churn

8d1 - Young Hard-Pressed Families

8d2 - Hard-Pressed Ethnic Mix

8d3 - Hard-Pressed European Settlers

17

Appendix B – Population figures

Subgroup Code Subgroup name National pop % national Cambridge pop % Cam

1a1 Rural Workers and Families 607314.00 0.01 197.00 0.01 1a2 Established Farming Communities 849882.00 0.01 719.00 0.03

1a3 Agricultural Communities 660762.00 0.01 380.00 0.02

1a4 Older Farming Communities 344976.00 0.01 135.00 0.01

1b1 Rural Life 1553948.00 0.02 558.00 0.02

1b2 Rural White-Collar Workers 1415398.00 0.02 1154.00 0.05

1b3 Ageing Rural Flat Tenants 863116.00 0.01 319.00 0.01

1c1 Rural Employment and Retirees 313480.00 0.00 221.00 0.01

1c2 Renting Rural Retirement 370622.00 0.01 167.00 0.01

1c3 Detached Rural Retirement 373248.00 0.01 198.00 0.01

2a1 Student Communal Living 332504.00 0.01 119.00 0.00

2a2 Student Digs 208348.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

2a3 Students and Professionals 448582.00 0.01 193.00 0.01

2b1 Students and Commuters 167142.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

2b2 Multicultural Student Neighbourhoods 342450.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

2c1 Migrant Families 393006.00 0.01 120.00 0.01

2c2 Migrant Commuters 127324.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

2c3 Professional Service Cosmopolitans 162993.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

2d1 Urban Cultural Mix 273538.00 0.00 252.00 0.01

2d2 Highly-Qualified Quaternary Workers 318246.00 0.01 207.00 0.01

2d3 EU White-Collar Workers 384522.00 0.01 457.00 0.02

3a1 Established Renting Families 644954.00 0.01 170.00 0.01

3a2 Young Families and Students 550338.00 0.01 140.00 0.01

3b1 Striving Service Workers 426502.00 0.01 106.00 0.00

3b2 Bangladeshi Mixed Employment 224760.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

3b3 Multi-Ethnic Professional Service Workers 271524.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

18

3c1 Constrained Neighbourhoods 253827.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

3c2 Constrained Commuters 58965.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

3d1 New EU Tech Workers 393449.00 0.01 210.00 0.01

3d2 Established Tech Workers 340185.00 0.01 168.00 0.01

3d3 Old EU Tech Workers 425670.00 0.01 276.00 0.01

4a1 Private Renting Young Families 1475855.00 0.02 215.00 0.01

4a2 Social Renting New Arrivals 1110081.00 0.02 207.00 0.01

4a3 Commuters with Young Families 966226.00 0.02 376.00 0.02

4b1 Asian Terraces and Flats 1373316.00 0.02 383.00 0.02

4b2 Pakistani Communities 1031678.00 0.02 121.00 0.01

4c1 Achieving Minorities 827579.00 0.01 426.00 0.02

4c2 Multicultural New Arrivals 688262.00 0.01 402.00 0.02

4c3 Inner City Ethnic Mix 756376.00 0.01 732.00 0.03

5a1 White Professionals 2340602.00 0.04 618.00 0.03

5a2 Multi-Ethnic Professionals with Families 2044962.00 0.03 1244.00 0.05

5a3 Families in Terraces and Flats 1855523.00 0.03 642.00 0.03

5b1 Delayed Retirement 1263903.00 0.02 1384.00 0.06

5b2 Communal Retirement 1355241.00 0.02 805.00 0.03

5b3 Self-Sufficient Retirement 2203891.00 0.03 879.00 0.04

6a1 Indian Tech Achievers 1110500.00 0.02 1453.00 0.06

6a2 Comfortable Suburbia 1184246.00 0.02 847.00 0.04

6a3 Detached Retirement Living 1817955.00 0.03 960.00 0.04

6a4 Ageing in Suburbia 1261109.00 0.02 1243.00 0.05

6b1 Multi-Ethnic Suburbia 1063759.00 0.02 482.00 0.02

6b2 White Suburban Communities 2972854.00 0.05 1092.00 0.05

19

6b3 Semi-Detached Ageing 2236888.00 0.04 515.00 0.02

6b4 Older Workers and Retirement 1472609.00 0.02 478.00 0.02

7a1 Transitional Eastern European Neighbourhoods 475521.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

7a2 Hampered Aspiration 818028.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

7a3 Multi-Ethnic Hardship 1090276.00 0.02 under 100 0.00

7b1 Eastern European Communities 158235.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

7b2 Deprived Neighbourhoods 154041.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

7b3 Endeavouring Flat Dwellers 198027.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

7c1 Challenged Transitionaries 479595.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

7c2 Constrained Young Families 561901.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

7c3 Outer City Hardship 509702.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

7d1 Ageing Communities and Families 237332.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

7d2 Retired Independent City Dwellers 117326.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

7d3 Retired Communal City Dwellers 168782.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

7d4 Retired City Hardship 28302.00 0.00 under 100 0.00

8a1 Industrious Transitions 1937052.00 0.03 318.00 0.01

8a2 Industrious Hardship 1277906.00 0.02 under 100 0.00

8b1 Deprived Blue-Collar Terraces 1179028.00 0.02 111.00 0.00

8b2 Hard-Pressed Rented Terraces 816276.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

8c1 Ageing Industrious Workers 1533676.00 0.02 227.00 0.01

8c2 Ageing Rural Industry Workers 751004.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

8c3 Renting Hard-Pressed Workers 954607.00 0.02 under 100 0.00

8d1 Young Hard-Pressed Families 1061192.00 0.02 under 100 0.00

8d2 Hard-Pressed Ethnic Mix 1395297.00 0.02 137.00 0.01

8d3 Hard-Pressed European Settlers 764082.00 0.01 under 100 0.00

20

Appendix C – CBS bursary data

Subgroup N students

1a1 8 1a2 27

1a3 22

1a4 10

1b1 31

1b2 36

1b3 16

1c1 15

1c2 12

1c3 under 6

2a1 under 6

2a2 6

2a3 9

2b1 under 6

2b2 under 6

2c1 11

2d1 7

2d2 under 6

2d3 11

3a1 17

3a2 10

3b1 6

3b2 10

21

3b3 under 6

3c1 under 6

3d1 8

3d2 11

3d3 17

4a1 13

4a2 15

4a3 27

4b1 29

4b2 9

4c1 23

4c2 29

4c3 34

5a1 43

5a2 64

5a3 40

5b1 48

5b2 36

5b3 45

6a1 37

6a2 33

6a3 31

6a4 45

6b1 35

6b2 73

6b3 36

6b4 20

7a1 under 6

7a2 13

7a3 12

7b1 under 6

7b2 under 6

7c1 under 6

7c2 under 6

7c3 under 6

7d1 under 6

7d2 under 6

7d3 under 6

7d4 under 6

8a1 15

8a2 14

8b1 11

8b2 under 6

8c1 15

8c2 9

22

8c3 10

8d1 under 6

8d2 14

8d3 under 6