Skip to content
SunderlandCountsSunderland, in numbers.Local help →

Sunderland · England

Community life

Sunderland council area. Every figure carries its own date.

A place is more than its average house price. The census shows who lives here and some of the pressures households face.

People aged 65 or over

20.5%

21 March 2021 · Sunderland

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

All usual residents

56,269 out of 274,175.

Source and method →

People reporting bad or very bad health

8%

21 March 2021 · Sunderland

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

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

21,920 out of 274,171.

Source and method →

Households facing at least one measured disadvantage

58.5%

21 March 2021 · Sunderland

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

71,512 out of 122,177.

Source and method →

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages

23.8%

21 March 2021 · Sunderland

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

29,077 out of 122,177.

Source and method →

People aged 16+ with no qualifications

22.9%

21 March 2021 · Sunderland

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

Residents aged 16 and over

51,666 out of 226,071.

Source and method →

People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent

24.6%

21 March 2021 · Sunderland

Show the workings

Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator

Residents aged 16 and over

55,532 out of 226,071.

Source and method →

Different needs within the area

People reporting bad or very bad health

4.8% to 11.8%

People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 4.8% in Barnes & Thornhill to 11.8% in Southwick — a gap of 7.1 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 25 of 25 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
WardShareCountPopulation or households covered
Barnes & Thornhill4.8%52911,125
Fulwell4.9%50210,261
Herrington & Newbottle5.4%5179,661
Washington South5.5%61311,222
Tunstall & Humbledon6.3%71811,436
Washington West6.6%72610,955
Doxford Park6.6%5928,919
Washington Central6.8%74310,967
Penshaw & Shiney Row7%82411,835
Ryhope7.5%79210,622
Roker7.6%81910,827
Houghton South & Hetton Downs7.9%85710,858
Houghton North8%87811,036
Washington East8%88511,065
Grangetown8.4%88210,560
Pallion & Ford8.7%1,21414,022
Hetton8.8%91310,340
Pennywell & South Hylton9.2%1,06111,531
Hylton Castle9.3%99810,777
Washington North9.3%94110,137
Grindon & Thorney Close9.8%1,14111,656
Farringdon & Silksworth10%1,19111,881
Redhouse10.3%1,15811,207
Deptford & Hendon11.4%1,24510,897
Southwick11.8%1,22910,404
Source and method →
What could respond to this pattern →

People aged 65 or over

15.6% to 26.2%

People aged 65 or over ranged from 15.6% in Pallion & Ford to 26.2% in Fulwell — a gap of 10.6 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 25 of 25 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
WardShareCountPopulation or households covered
Pallion & Ford15.6%2,18614,001
Pennywell & South Hylton16.6%1,91511,538
Ryhope16.6%1,77110,650
Deptford & Hendon16.9%1,84210,903
Redhouse17%1,90211,193
Hylton Castle18.1%1,95410,781
Penshaw & Shiney Row19.3%2,28011,834
Grindon & Thorney Close19.3%2,25011,657
Washington East19.4%2,14611,039
Barnes & Thornhill19.7%2,19311,126
Houghton North20.2%2,22611,013
Southwick20.3%2,10610,391
Hetton20.5%2,11710,316
Grangetown20.6%2,17910,557
Tunstall & Humbledon21.7%2,48211,445
Washington West22%2,41110,971
Houghton South & Hetton Downs22%2,38910,860
Doxford Park22.3%1,9868,909
Farringdon & Silksworth22.8%2,71211,883
Washington North23.1%2,33610,121
Washington Central23.2%2,54310,941
Herrington & Newbottle23.3%2,2519,651
Washington South24%2,70211,248
Roker25%2,70510,833
Fulwell26.2%2,68710,267
Source and method →
What could respond to this pattern →

People aged 16+ with no qualifications

14% to 30.9%

People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 14% in Fulwell to 30.9% in Southwick — a gap of 16.9 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 25 of 25 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
WardShareCountPopulation or households covered
Fulwell14%1,2438,878
Washington South15.2%1,4159,310
Herrington & Newbottle16.2%1,3158,134
Tunstall & Humbledon17.9%1,7249,621
Barnes & Thornhill18.3%1,6769,181
Washington West18.9%1,7249,133
Doxford Park19.5%1,4647,502
Roker19.5%1,8329,371
Penshaw & Shiney Row20%1,9389,684
Washington Central21%1,8999,026
Ryhope21.8%1,8618,540
Grangetown21.8%1,8978,699
Houghton South & Hetton Downs21.9%1,9508,903
Washington East23.4%2,0728,849
Houghton North23.7%2,1429,035
Pallion & Ford24.7%2,82411,432
Washington North25.4%2,1268,355
Hetton25.7%2,1578,399
Grindon & Thorney Close27.8%2,6539,547
Pennywell & South Hylton28.3%2,5619,063
Deptford & Hendon28.3%2,6259,283
Farringdon & Silksworth28.5%2,8239,921
Hylton Castle28.5%2,4948,736
Redhouse29.4%2,6198,910
Southwick30.9%2,6208,478
Source and method →
What could respond to this pattern →

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages

11.5% to 34.3%

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 11.5% in Fulwell to 34.3% in Southwick — a gap of 22.8 percentage points.

21 March 2021 · 25 of 25 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
WardShareCountPopulation or households covered
Fulwell11.5%5334,619
Washington South14.2%6764,760
Herrington & Newbottle14.5%6044,166
Barnes & Thornhill16.1%7364,577
Doxford Park18.8%7333,904
Washington West19.1%9434,927
Roker19.5%1,0035,151
Penshaw & Shiney Row19.8%1,0055,087
Tunstall & Humbledon19.8%1,0225,169
Washington Central21.1%1,0274,869
Grangetown22.3%1,0194,563
Ryhope22.7%1,0414,579
Houghton North23.1%1,1464,951
Houghton South & Hetton Downs23.4%1,1334,847
Washington East24.1%1,1744,870
Hetton26.1%1,2244,692
Washington North26.6%1,2234,599
Pallion & Ford27.6%1,6085,828
Farringdon & Silksworth28.7%1,6445,719
Hylton Castle29%1,3714,729
Pennywell & South Hylton30.2%1,4734,876
Grindon & Thorney Close30.3%1,6365,408
Redhouse31.3%1,5855,057
Deptford & Hendon34.1%1,8115,316
Southwick34.3%1,6864,913
Source and method →
What could respond to this pattern →

Local places and initiatives

Across the River Wear, central Sunderland

Keel Crossing

The bridge connects the city centre with Sheepfolds and the Stadium of Light for people walking or cycling.

Opened October 2025; confirmed by later council report · evidence dated 2026-02-24

Responsible body: Sunderland City Council

Latest evidence: A February 2026 council report explicitly confirms that the crossing opened in October 2025. That confirms opening rather than relying on the earlier planned date.

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 official project-to-ward mapping has been verified; no ward allocation is inferred from a city or street name.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Ukraine four years on: Keel Crossing opening confirmation →

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?

Target support where disadvantages overlap →

How to track delivery →

Two named Pride in Place areas within Sunderland

Pride in Place plans for two Sunderland neighbourhood areas

Residents are shaping long-term investment in Hendon, Docks and the East End, and in Thorney Close, Plains Farm, Springwell and Grindon.

Initial engagement and preparation of neighbourhood plans · evidence dated 2026-10-07

Responsible body: Sunderland City Council and the two neighbourhood boards

Latest evidence: The council says each area can receive up to £20 million over ten years. Initial engagement runs to the end of October 2026, followed by plans for government consideration. The headline is a long-term funding ceiling, not money already spent or a list of approved works.

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

Progress, funding and source
Cost
Not established by the evidence checked.
Funding
Up to £20 million for each of the two areas over ten years through the government’s Pride in Place programme.
Area covered
No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named location or council-wide remit does not establish benefits in every ward.

No verified ward footprint is assigned.

Pride in Place plans for two Sunderland neighbourhood areas →

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?

Make residents’ priorities traceable through spending decisions →

Plan homes and care around an older population →

Bring support closer to people in poor health →

Connect local skills to local opportunities →

Target support where disadvantages overlap →

How to track delivery →

Look beneath the area average →