Skip to content
Worcestershire Counts — Worcestershire, in numbers.Local help →
Worcestershire Counts / Council areas / Malvern Hills / Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick · Malvern Hills

Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick: your neighbourhood

Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick electoral ward · May 2026 boundaries. Every figure carries its own date.

What stands out here?

Homes rented privately: 9% here, compared with 13% across Malvern Hills (4.7 percentage points lower).

A larger private-rented sector changes the mix of housing advice, enforcement and tenant support needed. It does not tell us whether individual homes are affordable or safe.

21 March 2021 · ward and council use the same source, measure and date.

Why this comparison is valid

The difference is in percentage points. The wider figure is the published council total, not the average of its wards. Differences describe groups, not every resident.

Source →
A proposed response →

Homes rented from a council or housing association: 10% here, compared with 14% across Malvern Hills (4.6 percentage points lower).

The share of social housing describes the homes already here. It does not show the current waiting list or whether enough suitable homes are available.

21 March 2021 · ward and council use the same source, measure and date.

Why this comparison is valid

The difference is in percentage points. The wider figure is the published council total, not the average of its wards. Differences describe groups, not every resident.

Source →
A proposed response →

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages: 10.6% here, compared with 14% across Malvern Hills (3.4 percentage points lower).

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

21 March 2021 · ward and council use the same source, measure and date.

Why this comparison is valid

The difference is in percentage points. The wider figure is the published council total, not the average of its wards. Differences describe groups, not every resident.

Source →
A proposed response →

The ward in numbers

People aged 65 or over

29.2%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

All usual residents

1,420 out of 4,866.

Source and method →

People reporting bad or very bad health

5%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

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

245 out of 4,879.

Source and method →

People counted in the census

4,875

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

All usual residents

4,875 out of 4,875.

Source and method →

People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent

41.4%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

Residents aged 16 and over

1,710 out of 4,131.

Source and method →

Households facing at least one measured disadvantage

42.7%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

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

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

All households

873 out of 2,046.

Source and method →

Households facing two or more measured disadvantages

10.6%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

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

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

All households

217 out of 2,046.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ outside the labour market

43.1%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

1,784 out of 4,137.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ in work

55.1%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

2,281 out of 4,137.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ not working because of long-term illness or disability

3.2%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

133 out of 4,137.

Source and method →

People aged 16+ with no qualifications

13.4%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

Residents aged 16 and over

553 out of 4,131.

Source and method →

Homes rented privately

9%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

All households

176 out of 2,040.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ retired

31.9%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

1,319 out of 4,137.

Source and method →

Homes rented from a council or housing association

10%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

Complete Census output-area counts summed using official 2026 best-fit ward lookup

All households

199 out of 2,040.

Source and method →

Residents aged 16+ unemployed

1.7%

21 March 2021 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick

Show the workings

21 March 2021, residents aged 16 and over. Includes full-time students in the corresponding work/unemployment categories. Not a current labour-market estimate or the usual 16–64 employment rate. Census took place during the coronavirus pandemic; furlough and lockdown affected answers. Ward counts sum complete official output-area best-fit membership; privacy adjustment can make totals differ slightly. Unemployed residents as a share of all residents aged 16+; this is not the unemployment rate among economically active people.

All usual residents aged 16 and over

72 out of 4,137.

Source and method →

Crime and safety

Police-recorded locations for Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick ward. Locations are approximate; these are not all crimes or a measure of personal risk.

146 mapped crimes

September 2025 to August 2026. Compared with 143 in the previous 12 months. Anti-social behaviour is counted separately.

Mapped crime over time

September 2024 to August 2026

Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick ward · mapped crimes

Reviewed figures: September 2024 to August 2026. This reviewed record covers fewer than 30 years, so the chart opens on all of it.

Shown on this chart: 15 mapped crimes in September 2024; 8 mapped crimes in August 2026. These are recorded counts; check the coverage notes before comparing periods.

The line joins consecutive published observations.

Monthly crime and anti-social behaviour
Recorded locations by month · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick
MonthMapped crimeAnti-social behaviour
September 2024152
October 2024110
November 2024103
December 202462
January 2025113
February 2025112
March 2025161
April 2025100
May 202594
June 2025151
July 2025162
August 2025133
September 202572
October 2025121
November 2025170
December 202590
January 2026141
February 2026132
March 202660
April 202680
May 2026100
June 2026230
July 2026190
August 202683
Crime categories in the latest complete year
September 2025 to August 2026 · Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick
CategoryMapped crimes
violent crime75
burglary20
criminal damage arson16
other theft13
public order9
vehicle crime6
drugs3
other crime2
possession of weapons1
robbery1
What these numbers include

Approximate published locations, not every crime or personal risk.

Anti-social behaviour is separate. Transport police and unusable locations excluded.

An empty ward count means no mapped rows in the complete required force files; it does not prove that no crime occurred.

These are retrieved mapped records, not a guarantee of complete crime reporting. Approximate locations and unmapped incidents limit comparisons.

Missing ward-months invalidate totals and changes. Busy centres attract visitors, so residential population is not a measure of the number of people exposed.

Police data and method →

What could improve local safety →

Projects and proposed responses

A nearby project is not proof of a benefit to the whole ward. Only source-supported ward links are attached here.

No project boundary has been verified against this ward. See projects and their stated locations →

Proposed responses across Malvern Hills →