Introduction
Indices to help identify small geographical areas of deprivation have been used in the UK since the mid-1970s. The most recent are the Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007) published by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Early indices of deprivation such as the ID 2000 used the 8,500 English wards as the basic geographical area of analysis. Subsequently the ID 2004 was based on an even finer level of detail – the 32,482 English "Lower Super Output Areas" (LSOAs), which was a new geographical unit introduced with the 2001 Census of Population, each covering between 1,000-3,000 people. There are typically between one and six LSOAs per ward. These areas provided for a more in-depth appreciation of variations in deprivation at a very local level, thereby providing the means to target support and funding more finely than hitherto possible. The latest ID 2007 largely follows the same methodology as that introduced with the ID 2004.
The model of relative multiple deprivation which underpins both of the above two indices is based on the idea of distinct dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured separately. These are experienced by people living in an area. People may be counted in one or more of the domains used depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience (e.g. low incomes, poor health, unemployment, etc). The overall Index of Multiple Deprivation derived from these assessments is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specific dimensions of deprivation.
Indices of Deprivation 2007
The latest ID 2007 are based on the approach, structure and methodology that were used to create the previous ID 2004. The ID 2007 updates the previous version in two key ways: first, more up-to-date data has been used, including the recalibration of denominators by ONS; and second, some new or revised indicators have been incorporated (especially in the Income Deprivation Domain). However, despite these modifications, according to the Dept for Communities, most apparent changes between the two indices are likely to reflect real relative change between the two time periods.
As in the previous exercise the ID 2007 are made up of seven "domains" of deprivation which are accorded slightly different "weightings" to reflect their relative importance in the derivation of the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation:
| Domain | Weighting |
| • Income Deprivation | 22.5% |
| • Employment Deprivation | 22.5% |
| • Health Deprivation and Disability | 13.5% |
| • Education, Skills and Training Deprivation | 13.5% |
| • Barriers to Housing and Services | 9.3% |
| • Crime | 9.3% |
| • Living Environment | 9.3% |
There is also supplementary information for each LSOA on the percent of children and older persons in England who live in households that depend on means tested benefits.
Each of these domains are themselves made up of a number of separate indicators, which reflect different characteristics of the deprivation they are intended to measure and in total the index is based on 37 separate indicators. Full details of each of the domains and the indicators they contain together with the domain weightings which were used to derive the final Index of Multiple Deprivation can be found in the full report produced on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
As well as providing core information on each of the seven domains of deprivation for LSOAs the ID 2007 also provides summarised information for local authority districts and county council areas. For these areas, six different measures are used which give rise to six different sets of relative rankings intended to capture the complex pattern of deprivation found at these geographical levels. However, it should be stressed that when examining these rankings, no single measure is favoured over another as there is no single best way of describing or comparing England's 354 districts.
The six local authority summary measures are as follows:
- Average Score – is the population weighted average of the combined scores for the LSOAs in a district – i.e. it describes the district as a whole, taking into account the full range of LSOA scores across a district.
- Average Rank – is the population weighted average of the combined ranks for the LSOAs in a district – i.e. it also summarises the district as a whole, taking into account the ranks of both the deprived and the least deprived LSOAs.
- Extent – is the proportion of a district's population living in the most deprived LSOAs in the country – i.e. it portrays how widespread high levels of deprivation are in a district.
- Local Concentration – is the population weighted average of the ranks of a district's most deprived LSOAs that contain exactly 10% of the districts' population – i.e. it is useful way of identifying districts' "hot spots" of deprivation.
- Income Scale – is the number of people in the district who are income deprived.
- Employment Scale – is the number of people in the district who are employment deprived.
For each of these six measures, Table 1 sets out the derived scores and Table 2 sets out the derived rankings for Lancashire districts and the Lancashire County area.
| Average Score | Average Rank | Extent | Local Concentration | Income Scale | Employment Scale | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blackburn with Darwen | 35.83 | 23,048.41 | 0.52 | 32,194.02 | 38,543 | 12,422.25 |
| Blackpool | 37.66 | 24,609.06 | 0.46 | 32,384.54 | 32,997 | 14,368.00 |
| Burnley | 34.61 | 22,712.28 | 0.43 | 32,308.13 | 19,891 | 8,012.00 |
| Chorley | 16.56 | 13,227.35 | 0.11 | 28,280.61 | 11,150 | 5,680.75 |
| Fylde | 12.86 | 10,828.55 | 0.03 | 23,695.78 | 7,460 | 3,609.75 |
| Hyndburn | 30.91 | 21,517.05 | 0.37 | 32,038.43 | 17,244 | 6,897.50 |
| Lancaster | 21.94 | 16,787.92 | 0.18 | 31,046.89 | 19,670 | 8,762.75 |
| Pendle | 30.24 | 21,036.96 | 0.38 | 31,786.15 | 19,005 | 6,931.75 |
| Preston | 29.78 | 20,181.32 | 0.39 | 31,979.03 | 25,328 | 10,150.25 |
| Ribble Valley | 10.07 | 8,524.88 | 0.00 | 16,990.16 | 3,635 | 2,158.50 |
| Rossendale | 24.23 | 19,492.57 | 0.20 | 29,357.65 | 10,526 | 4,811.75 |
| South Ribble | 14.10 | 11,804.85 | 0.04 | 25,249.01 | 9,985 | 5,176.50 |
| West Lancashire | 20.40 | 15,715.05 | 0.16 | 30,389.21 | 16,180 | 7,452.25 |
| Wyre | 17.70 | 14,149.00 | 0.13 | 29,598.48 | 13,633 | 5,973.50 |
| Lancashire County | 22.29 | 16,525.81 | 0.21 | 31,156.06 | 173,707 | 75,617.25 |
| Notes (1) Where higher scores signify greater deprivation. The scores for the Income Deprivation and Employment Deprivation scales are actual numbers. The scores for the remaining four measures are not actual numbers and should not be compared: they do, however, indicate the distances between each rank position, as these will vary, and thus provide an indication of the relative position of each district. | ||||||
| (2) The guidance note published by DCLG points out that the index scores for 2007 cannot be compared with those from 2004. An area's score is affected by the scores of every other area so it is impossible to tell whether a change in score is a real change in the level of deprivation in an area or is due to the scores of other areas going up or down. | ||||||
| Source Department for Communities and Local Government - The English Indices of Deprivation 2007 | ||||||
| In 50 Most Deprived(2) | Rank of Average Score | Rank of Average Rank | Rank of Extent | Rank of Local Concentration | Rank of Income Scale | Rank of Employment Scale | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blackburn with Darwen | Y | 17 | 27 | 15 | 9 | 60 | 73 |
| Blackpool | Y | 12 | 18 | 24 | 3 | 72 | 61 |
| Burnley | Y | 21 | 31 | 27 | 5 | 113 | 113 |
| Chorley | 188 | 208 | 153 | 147 | 214 | 170 | |
| Fylde | 251 | 249 | 227 | 236 | 296 | 260 | |
| Hyndburn | Y | 40 | 445 | 43 | 16 | 130 | 135 |
| Lancaster | 117 | 135 | 109 | 62 | 114 | 103 | |
| Pendle | Y | 44 | 51 | 40 | 29 | 118 | 134 |
| Preston | Y | 48 | 73 | 39 | 20 | 90 | 89 |
| Ribble Valley | 302 | 296 | 309 | 332 | 349 | 323 | |
| Rossendale | 92 | 85 | 104 | 124 | 228 | 200 | |
| South Ribble | 233 | 237 | 207 | 206 | 240 | 187 | |
| West Lancashire | 141 | 156 | 117 | 80 | 141 | 125 | |
| Wyre | 170 | 182 | 139 | 117 | 167 | 157 | |
| Lancashire County | 80 | 88 | 73 | 46 | 3 | 2 | |
| Notes (1) District rankings out of 354 English districts and Lancashire ranking out of 149 county and unitary authorities (where rank 1 is the most deprived) | |||||||
| (2) Local authority in the 50 most deprived English local authorities | |||||||
| Source Department for Communities and Local Government - The English Indices of Deprivation 2007 | |||||||
For policy purposes the main rationale of the Indices of Deprivation are to identify those districts and areas that are "most deprived" and therefore most deserving of targeted resources. DCLG quantifies this by proving a focus on those districts which are the "50 most deprived" within each of the six district level measures outlined above. Because the "top 50" under each of the measures are not always the same districts, the number can actually exceed 50. Under the ID 2007 there are 82 English districts that fall into the most deprived 50 across one or more of the six district level summaries, equivalent to just under a quarter of the 354 English districts.
There are few surprises amongst the very top ranked (1-3) most deprived districts. These include parts of several of England's largest conurbations including Birmingham, Knowsley, Liverpool and Manchester together with the three London Boroughs of Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets. Remarkably, Blackpool joins these authorities with a ranking of 3rd under the local concentration measure.
In the case of the Lancashire sub-region no less than six local districts are ranked within the "top 50", a profoundly exceptional state for a traditional shire county area (Figure 1). In addition to Blackpool these districts are Burnley and Blackburn with Darwen, both of which have scores of less than 50 in four of the six measures, and stand as 5th and 9th respectively in the England district rankings, together with Hyndburn, Preston and Pendle, which have scores of below 50 in three of the measures and rank as 16th, 20th and 29th respectively. Although not part of the most deprived, Lancashire also has one further district within the top 20% of deprived areas, namely Lancaster (with a score of less than 70 in one of the measures. Only three local districts appear in the top 50% of least deprived areas, namely Fylde, Ribble Valley and South Ribble. The sub-region's least deprived district – Ribble Valley – ranks amongst the top 2-17% least deprived in England depending on the measure used.
In the case of Lancashire County itself, within the ID 2007 the area exhibits highly average characteristics on three of the six local authority measures. Out of the 149 county and unitary authority areas in England, Lancashire County falls mid-way in the rankings, ranging between 73td and 88th position for Rank of Average Score, Rank of Average Rank and Rank of Extent. However, in terms of two of the measures – the Employment and Income scales – it remarkably ranks in second and third place behind Birmingham and Birmingham and Kent respectively. However, whilst these particular rankings undoubtedly partly reflect Lancashire's reputation as a relatively low pay region with above-average levels of temporary and short-term contract employment (and thus attracting above-average Income Support, Tax Credits, etc.) it more directly reflects the fact that the values used in these measures are "real" numbers and therefore the large size of Lancashire County in terms of its population is mirrored in the rankings.
Change Between ID 2004 and ID 2007
The Indices of Deprivation set out to measure as accurately as possible the distribution of relative deprivation at a small area level. Because of the possibility of changing and additional data sets and indicators, it is not always possible to measure changes over time or to evaluate the impact of area-based policy initiatives or macro-economic change for which other types of indicators may be more appropriate. However, in the case of the ID 2007 this was designed to be as similar possible to the ID 2004 in terms of geographical scale, domains, indicators and methodology in order to maximise backwards comparability and help to identify real change. The DCLG believe that to a large extent, this objective has been achieved.
In the broadest terms, it can be seen that in the ID 2007, 82 English districts (out of 354) fell within the "most deprived 50" one or more of the six district level summaries. In the ID 2004 80 districts fell into this category and of these 78 remained in the ID 2007. Those authorities leaving the in list in 2007 were Westminster, North Tyneside and Derwentside. Newcomers to the list were the two London Boroughs of Redbridge and Wandsworth, Thanet and the two Lancashire districts of Hyndburn and Pendle.
The inclusion of Hyndburn and Pendle within the "top 50" deprived authorities in ID 2007 follows the exclusion of these same two authorities in the ID 2004. In retrospect it was not at all obvious why Hyndburn and Pendle were dropped in ID 2004 as numerous other economic and social indicators at the time did not suggest any significant improvement in the relative circumstances of these districts. Equally, there has been no obvious change of circumstances between 2004 and 2007 to justify the apparent deterioration required to permit their inclusion once again. This significant anomaly is an example of how caution should be exercised when using the Indices of Deprivation, particularly when seeking to measure changes over time.
For detailed information on all domains of deprivation at the lower-layer super output area level, go to the Area Profiles Deprivation section.
For further details, please contact:
Paul Ayre
Tel 01772 534158
Email Paul.Ayre@lancashire.gov.uk