Indices of Deprivation 2004
District Analysis

Introduction

Indices to help identify areas of deprivation have been used in the UK since the mid-1970s. The most recent and by far the most comprehensive are the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004) which replaces that of ID 2000. The ID 2000 used the 8,500 English wards as the basic geographical area of analysis. The new index is based on 32,482 "Super Output Areas" (SOAs), which is a new smaller geographical unit introduced with the 2001 Census of Population, each covering between 1,000-3,000 people. This provides 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.

The model of relative multiple deprivation which underpins the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2004) 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. The overall IMD is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specific dimensions of deprivation.

Indices of Deprivation 2004

The new ID 2004 are based on the approach, structure and methodology that were used to create the previous ID 2000. The ID 2004 updates the ID 2000 in two key ways: first, more up-to-date data has been used; and second, new measures have been incorporated as new and improved data sources have become available.

The ID 2004 is made up of seven "domains" of deprivation. These are:

• Income deprivation
• Employment deprivation
• Health deprivation and disability
• Education, skills and training deprivation
• Barriers to housing and services
• Crime
• Living environment

There is also supplementary information for each SOA 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 deprivation such as unemployment, low income, crime and poor access to education and health services, and in total the index is based on 37 separate indicators. Full details of each of the domains and each of the indicators they contain together with the Domain weights which were used to combine the Domains into an Index of Multiple Deprivation can be found in the full report produced on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

Local Authority District Level

As well as providing core information on each of the seven domains of deprivation for SOAs, the ID 2004 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 ranking 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 measures, their scores and their respective rankings for each of the Lancashire districts and the County Council area are set out in Tables 1 and 2 below and are as follows:

• Average Score is the population weighted average of the combined scores for the SOAs in a district - i.e. it describes the district as a whole, taking into account the full range of SOA scores across a district.
• Average Rank is the population weighted average of the combined ranks for the SOAs 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 SOAs.
• Extent is the proportion of a district's population living in the most deprived SOAs 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 SOAs that contain exactly 10% of the districts' population - i.e. it is a 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.

In the ID 2004, 80 English districts (out of 354) fall into the "most deprived" category on one or more of the six district level summaries. There are no surprises amongst the very top ranked (1 to 3) most deprived areas which comprise Birmingham, Knowsley, Liverpool and Manchester together with the London Boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets.

In the case of Lancashire, four local districts are ranked within this "top 50", namely, Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool and Burnley (each of which have scores of less than 50 in four of the six measures), together with Preston which scores below 50 in two of the measures.

Although not part of the "most deprived", Lancashire also has four further districts within the top 20% of deprived areas, namely Hyndburn (with scores of less than 70 in three of the six measures), together with Lancaster, Pendle and West Lancashire - all of which have a score of less than 70 in at least 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 County's least deprived district - Ribble Valley, ranks amongst the top 2-14% "least deprived" in England depending on the measure used.

In the case of Lancashire County itself, the area exhibits highly average characteristics on four of the six measures out of the 149 County and Unitary authority areas in England, falling mid-way in the rankings. However, in terms of two of the measures - the Income and Employment Scales, it remarkably ranks in second place, in each case behind Birmingham. However, whilst this ranking undoubtedly partly reflects Lancashire's reputation as a relatively low pay region with above-average levels of temporary and short-time 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 its large size in terms of its population.

Change Between ID 2000 and ID 2004

The ID 2004 sets out to measure as accurately as possible the distribution of relative deprivation at a small area level. Because of changing and additional indicators, it does not attempt specifically 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 broad terms it can be seen that in the ID 2004, 80 English districts fell into the "most deprived 50" on one or more of the six district level summaries. In the 1D 2000, 81 districts fell into this category. Of the 81 districts in the "most deprived 50" in the ID 2000, 76 remain in the latest ID 2004. Those leaving the list are Kerrier in Cornwall, Allerdale in Cumbria, Lincoln and the two Lancashire districts of Hyndburn and Pendle. Newcomers to the list are the two London Boroughs of Barnet and Westminster, North East Lincolnshire and Norwich.

In the case of Hyndburn, the district only narrowly avoided remaining within the "most deprived 50" but Pendle's relative position has improved more markedly. The most favourable interpretation would be to suggest that there has been relative improvement in these two districts but more likely it is thought that the recalibration of the population estimates following the 2001 Census of Population will have had some impact, particularly in the case of Pendle. Other contributory factors might have included the use of new Domains and indicators and the use of the new smaller SOA geographical units.

For detailed information on all domains of deprivation at the middle-layer super output area level, go to the Area Profiles Deprivation section.