Indices of deprivation 2025
The English indices of deprivation (IoD) 2025 measure relative levels of deprivation in England. The IoD 2025 includes seven domains (or types) of deprivation which are combined and weighted together to form the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) 2025 – the official measure of deprivation in England.
The IoD 2025 can be used to explore and compare deprivation in areas across England, from small areas or neighbourhoods, called Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), to larger administrative areas, such as local authority districts. The ranks and scores for LSOAs are aggregated to calculate figures for all other geographies. Ranks summarised here for all geographies above LSOAs are ranks of average ranks.
A ranking of 1 is assigned to the most deprived area in England. High ranking areas can be referred to as the ‘most deprived’ or as ‘highly deprived’, but there is no threshold above which an area is described as ‘deprived’.
Key figures
- Of the 153 upper-tier local authorities in England, Lancashire County Council ranks 84th on the IMD, and has a relatively higher local concentration (35th) and a greater extent of deprivation (60th) than most other upper-tier local authorities.
- In Lancashire-12, 14.5% of neighbourhoods are ranked amongst the most deprived 10% of all neighbourhoods in England and 17.2% of wards in the most deprived 10% of wards in England.
- Of the 296 local authority districts in England, the IMD rankings for Blackpool (1st), Burnley (4th), Blackburn with Darwen (11th), Pendle (13th) and Hyndburn (16th) place these authorities within the most deprived 10% of authorities.
- Blackpool ranks as the most deprived authority in Lancashire-14 on five of the seven domains of deprivation, ranking 1st on the employment and health and disability domains and 2nd on the crime domain of all local authority districts in England. Pendle is ranked as the most deprived authority in Lancashire-14 on the remaining two domains (barriers to housing and services and the living environment).
- Compared to IMD 2019, the rankings of nine local authority districts in Lancashire-14 have fallen, with more local authorities in England now being ranked as having relatively lower deprivation than these areas.
Source: English indices of deprivation 2025 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Findings by geographies
Lancashire County Council upper-tier local authority
The IMD ranking for Lancashire County Council is 84th out of the 153 upper-tier local authorities in England. Lancashire County Council ranks 35th for local concentration of deprivation, indicating that people living in highly deprived neighbourhoods in Lancashire are experiencing comparatively greater levels of deprivation than those living in the most deprived areas in many other upper-tier authorities. The extent of deprivation in Lancashire is greater than most other upper-tier authorities, ranking 60th for the proportion of the local population that live in areas classified as among the most deprived in the country.
Of the seven domains of deprivation, Lancashire County Council ranks 53rd for living environment and 55th for health and disability, indicating relatively greater deprivation on these domains than around two thirds of all upper-tier local authorities in England.
While the rankings for employment (75th) and income (90th) deprivation in Lancashire are around the median, due to the large population, this translates to substantial numbers that are affected by deprivation. Lancashire County Council has the 3rd largest absolute number of people affected by employment and income deprivation of the upper-tier local authorities in England. Across Lancashire's neighbourhoods, 110,924 (14.5%) people of working age are employment deprived. Out of the total Lancashire population, 286,789 (22.9%) are income deprived, with 81,880 (36.5%) children aged 0 to 15 living in families that are income deprived and 52,431 (15.2%) people aged 60 and over being income deprived.
Unitary authorities and districts of Lancashire-14
Of the 296 local authority districts in England, the IMD rankings for Blackpool (1st), Burnley (4th), Blackburn with Darwen (11th), Pendle (13th) and Hyndburn (16th) place these authorities within the most deprived 10% of authorities. Preston (57th) ranks amongst the most deprived 20% of authorities in England. In contrast, Ribble Valley is in the least deprived 10% of authorities.
Two fifths of the neighbourhoods in Blackpool (40.4%) and Burnley (40.0%) are ranked amongst the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England. Over a third of neighbourhoods in Blackburn with Darwen (37.4%) and Pendle (35.1%) are also in the most deprived decile of neighbourhoods in England.
Over half of Lancashire-14's authorities are ranked as having a higher local concentration of deprivation than most other local authority districts. People living in areas of high deprivation in Blackpool (1st), Burnley (14th), Blackburn with Darwen (24th), Hyndburn (26th), Wyre (26th), Lancaster (37th), Pendle (42nd), and Preston (59th) are experiencing comparatively greater levels of deprivation than those living in the most deprived areas in over three quarters of all local authority districts in England.
The extent of deprivation in Lancashire-14's authorities is greater than most other local authority districts. Blackburn with Darwen (2nd), Burnley (5th), Blackpool (9th), Hyndburn (14th), Pendle (21st), and Preston (32nd) rank amongst the top 20% of authorities with the largest proportion of the local population living in areas classified as amongst the most deprived in the country.
Of the seven domains of deprivation, Blackpool ranks as having the highest deprivation in Lancashire-14 on five domains, ranking 1st on both the employment and health and disability domains and 2nd on the crime domain of all local authority districts in England. Pendle ranks as having the highest deprivation in Lancashire-14 on the remaining two domains (barriers to housing and services and the living environment).
On the domains of income, employment, and education, skills and training, Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and Pendle rank amongst the 20% most deprived areas in England. Ribble Valley is the least deprived area in Lancashire-14 on these domains.
On the health and disability domain ranking, Preston joins Blackpool, Burnley, Hyndburn, Blackburn with Darwen, and Pendle in the 20% most deprived areas in England. Ribble Valley is the least deprived area in Lancashire-14 on this domain.
The living environment rankings place Pendle, Hyndburn, Blackpool, Burnley, Rossendale, and Blackburn with Darwen in the 20% most deprived areas in England. South Ribble is the least deprived area in Lancashire-14 on this domain.
Over half of children aged 0 to 15 in Blackpool (55.1%), Burnley (52.9%), and Blackburn with Darwen (51.0%) live in families that are income deprived. Ribble Valley (17.2%) has the smallest proportion.
Over a quarter of people aged 60 and over in Blackburn with Darwen (27.0%) and Blackpool (26.3%) are income deprived. Ribble Valley (7.4%) has the smallest proportion.
Wards
Of the 215 wards in Lancashire-12, 37 (17.2%) wards are in the most deprived 10% of wards in England. A further 15 (7.0%) wards in Lancashire-12 are in the second decile of deprivation. In contrast, 19 (8.8%) wards in Lancashire-12 are in the least deprived decile.
Of the 253 wards in Lancashire-14, 56 (22.1%) wards are in the most deprived 10% of wards in England. A further 20 (7.9%) wards in Lancashire-14 are in the second decile of deprivation. In contrast, 19 (7.5%) wards in Lancashire-14 are in the least deprived decile.
Bloomfield in Blackpool ranks as the most deprived ward in Lancashire-14 on five of the seven domains of deprivation. Compared to England, Bloomfield is ranked as the most deprived ward on the domains of income, employment, and crime, and ranks as the second most deprived on the domain of health and disability and 8th most deprived on the education, skills and training domain. Bowland in Ribble Valley is ranked as the most deprived ward in Lancashire-14 on the domains of living environment (5th) and barriers to housing and services (62nd).
Lower-layer super output area (LSOA)
Of the 760 LSOAs in Lancashire-12, 110 (14.5%) LSOAs are in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England. A further 87 (11.4%) LSOAs in Lancashire-12 are in the second decile of deprivation. In contrast, 60 (7.9%) LSOAs in Lancashire-12 are in the least deprived decile.
Of the 945 LSOAs in Lancashire-14, 182 (19.3%) LSOAs are in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England. A further 119 (12.6%) LSOAs in Lancashire-14 are in the second decile of deprivation. In contrast, 62 (6.6%) LSOAs in Lancashire-14 are in the least deprived decile.
Blackpool (40.4%), Burnley (40.0%), Blackburn with Darwen (37.4%), Pendle (35.1%), and Hyndburn (32.1%) all have high a proportion of their respective LSOAs in the most deprived 10% in England.
Three of the 10 most deprived LSOAs in Lancashire-12 are in Wyre, three are in Burnley, three are in Lancaster and one is in Hyndburn. The 10 most deprived LSOAs in the Lancashire-14 area are all in Blackpool, of which seven of these are in the 10 most deprived LSOAs in England. In contrast, six of the 10 least deprived LSOAs in Lancashire-12 are in South Ribble, two are in West Lancashire, one is in Lancaster, and one is in Preston. This is the same in Lancashire-14.
NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (ICB)
The NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB is responsible for allocating NHS budget and commissioning services in Lancashire and South Cumbria. Of the 42 ICBs in England, the NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB ranks 11th for overall deprivation. Across the area that the NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB serves, 18.0% of neighbourhoods are in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England. On health and disability domain, the NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB ranks 7th.
The sub-ICB location (SICBL) 00R (previously the NHS Blackpool Clinical Commissioning Group), ranked as the most deprived SICBL in the NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB and across all ICBs in England. SICBL 00R was also ranked as the most deprived in England in the domain of health and disability.
Change from IMD 2019
A change in ranking may not correspond to a real change in the levels of deprivation and may be partially due to methodological changes between IoD releases. Further information is provided in the things to know about the data section below.
Compared to IMD 2019, Lancashire County Council's IMD ranking rose from 78th (out of 151 upper-tier authorities) to 84th (out of 153 upper-tier authorities) in the IMD 2025. This means that there are now more upper-tier local authorities in England that have greater levels of deprivation than Lancashire.
At the unitary authority and district level, Blackpool's ranking remained unchanged from IMD 2019 as the most deprived local authority in England. Nine of the Lancashire-14 authorities rankings fell in the IMD 2025, with more local authorities in England now ranked as having relatively lower deprivation compared to these areas. Rossendale (from 91st to 60th) saw the largest fall, followed by Pendle (from 36th to 13th). There were smaller falls in the rankings of Fylde (from 198th to 188th), Ribble Valley (from 282nd to 273rd), and Burnley (from 11th to 4th).
Four Lancashire-14 authorities' rankings rose in the IMD 2025, indicating relatively lower levels of deprivation compared to a greater number of local authority districts in England than in the IMD 2019. Lancaster (from 112th to 135th) saw the largest increase, followed by South Ribble (from 210th to 227th) and Preston (from 46th to 57th).
The proportion of neighbourhoods in Lancashire-12 in the most deprived decile in England decreased from 15.1% (114 out of 756 LSOAs) to 14.5% (110 out of 760 LSOAs). The proportion of neighbourhoods in Lancashire-12 in the least deprived decile in England increased from 7.3% (55 out of 756 LSOAs) to 7.9% (60 out of 760 LSOAs).
Things to know about the data
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is the official measure of relative deprivation in England and is part of a suite of outputs that form the Indices of Deprivation (IoD). The IMD is based on seven domains of deprivation: income deprivation, employment deprivation, education, skills and training deprivation, health and disability, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment deprivation.
The English Indices of Deprivation (IoD 2025) measure relative levels of deprivation in 33,755 small areas or neighbourhoods, called Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), in England. The IoD 2025 can be used to identify the most deprived neighbourhoods and relatively compare areas across England, explore the domains (or types) of deprivation, and compare larger administrative areas e.g. Local Authority Districts.
Ranks for LSOAs and ranks of average ranks for all higher-level geographies are summarised here. Ranks of average scores can alternatively be used to rank higher-level geographies. The main difference between the rank of average rank and rank of average score is that more deprived LSOAs tend to have more ‘extreme’ scores than ranks. Highly deprived areas will not tend to average out to the same extent as when using ranks; highly polarised areas will therefore tend to score higher on the average score measure than on the average rank.
A full research report, technical report, rural report and comprehensive guidance documents accompany the IoD 2025 release and is available on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government website, along with a series of supporting data tables, a range of spatial data geopackages and a Local Deprivation Explorer to aid users' access and interaction with the data.
Interpreting IMD rankings and scores
The IoD 2025 ranks all neighbourhoods in England according to their level of deprivation relative to that of other areas. High ranking LSOAs or neighbourhoods can be referred to as the ‘most deprived’ or as being ‘highly deprived’ to aid interpretation. However, there is no definitive threshold above which an area is described as ‘deprived’. Across the IoD25, deprivation is measured on a relative rather than an absolute scale, so a neighbourhood ranked 100th is more deprived than a neighbourhood ranked 200th, but this does not mean it is twice as deprived.
The IoD 2025 cannot be used to quantify how deprived a neighbourhood is, identify deprived people or levels of affluence, compare small areas in other UK countries or measure absolute change in deprivation over time.
Interpreting change over time
A change in an area's ranking or score between releases of the IoD may be due to various reasons. For example, a higher deprivation ranking may mean that deprivation has increased, stayed the same while other areas have improved, or improved at a slower rate than in other areas.
Equally, when comparing the overall IMD, if improvements in one domain are offset by a decline in another domain, the overall IMD position may be about the same despite significant changes in the underlying domains.
In addition, changes to how deprivation is measured and geographic boundaries between IoD releases mean that the IoD does not provide a consistent measure of deprivation in an area over time. Compared to IoD 2019, there have been considerable changes to the indicators and some parts of the methodology, including 20 new indicators and significant modification of 14 existing indicators. LSOA geographies have been updated from 2011 boundaries in IoD 2019 to the 2021 boundaries for IoD 2025. See the IoD 2025 research report for full details.
The methodological changes between IoD 2019 to IoD 2025 make it difficult to determine real relative changes in deprivation from the Indices’ rankings and scores alone. An observed relative change may be partially attributable to changes in the underlying component indicators used to measure different facets of deprivation. Any comparisons of rankings between IoD releases should note this caveat.
For those who wish to establish whether there have been real changes in deprivation, the IoD 2025 research report suggests examining the underlying indicator data or trends seen in other datasets.
Page updated 17 December 2025