The English Indices of Deprivation 2007
www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity

# The English Indices Of Deprivation 2007

Michael Noble, David mcLennan, Kate Wilkinson, Adam Whitworth and Helen Barnes Social Disadvantage Research Centre, University of Oxford Chris Dibben University of St Andrews March 2008
Communities and Local Government: London Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk
© Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce, 2008
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown Copyright and the title of the publication specifi ed.

Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Offi ce of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: HMSOlicensing@opsi.x.gsi.gov.uk. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 Email: communities@capita.co.uk or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk March 2008

## Preface

Indices of Deprivation are an important tool for identifying the most disadvantaged areas in England so that resources could be appropriately targeted. Signifi cant changes were made to the Indices in 2004 which allowed us to measure deprivation at a smaller spatial scale through the introduction of Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). We also introduced new domains and indicators to capture other dimensions of deprivation, for example crime and the living environment.

Following fundamental changes in the measurement of deprivation in both the 2000 and 2004 Indices, we have listened to requests from key stakeholders and users of the Index to provide a consistent measure to allow change over time to be measured. The Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007) therefore updates the Indices of Deprivation 2004, retaining the same methodology, domains and indicators. This report rehearses the conceptualisation underpinning the model of multiple deprivation used and outlines the indicators and domains that make up the ID 2007. The datasets underpinning the ID 2007 can be accessed at: www.communities.gov. uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/ We would like to thank all those who assisted in the production of the ID 2007. In particular we thank all those who responded to the consultation, Professor Pete Alcock who peer reviewed the work of SDRC, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, Dr Chris Dibben and Dr Ben Anderson who undertook specifi c analysis to support the Indices and the inter-departmental advisory group for their many helpful suggestions.

## Contents

|                                                            | Introduction                                                 | 7                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                            | Acknowledgements                                             | 8                                                      |
| Chapter 1:                                                 | Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the small area level:      |                                                        |
| The conceptual framework                                   | 9                                                            |                                                        |
| Chapter 2: Domains and Indicators                          | 13                                                           |                                                        |
|                                                            | Section 1: An Introduction to the Domains and Indicators     | 13                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 2: Income Deprivation Domain                         | 16                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 3: Employment Deprivation Domain                     | 20                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 4: Health Deprivation and Disability Domain          | 22                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 5: Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain | 24                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 6: Barriers to Housing and Services Domain           | 26                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 7: Crime Domain                                      | 28                                                     |
|                                                            | Section 8: The Living Environment Domain                     | 30                                                     |
| Chapter 3: Combining the Domains into an Index of Multiple |                                                              |                                                        |
|                                                            | Deprivation                                                  | 32                                                     |
| Chapter 4: Presentation of results and interpretation      | 34                                                           |                                                        |
|                                                            | Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) Level Results           | 34                                                     |
|                                                            | District Level Presentations                                 | 36                                                     |
|                                                            | County Council Level Presentations                           | 38                                                     |
| Chapter 5: The geography of deprivation                    | 39                                                           |                                                        |
|                                                            | Section 1:                                                   | An overview of the patterns of multiple deprivation in |
| England and Regional maps of LSOA level IMD 2007           | 40                                                           |                                                        |
|                                                            | Section 2:                                                   | The most deprived and the least deprived 20% of        |
| LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007                           | 60                                                           |                                                        |
|                                                            | Section 3:                                                   | The Domain Indices, the Income Deprivation Affecting   |
| Children Index, the Income Deprivation Affecting Older     |                                                              |                                                        |
| People Index and the IMD 2007                              | 64                                                           |                                                        |
|                                                            | Section 4:                                                   | District level summary measures                        |
|                                                            | Section 5:                                                   | The reasons for changes in the geography of            |
| deprivation between the ID 2004 and the ID 2007            | 90                                                           |                                                        |
| Annex A:             | Consultation                                                  | 91                                                           |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Annex B:             | Indicator Details                                             | 92                                                           |
| Annex C:             | Data Sources                                                  | 98                                                           |
| Annex D:             | The Shrinkage Technique                                       | 101                                                          |
| Annex E:             | Factor Analysis                                               | 103                                                          |
| Annex F:             |                                                               | The 'Adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety          |
| disorders' indicator | 104                                                           |                                                              |
| Annex G:             | Categories of Recorded Crime Included in the Crime Domain 108 |                                                              |
| Annex H:             | Exponential Transformation                                    | 110                                                          |
| Annex I:             | Components of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007          | 111                                                          |
| Annex J:             |                                                               | The 100 most deprived SOAs on the Index of Multiple          |
| Deprivation 2007     | 112                                                           |                                                              |
| Annex K:             |                                                               | District level summaries of the LSOA level Index of Multiple |
| Deprivation          | 115                                                           |                                                              |
|                      | References                                                    | 127                                                          |

## Introduction

Communities and Local Government commissioned the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford to update the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004) for England. Following an extensive public consultation (see **Annex A**), an independent academic peer review and a signifi cant programme of work, the new Indices of Deprivation 2007 were produced in December 2007. 

The new Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level measure of multiple deprivation, and is made up of seven LSOA level domain indices. There are also two supplementary indices (Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People). Summary measures of the IMD 2007 are presented at local authority district level and county council level. The LSOA level Domain Indices and IMD 2007, together with the local authority district and county summaries are referred to as the Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007). The ID 2007 are based on the approach, structure and methodology that were used to create the previous ID 2004. The ID 2007 updates the ID 2004 using more upto-date data. The new IMD 2007 contains seven domains which relate to income deprivation, employment deprivation, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training deprivation, barriers to housing and services, living environment deprivation, and crime. This report presents the conceptual framework of the new ID 2007; the component indicators and domains; the methodology for creating the domains and the overall IMD; the LSOA level results and the LA level summaries.

## Acknowledgements

The ID 2007 was constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford. The team comprised: Michael Noble, David McLennan, Kate Wilkinson, Adam Whitworth, Sonia Exley, and Helen Barnes. In addition, the Health Domain was constructed by Chris Dibben from the University of St Andrews; the 'air quality' indicator by Jon Fairburn at Staffordshire University; the 'housing affordability' indicator by Professor Glen Bramley at Heriot-Watt University; and GIS work was undertaken by SDRC's GIS 
consultant David Avenell. The population denominators were kindly provided by the Small Area Population Estimation Unit at the Offi ce for National Statistics (ONS).

The team would like to thank Communities and Local Government's Advisory Group, the academic peer reviewer Professor Pete Alcock from the University of Birmingham, and the many respondents to the consultation, for all their helpful contributions. The maps in this report are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. CLG Licence No: 100018986. 2007

## Chapter 1: Measuring Multiple Deprivation At The Small Area Level: The Conceptual Framework

The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a measure of multiple deprivation at the small area level. The model of multiple deprivation which underpins the IMD 2007 is the same as that which underpinned its predecessor - the IMD 2004 (Noble et al., 2004) and is based on the idea of distinct dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured separately. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted as deprived in one or more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall IMD is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specifi c dimensions of deprivation. This chapter, which draws from the ID 2004 Report, elaborates on the model of multiple deprivation that has been used and addresses issues relating to it.

## Background

We must fi rst know what poverty is before we can identify where and when it is occurring or attempt to measure it; and before we can begin to do anything to alleviate it' (Alcock, 1997, p.57)
In his 1979 account of *Poverty in the United Kingdom* Townsend sets out the case for defi ning poverty in terms of relative deprivation. Thus his defi nition of poverty is: 
'Individuals, families and groups can be said to be in poverty if they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved in the societies to which they belong' (Townsend, 1979, p.31). Though 'poverty' and 
'deprivation' have often been used interchangeably, many have argued that a clear distinction should be made between them (see for example the discussion in Nolan and Whelan, 1996). It could be argued that the condition of poverty means not having enough fi nancial resources to meet needs. Deprivation on the other hand refers to unmet need, which is caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just fi nancial. In a similar vein, Atkinson (1998) notes that in recent debates on 'Social Europe', the terms 'poverty' and 'social exclusion' have been used on occasions interchangeably, but he defi nes poverty as a 'lack of money or material possessions'. 

Townsend himself concurs. In his article 'Deprivation' Townsend argues that 'people can be said to be *deprived* if they lack the types of diet, clothing, housing, household facilities and fuel and environmental, educational, working and social conditions, activities and facilities which are customary …' [our italics]. People are in poverty if they lack the resources to escape deprivation (Townsend, 1987, p131 and 140).

In his 1987 article Townsend elaborates on the distinctions between social and material deprivation. The former - which he acknowledges is more diffi cult to measure - he describes as 'providing a useful means of generalising the condition of those who do not or cannot enter into ordinary forms of family or other relationships'. The more easily measured material deprivation relates to diet, health, clothing, housing, household facilities, environment and work (Townsend, 1987, p136). By identifying both social and material deprivation, he is anticipating some aspects of what one might now call 'social exclusion'. In this study Townsend also lays down the foundation for articulating multiple deprivation as an accumulation of several types of deprivation.

Townsend's formulation of multiple deprivation is the starting point for the model of small area deprivation which is presented here in respect of the design of new measures of deprivation for England. 

## Area Based Measures

Though Townsend's work mainly (though not entirely) referred to individuals experiencing deprivation - single or multiple - the arguments can, in modifi ed form, extend to area based measures. However, limitations of data availability inevitably cause some of the sophistication of his original concept to be lost in practice. At an area level it is very diffi cult to measure the percentage of the population experiencing deprivation on one, two or more dimensions. It is possible to look at single forms of deprivation at an area level and state that a certain proportion of the population experiences that deprivation or a proportion experiences some other forms of deprivation etc. and describe at an area level the combination of single deprivations as area level multiple deprivation. The approach used here conceptualises multiple deprivation as a composite of different dimensions or domains of deprivation. It, however, says little about the *individual* experience of *multiple* deprivation.

The area itself can be characterised as deprived *relative to other areas*, in a particular dimension of deprivation, on the basis of the proportion of people in the area experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area give the area its deprivation characteristics. The area itself is not deprived, but the presence of a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may give rise to a compounding deprivation effect - this is still *measured* 
by reference to those individuals. Having attributed the aggregate of individual experience of deprivation to the area, it is possible to say that an area is deprived in that particular dimension. Once the specifi c dimensions of deprivation have been measured, these can be understood as elements of multiple deprivation. 

## Dimensions Of Deprivation

The approach allows the separate measurement of different dimensions of deprivation, such as education deprivation and health deprivation. There is a question as to whether there should be an additional domain for low income or one that measures the lack of socially perceived necessities (Gordon *et al*., 2000) (e.g. 

adequate diet, consumer durables, ability to afford social activities etc.). To follow Townsend, within a multiple deprivation measure only the deprivations resulting from a low income would be included so low income itself would not be a component, but lack of socially perceived necessities would. However, there are no readily available small area data on the lack of socially perceived necessities and therefore low income is an important indicator for these aspects of material deprivation. Moreover, it could be argued that measures of consumption are themselves problematic as lack of certain items may be by choice rather than inability to pay for them. Therefore, it is appropriate to measure low income itself rather than the possession of certain items. Despite recognising income deprivation in its own right, it should not be the only measure of area deprivation. Other dimensions of deprivation contribute crucial further information about an area. However, low income remains a central component of the defi nition of multiple deprivation for the ID 2007. As Townsend writes 'while people experiencing some forms of deprivation may not all have low income, people experiencing multiple or single but very severe forms of deprivation are in almost every instance likely to have very little income and little or no other resources' (Townsend, 1987, p131). 'Multiple deprivation' is thus not some separate form of deprivation. It is simply a combination of more specifi c forms of deprivation, which themselves can be more or less directly measurable. It is an empirical question whether combinations of these different forms of deprivation are more than the sum of their parts, that is, whether they are not simply additive but interact and may have *greater* impact, if found in certain combinations. Measuring different aspects of deprivation and combining these into an overall multiple deprivation measure raises a number of questions. Perhaps the most important one is the extent to which area deprivation in one dimension can be cancelled out by lack of deprivation in another dimension. Thus if an area is found to have high levels of income deprivation but relatively low levels of education deprivation, should the latter cancel out the former and if so to what extent? The IMD 2007 is essentially based on a weighted cumulative model and the argument for limited cancellation effects is presented. Another question concerns the extent to which the same people or households are represented in more than one of the dimensions of deprivation. In previous Indices based on Census data no explicit information is available on this aspect of the conceptual framework. The 'households with no access to a car' may well have been the same households who 'live in overcrowded accommodation'. The combination in earlier Indices takes no account of possible double counting nor do the published accounts address the potential problem. The position taken in the IMD 2007 is that if a family or area experiences more than one form of deprivation this is 'worse' than experiencing only one form of deprivation. The aim is not to eliminate double counting *between* domains - indeed it is desirable and appropriate to measure situations where deprivation occurs on more than one dimension. To summarise, the model which emerges from this theoretical framework is of a series of uni-dimensional domains of deprivation which may be combined, with appropriate weighting, into a single measure of multiple deprivation. 

## The Concept Of Multiple Deprivation

The IMD 2007 is therefore underpinned by a coherent conceptual model of multiple deprivation at the small area level. To reiterate, the model of multiple deprivation is underpinned by the idea of separate dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. The area itself can be characterised as deprived, relative to other areas, in a particular dimension of deprivation on the basis of the proportion of people in the area experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area give the area its deprivation characteristics. The area itself is not deprived, though the presence of a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may give rise to a compounding deprivation effect, but this is still measured by reference to those individuals. Having attributed the aggregate of individual experience of deprivation to the area, it is possible to say that an area is deprived in that particular dimension. Having measured specifi c dimensions of deprivation, these can be understood as elements of multiple deprivation. 

## Chapter 2: Domains And Indicators Section 1: An Introduction To The Domains And Indicators Domains

The IMD 2007 contains seven Domains of deprivation: 

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

## Indicators

There are a total of 38 indicators, distributed across the seven domains. Where possible, the indicators relate to 2005. The criteria for inclusion of these indicators were that they should be:-

- 'Domain specifi
 c' and appropriate for the purpose (as direct as possible measures 
of that form of deprivation);
- measuring major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a 
very small number of people or areas);
- up-to-date; - capable of being updated on a regular basis; - statistically robust; - available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form.
The aim for each domain was to include a parsimonious (i.e. economical in number) collection of indicators that comprehensively captured the deprivation for each domain, within the constraints of data availability and the criteria listed above.

Annex B lists the indicators on a domain by domain basis, and **Annex C** lists the data sources.

## Data Where Indicators Have Changed Or Ceased To Exist Since The Id2004

For the most part, the same indicators (updated where possible) have been used for the ID 2007 as were used for the ID 2004. This has, however, not been possible for the Income Domain where as a result of major changes to the social security system - particularly in the area of tax credits –indicators have ceased to exist. Where possible indicators have been selected in that domain which map as closely as possible to their predecessors.

## Census Data

As with the ID 2004, the ID 2007 only uses Census data when alternative data from administrative sources are not available. Three such indicators were derived from the 2001 Census - adult skill levels in the Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, 'overcrowded households' in the Wider Barriers Sub Domain of the Barriers to Housing and Services Domain and 'households without central heating' in the Living Environment Domain.

## Data Time Point, Spatial Scale And Denominators

Where possible the indicators relate to 2005 and, as has been indicated, the IMD 2007 and component domains are presented at LSOA level. Summaries of the IMD 2007 are presented at district and county council levels. Denominators at LSOA level for 2005 were provided by the ONS Small Area Population Estimation Unit. For the few indicators where numerators were derived from the 2001 Census, the denominators were also drawn from the Census. 

## Preparing The Indicators For Combination: Dealing With Small Numbers

The shrinkage estimation methodology has been used, where necessary, to improve the reliability of an indicator where it is based on small numbers. The effect of shrinkage is to move such a score towards the district average for that indicator. The extent of movement depends on both the reliability of the indicator and the heterogeneity of the district. If scores are not unreliable, the movement is negligible as the amount of shrinkage is related to the standard error. A further advantage of the shrinkage technique is that movement is less in heterogeneous districts. The shrinkage technique does not mean that the score necessarily gets smaller, i.e. less deprived. Where LSOAs do move this may be in the direction of more deprivation if the 'unreliable' score shows less deprivation than the district mean. For further details about the shrinkage technique, see **Annex D**.

## Combining Indicators To Create A Domain

For each domain of deprivation the aim is to obtain a single summary measure whose interpretation is straightforward in that it is, if possible, expressed in meaningful units (e.g. proportions of people or of households experiencing that form of deprivation). In two domains (i.e. the Income and Employment domains) where the underlying metric is the same and where the indicators are non-overlapping, the indicators can be simply summed and divided by the population at risk to create an area rate. In several of the domains where a simple rate is not possible, Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis has been used to fi nd appropriate weights for combining indicators into a single score based on the inter-correlations between all the indicators. This has been applied to the following domains or sub-domains: Health Deprivation and Disability Domain; Children/Young People sub-domain in the Education, skills and training deprivation Domain; and the Crime Domain. For further details about the factor analysis technique, see **Annex E**. 

## Section 2: Income Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain

The purpose of this domain is to capture the proportions of the population experiencing income deprivation in an area. This has been achieved in previous versions of the Index (ID 2000 and ID2004) by reference to the percentage of the population reliant on various means tested benefi ts (see e.g. Noble et al., 2004). 

It has been the long term goal to move the Income Domain from proxy indicators based on benefi t receipt to a measure more similar to the national income poverty measure - i.e. proportion of the population of an LSOA living in households below 60% of equivalent median income. Since the publication of the ID 2004, research has been undertaken by the University of Essex to create synthetic income estimates at small area level (See Communities and Local Government Website for a note on the methodology adopted). However, following a careful consideration of the results of that research and after taking into account the views expressed during the consultation, it was decided not to implement a domain based on synthetic estimates of income at this time.

## The Indicators:

- Adults and children in Income Support Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in Income-Based Job Seekers Allowance Households (Source: 
DWP 2005)
- Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in those Working Tax Credit households where there are 
children in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi
 ts) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs (Source: 
HMRC 2005)
- Adults and children in Child Tax Credit Households (who are not eligible for IS, 
Income-Based JSA, Pension Credit or Working Tax Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi
 ts) is below 60 per cent of the median before 
housing costs (Source: HMRC 2005)
- National Asylum Support Service (NASS) supported asylum seekers in England in 
receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both (Source: NASS 2005) 
Shrinkage estimation (see **Annexe D**) was applied to the combined indicators.

## Issues Adjustments Arising From The Introduction Of Pension Credit, Child Tax Credit And Working Tax Credit

As in the ID 2004, the Income Domain includes comprehensive, non-overlapping counts of both in-work and out-of-work means-tested benefi ts. However, some adjustments were required in order to refl ect recent changes to the structure of benefi ts and tax credits. 

In October 2003 Income Support (IS) for those aged 60 and over was replaced by a new benefi t for those with no income/ an income below the Minimum Income Guarantee. 

This benefi t is known as the Pension Credit (PC) and it comprises two component parts: 
Guarantee Credit (available to those aged 60 and over) and Savings Credit (available to those aged 65 and over). In order to capture income deprivation within this age group (thus rendering the ID 2007 comparable with the ID 2004 which captured this age group through IS receipt), it was necessary for PC to be included as an indicator within the current income domain. Following DWP advice only those receiving the 'Guarantee Credit' element of PC are counted as income deprived. This is because the low-income status of those receiving only the 'Savings Credit' element of PC is less clear-cut given the different nature of this benefi t and its differing eligibility rules. However, PC 
recipients receiving 'Savings Credit' in addition to 'Guarantee Credit' are included. Since April 2003 most Income Support (IS) and income-based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA-IB) claimants who have children have received Child Tax Credit (CTC) in respect of their children rather than an IS/JSA-IB allowance for them. This means that data on children in IS/JSA-IB data are no longer reliable. The same holds true for the relatively small number of adults receiving Pension Credit who have dependent children. However, the children in such households can now be identifi ed by 'patching in' data from Child Benefi t records and this was undertaken by DWP.

Tax credit data used in the ID 2004 comprised data for Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and data for the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC). In April 2003, WFTC and DPTC were replaced with a single Working Tax Credit (WTC). It should also be noted that, in addition to replacing dependent allowances within IS and JSA-IB, CTC also replaced provisions for dependent children within these tax credits. Thus, in order that the ID 2007 income domain remains comparable with the ID 2004 income domain, it was necessary to include families (WTC+CTC cases or CTC cases only) within counts of those who are income deprived (subject to the threshold described below). In addition it would theoretically be possible to include WTC only cases. However this was not undertaken for two reasons. First HMRC does not have reliable address data for them and second they were not, in the main, included in the ID2004 so there would be a loss of 'backwards' compatibility. It was also necessary to ensure there was no 'double counting' where families are in receipt of both CTC and one of IS/ JSA-IB/ PC. 

## Selecting Wtc/Ctc Cases Below An Income Threshold

Eligibility for WTC and CTC reaches reasonably far up the income scale, and will include some households that would not be described as 'income deprived' under any of the defi nitions currently in operation in England. 

An income threshold was therefore defi ned to designate certain recipients of WTC/
CTC 'income deprived'. This threshold was not applied to those in receipt of 'out of work' means tested benefi ts (IS/JSA-IB/PC). 

The headline income poverty measure used in the Government's poverty and social exclusion report 'Opportunity for All' is households below 60 per cent of 'equivalised' median income. This measure has been adopted by Eurostat and is widely used by academics. A version of this measure - 60 per cent of 'equivalised' median income (before housing costs and excluding housing benefi t and maintenance) - was used as a threshold for income deprivation and applied to families in receipt of WFTC and DPTC 
in the ID2004. This approach was adopted in the ID 2007 and applied to WTC/CTC1. 

## Asylum Seekers

During construction of the ID2004 there was strong support for the inclusion of refugees and asylum seekers within the Income Domain as groups at high risk of income deprivation. Asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain (ELR) are entitled to Income Support and so are included in the domain in this way. Prior to this, asylum seekers receive either IS or voucher assistance via the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The ID 2004 included information on NASS voucher recipients which was made available by the Home Offi ce and this has also been included in the ID 2007.

## Take-Up Of Benefi Ts

As this domain refl ects recipients of means tested benefi ts, the issue of take up and the extent to which this varies by benefi t type, claimant type and geographical area is of crucial importance. As recommended in the ID 2004 Report further research has been undertaken by the University of York to investigate spatial variations in benefi t take up using the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The results of the research are contained in a Report which is available from the Communities and Local Government website. The Report found that there were spatial variations in take up but there was also underreporting of benefi t receipt in the FRS. DWP had conducted an exercise with Pension Credit (but not other benefi ts) linking actual receipt to the FRS data and this produced higher estimates of take-up and resulted in different spatial variations in take-up. The Report concludes that 
"In the light of this we conclude that it would be unsafe to re-weight area based receipt data to take account of non take-up estimates based on reported receipt in the FRS. It is possible to re-weight Pension Credit receipt to take account of non take-up using our model based on actual take-up for 2004/5. But ideally we would want to ensure that such a model was robust over more than one year. Even then the most robust model explains only 19 per cent of the variance in non take-up. Until a matching exercise is undertaken to establish actual take-up of tax credit and IS/JSA in the Family Resources survey, the models that we have derived using estimated take-up are suspect. If the receipt fi gures in the income domain were adjusted using our coeffi cients derived from actual take-up for Pension Credit but not adjusted at all or adjusted by estimated take-up of tax credit and IS/JSA then it might damage the balance in the ID2007. Those areas with large proportions of eligible non claiming pensioners would benefi t but not those areas with large proportions of eligible non claiming families with children or childless unemployed. On balance we conclude that it would be the best course to leave well alone for the ID 2007. Meanwhile HMRC should be encouraged to match administrative data on tax credit claiming data in the FRS and DWP to continue to match Pension Credit data and extend the exercise to IS/JSA. There remains an anxiety that area variation in take-up undermines the validity of the Income Domain."
In the light of these conclusions and taking into account the responses received from the consultation, it was decided not to adjust the numerator of this domain to take into account non-take up. 

## Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index

As in the ID2004, a supplementary index - Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) - has been produced alongside the ID 2007. This covers only children aged 0–15 living in income deprived households - defi ned as either households receiving IS/ JSA-IB/ PC or those not in receipt of these benefi ts but in receipt of WTC/
CTC with an equivalised income below 60 per cent of the national median before housing costs. The IDACI is the proportion of children 0–15 living in such households as a proportion of all children 0–15. 

## Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index

A second supplementary index also produced in 2004 was that for Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). This index has also been produced alongside the ID 2007, and represents income deprivation affecting older people defi ned as those adults 60 or over living in pension credit (guarantee) households as a proportion of all those 60 or over. 

## Combining The Indicators

The indicators are summed and expressed as a rate of the whole population.

## Changes From The Id 2004

The introduction of Pension Credit, Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have meant that there are signifi cant and inevitable changes from the indicators in the ID 
2004 and these changes are described in detail above. The aim has been, in spite of these changes, to maximise comparability.

## Section 3: Employment Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain

This domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working-age population from the world of work.

## The Indicators

- Recipients of Jobseekers Allowance (both contribution-based and income-based) 
for men aged 18–64 and women aged 18–59 (Source: DWP 2005)
- Participants in the New Deal for the 18–24s who are not in receipt of JSA (Source: 
DWP 2005) 
- Participants in the New Deal for 25+ who are not in receipt of JSA (Source: DWP 
2005)
- Participants in the New Deal for Lone Parents (after initial interview) (Source: DWP 
2005) 
- Incapacity Benefi
 t recipients aged 18–59 (women); 18–64 (men) (Source: DWP 
2005)
- Severe Disablement Allowance recipients aged 18–59 (women); 18–64 (men) 
(Source: DWP 2005)
Shrinkage estimation (see **Annex D**) was applied to the combined indicators.

## Issues

For this domain, unemployment claimant counts, as used in previous indices, are replaced by counts of those receiving Jobseeker's Allowance (both contributionbased and income-based) derived from the DWP Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS). This is now the principal indicator for unemployment used in other work on deprivation at the small area level and, in effect, such a change makes no real difference to numbers because previously used claimant counts were derived from JSA data. Using JSA data from WPLS has a clear methodological advantage in that this database also includes information on the New Deals and other workless benefi ts, hence 'double counting' of claimants can be consistently avoided.

For the purposes of consistency with the ID 2004, comprehensive and nonoverlapping counts of those on compulsory New Deal programmes and the 'hidden unemployed' (i.e. those claiming work-limiting illness and disability benefi ts) are included in the numerator, as are counts of lone parents who have signalled involuntary labour market exclusion through their participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents beyond an initial work-focused interview. 

In order to improve consistency across all the indicators of employment deprivation, all indicators (rather than just unemployment as in the ID 2004) are averaged across four quarter time points around the index data point, to account for seasonal variations. 

## Combining The Indicators

The indicators are summed and expressed as a rate of the relevant population (the whole population aged 18–59 plus men aged 60–64).

## Changes From The Id 2004

There are no substantive changes in respect of the indicators but a small methodological shift.

## Section 4: Health Deprivation And Disability Domain Purpose Of The Domain

This domain identifi es areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely or whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or who are disabled across the *whole* population. This domain measures morbidity, disability and premature mortality but not aspects of behaviour or environment that may be predictive of forthcoming health deprivation. 

## The Indicators

- Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) (2001 to 2005, Source: ONS) - Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (CIDR) (2005, Source: DWP) - Measures of acute morbidity, derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (April 2003 
to March 2005, Source: Department of Health)
- The proportion of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders based 
on prescribing (2005, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), suicide mortality rate (2001 to 2005, source: ONS), hospital episode (ICD-10 F3–F4) (April 2003 to March 2005, Source: Department of Health) and health benefi
 ts data (ICD-10 
F3–F4) (2005, Source: DWP)

## Issues

The YPLL is a directly age and sex standardised measure of premature death (i.e. under the age of 75). It is measured at the LSOA level, using a combination of 5 years of data. The shrinkage method is applied to the individual age/sex death rates in order to reduce the impact of small number problems on the YPLL. The CIDR is a directly age and sex standardised morbidity/disability rate. It is derived from a count of individuals receiving any of the following benefi ts: Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA), Incapacity Benefi t (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), and the disability premium of Income Support. Hospital episodes that begin as an emergency admission are used to construct a measure of acute health problems. All emergency admissions, greater than one day in length are included and the resulting measure is expressed as a directly age and sex standardised ratio. Prescription data, deaths due to suicide, hospital episode data and health benefi ts data are used as the sources of information to estimate the number of people suffering from anxiety and depression. 

The hospital episode, mortality and health benefi ts data are directly attributed to LSOAs. However, prescription data can only be used to create rates at a practice level and are therefore assigned indirectly to LSOAs through the practice list. None of these datasets is a perfect measure of anxiety and depression and so they are used in combination. The potential indicator is therefore a weighted combination of all three sources of data (See **Annex F** for more details). The weights are generated using Factor Analysis (See **Annex E**).

## Combining The Indicators

Factor analysis (maximum likelihood) is used to generate weights for the combination of indicators within this domain. 

## Changes From The Id 2004

No changes.

## Section 5: Education, Skills And Training Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain

The Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain measures deprivation in educational attainment, skills and training for children, young people and the working age population in a local area.

## The Indicators Sub Domain: Children / Young People

- Average test score of pupils at Key Stage 2 (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), 
Source: Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC), National Pupil Database (NPD)
- Average test score of pupils at Key Stage 3 (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), 
Source: PLASC, NPD
- Best of 8 average capped points score at Key Stage 4 (this includes results of 
GCSEs, GNVQs and other vocational equivalents) (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: PLASC, NPD
- Proportion of young people not staying on in school or non-advanced education 
above the age of 16 (2005), Source: HMRC Child Benefi
 t (CB) data
- Secondary school absence rate (2 year average 2004–2005), Source: DCSF absence 
data, PLASC
- Proportion of those aged under 21 not entering higher education (4 year average, 
2002–2005), Source: Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS), Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

## Sub Domain: Skills

- Proportion of working age adults with no or low qualifi
 cations (2001) Source: 
Census 2001

## Issues Indicators In The Children / Young People Sub Domain

Key Stage test score indicators are a direct measure of children's attainment at ages 11, 14 and 16. Although the defi nition of the indicator remains the same as in the ID 
2004, the availability of a time-series of the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) and the National Pupil Database (NPD) data has made it possible to reduce volatility in results caused by small numbers of cases by combining several years of data. In addition, the Key Stage 2 and 3 indicators are based on the actual test scores rather than level achieved (as in ID 2004) and thus allow fi ner differentiation between areas.

Staying on rates are calculated using Child Benefi t (CB) counts as CB can only be claimed after 16 if the child remains in full-time education. In the ID 2004 this indicator was defi ned as the proportion of children receiving CB aged 17, 18 and 19 
divided by the proportion aged 13, 14 and 15. Rather than comparing different age cohorts from the same year, this indicator now uses CB counts from the same age cohort from different years. For example, those aged 17 in 2006 will have been 15 in 2004 so the indicator will include 17 year olds in 2006 in the numerator and 15 year olds in 2004 in the denominator. This method is now possible because a time series of CB is available and is preferable as it reduces the occurrence of staying on rates over 100%.

The secondary absence rate and rate of not entering higher education maintain the same data sources and methodology used in the ID 2004. The secondary absence rate is derived from school level data and each pupil is assigned their school's average absence rate. The proportion not entering higher education indicator is produced using UCAS data on successful admissions as a numerator and a population denominator drawn from the 2001 Census.

## Indicators In The Skills Sub Domain

The Skills Sub Domain contains only a single indicator which measures the proportion of working age adults with no or low qualifi cations The English Indices 2004 included an indicator of adults with no or low qualifi cations taken from the 2001 Census. As an update to the census data is not available two possible ways of producing a similar indicator for the 2007 update were considered. These were either to use the 2001 Census data or create a modelled indicator from a combined dataset of the Labour Force Survey and the Annual Population Survey (APS). The consultation overwhelmingly supported retention of the Census indicator as used in the ID 2004 and the Skill Sub Domain is thus identical to that in the ID 2004.

## Combining The Indicators

As for the ID 2004 shrinkage techniques are applied to all indicators. In the Children 
/ Young People Sub Domain Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis (see **Annex E**) is used to generate weights to combine the indicators. The Skills Sub Domain comprises just one indicator. The fi nal domain was constructed by combining the two sub domain scores with equal weights after they had been standardised and exponentially transformed.

## Changes From The Id 2004

The change to the Key Stage test score indicators is described above. The methodology used to produce the Key Stage indicators has been improved due to a longer time series of data being available. 

## Section 6: Barriers To Housing And Services Domain Purpose Of The Domain

The purpose of this Domain is to measure barriers to housing and key local services. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: 'geographical barriers' and 'wider barriers' which includes issues relating to access to housing such as affordability. 

## The Indicators Sub Domain: Wider Barriers

- Household overcrowding (Source: 2001 Census) - District level rate of acceptances under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 
Housing Act, assigned to the constituent LSOAs (Source: Communities and Local Government, 2005)
- Diffi
 culty of Access to owner-occupation (Source: modelled estimates produced by 
Heriot-Watt University, 2005)

## Sub Domain: Geographical Barriers

- Road distance to a GP surgery (Source: National Health Service Information 
Authority, 2005)
- Road distance to a general store or supermarket (Source: MapInfo Ltd, 2005)
- Road distance to a primary school (Source: DfES, 2004–05) - Road distance to a Post Offi
 ce or sub post offi
 ce (Source: Post Offi
 ce Ltd, 2005)

## Issues Indicators In The Wider Barriers Sub Domain

In the ID 2004 the Wider Barriers Sub Domain consisted of three indicators related to access to housing. These three indicators are retained in the ID 2007. The two indicators relating to district level homelessness and diffi cultly of accessing owner-occupation are retained and updated. A direct update will not, however, be possible for the overcrowding indicator and, as in the ID 2004, this indicator is based on data from the 2001 Census. 

## Indicators In The Geographical Barriers Sub Domain

The four indicators included in the Geographical Barriers Sub Domain of the ID 2004 
represent distance to access points for four key services. These four indicators are updated and included in the ID 2007. 

## Combining The Indicators

The relevant indicators within each of the sub-domains are standardised and combined using equal weights. The shrinkage technique is applied to the overcrowding indicator. The two sub-domains are standardised, exponentially transformed and combined with equal weights to create the overall Domain score. 

## Changes From The Id 2004

No changes.

## Section 7: Crime Domain Purpose Of The Domain

The purpose of this domain is to measure the rate of recorded crime for four major volume crime types - burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence - representing the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small area level. 

## The Indicators

- Burglary (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 
2005, constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level)
- Theft (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 
2005, constrained to CDRP level)
- Criminal damage (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 
2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level)
- Violence (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 
2005, constrained to CDRP level). 

## Issues

The Crime Domain of the ID 2007 is a direct update of the domain in the ID 2004, consisting of four broad composite indicators representing the risk of victimisation of four key volume crime types that have major effects on individuals and communities. 

The data used within the Crime Domain of the updated index is subjected to the same processing steps as applied within the ID 2004. First the four composite indicators are created by summing the constituent notifi able offence types to LSOA 
level. The aggregation method involves an element of geographical 'smoothing' of crimes to account for variations in police geocoding practice. To ensure all data are controlled to a common base, LSOA level counts are then constrained to Home Offi ce totals for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) areas. Each composite indicator is then constructed as a rate using the appropriate denominator. The denominator for the burglary composite indicator is total dwellings from the 2001 Census plus total business addresses from Ordinance Survey's Address Point. For the violence, theft and criminal damage composite indicators, the denominator is the total resident population (including communal establishment population but excluding prison population) plus total non-resident workplace population (as in the ID 2004). While the resident population has been updated to relate to mid 2005, the workplace population is again taken directly from the 2001 Census as no subsequent updates have been produced at small area level. The purpose of the 'infl ated' 
population denominator for the violence, theft and criminal damage composite indicators is to take into account the large 'at risk' non-resident population in town and city centres. It was not possible to take into account other potential victims such as 'passers by'.

## Combining The Indicators

As in the ID 2004 the four composite indicators are standardised and combined using weights generated by maximum likelihood factor analysis (see **Annex E**).

## Changes From The Id 2004

No changes.

## Section 8: The Living Environment Domain Purpose Of The Domain

The Living Environment domain aims to identify deprivation in the quality of the local environment both within and beyond the home. The domain consists of two subdomains which focus, respectively, on deprivations in the 'indoors' and the 'outdoors' living environment.

## The Indicators Sub-Domain: The 'Indoors' Living Environment

- Social and private housing in poor condition (2003 - 2005 average, Source BRE 
and Communities and Local Government, modelled EHCS)
- Houses without central heating (2001, Source: ONS, Census)

## Sub-Domain: The 'Outdoors' Living Environment

- Air quality (2005, Source: Geography Department at Staffordshire University and 
NAEI modelled at LSOA level)
- Road traffi
 c accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists (2004–2006 
average, Source: DfT, STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to LSOA level)

## Issues Deprivation In The 'Indoors' Living Environment

The indicator of social and private housing in poor condition looks at deprivation in a key area of life - the home. Housing in poor condition is modelled by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for all tenures to postcode level using the English House Condition Survey (EHCS) to give an up-to-date set of stock profi les at the national level. The resulting model is applied to details of the housing stock at small area level using a range of data sources including RESIDATA. The most recent data is used which relates to 2005. The indicator of the percentage of houses without central heating identifi es those areas where residents are deprived of this core household amenity, and a lack of central heating suggests a strong likelihood of diffi culty in heating one's home. 

The Census 2001 provides the only suitable data source for this indicator and thus the indicator is used in the ID 2007. Given the slow rate of change which could be expected of this indicator at small area level, it remains a useful indicator of deprivation of this key household amenity.

## Deprivation In The 'Outdoors' Living Environment

The indicator of air quality provides a valuable measure of environmental pollution at small area level. The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) maintains estimates of emissions for small areas (modelled to one kilometre grid squares) in the UK. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the World Health Authority have defi ned guidelines or standard values which represent 'safe' 
maximum concentrations. Members of the Geography Department at the University of Staffordshire have allocated emissions data to LSOA level for which there are reliable small area levels and clearly defi ned standard values, namely benzene, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulates (PM10). The level of each pollutant in an LSOA is divided by the standard value for that pollutant and then all four values are summed to create an overall air quality score for the LSOA. The indicator of road traffi c accidents involving injury to pedestrians or cyclists is a measure of the risk of injury for non-motorised road users in the living environment. This data is available through the Department for Transport's STATS19 (Road Accident) database which records details of all reported traffi c accidents involving death or personal injury. Each incident is plotted according to a ten-digit grid reference which plots its location accurate to ten metres. Where an incident occurs within ten metres of an LSOA boundary the incident has been applied equally to both LSOAs. The denominator for this indicator is the total resident population, the communal establishment population and the non-resident workplace population and excludes the prison population. STATS19 distinguishes between three severity types - slight, serious and fatal - and these are weighted 1, 2, and 3 respectively as was the case in the ID 2004.

## Combining The Indicators

The indicators within each sub-domain are standardised by ranking the rates and then transforming to a normal distribution and combined with equal weights. The two sub-domains are then ranked and transformed to an exponential distribution. The two sub-domains are weighted according to patterns of 'indoors' and 'outdoors' time use within the UK 2000 Time Use Survey so that the 'indoors' living environment sub-domain is given two thirds of the domain's weight and the 'outdoors' living environment is given one third of the domain's weight.

## Changes From The Id 2004

No changes.

## Chapter 3: Combining The Domains Into An Index Of Multiple Deprivation

In the conceptual model presented, domains are conceived as independent dimensions of multiple deprivation, each with their own additive impact on multiple deprivation. As in the ID 2004, to allow for this type of combination, the following method was used: 

- Rank the Domain scores and then transform the ranks to an exponential 
distribution. 
- Construct weights with which to combine these new scores. 

## Standardising And Transforming The Domain Indices

Having obtained a set of Domain Indices these needed to be combined into an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation. In order to combine Domain Indices which are each based on very different units of measurement there needed to be some way to standardise the scores before any combination could take place. A form of standardisation and transformation is required that met the following criteria. First, it must ensure that each Domain has a common distribution; second, it must not be scale dependent (i.e. confl ate size with level of deprivation); third, it must have an appropriate degree of cancellation built into it (discussed below); and fourth, it must facilitate the identifi cation of the most deprived LSOAs. The exponential transformation of the ranks best met these criteria and was used in the ID 2007. A more extensive account of the rationale and properties of the exponential transformation procedure is set out in the ID 2004 Report (Noble et al., 2004). 

Annex H sets out the formula for the transformation.

## Weighting The Domains

In the ID 2004 the overall IMD was constructed by combining the individual domain indices into an overall IMD using explicit weights. There has been continued support for this approach. In the ID2004 Report fi ve possible approaches to weighting were identifi ed and considered, and the overall conclusion was that the weights selected should be driven by theoretical considerations (Noble et al. 2004 pp. 45–46). The independent peer review of the ID 2004 proposals indicated that there was a strong case to undertake research to determine empirically driven weights. This research was subsequently commissioned and undertaken by the University of St Andrews. The report of that research is available from the Communities and Local Government website. (www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/323211) Although the research did suggest a small adjustment in weights - the swapping of the weights for the Employment and Health Domains - the sensitivity testing undertaken suggested that "the likely impact of this change on the overall position of Local Authority Districts is slight". In the light of this, and in the context that the ID 2007 was to be constructed in such a way as to *replicate* (with updated indicators) the ID 2004, weights adopted for the ID 2007 are the same as those used in the ID 2004.

Domain Weight
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 deprivation
9.3%

This approach to weighting was overwhelmingly supported in the responses to the formal consultation.

## Chapter 4: Presentation Of Results And Interpretation Lower Layer Super Output Area (Lsoa) Level Results

At the Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level there are ten Indices for each LSOA in England: 

- seven Domain Indices (which are combined to make the overall Index of Multiple 
Deprivation); 
- an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation; - a supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index; and - a supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index. 
These ten Indices are each assigned a national rank. There are 32,482 LSOAs in England. The most deprived LSOA for each Index is given a rank of 1 and the least deprived LSOA is given a rank of 32,482, for presentation. The ranks show how an LSOA compares to all other LSOAs in the country and are easily interpretable. However, the scores indicate the distances between each rank position, as these will vary. It should be noted that the Indices comprising the ID 2007 are measures of *deprivation* and are designed to be more discriminating of deprivation than of 
'non-deprivation'. The LSOA level Indices and their ranks can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website.

## The Seven Domain Indices And Ranks

Each Domain Index consists of a score which is then ranked. These Domain Indices can be used to describe each type of deprivation in an area. This is important as it allows users of the Index to focus on particular types of deprivation and to compare this across LSOAs. There may be great variation within a district or larger area and the LSOA level Domain Indices allow for a sophisticated analysis of deprivation information. The scores for the Income Deprivation Domain and the Employment Deprivation Domain are rates. So, for example, if an LSOA scores 0.72 in the Income Deprivation Domain, this means that 72% of the LSOA's population is Income deprived. The same applies to the Employment Deprivation Domain. The scores for the remaining fi ve domains are not rates. Within a domain, the higher the score the more deprived an LSOA is. However, the scores should not be compared between domains as they have different minimum and maximum values and ranges. To compare between domains only the ranks should be used. 

## The Overall Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (Imd 2007)

The overall IMD 2007 describes the LSOA by combining information from all seven Domains: Income Deprivation, Employment Deprivation, Health Deprivation and Disability, Education Skills and Training Deprivation, Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment Deprivation, and Crime. These were combined in two stages; fi rst each Domain rank was transformed to a standard distribution - the exponential distribution. Then the Domains were combined using the explicit Domain weights chosen. The overall LSOA level IMD 2007 is then ranked in the same way as the Domain Indices. The IMD 2007 score is the combined sum of the weighted, exponentially transformed domain rank of the domain score. Again, the bigger the IMD 2007 score, the more deprived the LSOA. However, because of the exponential distribution, it is not possible to say, for example, that an LSOA with a score of 40 is twice as deprived as an LSOA with a score of 20. In order to make comparisons between LSOAs it is recommended that ranks should be used. The IMD 2007 is ranked in the same way as the Domain Indices, that is, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation.

## The Supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index

The supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index(IDACI) is a subset of the Income Deprivation Domain and shows the percentage of children in each LSOA that live in families that are income deprived (i.e. in receipt of IS, JSA-IB, PC or CTC below a given threshold). The IDACI is not combined with the other domains into the overall IMD as the children are already captured in the Income Deprivation Domain. An IDAC Index score of e.g. 0.246 means that 24.6% of children aged less than 16 in that LSOA are living in families that are income deprived. As with other measures in the IMD, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation.

## The Supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index

The supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) is a subset of the Income Deprivation Domain. This comprises the percentage of an LSOA's population aged 60 and over who are IS, JSA-IB, PC or CTC claimants aged 60 and over and their partners (if also aged 60 or over). The IDAOP Index is not combined with the other domains into the overall IMD as these income deprived older people are already captured in the Income Deprivation Domain. As with the IDACI, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation.

## District Level Presentations

Six summary measures of the overall IMD 2007 have been produced at district level to describe differences between districts. The following section describes the creation of the district level summaries of the IMD 2007. The district level summaries of the IMD 2007 can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. The summary measures at district level focus on different aspects of multiple deprivation in the area. No single summary measure is favoured over another, as there is no single best way of describing or comparing districts. Districts are complex to describe as a whole or to compare for several reasons. First, districts can vary enormously in population size. Further, some districts may have a more 'mixed' population, containing more variation in deprivation and in some places deprivation may be concentrated in severe pockets rather than being more evenly spread. This makes an 'overall picture' more diffi cult to establish. 

Six measures have been devised which take account of these issues and which describe the district in different ways: looking at the most deprived populations, the most deprived LSOAs, as well as the average of the LSOAs, to get six meaningful descriptions of deprivation at district level. More subtle descriptions of deprivation across a district can be established by a close analysis of the LSOAs within that district, as the LSOA level Index contains the most detailed account of local deprivation. At the LSOA level much more information is retained than with the district level summaries. These measures are discussed individually below. For each measure each district is given a rank and score (with the exception of Extent, as explained below). For presentation, a rank of 1 indicates that the district is the most deprived according to the measure and 354 is the least deprived. The meaning of the scores for each of the measures is detailed as follows.

## Average Of Lsoa Ranks Population Weighted Average Of The Combined Ranks For The Lsoas In A District

This measure is useful because it summarises the district taken as a whole, including both deprived and less deprived LSOAs. All the LSOAs in a district need to be included to obtain such an average, as each LSOA contributes to the character of that district. This measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each district. For the purpose of calculating this score the LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. 

## Average Of Lsoa Scores Population Weighted Average Of The Combined Scores For The Lsoas In A District

This measure also describes the district as a whole, taking into account the full range of LSOA scores across a district. The advantage of the Average of LSOA Score measure is that it describes the LSOA by retaining the fact that the more deprived LSOA may have more 'extreme' scores, which is not revealed to the same extent if the ranks are used. This measure is calculated by averaging the LSOA scores in each district after they have been population weighted. 

## Local Concentration Local Concentration Is The Population Weighted Average Of The Ranks Of A District'S Most Deprived Lsoas That Contain Exactly 10% Of The District'S Population.

Local Concentration is an important way of identifying districts' 'hot spots' of deprivation. The Local Concentration measure defi nes the 'hot spots' by reference to a percentage of the district's population. This involves taking the mean of the population weighted rank of a district's most deprived LSOAs that capture exactly 10% of the district's population. In many cases this was not always a whole number of LSOAs. For the purpose of calculating this score the LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. However, when the districts are ranked on this measure the standard presentational method of assigning rank 1 to the most deprived district is used.

## Extent Proportion Of A District'S Population Living In The Most Deprived Lsoas In The Country.

In this measure, 100% of the people living in the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England are captured in the numerator, plus a proportion of the population of those LSOAs in the next two deciles on a sliding scale - that is 95% of the population of the LSOA at the 11th percentile, and 5% of the population of the LSOA at the 
29th percentile. This makes the cut-off point less abrupt for this measure than that adopted in the ID 2000. The aim of this measure is to portray how widespread high levels of deprivation are in a district. It only includes districts which contain LSOAs which fall within the most deprived 30% of LSOAs in England. Therefore some districts do not have an overall score for this measure and they are given a joint rank of 309. 

## Scale (Two Measures) Income Scale Is The Number Of People Who Are Income Deprived; Employment Scale Is The Number Of People Who Are Employment Deprived

These two measures are designed to give an indication of the sheer numbers of people experiencing Income deprivation and Employment deprivation at district level. The Income Scale score is a count of individuals experiencing this deprivation. 

The Employment Scale score is a count of individuals experiencing this deprivation. It is useful to present both measures as they are real counts of the individuals experiencing these deprivations. 

## County Council Level Presentations

In addition to creating six district level summaries of the IMD 2004, these six summaries have also been produced for County Councils. The methodologies used were identical to those described for the districts above. The County level summaries of the IMD 2007 can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website.

## Chapter 5: The Geography Of Deprivation Introduction

This chapter presents some key fi ndings detailing the geography of deprivation across England. 

- **Section 1** presents the maps of the IMD 2007 for each Region, with an overview 
of multiple deprivation in England. 
- **Section 2** consists of a breakdown of the most deprived and least deprived 20% 
of LSOAs on the IMD 2007. 
- **Section 3** presents key fi
 ndings about each of the Domains, focusing in detail on 
the Income and Employment Domains and the supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). 
- **Section 4** examines the district level summary measures of the IMD 2007 and 
includes maps of each of the measures.
- **Section 5** indicates the reasons for changes in the geography of deprivation 
between the ID 2004 and the ID 2007.
The patterns of deprivation across England are complex. The most deprived LSOAs are spread throughout all the regions of England. Moreover, every region also contains LSOAs which fall within the *least* deprived ten percent of LSOAs in England. 

Furthermore, even the least deprived LSOAs may contain deprived people within them and the most deprived LSOAs may contain less deprived people. Identifying LSOAs as being among the least deprived does not however mean that these LSOAs necessarily contain large numbers of, for example, very rich people. 

## Section 1: An Overview Of The Patterns Of Multiple Deprivation In England And Regional Maps Of Lsoa Level Imd 2007

As previously indicated, the IMD is made up of seven domain Indices. The most highly deprived LSOAs score as deprived on several of the domains. In fact, if one takes LSOAs that are ranked overall in the most deprived 10% of the IMD, the following can be said: 

- 99.2% of these LSOAs score in the most deprived 10% on two or more domains - 88.4% are in the most deprived 10% on three or more domains - 182 LSOAs feature in the most deprived 10% on six of the seven domains. No 
LSOA is ranked within the most deprived 10% on all seven of the domains.
- 25 LSOAs (0.8%) score in the most deprived 10% on only one domain. Each 
of the LSOAs in the most deprived 10% on the IMD 2007 scored in the most deprived 10% on one or more of the seven component domains.
The following maps show the LSOA level IMD 2007 for each Government Offi ce Region (GORs) in England. The LSOAs have been divided into ten equal groups ('deciles'). LSOAs shaded dark blue are the most deprived 10% of LSOAs in England, and LSOAs shaded bright yellow are the least deprived 10% of LSOAs in England. Maps showing the district boundaries and district names are also included for each Region.

## Annex K Lists The Most Deprived 100 Lsoas On The Imd 2007.

As was the case for the ID 2000 and ID 2004, most urban centres contain areas with high levels of multiple deprivation. The conurbations of Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle together with neighbouring metropolitan areas contain many highly deprived LSOAs and demonstrate a degree of uniformity in the deprivation. The same is the case for the large metropolitan areas in Yorkshire and the Humber and the West Midlands. The north east quarter of London remains particularly deprived with Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets continuing to exhibit very high levels of deprivation. There are almost no LSOAs in these districts which fall among the 50% least deprived, showing a high overall level of deprivation in these areas. The four local authorities of Liverpool, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Manchester, all located in either the North West or London GORs, each have over half of their LSOAs in the most deprived 10% nationally. Areas such as Easington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool in the North East Region have very high levels of multiple deprivation. This pattern of multiple deprivation applies in the former coalfi eld areas and former tin mining areas such as Penwith in Cornwall. Seaside resort towns such as Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate, and Hastings continue to show high levels of deprivation as do the ports of Kingston upon Hull and Barrow-in-Furness.

Many of the very deprived LSOAs are in close proximity to less deprived LSOAs - leading to heterogeneous districts with a wide range of multiple deprivation within them. The South East, however, remains more uniformly less deprived than any other Region, despite having some pockets of deprivation, principally in the larger urban areas such as Southampton and Portsmouth but also including some former resort towns such as Margate and Hastings. The pattern of multiple deprivation in the South West remains as with the ID 2000 and ID 2004. There is only one LSOA in Cornwall in the least deprived decile of LSOAs in England. In both the North East and London GORs, less than 10% of LSOAs fall into the least deprived 20% of LSOAs nationally. A total of 180 local authorities in England have one or more LSOA in the most deprived 10% of LSOAs nationally. This compares to 263 local authorities that have one or more LSOA in the 10% least deprived of LSOAs nationally, indicating that the more deprived neighbourhoods are more geographically concentrated within local authorities than the least deprived. Some cities experience extremes of high and low levels of deprivation. For example:

- Solihull contains 133 LSOAs. Of these, ten LSOAs are in the most deprived 10% of 
LSOAs and 36 LSOAs are in the least deprived 10% of LSOAs in England. 
- In Bradford, almost 30% of the LSOAs are amongst the 10% most deprived while 
over 6% of LSOAs in Bradford are among the 10% least deprived in England.
- In Sheffi
 eld there are 81 LSOAs which are among the 10% most deprived and 20 
LSOAs that are among the 10% least deprived in England.

## Regional Maps Of Lsoa Level Multiple Deprivation East Region

The East Region has in total 3550 LSOAs of which just 83 LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived on the IMD 2007. The East Region has approximately two thirds of all its LSOAs in the 50% least deprived on the IMD 2007.

The largest concentrations of deprived LSOAs within the East Region are within the larger urban areas of Luton, Norwich and Ipswich and some of the smaller urban areas, primarily located on or close to the coast, such as Kings Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Clacton-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea.

## East Midlands

The East Midlands has 198 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 2732 LSOAs in total so just over 7% of all its LSOAs are within these 10% most deprived LSOAs on the IMD 2007. 

The deprived LSOAs of the East Midlands are concentrated around the population centres of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham. The former Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coal fi eld districts of Mansfi eld, Ashfi eld, Bassetlaw, Chesterfi eld and Bolsover all contain concentrations of LSOAs suffering severe deprivation. 

## London

London contains 482 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. London has 4765 LSOAs in total so just over 10% of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived nationally. It also has 416 LSOAs (8.7%) that fall among the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England.

As has been indicated, London's share of the 10% most deprived LSOAs are concentrated in inner London Boroughs particularly (though not exclusively) to the 'inner' north east, such as Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney.

## North East

294 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs on the IMD in England are located in this Region. The North East has 1656 LSOAs in total so nearly 18% of all its LSOAs are amongst the 10% most deprived in England. Just under half of all its LSOAs (784) are in the 30% most deprived LSOAs in England and there are only 53 LSOAs in this Region which are within the least deprived 10%.

The pattern of severe multiple deprivation remains similar to the ID 2000 and ID 2004, with the former steel, shipbuilding and mining areas such as Easington, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees containing many of the most deprived LSOAs. There are also concentrations of very deprived LSOAs in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Gateshead. 

## North West

The North West has 911 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 4459 LSOAs in total in the North West, therefore over a fi fth (20.4%) of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived. The North West has a greater proportion of its LSOAs in the most deprived 10% than any other Region.

Severe deprivation is evident in most of the districts across the North West. Concentrations of LSOAs showing deprivation in the most deprived decile are found in the urban areas in and around Liverpool and Manchester. As with the ID 2000 and ID 2004 the Merseyside districts of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, and St Helens, along with the area of Birkenhead on the Wirral stand out as containing large concentrations of LSOAs with high levels of deprivation, as do many of the local authorities in Greater Manchester including Manchester, Wigan, Bolton, Salford and Oldham. Further concentrations of deprived areas can be seen in the coastal resort town of Blackpool and also in the series of towns running from the head of the Ribble Valley at Preston through Blackburn, Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle.

## South East

The South East has 95 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. The South East has 5319 LSOAs in total so under 2% of all its LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived. Over a fi fth (1252) of the South East LSOAs are in the 10% least deprived group.

The most deprived LSOAs are concentrated in some of the coastal resorts of the South East, such as Brighton and Hove, Thanet and Hastings. Elsewhere there are isolated LSOAs within the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England.

## South West

The South West has 113 LSOAs which are amongst the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. In total this Region has 3226 LSOAs, so 3.5% of all its LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived. The South West has over twice as many LSOAs in the 20% least deprived decile than it does in the 20% most deprived decile. A total of 659 (20.4%) of its LSOAs are in the 20% least deprived whereas 300 (9.3%) are in the 20% most deprived.

Severe deprivation is concentrated in the urban areas of Plymouth and the City of Bristol as well as in parts of Cornwall especially in Penwith.

## West Midlands

The West Midlands has 521 LSOAs in the 10% most deprived LSOAs. The Region has 3482 LSOAs in total so this represents 15% of all its LSOAs being in the 10% most deprived.

The metropolitan area of Birmingham has very high levels of severe multiple deprivation. The districts of Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell all have severely deprived LSOAs. Further concentrations of these severely deprived LSOAs are to be found in Coventry and Stoke-on-Trent.

## Yorkshire And The Humber

Yorkshire and the Humber contains 551 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. Yorkshire and the Humber has 3293 LSOAs in total, so almost 17% of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived in England.

Much of Yorkshire and the Humber's severe deprivation is concentrated within towns and cities such as Kingston upon Hull, Sheffi eld, Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees 
(Huddersfi eld, Dewsbury) and Rotherham. Severe deprivation is also to be found around the former coalfi elds of the Region, in the districts of Doncaster, Wakefi eld and Barnsley. 

# Section 2: The Most Deprived And The Least Deprived 20% Of Lsoas In England On The Imd 2007

The most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007

- There are 6496 LSOAs that are amongst the 20% most deprived in England - These LSOAs are concentrated in cities, 'one-industry' towns and coalmining areas - Over 10 million people live in these LSOAs - this represents almost exactly 20% 
of the population of England. However, it is important to remember that not all people living in these LSOAs will be deprived
- On average, just over a third (35.4%) of people living in these LSOAs are Income 
Deprived 
- One in fi
 ve (20.3%) of the relevant adult age group (women aged 18 to 59 and 
men aged 18–64) in these LSOAs are employment deprived
- Just under half (48.8%) of children in these LSOAs live in families that are income 
deprived 
- Over 37% of older people in these LSOAs are income deprived

## The Regional Picture

Chart 5.1 shows the percentage of LSOAs in a Region that fall within the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007, and the percentage of LSOAs which fall within the least deprived 20%.

- The most deprived 20% of LSOAs are clustered in the North East, the North West, 
Yorkshire and the Humber, London and the West Midlands.

Number of LSOAs in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England
East
223
3550
6.3
East Midlands
460
2732
16.8
London
1351
4765
28.4
North East
566
1656
34.2
North West
1420
4459
31.8
South East (excluding London)
318
5319
6.0
South West
300
3226
9.3
West Midlands
951
3482
27.3
Yorkshire & the Humber
907
3293
27.5
Total
6,496
32,482
20.0
Number of LSOAs in the Region
% of LSOAs in each Region falling in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England

- The North East has the greatest percentage of its LSOAs in the most deprived 20% 
(34.2%). The North West is the Region with the next highest percentage of LSOAs 
in the most deprived 20% (31.8%). The North West has the greatest number of 
LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (1420), followed by London with 1351.
- However, it is also signifi
 cant to note that less deprived Regions - the South East, 
South West and East Regions each have between 6% and 9% of their LSOAs falling in the 20% most deprived in England 

Regional 
Population 
(thousands)
% of England 
population 
living in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England
Population 
in most 
deprived 20% of LSOAs in England (thousands)
Proportion of 
people living 
in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England, by Region
% of 
Regional 
population living in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England
East Midlands
717
4,322
16.6
1.4
7.2
East of England
345
5,559
6.2
0.7
3.4
London
2,128
7,455
28.5
4.2
21.2
North East
858
2,547
33.7
1.7
8.6
North West
2,170
6,834
31.8
4.3
21.6
South East
485
8,178
5.9
1.0
4.8
South West
468
5,083
9.2
0.9
4.7
West Midlands
1,464
5,347
27.4
2.9
14.6
Yorkshire and The Humber
1,389
5,103
27.2
2.8
13.9
Total
10,023
50,428
–
19.9
100.0

- The North East has the largest percentage of its population (33.7%) living in the 
most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England.
- The North West has the largest number of people living in one of the 20% most 
deprived LSOAs (2.17 million), followed by London which has 2.13 million people living in one of these LSOAs.
- 4.3% of people in England live in LSOAs in the North West which fall in the most 
deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. This is followed by London which has 4.2% of the England population which live in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England.
- Of those who live in the 20% most deprived LSOAs in England, over a fi
 fth 
(21.6%) live in the North West, and over a fi
 fth (21.2%) live in London. 
- The most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England are spread across 255 local authority 
districts, though 38 of these districts only have a single LSOA in this grouping.

## The Least Deprived 20% Of Lsoas In England On The Imd 2007

The 20% least deprived LSOAs in England have the following characteristics:

- 10.19 million people live in these LSOAs - this is 20.2% of the population of 
England
- Over one-third of these least deprived LSOAs are in the South East - 4.5% of people in these LSOAs are income deprived 
- 3.8% of the relevant adult age group (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 
18–64) are employment deprived 
- On average 4.9% of children live in families that are income deprived - On average 7.4% of older people are income deprived

No. of LSOAs in the Region
% of least deprived LSOAs by Region
No. of LSOAs in least deprived 20%
East Midlands
619
2,732
22.7
East of England
1,039
3,550
29.3
London
416
4,765
8.7
North East
165
1,656
10.0
North West
600
4,459
13.5
South East
2,037
5,319
38.3
South West
659
3,226
20.4
West Midlands
486
3,482
14.0
Yorkshire and The Humber
475
3,293
14.4
Total
6,496
32,482
20.0

- The South East has the largest number of LSOAs (2037) falling in the least deprived 
20% of LSOAs in England. It also has the highest percentage of its LSOAs falling in this category (38.3%). The percentage for this Region is far greater than for the other regions, and also the number of LSOAs is just over double the number of LSOAs in the East Region (the Region closest to the South East in this category).
- In contrast, London and the North East each have 10% or less of their LSOAs 
falling in the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England.
# Section 3: The Domain Indices, The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index And The Imd 2007

In this section an analysis of the Domain Indices, the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI), and the IMD are presented. Throughout the analysis, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and the rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA.

## Income Domain

this measure. In the most income deprived 10% of LSOAs in England, an average 43% of the population are income deprived.

- There are 548 LSOAs in England where more than half of all people live in income 
deprivation
- And 3,382 LSOAs where more than one third of people live in income deprivation
At the other end of the spectrum:

- there are 5,006 LSOAs where less than one in 20 people live in income deprivation
- 14,314 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 live in income deprivation
Chart 5.3 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Income Domain. It shows that all Regions contain LSOAs that are highly income deprived and that are not highly income deprived. However, the mean ranks of LSOAs in each Region differ and show substantial variation within England. London has on average the most income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 12,143, whilst the South East Region is the least Income deprived with a population weighted mean rank of 20,225. 

## Income Deprivation Affecting Children (Supplementary Index)

Chart 5.4 shows the range of the IDAC rates for every LSOA in England. This goes from a high of over 99% of children aged under 16 living in income deprived households down to 0% of children in the least deprived LSOA on this measure. 

Chart 5.5 shows that the most deprived decile of LSOAs on the IDAC have on average 59% of children aged less than 16 living in income deprived households. Within this decile the range is from over 99% to 48%, showing the extreme rates of deprivation that exist in the most deprived LSOAs. The least deprived decile of LSOAs in terms of IDACI have on average only 2% of children aged less than 16 living in income deprived households.

In England there are:

- 557 LSOAs where more than two thirds of children live in income deprived 
households;
- 2,787 LSOAs where more than half of all children are in this situation; and - 7,272 LSOAs where more than one third of children live in income deprived 
households.
On the other hand there are:

- 4,535 LSOAs where fewer than 5% of children live in income deprived 
households; and 
- 11,561 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 children live in income deprived 
households.
The region with the highest percentage and numbers of children in income deprived households is London. The North East has the lowest number of children living in income deprived households but it has the second highest percentage. The South East has the lowest percentage of children living in income deprived households, followed by the South West and East of England Regions.

Chart 5.8 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the IDACI. As with all the Domain Indices and the IMD, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. For example, East Region's most deprived LSOA has a rank of 50; its least deprived LSOA has a rank of 32,482, and the mean of the LSOA ranks is 18,030. This chart shows that in all Regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. London has the highest levels of children living in households affected by income deprivation compared with other Regions, with a mean LSOA rank of 10,103 and also has the highest ranked LSOA overall. The South East Region has on average the lowest levels of children in households affected by income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 19,161. 

## Income Deprivation Affecting Older People (Supplementary Index)

Chart 5.9 shows the range of the IDAOP rates for every LSOA in England. This goes from a high of 97% of older people affected by income deprivation down to just 1% of older people, in the least deprived LSOA on this measure. 

Chart 5.10 shows that the most deprived decile of LSOAs on the IDAOPI has on average 47% of older people affected by income deprivation. Within this decile, the range is from 97% to 38%, again showing the extreme rates of deprivation that exist in the most deprived LSOAs. The least deprived decile of LSOAs in terms of IDAOPI have on average only 4% of older people affected by income deprivation.

In England there are:

- 168 LSOAs where more than two thirds of older people are affected by income 
deprivation;
- 850 LSOAs where more than half of all older people are in this situation; and - 4,940 LSOAs where more than one third of older people are affected by income 
deprivation.
On the other hand there are:

- 1,310 LSOAs where fewer than 5% of older people are affected by income 
deprivation; and 
- 7,703 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 older people are affected by income 
deprivation.
by income deprivation. **Chart 5.12** shows the numbers of older people affected by income deprivation.

The North East has the highest percentage of older people affected by income deprivation and the North West has highest number. The North East has the lowest number of older people affected by income deprivation but it has the highest percentage. The South East has the lowest percentage of older people affected by income deprivation.

Chart 5.13 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the IDAOPI. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. This chart also shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. The North East has the highest levels of older people affected by income deprivation compared with other Regions, with a mean LSOA rank of 13,288, while the South East Region has on average the lowest levels of older people affected by income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,794. Every Region contains at least one LSOA that falls within the 2% most deprived LSOAs in England on this measure and at least one LSOA that falls within the 1% least deprived LSOAs in England on this measure.

## Employment Domain

Chart 5.14 shows employment deprivation in England by decile. In the most employment deprived decile of LSOAs, an average of about 25% of the relevant group of adults (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) are employment deprived. This compares with approximately 3% in the least employment deprived decile of LSOAs in England.

In England there are 1,198 LSOAs where more than one quarter of adults experience employment deprivation. There are also 6.906 LSOAs where less than 5% of all adults are employment deprived and 20 LSOAs where less than 1% of adults are employment deprived. 

Chart 5.15 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Employment Domain. The North East Region is on average the most employment deprived Region with a mean LSOA rank of 9,870. This is signifi cantly more deprived compared with the other regions. The South East Region is the least deprived Region on average on the Employment Domain with a mean LSOA rank of 22,038, followed by the East Region with a population weighted mean rank for LSOAs of 20,235.

## Health Deprivation And Disability Domain

Chart 5.16 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Health Domain. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA, and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. The North East and the North West Regions show much higher average levels of health deprivation, compared with other regions, with respective mean ranks of 8,682 and 9,734. The North East has a smaller range of LSOA ranks than other regions, with no LSOA ranked over 28,718, i.e. no LSOA at the 'least deprived' end of the deprivation scale. On average, the least health deprived region is the South East with a population weighted mean rank of 
22,821, followed by the East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 21,274.

## Education Skills And Training Domain

Chart 5.17 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Education Domain. This chart shows that in all Regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks but there is a more evenly distributed pattern of average education deprivation across the regions. The most education deprived regions are the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber, with mean ranks of 12,769 and 13,318 respectively. The least education deprived Regions on average are the South East, with a population weighted mean rank of 19,271, and London with a population weighted mean rank of 19,366.

## Living Environment Domain

Chart 5.18 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Living Environment Domain. This chart shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks but that the North East Region is considerably less deprived on the Living Environment Domain, compared with the other regions with an average LSOA rank of 23,278. The most deprived region on average on the Living Environment Domain is London, with a mean rank of 8,832.

## Barriers To Housing And Services Domain

Chart 5.19 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region for the Housing and Services Domain. The London Region is the most deprived with a mean LSOA rank of 7,951. The North West Region is the least barriers deprived on average, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,273.

## Crime Domain

Chart 5.20 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region, for the Crime Domain. The London Region is the most deprived region in terms of crime with a mean LSOA rank of 12,220. The South West Region is the least crime deprived on average, with a mean LSOA rank of 20,449.

## Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007

Chart 5.21 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region, for the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32482 to the least deprived LSOA. This chart shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. The region with LSOAs with the highest levels of multiple deprivation on average is the North East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 12,480, followed by London with a mean LSOA rank of 12,650 and the North West with a mean rank of 13,446. The least multiply deprived regions are the South East, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,390, followed by the East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 20,008.

## Section 4: District Level Summary Measures

The LSOA level IMD is summarised at district level using six different measures. For an explanation of these district level summaries please see **Chapter 4**. This allows local authority districts to be ranked according to how deprived they are relative to other districts. The maps in this section present the six district level summaries. In the maps, the districts have been divided into ten equal groups, and dark blue is used for the 10% most deprived districts for each measure.

- **The local concentration** measure shows the severity of multiple deprivation in 
each authority, measuring 'hot spots' of deprivation
- **The extent** measure is the proportion of a district's population that lives in the 
most deprived LSOAs in England 
- **The 'average scores'** and **'average ranks'** measures are two ways of depicting 
the average level of deprivation across the entire district.
- **The income scale** and **employment scale** measures show the number of people 
experiencing income and employment deprivation respectively.

## Local Concentration

Districts in the most deprived 10% of districts on this measure are concentrated in the North East - 26% of its districts (6 districts) and the North West - 40% (17 districts) of its districts. On the other hand, none of the districts in London or the North East are in the least deprived decile. The South East has no districts in the most deprived decile on this measure.

## Extent

Because this measure captures only districts with people living in the most deprived LSOAs, there will be some districts with no score on this measure. London (10 districts - 30% of its districts) and the North West (10 Districts - 23% of its districts) are the Regions which have the highest numbers of districts in the top decile on this measure. As with local concentration, none of the districts in London or the North East are in the least deprived decile on this measure. The East Region, the South East and the South West do not have any districts in the most deprived decile on this measure.

## Average Score And Average Rank

London, the North East and North West have the largest numbers (and percentages) of their districts in the most deprived decile on Average Score. The picture is similar for average rank except that here London stands out with over a third of its districts (12) in the worst decile. The East and South West Regions have no district in the most deprived decile for average score and the East Region has no district in the most deprived decile for average rank.

## Income Scale

London (with 13 or 39% of its districts) followed by Yorkshire and the Humber (with 6 or 29% of its districts) have the highest percentages of districts in the top decile on this measure. Only the East and South East Regions have no districts in the most deprived decile. 

## Employment Scale

Yorkshire and the Humber (with 8 or 38% of its districts) is the Region with the largest proportion of its districts in the most deprived decile of districts on this measure. This is followed by London (with 8 or 24% of its districts) and the West Midlands (with 7 or 21% of its districts). As with Income Scale only the East and South East Regions have no districts in the most deprived decile. 

The following table summarises the districts which are the 50 most deprived on each of the six district level measures. The district level summaries for all local authority districts can be found in **Annex L**.

Table 5.4 The 50 most deprived districts, for each of the district level summaries of the IMD 2007 Rank
Local 
Concentration
Extent
Average Score
Average Rank
Income Scale
Employment 
Scale
1
Liverpool
Hackney
Liverpool
Hackney
Birmingham
Birmingham
2
Knowsley
Newham
Hackney
Newham
Manchester
Liverpool
3
Blackpool
Tower Hamlets
Tower Hamlets
Tower Hamlets
Liverpool
Manchester
4
Manchester
Liverpool
Manchester
Manchester
Bradford
Leeds
5
Burnley
Manchester
Knowsley
Liverpool
Leeds
Sheffi
 eld
6
Middlesbrough
Islington
Newham
Islington
Sheffi
 eld
Bradford
7
Salford
Easington
Easington
Easington
Newham
Sunderland
8
Kingston upon Hull, City of
Knowsley
Islington
Knowsley
Tower Hamlets
Wirral
9
Blackburn with Darwen
Middlesbrough
Middlesbrough
Lambeth
Leicester
Wigan
10
Rochdale
Sandwell
Birmingham
Sandwell
Hackney
Bristol, City of
11
Bradford
Nottingham
Kingston upon 
Hull, City of
Barking and Dagenham
Sandwell
Wakefi
 eld
12
Redcar and Cleveland
Birmingham
Blackpool
Nottingham
Kirklees
Nottingham
13
Newcastle upon Tyne
Haringey
Nottingham
Haringey
Nottingham
Leicester
14
Wirral
Kingston upon 
Hull, City of
Sandwell
Birmingham
Haringey
Sandwell
15
Birmingham
Blackburn with 
Darwen
Salford
Waltham Forest
Bristol, City of
Kirklees
16
Hyndburn
Stoke-on-Trent
Stoke-on-Trent
Kingston upon 
Hull, City of
Lambeth
Lambeth
17
Barrow-in-Furness
Lambeth
Blackburn with 
Darwen
Greenwich
Enfi
 eld
Stoke-on-Trent
18
Hartlepool
Southwark
Haringey
Blackpool
Southwark
Newcastle upon 
Tyne
19
Leicester
Hartlepool
Lambeth
Southwark
Brent
Doncaster
20
Preston
Salford
Leicester
Stoke-on-Trent
Kingston upon 
Hull, City of
Kingston upon Hull, City of
21
Tower Hamlets
Barking and 
Dagenham
Burnley
Penwith
Wirral
Coventry
22
Stoke-on-Trent
Wolverhampton
Barking and 
Dagenham
Lewisham
Ealing
Southwark
23
Oldham
Leicester
Hartlepool
Leicester
Coventry
Sefton
24
Bolton
Blackpool
Greenwich
Salford
Sunderland
Hackney

## Table 5.4 The 50 Most Deprived Districts, For Each Of The District Level Summaries Of The Imd 2007

| 25             | North East       |
|----------------|------------------|
| Lincolnshire   |                  |
| Halton         | Rochdale         |
| 26             | Nottingham       |
| Tyne           |                  |
| Newham         |                  |
| 27             | Halton           |
| Darwen         |                  |
| Walsall        | Bolton           |
| 28             | Mansfi           |
| 29             | Pendle           |
| Furness        |                  |
| Hastings       | Wolverhampton    |
| 30             | Sheffi           |
| 31             | Hastings         |
| 32             | Great Yarmouth   |
| Furness        |                  |
| Doncaster      | Brent            |
| 33             | Stockton-on-Tees |
| 34             | St. Helens       |
| 35             | Easington        |
| 36             | Gateshead        |
| Furness        |                  |
| Penwith        | Hartlepool       |
| 37             | Thanet           |
| Tyne           |                  |
| Newcastle upon |                  |
| Tyne           |                  |
| South Tyneside | Wakefi           |
| 38             | Bristol, City of |
| and Fulham     |                  |
| Barnet         | Rotherham        |
| 39             | Hackney          |
| 40             | Coventry         |
| 41             | Barnsley         |
| 42             | Wear Valley      |
| 43             | Sunderland       |
| 44             | Wolverhampton    |
| Lincolnshire   |                  |
| Pendle         | Sedgefi          |
| 45             | Doncaster        |
| 46             | Sefton           |
| Hove           |                  |
| 47             | Sandwell         |
| Dagenham       |                  |
| Gateshead      |                  |
| 48             | Leeds            |
| 49             | Derby            |
| Lincolnshire   |                  |
| St. Helens     | Wandsworth       |
| 50             | Wansbeck         |
| Cleveland      |                  |
| Gateshead      | Knowsley         |

## Changes In District Level Summaries Between Id 2004 And The Id 2007

If we compare local authorities on the various district level summaries on the ID 2007 with the ID 2004 we fi nd that changes have been relatively modest. The following table shows the correlations between the various measures for the ID 2004 and ID 2007 (Spearman's Rho, p<.001) 

| Average Score       |   0.990 |
|---------------------|---------|
| Average Rank        |   0.988 |
| Extent              |   0.99  |
| Local Concentration |   0.992 |
| Employment Scale    |   0.994 |
| Income Scale        |   0.996 |

Comparing the top 50 Local authorities on these measures on the ID 2007 with the equivalent measures on the ID 2004 the following picture emerges. On the ID 2007 82 local authorities are in the top 50 on one of the six district level summaries while on the ID 2004 80 were so placed. Six authorities join the top 50 on any measure in the ID 2007: the London Borough of Redbridge, the London Borough of Wandsworth, Thanet, Hyndburn and Pendle; while 3 authorities Westminster, North Tyneside and Derwentside are no longer in the top 50. A more detailed analysis of change between 1999 and 2005 at LSOA level is currently being undertaken and a report and supporting data will be released by summer 2008.

## Section 5: The Reasons For Changes In The Geography Of Deprivation Between The Id 2004 And The Id 2007

As has been indicated, the ID 2007 was designed to be as similar as possible to the ID 2004 in terms of geographical scale, domains, indicators and methodology. This was to maximise backwards comparability and help identify 'real' relative change. This has, to a large extent, been achieved and each section of Chapter 2 indicates where this has not been possible. The domain where consistency has been most diffi cult to achieve has been the income domain where substantial changes to the benefi ts system occurred between April 2001 (the time point for the ID 2004) and mid-2005 (the time point for the ID 2007). Though steps were taken to make the income domain as comparable as possible, a small amount of change will be a product of this shift in indicators. One other factor will have had a small impact. This relates to denominators. In 2007 ONS revised their population estimates for the years 2001 - 2005 and this adjustment could not have been foreseen in 2001 but will have made a small difference.

## Annex A: Consultation

Communities and Local Government published a public consultation document - 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Stage Two 'Blueprint' Consultation Report'. One hundred and three responses were received as part of the consultation which ran from 22nd May 2006 to 17th August 2006. The responses represent the views of local and central government, voluntary organisations and other interested parties and are summarised in the report 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004 Stage Two 'Blueprint Consultation Report' Summary of Responses available on the Communities and Local Government website. In addition a peer review was undertaken during Spring 2006 by Professor Peter Alcock of the University of Birmingham: 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004 - Stage Two 'Blueprint' Peer Review' also available on the Communities and Local Government website. Professor Alcock gave overall support to the proposal to update the ID 2004 and gave general approval to the approach adopted. 

## Annex B: Indicator Details

This Annex provides further numerator and denominator details for each of the 38 indicators that were used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007.

1. 
Adults and children in Income Support households (LSOA level)
 
Numerator: IS August 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident 
population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 2. Adults And Children In Income Based Job Seekers Allowance Households (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: JSA-IB August 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident 
population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.
3. 
Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) households (LSOA 
level)
 
Numerator: Pension Credit (Guarantee) August 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident 
population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 
2005.
4.  
Adults and children in Working Families Tax Credit households where 
there are children in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi
 ts) is below 60% of median before 
housing costs (LSOA level) 
 
Numerator: Certain WTC cases for August 2005 as described
 
Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident 
population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.
5.  
Adults and children in Child Tax Credit households (who are not 
eligible for IS, Income-Based JSA, Pension Credit or Working Tax Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi
 ts) is below 60% 
of median before housing costs (LSOA level)
 
Numerator: Certain CTC cases for August 2005 as described
 
Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population 
plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 6. Adults And Children In Households In Receipt Of National Asylum Support Service (Nass) Vouchers (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: NASS supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence only and accommodation support for end September 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 7. Job Seekers Allowance Claimants (Both Contributory And Income Based) Of Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 8. Incapacity Benefi T Claimants Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 9. Severe Disablement Allowance Claimants Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 10. Participants In New Deal For The 18–24S Who Are Not In Receipt Of Jsa Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 11. Participants In New Deal For 25+ Who Are Not In Receipt Of Jsa Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 
2005 and November 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident 
population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 12. Participants In New Deal For Lone Parents Aged 18 And Over Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 
2005 and November 2005
 
Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident 
population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005.

## 13. Years Of Potential Life Lost (Ypll) (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Mortality data in fi
 ve year age sex bands, for 2001–2005
 
Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus 
prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi
 ve year age sex bands.
 
Method: Blane and Drever (1998) (with shrinkage applied to age-sex rates and 
an upper age of 75).

## 14. Comparative Illness And Disability Ratio (Cidr) (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Non-overlapping counts of people in receipt of IS Disability 
Premium, AA, DLA, SDA, IB, for mid 2005 in fi
 ve year age sex bands.
 
Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus 
prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi
 ve year age sex bands.
 
Method: Directly age sex standardised ratio (shrinkage applied to age-sex 
rates).

## 15. Measures Of Emergency Admissions To Hospital, Derived From Hospital Episode Statistics (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Hospital spells starting with admission in an emergency in fi
 ve year 
age sex bands, for April 2003 to March 2005.
 
Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus 
prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi
 ve year age sex bands.
 
Method: Directly age sex standardised ratio (shrinkage applied to age-sex 
rates).

## 16. Measure Of Adults Under 60 Suffering From Mood Or Anxiety Disorders (Lsoa Level)

 
Modelled measure of adults under 60 suffering from mood (affective), neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (i.e. International Classifi
 cation of Disease 10th revision ICD-10, F3 and F4). Based on prescribing 
(2005, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), hospital episode (2004/2005, Source: Department of Health), deaths attributed to suicide (2001 to 2005, Source: ONS) and health benefi
 ts data (2005, Source: IB and SDA from DWP). 

## 17. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 2 (End Of Primary) (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS2 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD.
 
Denominator: Total population in KS2 age group in maintained schools from PLASC, for 2004 and 2005.

## 18. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 3 (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS3 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD.
 
Denominator: Total population in KS3 age group in maintained schools from PLASC, for 2004 and 2005.

## 19. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 4 (Gcse/Gnvq - Best Of Eight Results) (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS4 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD.
 
Denominator: All pupils in their fi
 nal year of compulsory schooling in 
maintained schools for 2004 and 2005 from PLASC.

## 20. Proportion Of Young People Not Staying On In School Or School Level Education Above 16 (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Those aged 17 still receiving Child Benefi
 t in 2006
 
Denominator: Those aged 15 receiving Child Benefi
 t in 2004.
 
The indicator is subtracted from 1 to produce the proportion not staying in 
education.

## 21. Proportion Of Those Aged Under 21 Not Entering Higher Education (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Successful entrants under 21 in UCAS data, for 2002–2005
 
Denominator: Census population 14–17.
 
The indicator is subtracted from 1 to produce the proportion not entering 
higher education.

## 22. Secondary School Absence Rate (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Average number of authorised and unauthorised absences from secondary school for 2004 and 2005, from the school level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences.
 
Denominator: total number of possible sessions.
 
Method: The rates were attributed to all children in a school and assigned to 
LSOAs using the pupil's home postcode from PLASC.

## 23. Proportions Of Working Age Adults (Aged 25–54) In The Area With No Or Low Qualifi Cations (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Adults aged 25–54 in the area with no qualifi
 cations or with 
qualifi
 cations below NVQ Level 2, for 2001.
 
Denominator: All adults aged 25–54.

## 24. Household Overcrowding (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Overcrowded households (as defi
 ned in Census 2001 
Classifi
 cations page 15), for April 2001.
 
Denominator: Number of households from the 2001 Census, for April 2001.

## 25. Percentage Of Households For Whom A Decision On Their Application For Assistance Under The Homeless Provisions Of Housing Legislation Has Been Made (La Level)

 
Numerator: as described, for 2005/6.
 
Denominator: ODPM Household estimates, for 2004.

## 26. Diffi Culty Of Access To Owner-Occupation (La Level)

 
Numerator: modelled proportion of households (under 35s) unable to afford to 
enter owner occupation on the basis of their income. 
Denominator: n/a

## 27. Road Distance To Gp Premises (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score 
is the road distance from the population weighted OA centroid to nearest GP 
premises, for 2005.
 
Denominator: n/a

## 28. Road Distance To A Supermarket Or Convenience Store (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score 
is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest supermarket or convenience store, for 2005.
 
Denominator: n/a

## 29. Road Distance To A Primary School (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is 
the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest primary school, for 2005.
 
Denominator: n/a

## 30. Road Distance To A Post Offi Ce (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest open post offi
 ce, for 2005.
 
Denominator: n/a

## 31. Burglary (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-
March 2005, constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level).
 
Denominator: total dwellings from the Census plus business addresses from Address Point

## 32. Theft (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level).
 
Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population

## 33. Criminal Damage (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level).
 
Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population

## 34. Violence (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). 
 
Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population

## 35. Social And Private Housing In Poor Condition (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Estimate of the probability that any given dwelling in the SOA fails to meet the decent standard. Modelled primarily from the EHCS by BRE, for 2005.
 
Denominator: n/a

## 36. Houses Without Central Heating (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: as described, for 2001.
 
Denominator: Number of households from the 2001 Census, for April 2001

## 37. Air Quality (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Modelled measure of the concentration of four pollutants (Nitrogen Dioxide, Benzene, Sulphur Dioxide and Particulates), by the Geography Department at Staffordshire University and NAEI, for 2005.
 
Denominator: n/a

## 38. Road Traffi C Accidents (Lsoa Level)

 
Numerator: Injuries to pedestrians and cyclists caused by road traffi
 c accidents 
from STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to SOA level, for 2004–2006.
 
Denominator: Total resident population, communal establishments population and non-resident workplace population minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) , mid-2005 estimates provided by ONS

## Annex C: Data Sources 2001 Census, Small Area Statistics Package Version 7 (October 2003 Release)

Working age adults (aged 25–59) with no or low qualifi cations (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain). Household overcrowding (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) Houses without central heating (Living Environment Deprivation Domain)
Census populations and residential dwellings (denominators)

## Department For Children, Schools And Families

Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) National Pupil Database (NPD) (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) School level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) Location of primary schools (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) 

## Department For Transport

Road Accident Data STATS19

## Department For Work And Pensions

Income Support recipients and their partners and children (Income Deprivation Domain)
Income Based Job Seekers Allowance recipients and their partners and children (Income Deprivation Domain) Incapacity Benefi t claimants women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 (Employment Deprivation Domain) Severe Disablement Allowance claimants women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for the 18–24s who are not receiving JSA (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not receiving JSA (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (Employment Deprivation Domain) Recipients of IS Disability Premium, AA, DLA, SDA and IB (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, CIDR) Recipients of IB and SDA (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders')

## Department Of Health

Hospital Episode Statistics (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'emergency admissions to hospital' and 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders')

## Heriot-Watt University

Diffi culty of Access to owner-occupation indicator (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain)

## Home Offi Ce

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level recorded crime data (Crime Domain) Police force and CDRP boundary fi les (Crime Domain)

## Home Offi Ce And National Asylum Support Service

NASS supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence and accommodation support (Income Deprivation Domain)

## Hm Revenue And Customs

Adults and children in Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit households (Income Deprivation Domain) Child Benefi t data (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, 'not staying on in school')

## Mapinfo Ltd

Location of general stores or supermarkets (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) 

## National Health Service Information Authority

Location of GP premises (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) 

## Communities And Local Government

LA level number of households for whom a decision on their application for assistance under the homeless provisions of housing legislation has been made (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) LA level household estimates (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) Social and private housing in poor condition, modelled primarily from the English House Condition Survey by the Building Research Establishment and ODPM (Living Environment Deprivation Domain)

## Offi Ce Of National Statistics

Mortality data (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain) LSOA and mid-year population estimates 2005.

## Post Offi Ce Ltd

Location of open post offi ces (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) 

## Prescription Pricing Authority

Prescribing data (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders')

## Staffordshire University

Air quality indicator (Living Environment Deprivation Domain)

## Universities And Colleges Admissions Service

University Admissions data (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain)

## 39 Regional Police Forces In England

Recorded crime data (Crime Domain)

## Annex D: The Shrinkage Technique2

The 'shrunken' estimate of a LSOA-level proportion (or ratio) is a weighted average of the two 'raw' proportions for the LSOA and for the corresponding District.3 
The weights used are determined by the relative magnitudes of within-LSOA and between-LSOA variability.

If the rate for a particular indicator in LSOA j is rj events out of a population of nj, the empirical logit for each LSOA is:

$$m_{\rm j}\ =\ \log\left[\ \frac{(r_{\rm j}+0.5)}{(r_{\rm j}-r_{\rm j}+0.5)}\ \right]\tag{1}$$
whose estimated standard error (sj) is the square root of:

(nj + 1) (nj + 2)   [2] nj (rj + 1)(nj - rj + 1)   sj 2 =   
 The corresponding counts r out of n for the district, LSOA j lies within gives the district-level logit:

$$M=\log\left[\frac{(r+0.5)}{(n-r+0.5)}\right]$$ [3]
The 'shrunken' LSOA-level logit is then the weighted average:

$$m_{j}^{*}=w_{j}m_{j}+(1-w_{j})M\tag{4}$$
where wj is the weight given to the 'raw' LSOA - j data and (1 - wj) the weight given to the overall rate for the district. The formula used to determine wj is:

$$W_{\rm j}\,=\,\frac{1/{\rm s}_{\rm j}^{\,2}}{1/{\rm s}_{\rm j}^{\,2}\,+\,1/t^{2}}\tag{5}$$
where t2 is the inter-LSOA variance for the k LSOAs in the district, calculated as:

$$t^{2}\ =\ \frac{1}{k-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k}(m_{j}-M)^{2}\tag{6}$$
Thus large LSOAs, where precision 1/s2
j is relatively large, have weight wj close to 1 
and so shrinkage has little effect. The shrinkage effect is greatest for small LSOAs in relatively homogeneous districts.

The fi nal step is to back-transform the shrunken logit mj* using the 'anti-logit', to obtain the shrunken LSOA level proportion:

$$Z_{j}=\frac{\exp(m^{*}_{j})}{1+\exp(m^{*}_{j})}\tag{7}$$
for each LSOA.

## Annex E: Factor Analysis

In a number of the domains, factor analysis is used as a method for combining indicators. Factor analysis is used to fi nd appropriate weights for combining indicators into a single score based on the inter-correlations between all the indicators4. This technique was applied to the following domains: Education, Skills and Training; Health Deprivation and Disability, and Crime. Factor Analysis is only used in domains where 'latent variables' are hypothesised to exist and where the indicator variables are 'effect indicators'. 

## Method

The combination process comprises the following stages:

1. All variables were converted to the standard normal distribution based on their 
ranks. 
2. These new standardised scores were factor analysed (using the Maximum 
Likelihood method), deriving a set of weights.
The variables were then combined using these weights.

# Annex F: The 'Adults Under 60 Suffering From Mood Or Anxiety Disorders' Indicator

## Introduction

Mental ill health is a condition that can severely impact on the quality of life of those suffering from it and those immediately around them. It may also lead to other forms of deprivation such as unemployment or homelessness; potentially individuals may fi nd themselves in a downward spiral that may be diffi cult to break out of. This makes it an important component of overall health which should be included in a small area measure of health deprivation. Creating a small area measure of mental health is not straightforward. There are no standard small area measures covering England that are ready to use. Survey approaches, using standard measures, would require very large sample sizes and do not yet exist. This suggests an approach using information that is already collected in support of administrative processes. However there are problems with the use of administrative records. These datasets are likely to lead to defi nitions of mental illness which are particular to the administrative process they are drawn from. These will not necessarily fi t exactly what is required for an index of deprivation. From Hospital records, for example, it is possible to identify individuals whose in patient spell is related to mental ill health. However this represents people who have probably reached a fairly critical state. It might be of greater interest to also take into account individuals who are in a less acute more chronic state and being treated, if at all, within primary care. A further problem when using administrative data to measure mental health is the way the organisation of local services and different practices within and between organisations affect the type of treatment an individual receives. This may lead to groups of individuals, identical in terms of their mental health, coming in contact with some services in some areas and not in others. Some General Practitioners, for example, may be less eager to use drugs in the treatment of depression than others. A count therefore of those receiving a prescription for the treatment of depression may differ between areas with identical numbers of people suffering from depression. The biases that result from the problems discussed above can be reduced through a careful choice of methodology. 

## Methodology

Given the problems outlined above it is clear that single mental health indicators that are derived from administrative data should be used with caution: each indicator is likely to vary around what might be thought of as the 'true' state of mental health in a small area. There is however a fairly simple method to reduce this bias. This is achieved by combining a number of indicators that are believed to measure the same underlying 'true' state. As the number of indicators is increased, the infl uence of under or over-recording bias should be reduced. This will be true as long as the bias does not result from an area effect that infl uences all the different administrative systems, leading to biases in the same direction. By choosing indicators from independent administrative data sources this problem should be minimised. The bias in the overall indicator, therefore, should be lower than that in any single indicator. Although it would be possible to simply combine the different measures after standardising them with equal weights, more sophisticated methods are available. These take into account the extent to which individual indicators are more or less precise in their measure of the underlying 'true' rate over the whole population. The most suitable method in this instance is Factor Analysis. The datasets that were used are from prescribing data; secondary care data; and health related benefi t administrative data. Because each of the datasets covers a slightly different group of psychiatric conditions, it was only possible to produce an estimate for a sub-group of these conditions. The sub-group chosen was people aged under 60 suffering mood (affective) disorders and neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders. Together these represent a large proportion of all those suffering mental ill health.

## Prescription Data

This indicator uses information on drug prescribing to estimate levels of mental health. Because information on the conditions for which various types of drugs are prescribed as well as the typical dosages are known, it is possible to estimate the number of patients within a particular General Practitioner's (GP) practice who are suffering from mental health problems. The mental health problems examined here are depression and anxiety5. Unfortunately prescription data is not held at individual level and therefore a two-stage methodology must be adopted to calculate area rates. This method assumes that those with mental ill health take the national Average Daily Quantity (Prescribing Support Unit) of a specifi c drug on everyday of the year. While these assumptions may not fi t very well in individual cases, they are more likely to hold across the 'average' for the practice population. The practice rates are then distributed to geographical areas through knowledge of practice population distribution. This process will tend to 'spatially smooth' the area rates where practice populations are heterogeneous. In effect the small area rate will move towards a larger area 'moving average'. However although this does mean high or low rates will tend to move towards the local average, it also reduces the impact of individual GP prescribing behaviour that might be introducing bias because the small area rate will be a combination of a number of different practices.

## Secondary Care Data

This indicator uses hospital inpatient data to estimate the proportion of the population suffering severe mental health problems relating to depression and anxiety. A count is made of all those who have had at least one in-stay spell in any one year coded within International Classifi cation of Disease version 10 (ICD-
10) chapter 'F' (the coding for mental ill health): the precise grouping of disorders included can be seen in table 1. The indicator is therefore an annual count of those suffering at least one severe mental health episode in a year, an "annual incidence of hospitalisation"6. These individuals are then geocoded to their residential address and a standardised rate is calculated using the residential population in the small area as a denominator.

| ICD10   | Categories of disorder                            |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
| F30–F39 | Mood (affective) disorders                        |
| F40–F48 | Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders |

There are two signifi cant issues with this indicator as a measure of an underlying rate of mental health. Firstly, the admission of an individual into hospital may be infl uenced not only by the severity of their condition but also by factors arising from an interaction between primary, social and secondary care. If for example there has been a failure of adequate primary care in an area, individuals who might have remained within primary care in another area, may be admitted into secondary care. The second problem with this indicator is small numbers. This means that the estimate of the underlying risk of admission in some small areas has low precision. Combining a number of years together can reduce the small number problem. In this case 2 years of data were combined. The problem of organisational bias can be reduced through combining different indicators of mental health as outlined above. 

## Health Related Benefi Ts

The rate of sickness and disability in an area can be measured using information on receipt of particular benefi ts. Incapacity Benefi t (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) are benefi ts paid to individuals of working age who are unable to work because of ill health. IB is a non means-tested benefi t paid to people who are incapable of work due to ill health and who have paid suffi cient National Insurance contributions. SDA is a non means-tested benefi t paid to people who are incapable of work through illness and have not paid suffi cient National Insurance contributions to qualify for IB. Both of these benefi t datasets are coded for medical conditions. This coding can be converted to an ICD-10 classifi cation and then a count of individuals with a condition within chapter 'F' made: the precise ICD-10 codes used were F3 and F4 as for the hospital data. Using the working age population as a denominator, a standardised rate of mental ill health amongst those aged 16 to 59 can then be calculated. 

## Suicide

Although suicide is not a direct measure of mental ill health, it is highly associated with depression where it is implicated in a majority of cases. Unlike the other measures it is more independent of organisational practices; therefore it may suffer less from biases relating to local practice. However numbers are small and so the precision of the measure may be poor. The actual measure used was deaths that occurred between 2001 and 2005 which had ICD-10 codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

## Combining The Data To Create A Composite Indicator

The three indicators were combined using weights derived from Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis. The use of Factor Analysis here is based on the proposition that in any small area there is an unmeasured 'true' rate of mental health (a latent factor) that manifests itself through various mental health related administrative processes and events as a set of indicators. The variance in these administrative indicators will be either related to the 'true' rate of mental health or to some other factors unique to them and unrelated to the other indicators. The covariance between the indicators is therefore 'caused' by the 'true' rate of mental health. Indicators that have a lower correlation with all the other indicators are therefore a poorer measure of the 'true' rate than those with a high overall correlation and are given a lower weight to be combined with. The combined indicators should be a more precise measure of the underlying 'true' rate of mental health than any single indicator on its own.

## Annex G: Categories Of Recorded Crime Included In The Crime Domain

The Crime Domain consists of 33 categories of recorded crime (notifi able offences) 
which have been grouped to form four composite indicators: violence; burglary; 
theft; and criminal damage.

| Home Offi       |  ce offence code                                                        |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Violence        |                                                                         |
| 1               | Murder                                                                  |
| }               |                                                                         |
| Homicide        |                                                                         |
| 4.1             | Manslaughter                                                            |
| 4.2             | Infanticide                                                             |
| 2               | Attempted murder                                                        |
| 37.1            | Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking                              |
| 5               | Wounding or other act endangering life                                  |
| 8A              | Other wounding                                                          |
| 8C              | Harassment                                                              |
| 8D              | Racially-aggravated other wounding                                      |
| 8E              | Racially-aggravated harassment                                          |
| 105A            | Common assault                                                          |
| 105B            | Racially-aggravated common assault                                      |
| 34A             | Robbery of business property                                            |
| 34B             | Robbery of personal property                                            |
| Burglary        |                                                                         |
| 28              | Burglary in a dwelling                                                  |
| 29              | Aggravated burglary in a dwelling                                       |
| 30              | Burglary in a building other than a dwelling                            |
| 31              | Aggravated burglary in a building other than a dwelling                 |
| Theft           |                                                                         |
| 37.2            | Aggravated vehicle taking                                               |
| 39              | Theft from the person of another                                        |
| 45              | Theft from a vehicle                                                    |
| 48              | Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle                           |
| 126             | Vehicle interference and tampering                                      |
| Criminal damage |                                                                         |
| 56              | Arson                                                                   |
| 58A             | Criminal damage to a dwelling                                           |
| 58B             | Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling                     |
| 58C             | Criminal damage to a vehicle                                            |
| 58D             | Other criminal damage                                                   |
| 58E             | Racially-aggravated criminal damage to a dwelling                       |
| 58F             | Racially aggravated criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling |
| 58G             | Racially-aggravated criminal damage to a vehicle                        |
| 58H             | Racially-aggravated other criminal damage                               |
| 59              | Threat etc. to commit criminal damage                                   |

Within the four composite indicators, each notifi able offence type has been assigned equal weight. Therefore, the numerator for the 'violence' rate is the sum of the fourteen notifi able offence categories listed above. In order to account for variability in recording practices between police forces, the SOA-level counts of crime have been constrained to Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) totals provided by the Home Offi ce.

The denominator for the 'burglary' indicator is the number of dwellings from the 2001 Census plus the number of business addresses from Ordinance Survey's Address Point, while the denominator for the 'violence', 'theft' and 'criminal damage' indicators is total resident population plus non-resident workplace population, also from the 2001 Census. As an example, the 'theft' indicator can be formulated as follows:

 
 
Theft = 
(Aggravated vehicle taking + Theft from the person of another + 
Theft from a vehicle + Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle + 
Vehicle interference and tampering)
(Resident population + Non-resident workplace population)

## Annex H: Exponential Transformation

The transformation used is as follows. For any SOA, denote its rank on the Domain, scaled to the range [0,1], by R (with R=1/N for the least deprived, and R=N/N, i.e. R=1, for the most deprived, where N=the number of SOAs in England). 

The transformed Domain, X say, is X = –23*log{1 - R*[1 - exp(–100/23)]}
where log denotes natural logarithm and exp the exponential or antilog transformation. 

## Annex J: The 100 Most Deprived Soas On The Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007

| SOA        | LA              |
|------------|-----------------|
| CODE       |                 |
| LA NAME    | GOR             |
| CODE       |                 |
| GOR NAME   | IMD             |
| SCORE      |                 |
| E01006755  | 00BY            |
| E01005204  | 00BN            |
| E01021988  | 22UN            |
| E01012721  | 00EY            |
| E01006778  | 00BY            |
| E01006467  | 00BX            |
| E01006559  | 00BY            |
| E01006561  | 00BY            |
| E01006468  | 00BX            |
| E01012673  | 00EY            |
| E01005484  | 00BQ            |
| E01006676  | 00BY            |
| E01024858  | 30UD            |
| E01008836  | 00CM Sunderland |
| E01005482  | 00BQ            |
| E01009585  | 00CQ            |
| E01005466  | 00BQ            |
| E01009365  | 00CN            |
| E01006647  | 00BY            |
| E01006469  | 00BX            |
| E01013137  | 00FC            |
| E01007532  | 00CE            |
| E01012070  | 00EC            |
| E01006599  | 00BY            |
| E01006703  | 00BY            |
| E01007122  | 00CB            |
| E01006740  | 00BY            |
| E01008380  | 00CJ            |
| E01006646  | 00BY            |
| E01012720  | 00EY            |
| E01012041  | 00EC            |
| E01006699  | 00BY            |
| E01006563  | 00BY            |
| E01006560  | 00BY            |
| E01012655  | 00EX            |
| E01013818  | 00FY            |
| E01006756  | 00BY            |
| E01010606  | 00CX            |
| E01005067  | 00BN            |
| E01005658  | 00BR            |
| RANK OF    |                 |
| IMD (where |                 |
| 1 is most  |                 |
| deprived)  |                 |
| SOA       | LA                 |
|-----------|--------------------|
| CODE      |                    |
| LA NAME   | GOR                |
| CODE      |                    |
| GOR NAME  | IMD                |
| SCORE     |                    |
| E01012875 | 00FA               |
| E01006442 | 00BX               |
| E01007127 | 00CB               |
| E01012678 | 00EY               |
| E01006674 | 00BY               |
| E01006630 | 00BY               |
| E01005568 | 00BQ               |
| E01024908 | 30UD               |
| E01006777 | 00BY               |
| E01005256 | 00BN               |
| E01006732 | 00BY               |
| E01005655 | 00BR               |
| E01006679 | 00BY               |
| E01028276 | 37UF               |
| E01006704 | 00BY               |
| E01005350 | 00BP               |
| E01005196 | 00BN               |
| E01006540 | 00BY               |
| E01013139 | 00FC               |
| E01010485 | 00CW Wolverhampton |
| E01013136 | 00FC               |
| E01024877 | 30UD               |
| E01005228 | 00BN               |
| E01006515 | 00BY               |
| E01010617 | 00CX               |
| E01009488 | 00CN               |
| E01025041 | 30UG               |
| E01008291 | 00CJ               |
| E01012266 | 00EF               |
| E01020909 | 20UJ               |
| E01012069 | 00EC               |
| E01010823 | 00CX               |
| E01012114 | 00EE               |
| E01005096 | 00BN               |
| E01009358 | 00CN               |
| E01006779 | 00BY               |
| E01006677 | 00BY               |
| E01009476 | 00CN               |
| E01006558 | 00BY               |
| E01012897 | 00FA               |
| E01008011 | 00CG               |
| E01006598 | 00BY               |
| E01005099 | 00BN               |
| E01005203 | 00BN               |
| E01006760 | 00BY               |
| E01009379 | 00CN               |
| E01025286 | 30UK               |
| E01006417 | 00BX               |
| E01005667 | 00BR               |
| E01005612 | 00BR               |
RANK OF IMD (where 1 is most 
deprived)
| SOA        | LA    |
|------------|-------|
| CODE       |       |
| LA NAME    | GOR   |
| CODE       |       |
| GOR NAME   | IMD   |
| SCORE      |       |
| E01007132  | 00CB  |
| E01008214  | 00CH  |
| E01015842  | 00KF  |
| E01005205  | 00BN  |
| E01007133  | 00CB  |
| E01006470  | 00BX  |
| E01007128  | 00CB  |
| E01015155  | 00HG  |
| E01006746  | 00BY  |
| E01005613  | 00BR  |
| RANK OF    |       |
| IMD (where |       |
| 1 is most  |       |
| deprived)  |       |
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
34.49
22
25388.65
11
0.48
21
30564.03
74
44806
47
13085.25
64
11.47
272
9357.59
279
0.03
230
23274.23
242
16650
136
6209.25
149
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
45UB
Adur
20.55
138
17520.60
122
0.11
156
26643.52
180
7372
300
2594.75
309
16UB
Allerdale
21.63
119
17011.62
132
0.17
116
30532.75
76
13487
171
6256.50
147
35UB
Alnwick
15.57
206
13753.48
191
0.03
221
24442.12
221
3741
347
1676.50
342
17UB
Amber Valley
18.12
159
15290.74
164
0.09
170
27304.55
171
14794
154
6593.50
137
45UC
Arun
16.64
187
14078.33
186
0.07
181
26824.11
177
17063
134
6070.50
153
37UB
Ashfi
 eld
25.26
81
20192.07
72
0.22
97
29619.83
115
17925
124
8360.75
111
29UB
Ashford
14.37
227
12191.70
227
0.05
195
25784.01
194
12880
184
4377.50
220
11UB
Aylesbury Vale
8.76
319
6604.62
325
0.01
273
21986.76
267
13306
177
4745.75
206
42UB
Babergh
11.30
277
9656.41
271
0.00
301
21354.72
282
7919
287
2779.25
305
00AB
Barking and 
Dagenham
00AC
Barnet
21.16
128
17960.16
112
0.12
146
28268.82
149
51407
38
16068.25
53
00CC
Barnsley
30.48
43
22090.43
41
0.37
46
31544.77
41
41091
52
21650.75
25
16UC
Barrow-in-Furness
32.69
29
22647.17
32
0.40
36
32021.80
17
13183
179
7460.75
124
22UB
Basildon
20.58
136
16050.90
151
0.17
114
28973.10
134
27179
87
9219.50
100
24UB
Basingstoke and Deane
9.84
304
7916.06
306
0.00
308
21428.78
278
12575
188
4773.50
204
37UC
Bassetlaw
24.11
94
18715.40
101
0.22
90
30525.75
77
15723
146
7887.00
114
00HA
Bath and North East 
Somerset
09UD
Bedford
16.87
183
13558.58
198
0.10
157
28243.89
150
21071
107
7583.50
122
35UC
Berwick-upon-Tweed
20.79
133
18658.15
104
0.02
232
24169.84
227
3723
348
1521.25
347
00AD
Bexley
16.21
194
13482.18
199
0.07
177
26723.04
178
27351
86
9728.75
92
00CN
Birmingham
38.67
10
24907.94
14
0.55
12
32053.06
15 287890
1
89139.50
1
31UB
Blaby
8.41
326
6613.16
324
0.00
309
14808.89
345
6444
314
2949.50
295
00EX
Blackburn with Darwen
35.83
17
23048.41
27
0.52
15
32194.02
9
38543
60
12422.25
73
00EY
Blackpool
37.66
12
24609.06
18
0.46
24
32384.54
3
32997
72
14368.00
61

## Annex K: District Level Summaries Of The Lsoa Level Index Of Multiple Deprivation

Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
35UD
Blyth Valley
25.36
80
18934.11
93
0.27
73
31042.45
63
13614
168
6986.25
133
17UC
Bolsover
28.93
55
22115.83
40
0.32
58
30325.46
82
12945
183
6465.00
142
00BL
Bolton
29.67
51
20413.22
65
0.37
42
31902.90
24
53365
31
20971.50
27
32UB
Boston
22.75
109
18825.00
96
0.15
128
28531.67
141
9074
266
3539.75
266
00HN
Bournemouth
22.99
108
18320.01
108
0.18
111
30118.13
91
24957
91
10881.00
81
00MA
Bracknell Forest
8.75
320
7010.21
316
0.00
309
18878.49
315
8669
273
3432.25
274
00CX
Bradford
32.00
32
21029.26
52
0.42
31
32122.55
11 118426
4
35256.00
6
22UC
Braintree
13.61
239
11974.84
232
0.01
265
22580.12
252
14753
156
5470.25
179
33UB
Breckland
15.30
213
13438.54
201
0.03
225
24513.64
218
14455
159
5482.25
178
00AE
Brent
29.22
53
22753.28
30
0.27
74
30624.17
72
63767
19
20175.75
32
22UD
Brentwood
9.18
315
7326.36
312
0.00
295
20590.63
293
5721
320
2225.75
321
39UB
Bridgnorth
13.32
243
11836.68
236
0.00
309
21293.73
283
4892
332
1923.50
334
00ML
Brighton and Hove
25.56
79
19933.03
77
0.22
95
30761.45
70
41180
51
17761.50
46
00HB
Bristol, City of
27.76
64
20310.98
68
0.30
64
31581.27
38
67656
15
26520.50
10
33UC
Broadland
10.09
301
8572.81
295
0.00
309
16824.91
334
10204
237
4462.00
214
00AF
Bromley
14.36
228
11555.61
241
0.07
179
27132.38
173
34511
66
12602.00
70
47UB
Bromsgrove
10.20
299
8441.66
299
0.01
288
20881.35
287
7108
303
3347.25
279
26UB
Broxbourne
16.22
193
13853.44
189
0.06
190
25744.69
196
10876
220
3731.75
254
37UD
Broxtowe
14.41
226
12461.43
219
0.03
219
24455.60
220
11006
217
5272.00
183
30UD
Burnley
34.61
21
22712.28
31
0.43
27
32308.13
5
19891
113
8012.00
113
00BM
Bury
21.42
122
16722.66
136
0.17
113
30160.02
88
27479
84
12081.00
75
00CY
Calderdale
23.01
107
17618.98
119
0.22
98
30745.37
71
32674
73
12347.00
74
12UB
Cambridge
13.87
236
11951.46
234
0.02
245
23862.49
231
11373
210
4671.00
207
00AG
Camden
28.62
57
22069.20
42
0.33
57
29711.51
108
48865
42
17819.50
43
41UB
Cannock Chase
20.64
135
17211.04
129
0.12
143
27309.39
170
13135
180
5839.75
164
29UC
Canterbury
16.17
198
14053.01
187
0.05
197
25683.01
199
17679
125
6537.25
141
15UB
Caradon
18.76
156
16600.09
139
0.04
206
25346.74
205
10401
231
4063.50
232
16UD
Carlisle
22.70
110
17931.51
113
0.19
106
29760.18
105
13392
175
6552.50
139
15UC
Carrick
21.61
120
18732.69
100
0.09
171
27644.65
160
12073
199
4847.75
198
35UE
Castle Morpeth
14.61
223
11769.41
238
0.08
173
27412.59
169
4863
333
2831.75
302
22UE
Castle Point
12.90
249
11166.14
246
0.01
263
22247.94
261
9828
244
3604.50
261
31UC
Charnwood
11.95
264
9627.63
272
0.04
210
24913.12
209
15374
148
5860.75
163
22UF
Chelmsford
9.26
312
7265.32
314
0.01
270
21474.18
276
13911
163
5298.50
182
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
23UB
Cheltenham
15.92
202
12398.06
221
0.11
151
28587.84
140
12516
189
5178.75
186
38UB
Cherwell
11.30
276
9083.14
284
0.03
213
24616.64
215
11203
213
4156.50
227
13UB
Chester
16.86
184
13102.13
210
0.11
150
29199.89
129
14186
160
6286.25
146
17UD
Chesterfi
 eld
25.75
77
19650.24
81
0.28
68
30181.65
85
17467
128
8386.50
109
20UB
Chester-le-Street
20.44
140
16530.37
141
0.13
132
28202.17
151
7455
297
3953.75
238
45UD
Chichester
12.08
259
10662.78
254
0.00
290
20006.51
302
9885
241
3327.25
280
11UC
Chiltern
7.02
345
5207.86
342
0.00
309
18116.48
324
6286
317
2370.50
316
30UE
Chorley
16.56
188
13227.35
208
0.11
153
28280.61
147
11150
214
5680.75
170
19UC
Christchurch
14.68
220
12736.57
216
0.05
201
25510.35
202
5198
329
1868.75
337
00AA
City of London
12.84
252
10691.91
253
0.04
209
24321.00
223 687 353
323.75
353
22UG
Colchester
14.59
224
12337.15
224
0.05
202
25652.71
200
17948
122
7179.00
130
13UC
Congleton
9.86
303
7773.83
307
0.01
255
22462.02
255
7703
290
3747.50
251
16UE
Copeland
25.73
78
19880.68
79
0.24
88
30488.07
78
11033
216
5648.75
171
34UB
Corby
26.16
75
20403.29
66
0.25
83
30159.43
89
8504
279
3861.50
243
23UC
Cotswold
10.22
298
8739.32
289
0.00
302
16486.80
338
6427
315
2230.75
320
00CQ
Coventry
27.85
61
20200.31
71
0.31
61
31562.67
40
59718
23
22244.25
21
36UB
Craven
11.59
270
9842.93
267
0.02
248
22285.30
260
4381
342
1914.25
336
45UE
Crawley
15.55
207
13683.70
194
0.02
244
23829.04
232
11810
204
4188.25
225
13UD
Crewe and Nantwich
17.45
174
13741.11
192
0.13
137
29031.51
133
13464
172
5785.50
165
00AH
Croydon
21.31
125
17449.64
123
0.15
129
28358.35
144
58450
25
18428.75
41
26UC
Dacorum
10.73
288
8906.19
287
0.00
299
21481.37
275
13600
169
4962.00
192
00EH
Darlington
24.10
95
17639.46
118
0.25
82
31329.63
52
17130
133
7484.50
123
29UD
Dartford
16.65
186
14152.42
180
0.06
188
26192.78
189
9843
242
3866.75
242
34UC
Daventry
10.61
292
8464.62
298
0.02
234
23181.71
245
6315
316
2370.00
317
00FK
Derby
26.64
69
18926.39
94
0.31
60
31421.47
49
44015
48
16102.25
52
17UF
Derbyshire Dales
12.53
254
11055.72
247
0.01
258
19987.31
303
5551
322
2404.50
313
20UD
Derwentside
26.19
73
20740.85
58
0.25
81
29308.43
126
16182
140
7803.50
115
00CE
Doncaster
30.84
41
22002.18
43
0.38
41
31511.74
45
53348
32
23464.75
19
29UE
Dover
19.12
153
16374.06
148
0.09
166
26931.95
176
15107
151
6370.25
144
00CR
Dudley
23.68
100
17968.59
111
0.24
87
30355.67
81
52513
35
19638.75
33
20UE
Durham
17.12
180
13434.55
203
0.12
145
28699.29
138
10430
229
5964.75
159
00AJ
Ealing
25.10
84
20068.05
75
0.22
91
29601.13
116
60225
22
19527.75
35
20UF
Easington
39.46
7
26336.30
7
0.62
7
31630.05
35
20972
108
12673.50
68
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
14.17
232
11361.49
245
0.07
180
27421.96
168
35490
63
15142.00
56
19.92
147
14901.41
167
0.21
99
29193.45
130
10649
226
4850.25
197
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
12UC
East Cambridgeshire
10.84
285
9369.93
278
0.00
309
17948.06
326
6858
306
2396.75
314
18UB
East Devon
13.69
238
12172.75
228
0.01
266
21994.58
266
12797
185
4763.75
205
19UD
East Dorset
8.46
325
6545.06
327
0.00
305
19094.89
314
6700
309
2373.00
315
24UC
East Hampshire
8.06
332
6187.91
332
0.00
309
16832.07
333
8412
283
3008.00
292
26UD
East Hertfordshire
7.41
336
5478.45
336
0.00
309
17600.57
327
9070
267
3485.75
269
32UC
East Lindsey
24.61
88
19635.21
82
0.20
103
29943.87
102
21844
104
9501.00
97
34UD
East Northamptonshire
11.78
266
9744.29
269
0.01
268
23241.53
244
7875
288
3025.50
291
00FB
East Riding of 
Yorkshire
41UC
East Staffordshire
18.44
158
14454.65
176
0.16
120
28815.24
136
13792
165
4937.00
194
21UC
Eastbourne
23.36
104
19248.40
88
0.16
121
28620.93
139
14736
158
5486.25
176
24UD
Eastleigh
9.24
313
7272.58
313
0.01
289
21769.49
273
9181
262
3738.00
253
16UF
Eden
14.64
221
13460.32
200
0.00
309
20136.96
299
3926
345
1809.75
338
13UE
Ellesmere Port & 
Neston
43UB
Elmbridge
7.12
343
5107.63
345
0.00
309
18072.04
325
8971
270
2934.50
297
00AK
Enfi
 eld
26.19
74
20267.50
70
0.26
76
29967.28
100
66630
17
19354.50
37
22UH
Epping Forest
14.33
229
12451.49
220
0.02
247
23119.58
246
13452
173
4575.75
211
43UC
Epsom and Ewell
7.43
335
5385.25
338
0.00
309
19478.93
311
4629
339
2014.00
330
17UG
Erewash
17.98
164
14712.78
170
0.10
158
27455.71
167
13509
170
5894.50
161
18UC
Exeter
20.27
145
16687.58
137
0.13
133
28762.42
137
13661
166
5965.50
158
24UE
Fareham
7.28
338
5198.83
343
0.01
276
18602.05
317
7237
302
3094.25
288
12UD
Fenland
20.50
139
17441.57
125
0.10
163
27793.51
159
13021
182
4817.50
199
42UC
Forest Heath
11.90
265
10529.23
256
0.00
309
19205.27
313
4835
334
1698.75
340
23UD
Forest of Dean
16.00
201
14594.09
174
0.01
264
23099.27
247
9376
254
3895.25
241
30UF
Fylde
12.86
251
10828.55
249
0.03
227
23695.78
236
7460
296
3609.75
260
00CH
Gateshead
29.52
52
21085.90
50
0.36
48
31612.06
36
39485
58
17720.50
47
37UE
Gedling
15.54
208
13339.82
205
0.03
216
24690.87
214
12250
194
5535.25
175
23UE
Gloucester
21.64
118
16373.67
149
0.22
96
30018.01
99
16097
142
6399.25
143
24UF
Gosport
17.80
167
14895.85
168
0.09
168
27537.56
165
9240
260
3294.00
283
29UG
Gravesham
20.37
142
16421.64
143
0.15
125
29087.37
132
13402
174
5142.25
188
33UD
Great Yarmouth
28.35
58
20862.23
55
0.28
66
31698.66
32
18998
119
7773.50
116
00AL
Greenwich
33.94
24
24613.26
17
0.44
26
31050.05
61
53224
33
17437.50
48
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
28.07
59
22177.95
38
0.28
72
29631.20
113
34512
65
12572.50
72
17.58
171
15565.66
158
0.05
198
25945.02
192
20680
109
7689.50
117
23.51
101
18776.37
98
0.22
94
29665.13
110
23665
95
9236.50
99
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
43UD
Guildford
8.20
329
6288.95
331
0.00
292
19948.72
304
8941
271
3579.25
263
00AM
Hackney
46.10
2
28960.78
1
0.84
1
31566.72
39
76242
10
21765.25
24
00ET
Halton
32.61
30
22126.72
39
0.46
25
31815.38
27
24830
92
11537.25
77
36UC
Hambleton
9.84
305
8147.09
304
0.00
306
19841.45
306
6500
313
2819.00
303
00AN
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
31UD
Harborough
7.08
344
5169.47
344
0.00
309
14776.87
346
5242
326
2109.75
325
00AP
Haringey
35.73
18
24932.79
13
0.53
13
31237.87
57
68291
14
20885.50
29
22UJ
Harlow
21.44
121
18606.31
105
0.06
186
25205.25
207
12252
193
4333.75
222
36UD
Harrogate
9.49
310
7707.51
309
0.01
262
19608.51
309
11445
209
5010.00
190
00AQ
Harrow
15.59
205
13647.84
196
0.03
218
24709.26
211
33675
69
10358.25
85
24UG
Hart
4.13
354
2153.76
354
0.00
309
9590.48
354
4068
344
1631.50
344
00EB
Hartlepool
34.10
23
22484.62
36
0.48
19
32018.88
18
21869
102
9956.75
90
21UD
Hastings
32.21
31
22917.71
29
0.39
38
31702.21
31
18610
121
7367.25
127
24UH
Havant
21.28
126
16515.27
142
0.22
93
29132.39
131
17170
132
5765.75
167
00AR
Havering
16.07
200
13578.55
197
0.06
187
26255.82
186
28169
79
10446.75
83
00GA
Herefordshire, County 
of
26UE
Hertsmere
12.86
250
10817.04
250
0.02
242
23733.96
234
9762
247
3512.75
267
17UH
High Peak
15.34
211
12906.60
214
0.05
193
26253.20
187
9782
246
4436.75
216
00AS
Hillingdon
18.56
157
15916.43
153
0.07
183
26252.18
188
38574
59
12592.75
71
31UE
Hinckley and Bosworth
10.90
283
9071.96
286
0.01
269
21467.00
277
8606
277
3793.50
248
45UF
Horsham
7.38
337
5636.64
334
0.00
309
14445.08
348
8575
278
3263.00
284
00AT
Hounslow
23.20
105
19567.05
83
0.13
136
28012.47
155
41050
53
12621.00
69
12UE
Huntingdonshire
9.31
311
7417.00
311
0.01
281
20258.48
296
12605
187
5002.00
191
30UG
Hyndburn
30.91
40
21517.05
45
0.37
43
32038.43
16
17244
130
6897.50
135
42UD
Ipswich
23.75
99
18270.48
109
0.24
84
30050.97
97
19670
114
7135.75
132
00MW
Isle of Wight
20.67
134
18002.35
110
0.07
178
26345.30
184
21468
105
8369.50
110
15UH
Isles of Scilly
19.72
149
18360.00
106
0.00
309
18360.00
320 144 354
36.00
354
00AU
Islington
38.96
8
26885.05
6
0.62
6
31263.30
56
52467
36
19129.75
39
46UB
Kennet
10.27
296
8664.92
291
0.00
309
18634.43
316
6507
312
2242.50
319
00AW
Kensington and 
Chelsea
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
20.58
137
16900.49
134
0.11
152
29960.93
101
19501
116
7670.50
119
38.31
11
24629.41
16
0.52
14
32218.24
8
62603
20
23183.00
20
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
15UD
Kerrier
25.05
86
20622.95
61
0.15
127
29445.75
119
16051
143
6211.25
148
34UE
Kettering
15.09
214
12223.99
226
0.08
175
27224.47
172
9469
253
3914.25
240
33UE
King's Lynn and West 
Norfolk
00FA
Kingston upon Hull, 
City of
00AX
Kingston upon Thames
13.10
245
11442.01
244
0.01
261
22542.17
254
14773
155
5235.25
184
00CZ
Kirklees
25.23
82
18666.58
102
0.27
75
31143.79
59
70714
12
24369.50
15
00BX
Knowsley
43.20
5
26109.76
8
0.59
8
32401.63
2
42673
50
17774.25
45
00AY
Lambeth
34.94
19
25558.07
9
0.50
17
30113.35
93
66903
16
24294.50
16
30UH
Lancaster
21.94
117
16787.92
135
0.18
109
31046.89
62
19670
114
8762.75
103
00DA
Leeds
25.07
85
17879.46
114
0.28
67
31468.75
48 113962
5
45232.25
4
00FN
Leicester
34.68
20
23944.37
23
0.46
23
31979.49
19
78758
9
24891.75
13
21UF
Lewes
14.79
218
13008.87
211
0.02
249
23701.62
235
10416
230
3805.75
246
00AZ
Lewisham
31.04
39
23978.26
22
0.36
47
29359.82
122
58128
28
20401.75
31
41UD
Lichfi
 eld
12.12
258
10259.31
260
0.02
241
23346.99
241
9288
258
3957.50
237
32UD
Lincoln
26.56
70
19922.13
78
0.28
69
31191.58
58
15937
144
6184.25
150
00BY
Liverpool
46.97
1
27055.41
5
0.67
4
32434.42
1 127365
3
56926.50
2
00KA
Luton
24.73
87
19438.92
86
0.24
85
29421.42
120
40375
55
11492.75
78
13UG
Macclesfi
 eld
10.67
290
8405.77
301
0.03
217
24560.98
216
12301
191
5636.50
172
29UH
Maidstone
12.99
248
10633.45
255
0.05
203
25684.77
198
14742
157
5396.25
181
22UK
Maldon
12.26
255
10736.04
252
0.00
309
21178.98
284
6178
318
2186.00
322
47UC
Malvern Hills
13.59
240
11893.33
235
0.03
228
23650.00
237
7478
295
2883.00
300
00BN
Manchester
44.50
4
27146.21
4
0.66
5
32329.78
4 132867
2
48398.25
3
37UF
Mansfi
 eld
31.80
34
22528.50
34
0.40
35
31805.75
28
17943
123
8627.25
105
00LC
Medway
19.55
150
16066.15
150
0.11
154
28040.78
154
37230
61
13031.25
65
31UG
Melton
10.43
294
8705.71
290
0.00
309
20279.30
295
3807
346
1361.75
350
40UB
Mendip
14.83
217
13142.63
209
0.02
233
23773.06
233
11879
203
4535.50
212
00BA
Merton
14.62
222
12340.37
223
0.03
215
24692.94
213
25651
89
8400.75
108
09UC
Mid Bedfordshire
7.23
340
5237.43
341
0.00
309
16193.14
339
9339
256
3497.00
268
18UD
Mid Devon
17.34
177
15447.42
162
0.03
226
24413.15
222
8206
285
2977.50
293
42UE
Mid Suffolk
9.79
306
8217.20
303
0.00
304
15517.33
341
7242
301
2651.00
308
45UG
Mid Sussex
6.94
346
5035.93
346
0.00
307
17037.17
331
8616
276
3357.50
278
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
14.73
219
12610.03
217
0.04
208
25143.93
208
9274
259
4040.75
233
22.41
112
17720.68
117
0.18
110
29795.84
103
17216
131
7347.25
128
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
00EC
Middlesbrough
38.94
9
23638.11
25
0.56
9
32296.66
6
36603
62
14790.25
58
00MG
Milton Keynes
15.32
212
12109.92
229
0.10
162
28352.01
145
29144
78
10391.00
84
43UE
Mole Valley
7.25
339
5448.58
337
0.00
309
16740.40
336
5076
331
1938.75
333
24UJ
New Forest
10.16
300
8280.95
302
0.01
267
20829.07
289
15796
145
5685.50
169
37UG
Newark and Sherwood
18.03
163
14575.38
175
0.12
144
28439.04
143
13874
164
6022.00
155
00CJ
Newcastle upon Tyne
31.36
37
20810.21
56
0.40
37
32102.57
13
58433
26
24001.50
18
41UE
Newcastle-under-Lyme
19.27
152
15683.61
157
0.13
138
28351.87
146
15350
149
7671.75
118
00BB
Newham
42.95
6
28285.86
2
0.79
2
31337.84
51
88945
7
21025.50
26
15UE
North Cornwall
24.07
96
20877.01
54
0.06
185
26112.73
190
12134
197
4413.75
219
18UE
North Devon
19.97
146
16974.55
133
0.10
164
28174.87
152
13063
181
4787.50
202
19UE
North Dorset
13.02
247
11767.87
239
0.00
309
19565.91
310
5557
321
1996.00
331
17UJ
North East Derbyshire
17.37
176
14311.56
178
0.09
169
27556.41
163
12435
190
5886.75
162
00FC
North East Lincolnshire
29.73
49
20309.70
69
0.37
44
31857.47
25
31804
74
11084.50
80
26UF
North Hertfordshire
10.69
289
8844.96
288
0.01
280
21854.31
271
11347
211
3983.25
236
32UE
North Kesteven
10.26
297
8599.00
294
0.00
309
19627.79
308
9139
265
3780.50
249
00FD
North Lincolnshire
20.88
132
16418.68
146
0.16
119
30461.50
79
23382
96
9029.50
101
33UF
North Norfolk
18.06
160
16420.06
145
0.01
272
22734.96
250
12759
186
4958.50
193
39UC
North Shropshire
17.43
175
15788.54
154
0.01
252
23258.17
243
6720
308
2534.00
312
00HC
North Somerset
15.01
215
11542.21
242
0.09
167
29358.66
123
21902
101
9250.50
98
00CK
North Tyneside
23.51
102
17833.10
115
0.24
86
30159.33
90
33233
70
15048.00
57
44UB
North Warwickshire
16.18
197
14356.77
177
0.03
223
24495.88
219
6668
310
2971.00
294
31UH
North West 
Leicestershire
46UC
North Wiltshire
8.82
318
6931.67
319
0.00
300
20064.47
301
10708
222
3840.75
245
34UF
Northampton
21.15
129
16553.87
140
0.18
112
29527.37
118
27967
82
10286.00
86
33UG
Norwich
27.84
62
20729.13
59
0.36
49
30054.00
96
24239
94
9539.25
96
00FY
Nottingham
37.46
13
25184.19
12
0.56
11
31845.38
26
68470
13
24899.75
12
44UC
Nuneaton and 
Bedworth
31UJ
Oadby and Wigston
10.51
293
8479.47
297
0.00
309
21376.59
281
5225
327
2025.00
329
00BP
Oldham
30.82
42
20996.83
53
0.40
34
31904.08
23
50682
39
17216.00
49
39UD
Oswestry
17.48
173
15556.07
160
0.03
231
24297.14
224
4788
337
2098.00
326
38UC
Oxford
18.80
155
15763.63
155
0.11
155
27592.70
162
17401
129
6075.75
152
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
9.55
309
7585.08
310
0.01
271
20755.55
291
15269
150
5764.75
168
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
30UJ
Pendle
30.24
44
21036.96
51
0.38
40
31786.15
29
19005
118
6931.75
134
15UF
Penwith
31.61
36
24240.66
21
0.35
53
30095.91
94
12102
198
4592.75
209
00JA
Peterborough
24.49
90
18741.09
99
0.26
78
30055.81
95
30136
76
9740.25
91
00HG
Plymouth
26.11
76
19539.71
84
0.28
70
30921.14
65
40643
54
18189.50
42
00HP
Poole
14.93
216
12532.42
218
0.05
196
25854.49
193
16203
139
5774.75
166
00MR
Portsmouth
24.21
93
18953.15
92
0.20
105
30911.43
66
29616
77
10457.25
82
30UK
Preston
29.78
48
20181.32
73
0.39
39
31979.03
20
25328
90
10150.25
89
19UG
Purbeck
13.49
241
12385.76
222
0.00
309
18237.56
321
4403
341
1516.75
348
00MC
Reading
19.30
151
15924.32
152
0.12
142
27643.46
161
19339
117
6733.25
136
00BC
Redbridge
20.36
143
17541.50
121
0.08
172
26960.05
175
46236
46
13507.50
63
00EE
Redcar and Cleveland
29.69
50
20513.16
63
0.33
55
32115.96
12
27866
83
12686.75
67
47UD
Redditch
21.05
131
16421.43
144
0.21
100
28868.87
135
11532
208
4590.00
210
43UF
Reigate and Banstead
8.59
322
6632.77
323
0.00
293
20382.37
294
9739
248
3746.50
252
15UG
Restormel
24.51
89
20711.43
60
0.13
135
27979.27
156
14955
153
6028.25
154
30UL
Ribble Valley
10.07
302
8524.88
296
0.00
309
16990.16
332
3635
349
2158.50
323
00BD
Richmond upon 
Thames
36UE
Richmondshire
10.94
282
9407.63
276
0.00
309
18218.94
322
3593
350
1578.75
346
00BQ
Rochdale
33.89
25
22524.40
35
0.43
28
32177.92
10
48122
44
18475.75
40
22UL
Rochford
9.22
314
7250.35
315
0.01
285
19879.50
305
7078
304
2678.75
306
30UM
Rossendale
24.23
92
19492.57
85
0.20
104
29357.65
124
10526
228
4811.75
200
21UG
Rother
17.85
166
15409.20
163
0.07
184
26471.63
182
10880
219
3934.00
239
00CF
Rotherham
26.71
68
20007.43
76
0.29
65
31084.82
60
46488
45
19322.75
38
44UD
Rugby
13.08
246
11000.58
248
0.03
229
24261.43
225
9038
268
3558.75
264
43UG
Runnymede
8.33
328
6495.35
328
0.00
309
18384.19
319
5738
319
2050.75
328
37UJ
Rushcliffe
8.13
331
6301.40
330
0.00
309
18122.32
323
7448
298
3315.75
281
24UL
Rushmoor
11.62
268
9452.41
275
0.04
211
23908.88
230
8501
280
3049.75
290
00FP
Rutland
7.49
334
5596.63
335
0.00
309
13134.66
351
2175
352
810.50
352
36UF
Ryedale
14.49
225
13270.33
207
0.00
309
19784.17
307
5211
328
1693.25
341
00BR
Salford
36.51
15
23830.96
24
0.48
20
32248.59
7
50545
40
20901.75
28
46UD
Salisbury
11.32
275
9477.64
274
0.02
243
22020.47
265
9684
251
3592.75
262
00CS
Sandwell
37.03
14
25478.69
10
0.56
10
31470.23
47
74920
11
24766.50
14
36UG
Scarborough
24.06
97
18659.59
103
0.20
101
30906.08
67
17544
126
7298.00
129
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
6.46
351
4450.02
351
0.00
309
11859.18
353
4796
336
1942.50
332
16.46
190
14147.94
183
0.05
192
26355.19
183
10660
225
4457.75
215
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
20UG
Sedgefi
 eld
29.05
54
21890.41
44
0.35
52
30045.62
98
16887
135
8609.00
106
40UC
Sedgemoor
17.76
169
14771.41
169
0.10
160
27552.70
164
13938
162
5609.25
174
00CA
Sefton
25.13
83
18335.77
107
0.25
80
31506.26
46
48123
43
22028.00
23
36UH
Selby
12.17
257
10159.06
263
0.02
238
23934.59
229
6745
307
3245.00
285
29UK
Sevenoaks
10.34
295
8416.03
300
0.02
246
22287.05
259
9829
243
3305.00
282
00CG
Sheffi
 eld
27.84
63
19229.66
89
0.34
54
31763.75
30
96205
6
36459.25
5
29UL
Shepway
21.35
123
17375.19
126
0.13
140
29280.32
128
15677
147
6308.00
145
39UE
Shrewsbury and 
Atcham
00MD
Slough
22.31
115
19094.64
90
0.10
161
26499.29
181
21863
103
6552.25
140
00CT
Solihull
16.16
199
12030.92
231
0.15
124
29663.08
111
23375
97
9552.75
95
09UE
South Bedfordshire
11.95
263
9889.80
265
0.02
235
24077.40
228
11966
202
4419.00
218
11UE
South Bucks
8.35
327
6671.96
321
0.00
309
15472.55
342
4189
343
1502.75
349
12UG
South Cambridgeshire
6.55
350
4704.58
350
0.00
309
13654.91
350
8618
275
3421.50
276
17UK
South Derbyshire
13.93
235
11952.09
233
0.03
224
24525.38
217
8649
274
4069.50
231
00HD
South Gloucestershire
9.58
308
7768.17
308
0.01
286
20198.60
298
20528
111
8322.25
112
18UG
South Hams
14.31
230
12819.20
215
0.01
275
21746.61
274
9366
255
3438.75
273
32UF
South Holland
16.21
195
14699.80
172
0.01
277
22092.61
263
9330
257
3665.25
257
32UG
South Kesteven
11.49
271
9381.26
277
0.03
220
23622.90
238
12271
192
4781.75
203
16UG
South Lakeland
11.67
267
10183.01
262
0.00
297
20222.63
297
8265
284
3846.00
244
33UH
South Norfolk
10.84
286
9352.37
280
0.00
309
18502.57
318
10388
232
4157.25
226
34UG
South 
Northamptonshire
38UD
South Oxfordshire
7.75
333
5850.56
333
0.00
309
17067.50
329
8472
282
3091.00
289
30UN
South Ribble
14.10
233
11804.85
237
0.04
207
25249.01
206
9985
240
5176.50
187
39UF
South Shropshire
16.50
189
14961.08
166
0.01
260
22230.91
262
4553
340
1644.00
343
40UD
South Somerset
13.86
237
12048.24
230
0.03
222
24176.23
226
16242
138
5943.25
160
41UF
South Staffordshire
11.62
269
9869.63
266
0.01
278
22353.92
258
10336
233
4100.50
229
00CL
South Tyneside
31.16
38
22435.26
37
0.43
29
30997.06
64
34062
68
15254.50
55
00MS
Southampton
24.31
91
19336.65
87
0.22
92
29622.83
114
35415
64
13024.00
66
00KF
Southend-on-Sea
22.47
111
17445.49
124
0.19
107
30293.89
83
28036
81
10170.25
88
00BE
Southwark
33.33
26
24569.19
19
0.48
18
29766.51
104
65034
18
22177.75
22
43UH
Spelthorne
12.18
256
10416.15
259
0.01
284
22451.11
256
7969
286
2904.25
299
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
16.36
192
14144.73
184
0.05
194
26044.88
191
9176
263
5189.50
185
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
26UG
St Albans
8.88
317
6981.34
318
0.00
291
20871.63
288
10165
238
3764.75
250
42UF
St. Edmundsbury
12.06
260
10433.51
258
0.00
303
21408.49
279
9143
264
3545.25
265
00BZ
St. Helens
29.82
47
21207.01
49
0.36
51
31686.05
34
33192
71
16273.50
51
41UG
Stafford
12.71
253
10524.43
257
0.04
204
25542.46
201
11061
215
5467.00
180
41UH
Staffordshire 
Moorlands
26UH
Stevenage
16.42
191
14711.74
171
0.02
237
22642.54
251
11244
212
3683.50
256
00BS
Stockport
18.06
161
13804.45
190
0.13
141
30207.26
84
34177
67
14775.50
59
00EF
Stockton-on-Tees
23.80
98
16641.31
138
0.26
77
31698.47
33
31630
75
14077.50
62
00GL
Stoke-on-Trent
36.03
16
24285.51
20
0.51
16
31932.91
22
53082
34
24155.50
17
44UE
Stratford-on-Avon
9.63
307
8026.87
305
0.00
309
17041.02
330
9184
261
3484.00
270
23UF
Stroud
11.14
280
9532.01
273
0.00
309
20781.19
290
10231
235
4109.50
228
42UG
Suffolk Coastal
11.33
274
9663.96
270
0.01
283
20743.38
292
10902
218
3800.00
247
00CM
Sunderland
31.79
35
22638.75
33
0.41
33
31524.87
43
59628
24
27844.75
7
43UJ
Surrey Heath
5.75
352
3862.34
352
0.00
309
16738.21
337
4825
335
1720.25
339
00BF
Sutton
13.98
234
11683.94
240
0.05
199
25722.50
197
20650
110
7410.75
126
29UM
Swale
22.10
116
17549.83
120
0.18
108
30172.37
87
19948
112
7164.50
131
00HX
Swindon
16.94
182
12980.64
212
0.14
131
29759.11
106
22571
98
9005.75
102
00BT
Tameside
28.78
56
21294.65
47
0.33
56
31322.74
54
39905
56
17794.75
44
41UK
Tamworth
19.76
148
16390.59
147
0.11
148
27912.35
157
10229
236
4202.75
224
43UK
Tandridge
8.49
324
6777.92
320
0.00
309
14723.89
347
5333
325
2126.00
324
40UE
Taunton Deane
15.65
204
13310.66
206
0.06
189
26286.85
185
11998
201
4868.75
195
20UH
Teesdale
15.52
209
13680.15
195
0.03
214
24826.50
210
2802
351
1324.50
351
18UH
Teignbridge
17.29
179
15152.79
165
0.05
200
25767.91
195
15022
152
5625.00
173
00GF
Telford and Wrekin
22.35
113
17372.14
127
0.20
102
29637.37
112
27425
85
10201.50
87
22UN
Tendring
23.45
103
18983.26
91
0.15
126
29677.20
109
22496
99
8697.50
104
24UN
Test Valley
8.88
316
6990.43
317
0.01
287
20136.35
300
8483
281
3130.25
287
23UG
Tewkesbury
11.23
279
9329.90
281
0.01
254
21974.34
268
7071
305
2582.50
310
29UN
Thanet
27.61
65
20520.94
62
0.28
71
31582.30
37
25905
88
9726.25
93
26UJ
Three Rivers
10.74
287
8611.00
293
0.02
236
22928.10
248
7388
299
2538.00
311
00KG
Thurrock
21.31
124
17014.84
131
0.15
123
29742.54
107
21441
106
8422.25
107
29UP
Tonbridge and Malling
10.95
281
9158.22
283
0.01
274
21392.20
280
9719
250
3463.25
271
00HH
Torbay
26.42
71
20764.24
57
0.23
89
30559.54
75
24387
93
9663.50
94
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
21.19
127
17089.75
130
0.17
115
29309.92
125
9027
269
4093.25
230
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
18UK
Torridge
21.13
130
18789.44
97
0.04
205
25464.20
204
8752
272
3366.25
277
00BG
Tower Hamlets
44.64
3
27770.27
3
0.75
3
31933.09
21
86022
8
19439.75
36
00BU
Trafford
17.33
178
13415.18
204
0.13
134
29307.57
127
28112
80
12062.25
76
29UQ
Tunbridge Wells
11.45
273
9749.93
268
0.01
279
21966.79
269
10529
227
3445.00
272
35UF
Tynedale
13.13
244
11541.94
243
0.01
282
22039.30
264
5450
324
2806.75
304
22UQ
Uttlesford
6.94
347
4984.24
347
0.00
309
11999.67
352
4662
338
1586.00
345
38UE
Vale of White Horse
7.23
341
5299.09
339
0.00
294
14920.27
344
7789
289
2871.50
301
13UH
Vale Royal
16.18
196
12925.29
213
0.10
165
28449.99
142
14037
161
6583.75
138
00DB
Wakefi
 eld
27.07
66
20157.98
74
0.30
62
30866.56
68
51675
37
25352.00
11
00CU
Walsall
30.14
45
21220.49
48
0.41
32
31276.60
55
58327
27
19553.50
34
00BH
Waltham Forest
33.19
27
24706.47
15
0.42
30
30582.32
73
55713
30
16603.50
50
00BJ
Wandsworth
20.34
144
17276.67
128
0.10
159
27534.08
166
43071
49
15727.00
54
35UG
Wansbeck
29.89
46
21445.70
46
0.37
45
31380.75
50
11637
205
6155.50
151
00EU
Warrington
17.89
165
13434.78
202
0.15
122
30114.82
92
22205
100
11088.75
79
44UF
Warwick
11.97
262
10115.22
264
0.01
256
22555.00
253
11602
206
4804.00
201
26UK
Watford
15.81
203
13732.03
193
0.03
212
24706.19
212
9637
252
3424.50
275
42UH
Waveney
22.32
114
17809.36
116
0.16
118
30179.41
86
18876
120
7591.25
121
43UL
Waverley
6.86
348
4981.59
348
0.00
309
15886.12
340
7697
291
2911.50
298
21UH
Wealden
10.86
284
9078.73
285
0.01
257
21082.37
285
12205
195
4249.00
223
20UJ
Wear Valley
31.85
33
23059.45
26
0.36
50
31542.11
42
13311
176
6021.00
156
34UH
Wellingborough
17.79
168
14311.41
179
0.11
149
28080.27
153
9788
245
3639.50
258
26UL
Welwyn Hatfi
 eld
14.18
231
12319.19
225
0.02
239
23592.86
239
10695
223
3984.25
235
00MB
West Berkshire
8.19
330
6344.10
329
0.00
298
17139.94
328
10796
221
4036.75
234
18UL
West Devon
17.08
181
15557.44
159
0.00
296
21923.41
270
5520
323
2093.75
327
19UH
West Dorset
15.51
210
14149.52
181
0.01
253
22383.79
257
9736
249
3628.00
259
30UP
West Lancashire
20.40
141
15715.05
156
0.16
117
30389.21
80
16180
141
7452.25
125
32UH
West Lindsey
16.75
185
13911.35
188
0.08
176
27900.52
158
10128
239
4420.50
217
38UF
West Oxfordshire
6.67
349
4711.77
349
0.00
309
14045.85
349
6520
311
2250.00
318
40UF
West Somerset
23.16
106
20421.79
64
0.05
191
25493.74
203
5181
330
1916.00
335
46UF
West Wiltshire
11.24
278
9179.56
282
0.02
240
23542.68
240
12177
196
4465.25
213
00BK
Westminster
26.30
72
20349.68
67
0.26
79
30765.52
69
39703
57
14743.25
60
19UJ
Weymouth and 
Portland
Rank of 
Employment 
Scale
Employment 
Scale
Rank of 
Income 
Scale
Income 
Scale
Rank of Local 
Concentration
Local 
Concentration
Extent Rank 
of 
Extent
Rank of 
Average 
Rank
Average 
Rank
Rank of 
Average 
Score
8.51
323
6651.45
322
0.00
309
19476.82
312
10263
234
3721.00
255
LA 
CODE
LA NAME
Average 
Score
00BW
Wigan
26.91
67
19870.36
80
0.30
63
31323.19
53
48880
41
27295.75
9
24UP
Winchester
7.16
342
5292.87
340
0.00
309
16786.62
335
7564
293
2936.00
296
00ME
Windsor and 
Maidenhead
00CB
Wirral
27.90
60
18899.92
95
0.32
59
32088.94
14
60481
21
27359.25
8
43UM
Woking
8.70
321
6577.86
326
0.02
250
21047.45
286
7533
294
2673.00
307
00MF
Wokingham
5.36
353
3385.03
353
0.00
309
15139.78
343
7676
292
3241.75
286
00CW
Wolverhampton
33.02
28
23007.18
28
0.47
22
31514.19
44
57550
29
20747.50
30
47UE
Worcester
18.03
162
14079.68
185
0.14
130
29374.08
121
12061
200
4861.25
196
45UH
Worthing
17.48
172
14683.96
173
0.08
174
27037.80
174
11577
207
4666.50
208
47UF
Wychavon
11.99
261
10234.70
261
0.01
259
21830.71
272
10692
224
4366.75
221
11UF
Wycombe
10.65
291
8656.70
292
0.01
251
22838.29
249
16526
137
5105.75
189
30UQ
Wyre
17.70
170
14149.00
182
0.13
139
29598.48
117
13633
167
5973.50
157
47UG
Wyre Forest
19.09
154
15481.01
161
0.12
147
28275.13
148
13215
178
5483.50
177
00FF York
13.40
242
10758.70
251
0.07
182
26679.74
179
17485
127
7661.25
120

## References

Alcock, P. (1997), *Understanding Poverty* (Macmillan, Basingstoke).

Atkinson, A. B., (1998), 'Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment', in A. B. 

Atkinson and J. Hills (eds.) *Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity* (London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion), pp1–20. Blane, D. and Drever, F. (1998), 'Inequality among men in standardised years of potential life lost, 1970–93.' BMJ 317 (7153) pp255–260.

Gordon, D. *et al*, (2000), *Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain* (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York). Noble, M., Smith, G.A.N., Penhale, B., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Owen, T. and Lloyd, M. (2000b), Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the Small Area Level: The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (DETR, Regeneration Research Summary, Number 37, 2000).

Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Smith, G.A.N., McLennan, D., Anttila, C., Barnes, H., Mokhtar, C., Noble, S., Gardner, J., Braswell, S., Covizzi, I. and Lloyd, M. (2004), The English Indices of Deprivation 2004, Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.

Nolan, B. and Whelan, C. (1996), *Resources, Deprivation and Poverty* (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Townsend, P. (1987), 'Deprivation', *Journal of Social Policy*, Vol. 16, Part 2, pp125–146.

Townsend, P. (1979), *Poverty in the United Kingdom* (Penguin).