Contents

• IMD Overview
• SPD Development
• 2001 Census and Mid Term Review
• Further Information

INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION (IMD)

IMD Overview

• Oxford University used the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation (ILD) as the basis for this more comprehensive study into deprivation in England.
• The study looked at 6 domains for its source data:-
  
  • Income
  • Employment
  • Health
  • Education
  • Housing
  • Access
• Child Poverty also features as a domain, but this is a sub-set of the Income Domain, but has been included to give further insight into deprivation. It deals only with children under 16 years living in deprived households.
• Each ward within a domain was given a score and a ranking. Within a domain individual scores and rankings can be directly compared, but not between domains as the criteria and scale of scoring differ.
• There is also an 'All' worksheet which shows all scores and rankings by ward for each domain as well as the IMD.
• IMD score and ranking is a calculation made which factors in all of the disparities in the scoring criteria for each individual domain and produces figures which can be directly compared with one another.
• 1 is the most deprived ward and 8,414 the least deprived IMD ranking.
• IMD scores and rankings can be compared with each other, but again not directly compared with figures from other domains.
• IMD will give an accurate picture of a wards standing against the other 8,414 wards across England. However if an IMD ranking seems at odds with the understanding of that ward's deprivation levels, it is then beneficial to examine individual domain rankings and scores to find out which indicator is causing the incongruity. This could then give a guide to what may need to be addressed by regeneration strategies (ie if all other domains are average, but access to services is extremely poor then addressing access could significantly raise the wards IMD ranking).
• Each district is also ranked using different set of criteria:-
  
  • Employment scale
  • Income scale
  • Average ward scores
  • Average ward ranks
  • Extent
  • Local concentration
• Extent is based on the proportion of population living in wards which rate within the most deprived 10% of wards in the country.
• Local concentration is the population weighted average of the ranks of a district's most deprived wards that contain exactly 10% of the district's population. It helps to identify "hot spots" of deprivation within a ward.
• The district level figures are ranked with 1 being the most deprived and 354 being the least deprived districts in the country.
• The district and wards rankings however, do not provide the complete picture of deprivation. Many rural areas come out of the rankings as relatively well off, whereas if, for example, the numbers of affluent people retiring to remote communities because of their inaccessibility was factored in, the picture could be quite different. This is one of the decisions to be made when agreeing which indicators to use and whether or not supplementary information should be used to select target communities for Priority 3.

SPD Development

• The UK has had to cut its eligible Objective 2 population across all areas. The North East has fared better than other regions in that it has only suffered a 12% decrease (ie those living in transitional areas).
• The European Commission (EC) also have a per capita formula for the amount of Structural Fund intervention they will permit to the Target Communities Priority. This places constraints on how much money and how many people can be contained within this Priority under the new Objective 2 programme.
• The EC want to see no more than 25% of the eligible Objective 2 population included in the Target Communities measures within the SPD (new Priority 3).
• This 25% limit is to ensure that the finite resources are concentrated on those areas in greatest need so that it can achieve real, positive outcomes within the life of the programme.
• The greater the percentage of people included under Target Communities actions, the more diluted each ward's financial allocation will be. This in turn will restrict what can be usefully achieved and have a negative effect on the overall impact of the Objective 2 intervention.
• If the population coverage for the North East was pegged to this 25% ceiling, it would encompass all of the North East wards ranked between numbers 3 (Thorntree, Middlesbrough) and 446 (Croft, Blyth Valley, Northumberland). The 25% population limit is actually reached within Croft ward.
• In negotiations with the EC on the North East's SPD, the regional partners are attempting to get a 32% population coverage, which could include wards up to and including number 565 (Hendon, Sunderland).
• It is unlikely we will achieve this 32% as all other Objective 2 areas have been held to a maximum of 25% of the eligible population.
• It may be that an alternative tack regional partners may take during negotiations is to agree to the core 25% population coverage for Priority 3 based on IMD rankings, but to enhance it with the 7% of the regions eligible population living in rural wards. Rural deprivation does not show up well under IMD, but provision for the needs of such communities are specifically flagged within the SPD and is a Commission aim.
• Whatever is decided upon, the process by which Priority 3 wards are selected must be logical and transparent as well as being able to be justified to the EC. This will hopefully prevent anomalies occurring in the selection of Targeted Communities as has happened under previous programmes.
• What will happen to those wards which become ineligible for support under the Targeted Communities Priority? Suitable arrangements need to be put in place to ensure that these needy communities are not left high and dry if they are no longer eligible for targeted support. Naturally they can still apply under the main priorities of Objective 2 and all of Objective 3, but the activities under these may not fit well with the organisation's natural work.

2001 Census and Mid Term Review

Further Information