SEC - Movement up/down IMD score 2004/2007

Map Type: GMapCreator tile layer

Data location: Unknown

Uploaded by: steven morgan

Created: 29/01/2009 12:37:41. Viewed 937 times. Last Viewed: 03/05/2026 03:02:49

Keywords: IMD score movement

Brief Description

Differences and comparisons between the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) between IMD 2004 and IMD 2007 in the South East Strategic Health Authority

Detailed Information

Differences and comparisons between the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) between IMD 2004 and IMD 2007

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Map displays 10% movement in ranking up or down the Index of deprivation score.

Indicator use: To identify areas that have become more deprived

Mapped at Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)

IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation

Red - More than 10 percent deprived compared to 2004 IMD score

Yellow - Less than 10 percent change

Green - More than 10 percent less deprived compared to the 2004 IMD score

(C) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 100020290 (DH PGA) 2008

South East Public Health Observatory (SEPHO) Additional Notes -

Introduction

The Indices of Multiple deprivation comprise eight domains, seven specific to particular causes of potential deprivation - Income, Employment, Health Deprivation and Disability, Education Skills and Training, Crime and Living Environment, and the eighth an overall score combining the other seven.

The intention of this document is to provide a brief guide to making comparisons between IMD 2004 and IMD 2007. The section IMD between changes 2004-2007 provides a description of what changes there have been, and what may, and may not be compared. The section Possible methods of comparison for IMD 2004 and 2007 provides some suggestions for how comparison may be done. There is also a section listing official documents associated with the IMD 2007.

IMD changes between 2004-2007

The aim of IMD 2007 was to make it comparable with 2004 as far as possible. Kate Wilkinson, Research Officer for the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC), the organisation which produced the IMD indices for 2007, gave the following summary of the differences between IMD 2004 and IMD 2007 in her presentation to SEPHIG, Indices of Deprivation Measuring change between ID2004 and ID2007, (September 2008).

• The underlying methodology is identical • The weights for combining domains, used to create the overall score, are unchanged • The weights for combining indicators may change (slightly) if derived using factor analysis • The data used to create underlying indicators and / or methods used to create underlying indicators has changed in some cases.

The following is based on Kate’s presentation with some additional commentary

Details of changes by domain

Income Although the definition of income deprivation remains identical - “comprehensive, non-overlapping counts of both in-work and out-of-work means-tested benefits”, this domain has undergone the largest change. This is because of adjustments made as a result of changes in the structure of benefit and tax credits (Pension Credit (PC), Working Tax Credit (WTC), and Child Tax CTC). This is unlikely to have caused change in the underlying rank of the scores. It should be noted, however, that those who are better at claiming benefits will push the rate up, thereby increasing apparent deprivation. It is not possible to adjust for this potential bias.

Employment The method of creating unemployment claimant counts has improved to completely remove the possibility of double counting. This has had very little effect on actual numbers.

Health No changes. Factor analysis has been used to create weight to combine indicators so these will differ slightly between 2004 and 2007.

Education The methodology for creating Key Stage indicators has improved because the method of measuring attainment is now more reliable. This has reduced the number of tied ranks. The adult skills sub-domain has remained the same since 2004 as it is not possible to update it. Factor analysis has been used to create weights to combine indicators, which will cause these to differ slightly.

Barriers No changes. Note that this domain has been shown to be effective in identifying rural deprivation – see ‘State of the Countryside Update 5: Rural analysis of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007’ http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/publications/stateofthecountrysideupdate5ruralanalysisoftheindexofmultipledeprivation2007 (?)

Crime No changes.

Living Environment No changes. The central heating indicator is identical.

Other Factors 2001 population estimates have been revised since 2004. The impact is likely to be very small.

How to measure change between IMD 2004 and IMD 2007

• IMD scores and domain scores are not stable across time and should not be compared • However, ranks of scores can be compared for domains and IMD – e.g. changes in decile or quintile of rank, or percentage change in rank. These changes are unlikely to be the result of methodological changes. • Changes in underlying indicators between 2004 and 2007 are small – it is unlikely that these would result in significant change in the rank of a domain score or final IMD score • All change is relative – an area may increase or decrease rank without any actual change occurring • The smaller the area of analysis the more likely that change will be observed i.e. comparing national rankings with regional rankings

Identifying reasons for change

Change in the rank of an IMD score for an area may occur for many reasons:

• Methodological changes between indices (unlikely but possible) • Actual change in level of deprivation in that area compared to other areas • No change in level of deprivation in the area but relative position changes • IMD ranks and domain ranks do not tell us about absolute change only relative change • Shrinkage – In some small areas numbers of numerators and denominators are correspondingly small, and therefore potentially unreliable. Shrinkage is a statistical technique which adjusts indicators for small areas by borrowing strength from a more reliable score e.g. a district average. There is concern that shrinkage may mask very localised sites of deprivation within affluent areas. However, the influence of any one indicator is fairly minimal. Discuss Jo.

Uncovering the reasons behind the change is not always straight forward

• Look at change of ranks on individual domains • Look at change in underlying indicators – shrunk indicator data published on CLG website (and for previous years some indicators available on http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/). • Again best to look at change in ranks as indicator scores may not be comparable if methodology has changed. • Change in individual indicators may point to absolute change IF the indicators are identical in methodology and underlying data, as we have seen this is not always the case. • Local knowledge is key to understanding change

Methods of comparison for IMD 2004 and 2007 – working examples

The following examples have been provided by personal communication and by searching the internet. Except for the SEPHO presentation SEPHO cannot vouch for the validity of the methods used. Further detail would need to be obtained by the originator of the analysis.

• Berkshire Shared Services - Sid Beauchant and Caroline Ridler For each Domain: The top ten SOAs were ranked as most deprived in Berkshire in 2004 and the number of ranks movement up or down in 2007, also ten SOAs ranked as most deprived in Berkshire in 2007 with number of ranks movement up or down since 2004. RAG colour coding was used to highlight whether better, worse or the same. The Berkshire SOAs were also grouped into quintiles by their 2007 IMD rank, the difference between the 2004 and 2007 ranks calculated, and from that derived an average movement for each quintile.

• Bolton LA has produced tables and maps comparing the number of their LSOAs ranked in the most deprived 5%, 10% etc. between 2004 and 2008 www.bolton.gov.uk/pls/portal92/docs/55428.PDF

• Dr Muki Haklay at UCL has done a calculation showing pluses and minuses for the whole of England using percentile points. http://homepages.ge.ucl.ac.uk/~mhaklay/pdf/IMD20042007.pdf Contact details http://homepages.ge.ucl.ac.uk/~mhaklay/contact.htm

• Newcastle upon Tyne. Report makes comparison between LAs in 2004 and 2007 and number of Newcastle LSOAs in the best/worst 10%, 15% etc. www.newcastle.gov.uk/wwwfileroot/cxo/performance/IMD2007.pdf

• Ribble Valley LA. Compares rank at LA level between 2004 and 2007. www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads/IMD_2007.pdf

• The Royal Borough of Kensington has produced a report which contains a chart showing the number of ranks that each London LA has gone up and down by between 2004 and 2007. www.rbkc.gov.uk/kcpartnership/general/kcp_indices_rbkc.pdf

The borough has produced a map described as a ‘Change in percentage points (pp) in rank of average score (as a % of all LSOA's in England)’ http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/kcpartnership/general/kcp_indices_map2.pdf

• SEPHO The Indices of Deprivation: Comparison of 2004 and 2007 Presentation Shows South East LSOAs change in IMD ranking by decile and by +/- 10% or more. http://www.sepho.org.uk/viewResource.aspx?id=11439

• A company called Sirius 7 has produced a freebee map of England (it does have a typo) grouping LAs by the size of the number of ranks by which they had gone up or down. http://www.sirius7.co.uk/downloads/CustomerMaps/IMD_by_District/Change_2007_v_2004.pdf

• Suffolk County Council. Report with maps showing LSOAs with better and worse ranking between 2004 and 2007. http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/Environment/FactsAndFigures/IndexofMultipleDeprivation.htm

• West Midland Regional Observatory. Maps showing changes between 2004 and 2007 for the West Midlands using both quintiles and deciles. http://www.wmro.org/standardTemplate.aspx/Home/OurResearch/PlaceEnvironment/IndicesofDeprivation2007?strHiLite=IMD

Official documentation for IMD 2007

Communities and Local Government web page for IMD 2007 ‘Communities and neighbourhoods: Indices of Deprivation 2007’. http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/

Guidance on use of IMD 2007 ‘Using the English Indices of Deprivation 2007: Guidance’ http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/doc/615986.doc

The full report on the IMD 2007, ‘The English Indices of Deprivation 2007’ http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/733520.pdf

The summary report for the IMD 2007, ‘The English Indices of Deprivation 2007: Summary’ http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/576659.pdf

Other useful measures

Economic Deprivation Index (EDI) and Children’s Economic Deprivation Index (CIDI) soon to be published

• EDI contains an Income and Employment domain:

• Income Deprivation Domain – proportion of people under 60 living in households receiving one of two out-of-work means-tested benefits: Income Support or income-based Job Seeker’s Allowance • Employment Deprivation Domain – proportion of people of working age claiming one of three out-of-work benefits: Job Seeker’s Allowance (income or contributions based), Severe Disablement Allowance or Incapacity Benefit

• CIDI measures children living in households in receipt of the benefits described above

 Domains shrunk, exponentially transformed and combined with equal weights

EDI and CIDI use consistent series of population estimates. Methodology identical in each year so changes in absolute and relative deprivation can be accurately measured. EDI / CIDI have been produced for every year 1999-2005 and will continue to be updated each year. As they have 0.95 correlation with IMD they provide a good proxy for multiple deprivation.

Isobel Perry/Steven Morgan - South East Public Health Observatory (SEPHO)

06/11/2008