Indices of Indices of Deprivation 2010Deprivation 2010

Overview of the Indices and Data for RotherhamCYPS Voluntary & Community Sector Consortium

Presentation 5th July 2011Elena Hodgson, RMBC Policy Team

Indices ofDeprivation 2010

• Commissioned by CLG• Produced by Oxford University• Updates the previous ID 2007• 7 Domains (38 indicators)• Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)• 2008/09 baseline• SOA Geography (166 in Rotherham)• 6 District Measures - 326 districts (-28)• Health warnings!

ID Domains &Weighting for IMD

Deprivation Domain Weight

Income 22.5%

Employment 22.5%

Health & Disability 13.5%

Education, Skills & Training 13.5%

Barriers to Housing & Services 9.3%

Living Environment 9.3%

Crime 9.3%

Rotherham Deprivationrelative to England

% of Rotherham population within English IMD deciles:

IMD 2004

IMD 2007

IMD 2010

Most Deprived 10% 12% 12% 17%

Most Deprived 20% 33% 32% 33%

Most Deprived 30% 49% 46% 46%

Most Deprived 50% 71% 65% 68%

Relationships with Deprived Areas

% of Rotherham

within English

IMD 2010 deciles

Pop BME Pak DLA CouncilHomes

ASB

Most Deprived 10% 17% 37% 48% 25% 32% 30%

Most Deprived 20% 33% 54% 58% 45% 62% 49%

Most Deprived 30% 46% 67% 71% 60% 78% 63%

Most Deprived 50% 68% 79% 88% 79% 93% 81%

IMD 2004 to 2010 - Rotherham

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

10% MostDeprived

10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 10%Least

DeprivedEnglish SOA Deciles

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

2004

2007

2010

District (2010 rank) 2004 2007 2010 Change

Rotherham (53) 17.8 19.2 16.3 - 1.5

Barnsley (47) 7.9 12.1 14.4 + 6.5

Doncaster (39) 11.3 11.6 12.0 + 0.7

Wigan (65) 15.0 18.9 19.9 + 4.9

St Helens (51) 10.2 13.3 15.6 + 5.4

Wakefield (67) 15.3 18.6 20.6 + 5.3

Stockton (100) 21.2 27.7 30.7 + 9.5

Redcar (48) 12.4 14.1 14.7 + 2.3

Sheffield (56) 16.9 17.8 17.2 + 0.3

District ComparisonChanges in Rank Percentile 2004 - 2010

IMD 2007(Wards shown)

IMD 2010(Wards shown)

Most Deprived SOAsin Top 3% of 32,482 English SOAs

SOA Ward Rank• East Herringthorpe North Valley 230 (+311)• Canklow North Boston Castle 434 (+335)• Eastwood East Rotherham East 641 (+379)• Town Centre Boston Castle 671 (+818)• East Dene East Rotherham East 707 (+349)• Thrybergh South / Chesterhill Valley 736 (+151)• Masbrough Rotherham West 847 (+287)• Ferham Rotherham West 851 (+182)• East Herringthorpe South Valley 920 (+595)

Deprivation by Domain

England: Top 10%

Change07 - 10

Top 20% Top 50%

Health 33% +8% 56% 97%

Education 24% - 4% 41% 74%

Employment 22% + 5% 38% 71%

Income 14% + 1% 30% 61%

Crime 11% + 8% 26% 67%

Environment 3% 0 6% 31%

“Barriers” 0% 0 1% 12%

Deprivation Drivers

• In a national context, Rotherham is most deprived in terms of:

Health & DisabilityEducation, Skills & TrainingEmployment

• Income & Crime deprivation above average• Child poverty most polarised (15 fold)

Health & Disability Domain 2010

Education & Skills Domain 2010

Employment Domain 2010

Crime Domain 2010

Closing the Gap?IMD Quintileswithin Rotherham

AverageScore2004

Average Score2007

AverageScore2010

Change2004-10

Change 2007-10

Most Deprived 20% 49.9 49.1 52.2 + 2.3 +3.1

Most Deprived 20-40% 35.6 34.4 36.4 + 0.8 + 2.0

Average Areas 25.8 23.9 25.1 - 0.7 +1.2

Least Deprived 20-40% 17.7 15.5 16.2 - 1.5 + 0.7

Least Deprived 20% 11.5 10.2 10.4 - 1.1 + 0.2

Rotherham Average 28.2 26.7 28.1 - 0.1 + 1.4

No!

Change 2007 – 10in WNP Target Areas

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

IMD

Sc

ore

IMD 2007

IMD 2010

Key Messages• Deprivation increasing, still Top 20%• Health Deprivation most severe• Improvements in Education but….

• Most deprived areas fared worst• Areas with low deprivation doing best

• New housing has reduced local deprivation scores• Polarised Crime, Health, Education & Employment• 17.6% deprived of income but….

– 23.4% children vs 14.3% working age adults

Policy Challenges

• Regeneration Initiatives– No plans to replace WNF– Mainstream tackling inequalities

• Prioritising Resources:– Closing the Gap / No Community Left Behind?– Past initiatives made little lasting impact– Lessons from Eastwood, Chesterhill & Local Ambition– Building sustainable & attractive communities (where

people want to live)– Joining-up services

• Tackling Ill-health & related issues

Links to Priorities

Strategic Priority(RMBC / LSP)

Relevant Domains

Key Policy Issues or Objectives

Access to Jobs, Training & Qualifications

Employment

Education

Raising adult skill levels

Reducing Long term unemployment

Ensure the best start in life Employment

Education

Health, Income

Reducing child poverty

Multi-agency prevention & early intervention

Providing quality education Education Raising attainment and aspiration in most deprived areas

Care & Support for vulnerable people

Health Support for disabled people

Health Promotion, Preventative care, Mental health

People happy & safe where they live

Crime

Environment

Reducing crime & ASB

Housing condition

Action Plan

• Cascade information within Council & LSP– Influence strategies & priorities– Include findings in service planning– Inform commissioning

• Check against latest data to update trends• Check underlying indicators when published• Include in refreshed publications:

– Community Strategy– JSNA & “Comprehensive Needs Assessment”– LASOS (www.lasos.org.uk)