THE EALING INDICES OF DEPRIVATION 2010
1
Contents Page
Summary 3 Ealing and the Indices of Deprivation 5 What are the Indices of Deprivation? 7 Overall IMD 2010 10 Deprivation Domains 11 Main Changes from 2007 16 Appendix I – Measuring the Domains 21 Appendix II – Rank Score Maps 2010 24 Appendix III – Increased relative deprivation changes since 2007 29 Sources 34
2
1. Summary
The new Indices of Deprivation 2010 (ID 2010) were published in March 2011, updating and replacing the 2007 version. The ID 2010 is again analysed by Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) rather than ward. The seven SOA level domains used relate to:
• Income Deprivation; • Employment Deprivation; • Health Deprivation and Disability; • Education, Skills and Training Deprivation; • Barriers to Housing, and Services; • Living Environment; and • Crime
Combined together, these produce the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 (IMD 2010). Three of the domains (Education, Skills and Training; Barriers to Housing and Services; and Living Environment) comprise of sub-domains – which are Children and Young People, Skills, Indoors, Outdoors, Housing Barriers and Wider Barriers.
Two supplementary indices - the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) - which are subsets of the Income Domain are also produced.
Although the main analysis is by LSOA, a number of Local Authority summary measures based on the IMD 2010 and Income and Employment domains are also produced.
Key Findings
England – Overall Picture
Table 1.1 The most deprived 10% LSOA by region 2007 -2010
% of Region Total Most Deprived in most Most Deprived % of Region in Number of 10% LSOAs deprived 10% 10% LSOAs most deprived Region LSOAs (2007) (2007) (2010) 10% (2010) East Midlands 2732 198 7.2% 201 7.4% East of England 3550 83 2.3% 99 2.8% London 4765 482 10.1% 402 8.4% North East 1656 294 17.8% 281 17.0% North West 4459 911 20.4% 900 20.2% South East 5319 95 1.8% 124 2.3% South West 3226 113 3.5% 121 3.8% West Midlands 3482 521 15.0% 557 16.0% Yorkshire and The Humber 3293 551 16.7% 563 17.1% Total 32482 3248 10.0% 3248 10.0%
3
Since 2007, the number of 10% most deprived LSOAs that are within London has fallen from 482 to 402. Currently 8.4% of LSOAs in London will be among the 10% most deprived in the country.
London – Overall Picture
Table 1.2 The most deprived 10% LSOA by London Boroughs
Number of LSOAs (10% most London Boroughs deprived) Barking and Dagenham 11 Brent 24 Bromley 5 Camden 3 City of Westminster 12 Croydon 9 Ealing 13 Enfield 19 Greenwich 25 Hackney 57 Hammersmith and Fulham 4 Haringey 42 Havering 2 Hillingdon 1 Hounslow 1 Islington 19 Kensington and Chelsea 9 Lambeth 8 Lewisham 5 Newham 50 Redbridge 1 Southwark 4 Tower Hamlets 52 Waltham Forest 24 Wandsworth 2 Total 402
Of the 402 London LSOAs that are in the most deprived 10%, 13 are within the Borough of Ealing. Bexley, Harrow, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton, Richmond and Sutton contain no LSOAs that are among the 10% most deprived.
Ealing – Overall Picture
England has 32,482 LSOAs, 195 of which are located within Ealing. LSOAs have a population of between 1,000 and 2,000 compared with ward areas which are much larger (population of between 800 up to 35,000). LSOAs allow for better comparison because they are sizes more consistently and are not be subject to frequent boundary changes.
4 The ranking of LSOAs in the borough range from 763 (where 1 is England’s most deprived LSOA) in Dormer’s Wells ward to 27869 in Hanger Hill.
2. Ealing and the Indices of Depravation 2010
The table below indicates Ealing’s position against the summary IMD measures. A comparison with scores from the 2007 indices has also been included.
Table 2.1 Income and Employment Deprivation in West London
Average Average Local Income 1 = most deprived, 326 = score 2010 rank 2010 Extent 2010 concentration 2010 Employment least deprived (2007) (2007) (2007) 2010 (2007) (2007) 2010 (2007) Brent 35 (53) 24 (30) 53 (74) 60 (72) 20 (19) 42 (32) Ealing 80 (84) 61 (75) 98 (91) 113 (116) 23 (22) 40 (35) Hammersmith and Fulham 55 (59) 31 (38) 71 (72) 127 (113) 76 (65) 80 (72) Harrow 194 (205) 184 (196) 212 (218) 210 (211) 71 (69) 103 (85) Hillingdon 138 (157) 130 (153) 163 (183) 171 (188) 61 (59) 82 (71) Hounslow 118 (105) 92 (83) 156 (136) 165 (155) 55 (53) 76 (69)
With exception of Extent, Income and Employment, Ealing’s ranking in terms of relative depravation has deteriorated. Other Local Authorities in the West London Alliance have also seen improvement within the Income and Employment domains.
Ealing levels of extent have improved from 91st place in 2007 to 98th. This indicates that proportion of authority’s population living in the most deprived LSOAs in that country has decreased since 2007. This is only true for one other borough (Hounslow) in the West London Alliance.
Overall within West London Alliance, Ealing is the third most deprived local authority behind Brent and Hammersmith and Fulham.
Average Rank for Ealing LSOAs in 2004, 2007 and 2010
Table 2.2 Ealing LSOA ranking 2004-2010
Barriers Index of to Multiple Health Education Housing Deprivation deprivation & skills and & Living (IMD) Income Employment disability Training Services Crime Environment 2004 13,345 12,474 16,173 16,287 21,165 7,136 10,561 9,583 2007 12,435 11,873 15,276 15,706 22,361 5,444 10,986 7,943 2010 12,522 11,896 16,288 16,798 22,076 4,117 10,205 8,639
Looking at the average rank for Ealing LSOAs from 2004 to 2010 (Table 2.2), it is clear that Ealing is relatively more deprived now than in 2004 but not as deprived as it was in 2007. This pattern is repeated across the Income and Living Environment Domains. In the Employment and Health domains, Ealing LSOAs are less deprived now than in both 2004 and 2007. It is worth nothing that deprivation in the Barriers to
5 Housing and Services domain has been deteriorating since 2004 and remains the domain with the lowest (most deprived) average rank.
Range of Multiple Deprivation within Wards
Figure 2.3 Range of Multiple Deprivation in Ealing Wards
Range of Multiple Deprivation Within Wards (Ealing)
Dormers Wells
Norwood Green
Cleveland
Northolt West End
Greenford Broadway
Southall Broadway
Elthorne
Acton Central
South Acton
Northolt Mandeville
Walpole
Southall Green
East Acton
Hobbayne
Perivale
North Greenford
Greenford Green
Ealing Common
Lady Margaret
Southfield
Ealing Broadway
Hanger Hill
Northfield
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Range of LSOA deprivation rankings within ward where 1 is most deprived nationally and 32,428 is least deprived nationally
The above chart shows the range of deprivation within Ealing wards. Dormers Wells and Northfield occupy either end of the spectrum of deprivation but Figure 2.3 clearly shows that least deprived LSOA is in Hanger Hill. Cleveland and Walpole wards contain the widest range between the most and least deprived LSOAs.
6
3. What are the Indices of Deprivation?
What are the Indices of Deprivation?
The Indices of Deprivation 2010 (ID 2010) are a relative ranking of LSOAs across England showing which areas are the most deprived on a number of different measures. The new ID 2010 is based upon the approach, structure and methodology of the previous ID 2007.
The ID 2010 is based on 7 domains or areas of deprivation which are combined to form the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 (IMD 2010). The 7 domains relate to income, employment, education, skills and training, health, crime, living environment and barriers to housing and services. The Indices are the most comprehensive picture of multiple deprivation at a small area and is used extensively by government and partners to plan and target their interventions at the most deprived neighbourhoods.
Spatial Scale and data time point
As has been indicated, the IMD 2010 and component domains have been developed at Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level. Deprivation has been measured at the LSOA level since the ID 2004. LSOAs are homogenous small areas of relatively even size containing approximately 1,500 people.
The objective has always been to develop the Index of Multiple Deprivation and supplementary indices at as small a spatial level as is possible to ensure that pockets of deprivation are not overlooked. LSOAs are an improvement on the ward-based geography used in the ID 2000 which had certain recognised weaknesses. The two principal requirements for a geography of deprivation are that areas must be of relatively equal population size, and their boundaries must be consistent over time. The main function of electoral wards is for the election of local councillors, and for this reason their boundaries are regularly adjusted following population change to ensure that each local authority has similar ratios of elector to councillor. Over time substantial revision is therefore made to the ward geography which undermines the geographical consistency of wards and increases the likelihood that changes seen in an area do not identify ‘real’ change but simply reflect amendments to the boundary system
The indicators need to be as up-to-date as possible. In most cases, the indicators in the IMD 2010 relate to 2008. A later time point would have been desirable but 2009 data for many indicators were not available during the period of index construction and small area denominators for any date later than 2008 were also not available at that time. The most recent time point that could be used was therefore 2008. As with previous Indices, the IMD 2010 only used Census data when alternative data from administrative sources were not available. Three such indicators were derived from the 2001 Census – adult skill levels in the Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, household overcrowding in the Barriers to Housing and Services Domain and houses without central heating in the Living Environment Deprivation Domain.
7 Local Authority Level information
The ID 2010 gives summary information at a Local Authority level and ranks Local Authorities according to their relative position from 1 being the most deprived to 326 the least deprived. These summary measures are based upon the Index of Multiple Deprivation, itself a combination of the seven individual domains with the exception of the income and employment domains. The summary measures available at LA level are:
Table 3.1 IMD 2010 Local Authority Information
Average of scores • Population weighted average of the combined scores for the LSOAs in the LA • Describes the whole LA taking into account the full range of LSOAs scores including ‘extreme’ scores Average rank of ranks • Population weighted average of the combined ranks for the LSOAs in the LA • Describes the whole district including both deprived and less deprived SOAs Local Concentration • Population weighted average of the ranks of a LA’s most deprived LSOAs that contain exactly 10% of the district’s population • This measures where our most deprived LSOAs fall in national ranking Extent • Proportion of a LA’s population living in the most deprived LSOAs in the country • This describes how widespread high levels of Deprivation are in the Borough Income • Measures the number of people in the Borough who are income deprived Employment • Measures the number of people who are employment deprived
Seven Domains of Deprivation
The individual domains which make up the IMD 2010 are shown below with their relative weightings. Income and Employment are seen as the most important domains reflecting the research evidence and the rigour of the data involved. These weightings have been in use since 2004
Table 3.2 Seven Domains of Deprivation
Domains Purpose Domain Weight Income To capture the proportion of the population experiencing income 22.5% deprivation in the area. This domain includes an index of Income Deprivation affecting Children and an index of Income Deprivation affecting Older People. Employment This measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary 22.5% exclusion of the working age population from the world of work. Health This identifies areas with relatively high rates of people who die 13.5% deprivation & prematurely or whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or Disability disabled across the whole population. Education, Skills The indicators fall into two sub domains – one relating to education 13.5% & Training deprivation for children or young people and one relating to lack of skills and qualifications among the working age adult population.
8 Barriers to The indicators fall into 2 sub domains – geographical barriers which 9.3% Housing & relates to the distance to key services and wider barriers which Services includes issues relating to access to housing (affordability and overcrowding). Living This domain comprises 2 sub domains – the indoors living 9.3% Environment environment which measures quality of housing and the outdoors living environment which contains measures of air quality and road traffic accidents Crime This measures the incidence of recorded crime for four major crime 9.3% themes, representing the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small area level.
Comparing the Indices of Deprivation 2007 with the new ID 2010
The new Indices of Deprivation (ID 2010) are largely based on the same approach, structure and methodology that were used to create the previous ID 2007. However some minor changes to methodology have occurred in the Education, Skills and Training domain related to absence rates at secondary school and Key Stage 2 and 3 scores. In the Barriers to Housing and Services a small methodology change has been made to calculate Housing affordability which is more accurate.
For all other domains, indicators remain unchanged between 2007 and 2010 and therefore any change is likely to reflect real relative change between the two time periods. It is important to remember that the Indices are a relative Index, that is they measure the relative position of areas with each other rather than the absolute level of deprivation.
9 4. Overall IMD 2010
Figure 4.1 Overall Rank of IMD 2010 in Ealing with LBE Assets
10 Figure 4.1 shows the IMD ranking for LSOAs in Ealing with Assets owned by the Council. The darker shades indicate the more deprived areas within the borough. The most deprived areas within the Borough are concentrated largely in the west. It is clear that Southall Green, Norwood Green, Dormers Wells, Northolt North West and areas in South and Central Acton are comparatively more deprived.
5. Domain Deprivation
Income Deprivation
Figure 5.1 Income Deprivation 2010
Figure 5.1 shows Income Deprivation 2010 in the borough. The darker the shade of blue the more income deprived the LSOA. There are some LSOAs within the borough that are among the 10% most income deprived in the country. More particularly there are two LSOAs (one in Dormer’s Wells, One in Cleveland) that are among the 1% most Income deprived in the country.
Employment Deprivation
The map below (Figure 5.2) shows that there are areas of significant Employment Deprivation within Ealing. There are a number of LSOAs that are among the most Employment Deprived in England, the LSOAs in the wards of Cleveland, Dormer’s Wells, Elthorne and Norwood Green are among the 10% most Employment Deprived in England.
11 Figure 5.2 Employment Deprivation 2010
Figure 5.3 Health Deprivation and Disability
12 Health Deprivation and Disability
Based on the measures included in calculating the Health Deprivation and Disability index, Ealing has a relatively healthy population. However significant areas of Health Deprivation exist in LSOAs within Dormer’s Wells, Southall Broadway, Norwood Green, Elthorne, Walpole, Northfield, South Acton and Acton Central (Figure 5.3) LSOAs within Norwood Green and Elthorne are among the 10% most Health Deprived in the country.
Education, Skills and Training Deprivation
There are no LSOAs in Ealing that are among the 10% most deprived in the England for the Education, Skills and Training Domain. Broadly the majority of LSOAs in Ealing fall within the 50% least deprived. Looking at Figure 5.4, it is clear that western part of the borough is more educational deprived than remaining part of the borough. However there are LSOAs in Northolt West End, Northolt Mandeville, Dormer’s Wells, Greenford Broadway and North Greenford that fall under the 25% most deprived for education in England.
Figure 5.4 Education, Skills and Training Deprivation
Crime Deprivation
There are two LSOAs in Ealing (One in Norwood Green, One in Southall Broadway) that are in the 1% most Crime Deprived. This domain measures the incidences of four crime themes which represents the occurrence of material and personal victimisation.
13
Figure 5.5 Crime Deprivation
Further as can be seen from Figure 5.5, there are significant areas of Crime Deprivation stretching through the central belt of the borough and moving both North (Northolt West End, Northolt Mandeville) and South (Southall Green, Norwood Green). There is only one LSOA in Ealing (Hanger Hill ward) that is within the 25% least crime deprived in England.
Living Environment Deprivation
Figure 5.6 Living Environment Deprivation
14 This domain measures the indoor and outdoor living environment. It is clear that there are a number of LSOAs that are environmental deprived with areas in Acton Central, Ealing Common, Northolt Mandeville, East and South Acton, Walpole, Ealing Broadway, Dormer’s Wells and Cleveland among the 10% most deprived in England. Specifically a LSOA in Northolt Mandeville is among the 1% most deprived in the Country. The geographical locations of environmentally deprived areas are in common with the boroughs main roads such as A40, A406 and A4020.
15 6. Main Changes from 2007
Given that the methodology between IMD 2007 and IMD 2010 were very similar it has been possible to analyse differences between the two time periods. The focus of this analysis has been on the IMD scores and domains with the largest weighting, i.e .Income, Employment, Health and Education.
IMD Change
Figure 6.1 shows the IMD rank changes between2007 and 2010 where the rankings of LSOAs have fallen – they have become relatively more deprived
Figure 6.1 IMD rank changes between 2007 and 2010
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
It is clear that there are a number of areas in the borough that have become more deprived over that last few years. With the exception of Perivale and South Acton, every ward in the borough has at least one LSOA that has become relatively more deprived since 2007. In Cleveland ward all but one LSOA has become more deprived since the last IMD was published.
16 Income Change
Similar to the IMD change above, there are a number of areas that have become relatively more deprived within the Income Domain since 2007 (Figure 6.2). In this instance every LSOA in Greenford Broadway has become more deprived.
Figure 6.2 Income rank change between 2007 and 2010
Hanger Hill
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Northolt Mandeville Greenford Broadway North Greenford
East Acton Hanger Greenford Green Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Northolt West End Hobbayne Perivale Greenford Broadway Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells East Acton Southall Broadway Cleveland Lady Margaret Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Southall Green Dormer’s Wells Southfield Northfield Southall Broadway Acton Central Elthorne Walpole Ealing South Acton Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
All but one LSOA in Norwood Green has become relatively more income deprived since 2007. However in Southall Broadway every LSOA has become relatively more prosperous over the same period.
Employment Change
Given the current economic landscape, it is perhaps not surprising that a number of LSOAs within the borough have become more deprived on the Income Domain (see Figure 6.2) and on the Employment Domain (Figure 6.3). One of the indicators under that Domain measures economic deprivation is based on the number of people receiving Job Seekers Allowance which was increasing in 2008 – the year of measure.
17 Figure 6.3 Employment rank change between 2007 and 2010
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
In general terms, the central areas of the borough have become more employment deprived. Wards such as North Greenford, Lady Margaret, South Acton and Perivale have no LSOAs that have become more employment deprived since 2007 compared to Ealing Broadway where all but one LSOA has become more employment deprived. If one of the main measures of this domain is levels of Job Seekers Allowance, it might be reasonable to suggest that areas that have seen an increase in unemployment had higher rates of employment to begin with therefore were likely to become relatively more employment deprived.
18 Health and Disability Change
Figure 6.4 Health and Disability rank change between 2007 and 2010
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
All the LSOAs in Dormer’s Wells, Southall Broadway and Southall Green improved their relative Health and Disability deprivation ranking since 2007. While in Cleveland, Ealing Broadway, Elthorne and Walpole, all but one LSOA in the respective wards were relatively more health deprived over the same time period. It is important to recognise that in the context of national results, the borough is less health deprived than in 2007. It is the case, generally, that some LSOAs in Ealing are more health deprived but not on the same scale as the rest of the country.
Education Change
While the LSOAs that have become more education deprived are spread throughout the borough, there are some wards such as Norwood Green and Cleveland where the number of LSOAs with increased levels of education deprivation are relatively few.
19 Figure 6.5 Education rank change between 2007 and 2010
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
20 Appendix I – Measuring the Domains
Income Deprivation Domain
This domain measures the proportion of the population in an area experiencing deprivation related to low income. A combined count of income deprived individuals per LSOA is calculated by summing the following five indicators:
• Adults and children in Income Support families • Adults and children in Income-Based Jobseeker’s Allowance families • Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) families • Adults and children in Child Tax Credit families (who are not in receipt of Income Support, Income-Based Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefits) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs • Asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both.
Employment Deprivation Domain
This domain measures employment deprivation in an area conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working age population from the labour market. A combined count of employment deprived individuals per LSOA is calculated by summing the following seven indicators:
• Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (both Contributory and Income-Based) women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, averaged over 4 quarters • Claimants of Incapacity Benefit women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, averaged over 4 quarters • Claimants of Severe Disablement Allowance women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64, averaged over 4 quarters • Claimants of Employment Support Allowance women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-644 • Participants in New Deal for the 18-24s who are not in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, averaged over 4 quarters • Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, averaged over 4 quarters • Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents (after initial interview) aged over 18, averaged over 4 quarters.
Health Deprivation and Disability Domain
This domain measures premature death and the impairment of quality of life by poor health. It considers both physical and mental health. The domain measures morbidity, disability and premature mortality but not aspects of behaviour or environment that may be predictive of future health deprivation. Four indicators are used to calculate this domain:
• Years of Potential Life Lost – an age and sex standardised measure of premature death
21 • Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio – an age and sex standardised measure of morbidity and disability • Measures of acute morbidity – an age and sex standardised rate of emergency admissions to hospital • Proportion of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders – a modelled indicator for the proportion of adults suffering from mood and anxiety disorders.
Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain
This domain measures the extent of deprivation in terms of education, skills and training in an area. The indicators are structured into two sub-domains: one relating to children and young people and one relating to adult skills. These two sub-domains are designed to reflect the ‘flow’ and ‘stock’ of educational disadvantage within an area respectively. Seven indicators are used to calculate this domain:
Sub-domain: Children/young people
• Average points score of pupils taking English, Maths and Science Key Stage 2 exams • Average points score of pupils taking English, Maths and Science Key Stage 3 exams • Average capped points score of pupils taking Key Stage 4 (GCSE or equivalent) exams • Proportion of young people not staying on in school or non-advanced education above age 16 • Secondary school absence rate – the proportion of authorised and unauthorised absences from secondary school • Proportion of those aged under 21 not entering Higher Education.
Sub-domain: Skills
• Proportion of adults aged 25-54 with no or low qualifications.
Barriers to Housing and Services Domain
This domain measures the physical and financial accessibility of housing and key local services. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: ‘geographical barriers’, which relate to the physical proximity of local services, and ‘wider barriers’ which includes issues relating to access to housing such as affordability. Seven indicators are combined to calculate this domain:
Sub-domain: Wider barriers
• Household overcrowding – the proportion of households within an LSOA which are judged to have insufficient space to meet the household’s needs • Homelessness – the rate of acceptances for housing assistance under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act (at local authority district level) • Difficulty of access to owner-occupation (local authority district level) – proportion of households aged under 35 whose income means they are unable to afford to enter owner occupation.
22
Sub-domain: Geographical barriers
• Road distance to a GP surgery • Road distance to a supermarket or convenience store • Road distance to a primary school • Road distance to a Post Office.
Crime Domain
This domain measures the rate of recorded crime in an area for four major crime types representing the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small area level.
• Violence – number of reported violent crimes (19 reported crime types) per 1000 at risk population • Burglary – number of reported burglaries (4 reported crime types) per 1000 at risk population • Theft – number of reported thefts (5 reported crime types) per 1000 at risk population • Criminal damage – number of reported crimes (11 reported crime types) per 1000 at risk population.
Living Environment Deprivation Domain
This domain measures the quality of individuals’ immediate surroundings both within and outside the home. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: the ‘indoors’ living environment, which measures the quality of housing, and the ‘outdoors’ living environment which contains two measures relating to air quality and road traffic accidents. Four indicators are combined to calculate this domain:
Sub-domain: The indoors living environment
• Social and private housing in poor condition • Houses without central heating.
Sub-domain: The outdoors living environment
• Air quality • Road traffic accidents.
Combining the Domains
Each domain was constructed separately, from the component indicators, and each LSOA was assigned a domain score representing the combination of these indicators and then ranked according to this domain score. The domain ranks were then transformed to the exponential distribution and combined into the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation.
23 Appendix II – Rank Score Maps 2010
IMD Rank Score 2010
Income Deprivation Rank Score 2010
24
Income Deprivation Affecting Children Rank Score 2010
Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Rank Score 2010
25
Employment Deprivation Rank Score 2010
Health Deprivation and Disability Rank Score 2010
26
Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Rank Score 2010
Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation Rank Score 2010
27 Crime Deprivation Rank Score 2010
Living Environment Deprivation Rank Score 2010
28 Appendix III – Increased relative deprivation changes since 2007
IMD LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
Income Deprivation LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
29 Income Deprivation Affecting Children LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
Income Deprivation Affecting Older People LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
30 Employment Deprivation LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
Health Deprivation and Disability LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
31 Education, Skills and Training Deprivation LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
32 Crime Deprivation LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
Living Environment Deprivation LSOAs worse since 2007
Northolt Mandeville North Greenford
Greenford Green
Northolt West Perivale Greenford Broadway
East Acton Hanger Cleveland Hill Lady Margaret
Hobbayne Ealing Broadway Acton Central Dormer’s Wells Southall Broadway Walpole Ealing South Acton Elthorne Common Norwood Green Southall Green Southfield Northfield
33 Sources http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010te chnicalreport http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010g uidance
34