Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

The English Indices of Deprivation 2010

Stoke-on-Trent - Summary

Table of Contents Introduction – What is multiple deprivation?...... 2

Multiple Deprivation - The Regional Picture ...... 3

Multiple Deprivation - Unitary and Metropolitan Authorities ...... 3

Multiple Deprivation - Local Authority Comparison ...... 4

Comparing IMD2000, ID2004, ID2007 and ID2010 - Persistent Deprivation...... 5

Multiple Deprivation - The Local Picture...... 7 Map: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 Stoke-on-Trent (ID 2007 inset) ...... 8 Differing Domains / Dimensions of Deprivation...... 9 Figure 1 – Deprivation Domains : Comparing Different Aspects of Deprivation ...... 10 Ward Level Deprivation ...... 11 Pre-2011 Boundaries...... 11 Figure 2 – Deprivation Deciles : Pre-2011 Ward Boundaries ...... 13 Map: 2011 Ward Boundaries and Indices and Deprivation 2010...... 14 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks 2010 ...... 15 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (1) ...... 16 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (2) ...... 17 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (3) ...... 18

1 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Introduction – What is multiple deprivation?

The 2010 edition of the English Indices of Deprivation were released by the Communities and Local Government agency on Thursday 24 th March 2011. Full details of the release can be found at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/research/indicesdeprivation/deprivation10/

The Indices of Deprivation 2010 (ID2010) are measures of deprivation for every Super Output Area 1 and local authority area in . The indices combine a total of 38 indicators across seven domains (Income, Employment, Health and Disability, Education, Skills and Training, Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment, and Crime) into a single deprivation score and rank for each area.

ID2010 is based on the same approach, structure and methodology used in 2007 and 2004. These differ from the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 (IMD2000) in two key ways: first, more up-to-date data has been used; and second, new measures have been incorporated as new and improved sources have become available.

The model that underpins ID2010 is based on the idea of distinct domains; or dimensions; of deprivation, that can be recognised and measured separately; these dimensions are experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted in one or more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall ID is conceptualised as a weighted aggregation of these specific dimensions of deprivation.

Each Domain contains a number of indicators. Each indicator is subject to a number of criteria:

• It should be ‘domain specific’;

• Appropriate for the purpose (as direct as possible measures of that form of deprivation); Measure major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a very small number of people or areas);

• Up-to-date and capable of being updated on a regular basis;

• Statistically robust; and

• Available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form.

The following sets out the weightings that were used to combine the Domains into an Index of Multiple Deprivation.

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%

1 Super Output Areas are an aggregation of Census Output Areas, which are modelled upon postcodes. While Census Output Areas equate to approximately 125 households, or 275 persons, Super Output Areas contain c.1,500 persons. There are 825 Census Output Areas for the City of Stoke-on-Trent dating from the 2001 Census, these have subsequently been aggregated into 160 level 1 SOAs.

2 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Multiple Deprivation - The Regional Picture

The following table shows a distinct regional pattern in terms of multiple deprivation:

There is a pronounced North-South divide, with a concentration of ‘most deprived’ districts in London, with a transitional Midlands region containing an element of both ‘most’ and ‘least’ deprived districts.

Number of Districts in the 50 Districts in the 50 Region Districts in Most Deprived in Least Deprived in Region England England Least London 33 12 1 East of England 47 0 10 South East 67 1 29 South West 37 0 1 30 5 2 East Midlands 40 4 5 North West 39 17 1 North East 12 6 0 Yorkshire & Humberside 21 5 1

The following table demonstrates this regional variation in terms of population percentages.

% of the Population living in areas classified in the:-

10% most 20% most 50% least Region deprived deprived deprived London 8.3% 26.0% 33.1% East of England 2.8% 7.5% 65.7% South East 2.3% 7.0% 68.7% South West 3.8% 9.0% 58.6% West Midlands 16.1% 28.1% 42.5% East Midlands 7.2% 16.6% 54.3% North West 20.0% 31.9% 41.1% North East 16.5% 31.9% 35.9% Yorkshire & Humberside 16.9% 27.5% 44.6%

Multiple Deprivation - Unitary and Metropolitan Authorities

Further analysis shows that 30 of the 92 Unitary and Metropolitan districts in England are placed in the 50 most deprived areas on this measure – 17 in the North West region, 6 in the North East, and 5 each in the West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humberside.

A total of 5 of the 92 are ranked in the 50 least deprived areas (Including 4 in the South East region – Wokingham, Windsor & Maidenhead, West Berkshire and Bracknell).

3 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Multiple Deprivation - Local Authority Comparison

The following table shows the relative position of the city against local, regional and national comparators.

Rank ID 2010 % of the Population living in areas classified in the:-

ID 2010 ID2007 10% most 20% most 50% least / 326 / 354 deprived deprived deprived

Stoke-on-Trent 16 th 16 th 31.2% 51.0% 16.7%

Local Comparators

Newcastle-under-Lyme 150 th 152nd 3.1% 14.1% 54.2%

Staffordshire Moorlands 190 th 192nd 0% 4.6% 66.8%

Stafford Borough 232 nd 253 rd 0% 5.5% 79.5%

Regional Comparators

Birmingham 9th 11 th 39.7% 55.6% 14.5%

Sandwell 12 th 14 th 29.6% 58.5% 11.0%

Wolverhampton 21 st 28 th 26.8% 52.3% 17.8%

Walsall 30 th 45 th 24.1% 44.5% 26.5%

Unitary & Metropolitan Comparators

Kingston-upon-Hull 10 th 11 th 42.1% 51.5% 17.2%

Nottingham 20 th 13 th 24.6% 51.4% 16.1%

Salford 18 th 15 th 32.2% 46.2% 20.5%

Leicester 25 th 20 th 24.9% 40.8% 13.8%

Further analysis on this measure shows that of the 326 (*) English Local Authority Districts:-

• 142 have no part of their population classified in the 10% most deprived in England,

• 78 have no part of their population classified in the 20% most deprived in England,

• Only one authority has no part of its population classified in the 50% most deprived in England (Hart – South East region),

• Only two authorities have no part of their population classified in the 50% least deprived in England (London Boroughs of Hackney and Newham).

Stoke-on-Trent is the 3rd most deprived local authority in the West Midlands (out of 30) and the 9th most deprived Unitary / Metropolitan authority area in England (out of 92).

(*) - Following Local Government reorganisation in 2008 and 2009 - Previously 354.

4 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Comparing IMD2000, ID2004, ID2007 and ID2010 - Persistent Deprivation

From the table below it can be seen that despite changes in the construction of the indices – especially between 2000 and 2004 - in terms of both weightings and indicators used and the change in geographical level adopted - that similar areas have emerged as the most deprived.

Given that the domains and methodology used in ID2010 is the same as in 2004 & 2007, and as far as possible the indicators are equivalent to their ID2007 counterparts – most change between the indices is likely to reflect real relative change between the two time periods.

17 of the 20 most deprived areas identified in ID2010 were in the top 20 on ID2007, and 13 in the top 20 on IMD2000 as shown in below.

Rank IMD Rank ID2010 Rank ID2007 Rank ID2004 Local Authority Area 2000 Liverpool 1 1 1 3 Hackney 2 2 5 4 Newham 3 6 11 5 Manchester 4 4 2 6 Knowsley 5 5 3 2 Blackpool 6 12 24 31 Tower Hamlets 7 3 4 1 Middlesbrough 8 9 10 9 Birmingham 9 10 15 23 Kingston upon Hull, City of 10 11 9 13 Burnley 11 46 37 21 Sandwell 12 14 16 17 Haringey 13 20 13 18 Islington 14 8 6 11 Waltham Forest 15 62 47 27 City of Stoke-on-Trent 16 16 18 34 Blackburn with Darwen 17 17 34 10 Salford 18 15 12 21 Hastings 19 35 38 31 City of Nottingham 20 13 7 12

Further investigation has shown:

40 of the 50 most deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the top 50 in ID2010.

85 of the 100 most deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the top 100 in ID2010.

22 of the 50 least deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the least deprived 50 in ID2010.

67 of the 100 least deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the least deprived 100 in ID2010.

5 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Areas with more deprived status

The following table shows the Unitary and metropolitan districts where the overall deprivation rank has ‘declined’ over the three incarnations of the deprivation index

District ID2010 ID2007 ID2004 IMD2000 Reading 129 151 153 188 Leeds 68 85 68 114 Portsmouth 76 93 88 119 West Berkshire 288 330 329 329 Stoke-on-Trent’s apparent decline of 18 places, from 34 th to 16 th most deprived, over the 2000- 10 period is only the 145 th ‘worst’ decline observed.

Looking purely at change between 2007 and 2010 - West Berkshire experienced the largest relative decline – moving from 330 th to 288 th most deprived. South Gloucestershire also ‘declined’ significantly from 308 th to 272 nd most deprived.

Areas with less deprived status

The following table shows those unitary and metropolitan districts where the overall deprivation rank has ‘got better’ over the three incarnations of the deprivation index

District ID2010 ID2007 ID2004 IMD2000 North Tyneside 113 102 80 69 Thurrock 143 124 122 101 Isle of Wight 126 134 126 87 South Tyneside 52 38 27 15

Looking purely at change between 2007 and 2010 - Thurrock and Derby City experienced the largest relative ‘improvement’ – moving from 124 th to 143 rd , and 69 th to 88 th most deprived respectively. Other notable ‘improvers’ were Bristol improving from 64 th to 79 th , and South Tyneside improving from 38 th to 52 nd .

6 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Multiple Deprivation - The Local Picture

The following table compares the level of multiple deprivation in Stoke-on-Trent between ID2004, ID2007 and ID2010:

Percentage Most deprived in England

5% most 10% most 20% most 25% most deprived deprived deprived deprived

Total SOAs out of 160 in 26 48 81 96 category ID2004 Population 38,329 69,930 119,814 142,595 number / % in category 15.9% 29.1% 49.8% 59.3%

Total SOAs out of 160 in 27 53 85 98 category ID2007 Population 40,976 77,226 127,833 146,831 number / % in category 17.1% 32.2% 53.3% 61.2%

Total SOAs out of 160 in 26 50 81 97 categor ID2007 Population 38,717 74,424 121,940 145,112 number / % in category 16.2% 31.2% 51.0% 60.7%

With almost one-third of the population residing in areas classified in the 10% most deprived in England, and one-in-six of the population living in areas in the worst 5% in terms of levels of deprivation, ID2010 reinforces the City’s position as one of the most deprived local authority districts in England.

The map on the following page (Map 1) demonstrates how deprivation on this measure is distributed across Stoke-on-Trent. This map uses 10% intervals (deciles) and adopts the same scale currently used by DCLG, and previously by ODPM, on both the 2004 and 2007 indices.

7 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Map: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 Stoke-on-Trent (ID 2007 inset)

8 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Differing Domains / Dimensions of Deprivation

The following table explores the City’s relative position in terms of all of the differing themes contained within the Indices of Deprivation.

Rank (where 1 = most ID 2010 % of the Population living in deprived) areas classified in the:-

ID 2004 ID 2007 ID 2010 10% most 20% most 50% least deprived deprived deprived / 354 / 354 / 326

Income Deprivation 36 th 35 th 32 nd 24.5% 42.9% 27.1%

Employment Deprivation 21 st 10 th 6th 35.9% 57.3% 10.8%

Health Deprivation and 12 th 10 th 19 th 35.4% 59.8% 5.8% Disability

Education Skills and 7th 7th 4th 33.9% 55.7% 12.3% Training

Children & Young People n/a 24 th 12 th 23.8% 42.0% 24.5% Sub-Domain

Skills Sub-Domain n/a 5th 4th 42.5% 64.0% 13.0%

Barriers to Housing and 343 rd 319 th 300 th 0% 0% 90.9% Services (*)

Wider Barriers Sub- n/a 191 st 201 st 0% 0% 94.4% Domain

Geographical Barriers Sub- n/a 296 th 272 nd 0.6% 6.0% 62.4% Domain

Crime Deprivation 36 th 31 st 34 th 26.8% 47.7% 22.7%

Living Environment 68 th 70 th 73 rd 18.4% 26.4% 48.2%

Indoors Sub-Domain n/a 94 th 84 th 17.8% 29.0% 45.8%

Outdoors Sub-Domain n/a 54 th 85 th 6.0% 17.7% 41.1%

Affecting Children 31 st 29 th 31 st 18.6% 39.1% 26.6%

Affecting Older People 51 st 59 th 52 nd 9.8% 30.7% 30.0%

(*) - Clearly there is some difficulty in interpreting this domain in isolation, since more urban areas will generally perform better than their rural counterparts with regard to distance to services. Only those districts where there is greatest pressure on housing will feature in the Wider Barriers sub-domain.

A table detailing the prevalence of each of these themes at ward level appears on pages 16 onwards of this report.

9 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent Percentage of the Population by decile

Multiple Deprivation

Income Deprivation

0-10% Employment Deprivation 10-20% 20-30% Health Deprivation 30-40% 40-50% Education & Skills 50-60% Deprivation 60-70% Barriers to Housing & 70-80% Services 80-90% 90-100% Crime & Disorder Deprivation

Living Enivronment Deprivation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Most Deprived Least Deprived

Figure 1 – Deprivation Domains : Comparing Different Aspects of Deprivation

10 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Ward Level Deprivation

Pre-2011 Boundaries

Until the reconfiguration of the City’s ward boundaries over the 2009-2001 period – the 20 electoral wards each contained between 7 and 9 Super Output Areas (SOA) and as such ID2010 allowed us to identify the considerable variation in social and economic conditions both between, and within, wards. (*)

The table on following page and bar chart on page 13 attempt to clarify the picture at ward level.

Aggregating SOA scores to ward level indicates that Bentilee and Townsend, Burslem South, and Hanley West and Shelton occupy the slots as the three most deprived wards in the city. ( Column two on the following table )

However, closer inspection shows that the Bentilee and Townsend ward has the highest proportion of its population living in areas classified in the 20% most deprived in England (77.1%) followed by the Fenton ward with 76.1% and Burslem South with 74.8%. ( Aggregating columns seven and eight on the following table ). On this measure Hanley West and Shelton would only rank 10th most deprived.

Four wards contain no SOA’s outside of the 40% most deprived in England – Fenton, Burslem North, Stoke and Trent Vale, Hanley West & Shelton ( The rightmost column on the following table ).

Seven wards contain SOA’s covering more than 66% of the range of deprivation ( columns five and six on the following table ) – Meir Park and Sandon, East Valley, Northwood and Birches Head, Chell and Packmoor, Abbey Green, Trentham and Hanford and Longton South. –

Meir Park and Sandon ward contains the 4 th most deprived SOA’s in the City but also the 5 th least deprived. Chell and Packmoor ward contains the 3rd most deprived SOA’s in the City but also the 7th least deprived.

This level of polarity was typical of City wards that were, in terms of population size, more than twice the national average in size – making assessment at ward level open to interpretation.

(*) - While it is not possible to assign existing Super Output Areas to the new ward boundaries with 100% accuracy – the map and table on pages 14 and 15 attempt to show the relative positions of the 37 new wards in relation to the 2010 Index.

11 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks 2004-2010 ID2010 Percentage of ID2010 ID2007 ID2004 ID2010 the resident population in the ID2010 Most Least Ward Average less than Deprived Deprived 0-10% most 10-20% most 20-40% most SOA Score Ward rank for comparison 40% most SOA in ward SOA in ward deprived deprived deprived deprived

Abbey Green 37.90 8 8 8 73.9% 3.5% 62.1% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9% Bentilee and Townsend 53.01 1 1 1 47.7% 0.7% 77.1% 0.0% 10.8% 12.1% Berryhill and Hanley East 36.21 11 11 11 50.0% 5.4% 13.4% 58.4% 15.0% 13.2% Blurton 38.67 7 5 3 43.8% 5.3% 36.1% 29.3% 23.8% 10.9% Burslem North 40.57 5 7 7 38.1% 1.5% 38.0% 36.2% 25.8% 0.0% Burslem South 50.46 2 2 2 41.1% 2.1% 74.8% 0.0% 13.1% 12.1% Chell and Packmoor 36.65 10 10 6 82.6% 0.8% 47.5% 0.0% 23.5% 29.1% East Valley 27.03 18 18 18 82.9% 3.8% 12.2% 23.3% 11.5% 53.0% Fenton 40.33 6 6 9 34.1% 2.4% 23.5% 52.6% 23.9% 0.0% Hanley West and Shelton 43.59 3 3 5 31.1% 0.4% 24.8% 29.9% 45.3% 0.0% Hartshill and Penkhull 24.79 19 19 19 60.4% 13.0% 0.0% 12.5% 36.1% 51.4% Longton North 28.98 15 16 15 58.9% 7.1% 33.7% 0.0% 10.4% 56.0% Longton South 33.96 14 12 12 77.2% 8.7% 21.0% 39.8% 10.5% 28.7% Meir Park and Sandon 28.80 16 17 16 83.4% 0.9% 23.8% 11.5% 10.6% 54.1% Northwood and Birches Head 28.55 17 15 17 83.7% 2.2% 14.0% 12.1% 36.9% 37.0% Norton and Bradeley 33.99 13 14 13 53.2% 1.7% 27.2% 16.2% 13.6% 43.0% Stoke and Trent Vale 35.36 12 13 14 39.1% 7.2% 12.5% 38.0% 49.5% 0.0% Trentham and Hanford 11.06 20 20 20 94.3% 28.4% 0.0% 0.0% 13.6% 86.4% Tunstall 41.87 4 4 4 43.6% 2.8% 35.9% 38.7% 10.9% 14.5% Weston and Meir North 36.80 9 9 10 48.9% 1.9% 40.3% 0.0% 35.8% 23.9%

City Average 35.29 31.2% 19.9% 20.7% 28.2%

12 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent Percentage of the Population by decile

Grand Total Abbey Green Bentilee and Townsend Berryhill and Hanley East Blurton Burslem North

Burslem South 0-10% Chell and Packmoor 10-20% East Valley 20-30% 30-40% Fenton 40-50% Hanley West and Shelton 50-60% Hartshill and Penkhull 60-70% Longton North 70-80% Longton South 80-90% 90-100% Meir Park and Sandon Northwood and Birches Head Norton and Bradeley Stoke and Trent Vale Trentham and Hanford Tunstall Weston and Meir North

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Most Deprived Least Deprived

Figure 2 – Deprivation Deciles : Pre-2011 Ward Boundaries

13 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Map: 2011 Ward Boundaries and Indices and Deprivation 2010

14 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Average % Most New Ward Rank 0-10% 0-20% 50-100% Deprived in England DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 12.9% 8 78.3% 82.2% 0.0% DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 43.4% 34 18.5% 28.9% 34.6% DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 4.8% 1 74.3% 99.9% 0.0% Birches Head and Central Forest 34.6% 31 17.9% 30.8% 25.9% DW04 Park DW05 Blurton East 28.4% 25 13.3% 48.9% 0.0% DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 10.5% 6 53.7% 100.0% 0.0% DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 21.0% 17 15.8% 45.0% 0.0% DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 22.1% 19 56.0% 56.0% 27.4% DW09 Broadway and Longton East 23.2% 22 18.0% 18.0% 18.2% DW10 Burslem Central 9.4% 4 65.2% 73.5% 0.0% DW11 Burslem Park 22.4% 20 26.0% 52.9% 0.0% DW12 Dresden and Florence 23.3% 23 29.6% 61.9% 7.5% DW13 Eaton Park 31.1% 27 0.5% 41.8% 0.0% DW14 Etruria and Hanley 6.7% 2 60.3% 100.0% 0.0% DW15 Fenton East 16.0% 12 28.3% 78.7% 0.0% DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 15.1% 10 18.2% 73.0% 0.0% DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 19.5% 14 25.4% 77.8% 8.2% DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 22.8% 21 39.2% 40.4% 0.0% DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 34.5% 30 26.8% 37.9% 34.4% DW20 Hanford and Trentham 71.7% 37 0.0% 0.0% 86.4% DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 23.6% 24 5.9% 18.7% 0.0% DW22 Hartshill and Basford 39.5% 32 0.0% 12.7% 40.9% DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 21.1% 18 41.2% 45.2% 0.0% DW24 Joiner's Square 11.9% 7 49.0% 68.1% 0.0% DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 41.3% 33 0.5% 54.5% 45.5% DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 16.0% 11 23.7% 77.5% 0.0% DW27 Meir Hay 48.0% 35 9.6% 9.6% 45.8% DW28 Meir North 10.5% 5 79.0% 79.0% 0.0% DW29 Meir Park 69.7% 36 0.0% 0.0% 86.2% DW30 Meir South 16.4% 13 55.2% 76.4% 8.1% DW31 Moorcroft 14.5% 9 71.0% 71.0% 0.0% DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 31.1% 28 11.6% 25.4% 5.5% DW33 Sandford Hill 20.9% 16 54.4% 54.4% 22.8% DW34 Sneyd Green 31.0% 26 30.8% 30.8% 20.9% DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 20.4% 15 0.0% 48.5% 0.0% DW36 Tunstall 9.0% 3 43.2% 100.0% 0.0% DW37 Weston Coyney 32.1% 29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.2% 51.0% 16.7% 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks 2010

From the above table we can see that:

While the Bentilee and Ubberley ward is ranked as the most deprived in terms of its average deprivation score – Meir North (ranked 5 th on average score) and Abbey Hulton and Townsend (ranked 8 th ) have higher proportions of their populations living in areas classified amongst the 10% most deprived in England.

The Hanford and Trentham ward remains the least deprived in the City- consistent with previous indices.

15 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Average % Most Deprived in England / Rank New Ward Employment Health Deprivation & Income Deprivation Deprivaton Disability DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 17.9% 8 8.5% 4 10.3% 8 DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 47.5% 34 34.5% 31 30.3% 34 DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 6.4% 1 3.2% 1 3.6% 1 Birches Head and Central Forest 42.9% 27.6% 25.6% DW04 Park 31 28 31 DW05 Blurton East 36.4% 23 14.5% 16 22.4% 28 DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 13.1% 3 3.9% 2 10.4% 9 DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 30.4% 20 22.0% 25 16.6% 20 DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 24.4% 14 17.2% 19 17.6% 22 DW09 Broadway and Longton East 36.6% 24 16.0% 18 15.8% 16 DW10 Burslem Central 14.9% 5 9.8% 5 7.4% 4 DW11 Burslem Park 30.9% 21 20.5% 24 18.2% 25 DW12 Dresden and Florence 25.8% 16 19.9% 23 15.8% 17 DW13 Eaton Park 41.0% 29 19.1% 21 22.0% 27 DW14 Etruria and Hanley 9.5% 2 10.4% 6 7.1% 3 DW15 Fenton East 28.4% 18 14.1% 15 17.3% 21 DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 24.4% 15 13.8% 14 16.1% 18 DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 23.5% 13 19.4% 22 13.7% 12 DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 28.0% 17 23.8% 26 17.6% 23 DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 41.7% 30 26.8% 27 26.3% 32 DW20 Hanford and Trentham 75.8% 36 52.6% 37 39.8% 36 DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 38.0% 26 48.4% 35 13.0% 11 DW22 Hartshill and Basford 46.0% 33 35.6% 33 23.4% 30 DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 28.8% 19 11.2% 9 16.2% 19 DW24 Joiner's Square 19.2% 9 11.6% 10 7.0% 2 DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 43.1% 32 35.1% 32 32.4% 35 DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 19.5% 10 12.8% 12 14.3% 13 DW27 Meir Hay 65.0% 35 38.3% 34 30.0% 33 DW28 Meir North 14.2% 4 6.2% 3 8.7% 6 DW29 Meir Park 85.7% 37 51.6% 36 47.1% 37 DW30 Meir South 19.5% 11 10.7% 8 11.0% 10 DW31 Moorcroft 16.8% 7 11.9% 11 10.2% 7 DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 39.0% 27 27.6% 29 18.0% 24 DW33 Sandford Hill 31.6% 22 13.1% 13 14.4% 14 DW34 Sneyd Green 36.7% 25 29.2% 30 22.5% 29 DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 23.4% 12 15.9% 17 14.6% 15 DW36 Tunstall 16.3% 6 10.5% 7 8.5% 5 DW37 Weston Coyney 39.0% 28 18.6% 20 21.5% 26 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (1)

16 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Average % Most Deprived in England / Rank New Ward Education, Skills & Barriers to Housing & Crime & Disorder Training Services DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 9.3% 3 85.1% 28 20.2% 15 DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 29.9% 32 87.4% 32 41.2% 33 DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 2.6% 1 83.3% 24 18.5% 12 Birches Head and Central Forest DW04 Park 28.2% 30 88.8% 34 29.8% 22 DW05 Blurton East 23.3% 25 87.9% 33 34.9% 26 DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 10.2% 5 92.3% 37 31.7% 24 DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 27.5% 29 55.5% 2 16.4% 11 DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 13.2% 10 71.5% 12 29.4% 21 DW09 Broadway and Longton East 15.1% 11 84.2% 27 23.3% 17 DW10 Burslem Central 10.3% 6 71.5% 13 9.9% 5 DW11 Burslem Park 22.2% 23 78.7% 19 20.2% 16 DW12 Dresden and Florence 18.7% 21 91.8% 36 27.3% 19 DW13 Eaton Park 24.2% 26 83.4% 25 40.1% 32 DW14 Etruria and Hanley 12.0% 8 70.8% 11 5.5% 1 DW15 Fenton East 11.4% 7 58.3% 3 15.1% 6 DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 15.3% 13 78.8% 20 9.9% 3 DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 16.9% 17 91.4% 35 9.9% 4 DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 16.1% 16 70.8% 10 24.2% 18 DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 23.1% 24 61.6% 5 35.1% 27 DW20 Hanford and Trentham 66.6% 37 74.8% 15 86.7% 37 DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 17.7% 18 70.2% 9 19.9% 14 DW22 Hartshill and Basford 51.3% 35 83.7% 26 37.1% 30 DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 15.1% 12 75.5% 17 36.3% 29 DW24 Joiner's Square 18.4% 20 77.7% 18 15.7% 9 DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 34.4% 33 80.5% 21 35.9% 28 DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 18.3% 19 60.9% 4 16.2% 10 DW27 Meir Hay 26.4% 28 68.2% 6 53.4% 35 DW28 Meir North 9.9% 4 85.3% 29 15.6% 8 DW29 Meir Park 63.4% 36 39.4% 1 66.6% 36 DW30 Meir South 20.0% 22 72.1% 14 28.3% 20 DW31 Moorcroft 15.6% 14 75.1% 16 18.6% 13 DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 44.6% 34 69.6% 8 31.0% 23 DW33 Sandford Hill 12.0% 9 82.5% 23 34.3% 25 DW34 Sneyd Green 29.3% 31 69.0% 7 15.3% 7 DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 15.8% 15 82.2% 22 39.1% 31 DW36 Tunstall 6.6% 2 86.6% 31 6.4% 2 DW37 Weston Coyney 24.2% 27 85.8% 30 46.9% 34

2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (2)

17 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

Average % Most Deprived in England / Rank Income Deprivation New Ward Income Deprivation Living Environment Affecting Older Affecting Children People DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 55.1% 25 18.4% 7 26.4% 11 DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 67.1% 32 47.8% 33 50.8% 33 DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 60.2% 29 7.5% 1 15.1% 2 Birches Head and Central Forest DW04 Park 34.5% 15 45.5% 31 41.0% 25 DW05 Blurton East 61.1% 30 42.8% 29 44.4% 28 DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 58.2% 27 17.8% 4 19.8% 6 DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 11.4% 5 27.2% 16 36.5% 22 DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 72.3% 34 28.5% 17 29.6% 14 DW09 Broadway and Longton East 47.6% 20 39.3% 25 41.1% 26 DW10 Burslem Central 15.2% 6 18.3% 6 21.7% 7 DW11 Burslem Park 19.4% 8 29.2% 19 39.1% 24 DW12 Dresden and Florence 31.8% 14 23.2% 13 36.4% 21 DW13 Eaton Park 41.6% 19 44.7% 30 47.2% 32 DW14 Etruria and Hanley 10.8% 4 13.5% 2 11.8% 1 DW15 Fenton East 22.6% 11 29.9% 20 34.6% 19 DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 10.3% 2 26.8% 15 30.1% 16 DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 37.3% 18 28.9% 18 24.5% 8 DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 35.2% 16 32.4% 22 26.1% 9 DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 65.9% 31 41.9% 27 44.5% 29 DW20 Hanford and Trentham 82.3% 36 76.2% 36 73.8% 36 DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 8.8% 1 18.2% 5 18.6% 4 DW22 Hartshill and Basford 19.5% 9 46.5% 32 46.1% 30 DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 52.4% 24 37.7% 24 36.4% 20 DW24 Joiner's Square 10.4% 3 20.2% 8 16.7% 3 DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 48.2% 21 50.1% 34 46.7% 31 DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 36.3% 17 22.7% 12 30.5% 17 DW27 Meir Hay 72.7% 35 62.4% 35 58.6% 35 DW28 Meir North 50.6% 22 13.7% 3 26.8% 12 DW29 Meir Park 88.6% 37 82.5% 37 82.8% 37 DW30 Meir South 58.2% 28 20.7% 10 29.7% 15 DW31 Moorcroft 31.6% 13 20.4% 9 18.7% 5 DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 22.3% 10 42.3% 28 37.7% 23 DW33 Sandford Hill 51.6% 23 33.2% 23 33.0% 18 DW34 Sneyd Green 55.7% 26 40.1% 26 42.0% 27 DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 29.7% 12 23.3% 14 27.4% 13 DW36 Tunstall 15.9% 7 21.7% 11 26.2% 10 DW37 Weston Coyney 67.3% 33 30.4% 21 57.7% 34

2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (3)

18 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011