CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU REVISING THE CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU SCOTTISH AREA CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU DEPRIVATION CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU INDEX CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Volume 1 CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU by CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Kenneth Gibb, Ade Kearns, CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Margaret Keoghan, Daniel Mackay CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU and Ivan Turok CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Department of Urban Studies CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU University of Glasgow CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU The Scottish Office Central Research CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Unit 1998 CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Further copies of this report are available priced £5.00. Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office and addressed to: The Stationery Office 71 Lothian Road Edinburgh EH3 9AZ Order line and General Enquiries 0870 606 5566 The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or Scottish Ministers. © Crown Copyright 1998 Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to the Chief Research Officer at the Central Research Unit, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh EH11 3XA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements are due to many people who helped with the development of this project. Without the data that was kindly provided it would not have been possible to create the index. Many people and organisations helped with the research, in particular, statisticians at the DSS, The Scottish Office, ISD, the Central Research Unit, SHEFC, Karen Hancock and many others. Our steering committee provided useful advice and encouragement throughout, particularly, Elaine Docherty, Jamie Hamilton, Karen MacNee and Christie Smith. Stuart Gardener at The Scottish Office GIS unit gave very useful advice with the mapping element of the study as well as providing the most recent ULA boundary data. Thanks are also due to Glen Bramley, Moira Munro, several colleagues within our Department, Bryan Robson, and at Scottish Homes, Pamela Woodburn and Gillian Young. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REVISING THE SCOTTISH AREA DEPRIVATION INDEX A Report to The Scottish Office Kenneth Gibb, Ade Kearns, Margaret Keoghan, Daniel Mackay and Ivan Turok Department of Urban Studies University of Glasgow September 1998 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 In April 1998, The Scottish Office commissioned a research team from the Department of Urban Studies at the University of Glasgow to carry out a feasibility study into the construction of a revised index of area deprivation and then to develop such an index for Scotland. The interim report was completed in draft form at the end of May 1998 and the team then proceeded with the development and analysis of the index. 1.2 The key distinguishing features of the new index are that it combines 1991 Census indicators with more recent non-Census indicators of deprivation (concerning deprivation dimensions of health, crime, education, unemployment, etc.) and that necessarily the index has been constructed at the level of Post Code Sector which is the smallest consistent basis possible for the data as a whole. It is acknowledged that Post Code Sectors are far from an ideal basis from which to measure deprivation but they are the best available level of analysis. 1.3 The existing index (Duguid, 1995) was derived wholly from the 1991 Census. Three groupings of indicators were identified (socio-demographic, housing and economic factors) and analysed at the small area level of the enumeration district (ED). The study produced a set of six indicators (dependent households, overcrowding, the permanent sick, unemployment, youth unemployment and single parent families). The index was then presented in terms of the worst 10% of EDs and distributed across (the old District) Scottish local authorities. 1.4 There are two main reasons for wanting to now revise the index. First, there is evidence of significant social, economic and physical change in many of these small areas in the seven years since 1991. 1.5 Second, the research team consider that there are flaws, arguably, in the way the existing index was constructed (although no index is pure or ideal). For instance: · The index relies on proxies for specific dimensions of poverty or deprivation. · The index employs several indirect measures of deprivation. Indirect measures include the focusing on specific groups who tend to be deprived, for instance, lone parents or the elderly. Not only may this not turn out empirically to be reliable, it may stigmatise and is not as effective as a more direct measure. iii · It is not evident from the report how robust the statistical models developed were, nor is there evidence on bi-variate relationships between indicators (are specific indicators correlated?). There is also a lack of clarity about the underlying definition or approach to multiple deprivation. The model arguably, therefore, lacks conceptual coherence and transparency. 1.6 The underlying philosophy of the new index is based on the growing literature on area deprivation indicators and indices and in particular, draws heavily from the approach used by the Department of Environment’s Index of Local Conditions (hereafter ILC). Our approach is, however, amended in the light of Scotland’s unique circumstances and the specific objectives of the present research project. 1.7 Deprivation is conceptualised in as broad and inclusive a way as possible, and this is done by developing a comprehensive set of domains of deprivation (reflecting the multiple nature of deprivation, the domains explored include: housing ,health, education, crime, labour market and material poverty). 1.8 The next stage in the index’s development was to develop indicators for each of these domains, in principle from contemporaneous non-census sources but going back to the 1991 Census if that is the only source of information. These indicators are then analysed as a group for inter-correlations and through factor analysis, utilising the results to draw up a final, smaller, set of indicators. The indicators are then measured in terms of their signed Chi-square value (a statistical method for minimising the impact of small and variable denominators in small area statistics such as the population base of an enumeration district or Post Code Sector). The resulting values are then standardised using logs and then summed together (equally weighted), creating a distribution of scores of deprivation for each Post Code Sector in Scotland. However, rather than simply ranking the areas in terms of where the worst are located, the study also seeks to go further and identify the extent and intensity of deprivation. 1.9 In total, a set of 12 indicators are drawn on to construct both the final updated index and a Census 1991 benchmark. The Census variables used in the final set of indicators are the following: · Overcrowding (households in permanent buildings who are below the occupancy norm relative to all households in permanent dwellings) · Lack of amenities (households in permanent buildings lacking exclusive use of bath/shower/insider WC relative to all households in permanent dwellings) · Vacant dwellings (household spaces classified as vacant accommodation or other, relative to all household spaces) · Participation at school (students in full-time education at age 17+ relative to all 17-18 year olds) · No-car households (households with no car relative to all households) · Children in dependent-only households (dependent children in households which contain no adult in employment relative to all children). iv 1.10 The non-Census variables chosen for the final set of indicators are the following: · Standardised mortality ratios (0-64 all causes summed for five years 1992-96 relative to the adjusted 1996 CHI small area population forecast) · Low birth weights (1992-96 summed index of the population of low birth weights relative to all Scotland) · Unemployment rate (claimant count [NOMIS], 1996-97, relative to the adjusted 1996 CHI small area population forecast (age and sex adjusted) · Insurance weightings index (three firm average weighting index of Post Code Sector home contents insurance premiums) · Students in higher education (the number of full time students in higher education at their permanent address relative to the Scottish average) · Income Support claimants (the number of claimants by Post Code Sector based on an August 1996 100% scan of the population).