2010 English Indices of
Multiple Deprivation
** Revised 11th April 2011 **
Local authority level summary report
Summary
· The IMD 2010 is based where possible on data from 2008.
· This report used revised data published by Communities and Local Government, which has summarised the IMD 2007 for the post 2009 local government review authorities. The release of this data allows direct comparison with the 2010 IMD local authority summaries.
· Blackburn with Darwen ranks as the 17th most deprived authority in England on the ‘rank of average score’ summary. (There are five other summary scores available). On the comparable 2007 IMD, the borough ranked 16th.
· Blackburn with Darwen remains the fourth most deprived local authority on the rank of average score, of the AGMA and Lancashire district authorities and the sixth most deprived in the North West.
Background
The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 provides indicators of deprivation at local authority and lower super output area level (LSOA). (Lower super output areas are a statistical geography and are smaller in size than wards. They are a statistical cluster of around 1,500 people).
The IMD 2010 replicates the methodology and where possible, the indicators used in both the IMD 2007 and 2004, allowing a level of comparability.
However, it must be noted that between the release of the IMD 2010 and 2007 there was a local authority re-structure in a number of areas in England. The IMD 2010 and the comparable IMD 2007 are ranked out of 326 local authorities. The borough ranked 1st is the most deprived.
Domains
The seven domains and weightings used in all three indices are:
Income deprivation (domain weight 22.5%)
Employment deprivation (domain weight 22.5%)
Health deprivation and disability (domain weight 13.5%)
Education skills and training deprivation (domain weight 13.5%)
Barriers to housing and services (domain weight 9.3%)
Living environment deprivation (domain weight 9.3%)
Crime (domain weight 9.3%)
Supplementary indices have also been produced, these include:
Income Deprivation Affecting Children
Income Deprivation Affecting Older People
Where possible, the indicators used in the IMD 2010 relate to the year 2008, a small number of indicators remain sourced from the 2001 Census. For further information on the indicators used to calculate the IMD 2010 please see:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010
Local authority summaries
The IMD is summarised for each local authority in six different ways. These summaries show different aspects of deprivation. No single summary measure is favoured over another and there is no single best way of describing or comparing England’s 326 local authority districts.
Average scores and average ranks:
Both these measures are ways of depicting the average level of deprivation across the entire local authority.
Local concentration:
This shows the severity of deprivation in each authority, measuring ‘hot spots’ of deprivation.
Extent:
This measures the proportion of a district’s population that lives in the most deprived LSOAs in England.
Income scale:
This measures the number of people experiencing income deprivation.
Employment scale:
This measures the number of people experiencing employment deprivation.
Comparing indices of deprivation
As the domains and methodology used in all three indices have remained the same where possible, the data can be used to examine change between the two time periods.
It is important to remain aware that the IMD measures relative deprivation, not absolute deprivation. Where there have been any changes in ranks, this is a change in the relative position of an area compared to another area, not whether an area has more or less actual deprivation. For example, if all areas improve at relatively the same rate, the rankings will stay the same.
Although the domains and overall methodology has remained the same as 2007, some minor changes in the indicators used to calculate the index have had to be made. Further information on these changes can be found in the IMD 2010 Technical report. However a summary of the changes are as follows:
- Benefits data used as been amended to take into account the introduction of Employment Support Allowance
- Mood and anxiety prescribing data is no longer available, so data for 2005 from the IMD 2007 has been used
- Key stage 2 and key stage 3 now uses the ‘level achieved’ as in the IMD 2004, rather than actual test scores
- More accurate school absence data has been used
- A more effective modelling of incomes to calculate difficulty of access to owner occupation
- Slight changes in Home Office counting rules for notifiable criminal offences, but overall no substantive chances
- Houses in poor condition data has been used from the 2007 IMD, due to cost considerations
Blackburn with Darwen results
There has been little change in the overall summary ranks between 2007 and 2010 for Blackburn with Darwen. On the two overall summaries of deprivation, the ‘rank of average score’ and the ‘rank of average rank’ the borough has become relatively less deprived.
Blackburn with Darwen Index of Multiple Deprivation summary measures for 2004, 2007, comparable 2007 and 2010
Rank of Average Score / Rank of Average Rank / Rank of Extent / Rank of Local Concentration / Rank of Income Scale / Rank of Employment Scale2010 / 17 / 28 / 14 / 7 / 70 / 75 / Ranked out of 326 authorities
2007# / 16 / 24 / 14 / 9 / 65 / 79 / Ranked out of 326 authorities
2007 / 17 / 27 / 15 / 9 / 60 / 73 / Ranked out of 354 authorities
2004 / 34 / 45 / 25 / 25 / 71 / 66 / Ranked out of 354 authorities
Difference between 2010 and 2007* / -1 / -4 / 0 / 2 / -5 / 4
# IMD 2007 summarised to 2009 local authority boundaries
* A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a relative decrease in deprivation.
There has also been a decrease of 5 places in relative deprivation on the ‘rank of income scale’, but an increase in deprivation on the ‘rank of employment scale’. Both the employment and income scores measure the actual number of people classified as being employment or income deprived in the borough.
The comparable IMD 2007 identified that 12,422 people were classified as employment deprived ranking the borough 79th. The IMD 2010 identified that there were 12,860 people classified as employment deprived, ranking us as 75th.
For income deprivation, the comparable IMD 2007 identified 38,543 people as living in income deprivation, ranking the borough as 65th. This number has now reduced to 33,691 improving our relative rank to 70th.
The extent measure has remained the same at 14th in the comparable IMD 2007 and on the IMD 2010. The Extent measure score identifies the proportion of the population living in the most deprived areas in England. In 2004, 45% of the population of Blackburn with Darwen lived within the most deprived areas in England, this increased to 52% in the 2007 IMD and now stands at 51%.
There has been an increase in relative deprivation of two places on the rank of concentration, moving from the 9th to the 7th most deprived authority. This measure reflects ‘hotspots’ of deprivation.
Lancashire and AGMA results
Blackburn with Darwen remains the fourth most deprived local authority on the rank of average score, of the AGMA and Lancashire district authorities.
AGMA and Lancashire District Index of Multiple Deprivation summary measures for 2010
Local authority name / Rank of Average Score / Rank of Average Rank / Rank of Extent / Rank of Local Concentration / Rank of Income Scale / Rank of Employment ScaleManchester / 4 / 4 / 5 / 8 / 2 / 3
Blackpool / 6 / 10 / 16 / 1 / 74 / 63
Burnley / 11 / 21 / 19 / 4 / 125 / 115
Blackburn with Darwen / 17 / 28 / 14 / 7 / 70 / 75
Salford / 18 / 26 / 23 / 9 / 42 / 28
Rochdale / 23 / 29 / 25 / 10 / 47 / 39
Pendle / 33 / 41 / 32 / 29 / 135 / 138
Hyndburn / 34 / 40 / 33 / 27 / 152 / 137
Bolton / 36 / 48 / 31 / 18 / 35 / 25
Oldham / 37 / 46 / 30 / 25 / 44 / 48
Tameside / 42 / 34 / 44 / 45 / 58 / 43
Preston / 45 / 59 / 34 / 23 / 104 / 97
Wigan / 65 / 85 / 60 / 47 / 40 / 12
Rossendale / 98 / 90 / 103 / 123 / 228 / 199
Bury / 114 / 119 / 107 / 91 / 92 / 77
Lancaster / 116 / 133 / 104 / 59 / 127 / 113
West Lancashire / 136 / 153 / 117 / 79 / 145 / 136
Stockport / 151 / 167 / 134 / 81 / 69 / 57
Warrington / 153 / 182 / 116 / 83 / 106 / 86
Chorley / 156 / 173 / 132 / 118 / 206 / 166
Wyre / 163 / 185 / 135 / 101 / 174 / 162
Trafford / 167 / 190 / 143 / 121 / 93 / 81
South Ribble / 206 / 207 / 190 / 189 / 229 / 186
Fylde / 236 / 235 / 218 / 220 / 280 / 253
Ribble Valley / 290 / 285 / 294 / 312 / 323 / 305
Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived.
A number of authorities have seen a worsening in their ranks on the IMD summaries. Within the Pennine Lancashire area Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle all saw increases in relative deprivation on the two overall summary measures the ‘rank of average score’ and the ‘rank of average ranks’. Ribble Valley and Rossendale saw considerable decreases in deprivation on these two measures, whilst Blackburn with Darwen saw small improvements. Blackpool and Tameside were the only two authorities in the Lancashire / AGMA area to see increases in relative deprivation on all measures.
Difference in IMD summary ranks between comparable 2007 and 2010
Rank of Average Score / Rank of Average Rank / Rank of Extent / Rank of Local Concentration / Rank of Income Scale / Rank of Employment Scale00EX / Blackburn with Darwen / -1 / -4 / 0 / 2 / -5 / 4
00EY / Blackpool / 5 / 7 / 7 / 2 / 4 / 3
00BL / Bolton District / 11 / 8 / 10 / 6 / -2 / 5
30UD / Burnley District / 9 / 7 / 7 / 1 / -5 / 3
00BM / Bury District / -1 / 7 / -1 / -5 / -1 / 4
30UE / Chorley District / 16 / 17 / 11 / 20 / -1 / 0
30UF / Fylde District / -8 / -9 / -9 / -4 / -1 / -9
30UG / Hyndburn District / 3 / 1 / 9 / -11 / -15 / 2
30UH / Lancaster District / -7 / -8 / -2 / 0 / -6 / -4
00BN / Manchester District / 0 / 0 / 0 / -4 / 0 / 0
00BP / Oldham District / 2 / 2 / 3 / -2 / -3 / 5
30UJ / Pendle District / 8 / 5 / 7 / 0 / -10 / 0
30UK / Preston District / -1 / 5 / 4 / -3 / -7 / -2
30UL / Ribble Valley District / -14 / -15 / -10 / -7 / -1 / -4
00BQ / Rochdale District / 1 / 3 / 2 / 0 / -1 / 4
30UM / Rossendale District / -14 / -12 / -6 / -4 / -12 / -6
00BR / Salford District / -4 / -4 / -4 / -2 / 0 / 3
30UN / South Ribble District / 6 / 9 / 2 / 2 / -3 / -4
00BS / Stockport District / -2 / 8 / -1 / 0 / 3 / 7
00BT / Tameside District / 9 / 8 / 7 / 6 / 1 / 4
00BU / Trafford District / -3 / -4 / -16 / 0 / -6 / 1
00EU / Warrington / 0 / 3 / 0 / 7 / 1 / -1
30UP / West Lancashire District / -5 / -9 / -7 / -2 / 1 / -6
00BW / Wigan District / -2 / -12 / -1 / 3 / 3 / -1
30UQ / Wyre District / -5 / -17 / -4 / 12 / -6 / -7
A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a relative decrease in deprivation.
North West results
Within the North West, Blackburn with Darwen remains the sixth most deprived authority in 2010, compared to 2007. The four most deprived authorities in 2007 remain the most deprived in 2010.
Twenty most deprived local authorities on the rank of ‘average score’ in the North West,
IMD 2010
Liverpool District / 1 / 5 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 2
Manchester District / 4 / 4 / 5 / 8 / 2 / 3
Knowsley District / 5 / 12 / 7 / 3 / 51 / 50
Blackpool / 6 / 10 / 16 / 1 / 74 / 63
Burnley District / 11 / 21 / 19 / 4 / 125 / 115
Blackburn with Darwen / 17 / 28 / 14 / 7 / 70 / 75
Salford District / 18 / 26 / 23 / 9 / 42 / 28
Rochdale District / 23 / 29 / 25 / 10 / 47 / 39
Halton / 27 / 32 / 22 / 24 / 102 / 84
Barrow-in-Furness District / 32 / 37 / 38 / 12 / 188 / 148
Pendle District / 33 / 41 / 32 / 29 / 135 / 138
Hyndburn District / 34 / 40 / 33 / 27 / 152 / 137
Bolton District / 36 / 48 / 31 / 18 / 35 / 25
Oldham District / 37 / 46 / 30 / 25 / 44 / 48
Tameside District / 42 / 34 / 44 / 45 / 58 / 43
Preston District / 45 / 59 / 34 / 23 / 104 / 97
St. Helens District / 51 / 64 / 47 / 41 / 73 / 55
Wirral District / 60 / 103 / 54 / 14 / 22 / 10
Wigan District / 65 / 85 / 60 / 47 / 40 / 12
Copeland District / 78 / 74 / 92 / 72 / 224 / 179
Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived.
Twenty most deprived local authorities on the ‘rank of average score’ in the North West, comparable IMD 2007
LA NAME / Rank of Average Score / Rank of Average Rank / Rank of Extent / Rank of Local Concentration / Rank of Income Scale / Rank of Employment ScaleLiverpool District / 1 / 5 / 4 / 1 / 3 / 2
Manchester District / 4 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 2 / 3
Knowsley District / 5 / 7 / 7 / 2 / 53 / 48
Blackpool / 11 / 17 / 23 / 3 / 78 / 66
Salford District / 14 / 22 / 19 / 7 / 42 / 31
Blackburn with Darwen / 16 / 24 / 14 / 9 / 65 / 79
Burnley District / 20 / 28 / 26 / 5 / 120 / 118
Rochdale District / 24 / 32 / 27 / 10 / 46 / 43
Barrow-in-Furness District / 28 / 29 / 35 / 17 / 177 / 129
Halton / 29 / 36 / 24 / 27 / 99 / 83
Hyndburn District / 37 / 41 / 42 / 16 / 137 / 139
Oldham District / 39 / 48 / 33 / 23 / 41 / 53
Pendle District / 41 / 46 / 39 / 29 / 125 / 138
St. Helens District / 43 / 44 / 48 / 34 / 77 / 55
Preston District / 44 / 64 / 38 / 20 / 97 / 95
Bolton District / 47 / 56 / 41 / 24 / 33 / 30
Tameside District / 51 / 42 / 51 / 51 / 59 / 47
Wirral District / 55 / 87 / 54 / 14 / 23 / 10
Wigan District / 63 / 73 / 59 / 50 / 43 / 11
Copeland District / 73 / 72 / 82 / 75 / 207 / 167
Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived.