Agenda item

Presentation by Geoff Oxendale, Research and Policy Team

Geoff Oxendale, Information and Research Officer, delivered a presentation explaining the indices of multiple deprivation.  The presentation was added to the online agenda following the meeting.

The following points were highlighted:

(a)  Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMP) are calculated by comparison and are used to identify the most deprived areas in England;

(b)  IMP are formulated on Super Output Areas of approximately 700 households each. Within each Super Output Area (SOA) levels of deprivation are assessed within 35 indicators which are combined to give seven domains, all of which can be further split to identify the deprivation levels of children and older people;

(c)  the calculation results of the IMD are released every 3 to 5 years dependent on when the Census takes place . The latest indices of multiple deprivation were released in 2015 as a result of statistics gathered during 2012;

(d)  many organisations use the IMP results to identifies areas in most need of support and investment;

(e)  Nottingham is currently ranked eighth as the most deprived Local Authority in 2015 from across England;

(f)  61 of the 182 SOAs in Nottingham City are within the most deprived 10% in England, with 7 consider within the 5% most deprived in England, this includes the Crabtree Farm area of Bulwell; 

(g)  in 2010 Nottingham was ranked 20^th in the most deprived Local Authority areas of England but is now ranked 8^th.  Although circumstances in Nottingham have not declined, previously considered deprived areas such as those in the environs of London, have benefited from an increase in wealth. One influence may be that as property values in surrounding areas increase, more affluent residents are attracted to the area. In addition, London appears to be recovering faster from the recession than other areas of the country, and as all figures are comparative this is reflected in the ranking;

(h)  housing affordability is measured within the IMP including the cost of renting. As Nottingham is host to a significant number of students (which is not accounted for in the rental statistics) this impacts on the reporting of the rental market and skews Nottingham’s ranking against other Local Authorities who do not have a large student population;

(i)  of the 20 SOAs in Bulwell and Bulwell Forest, 11 are within the most 10% deprived within the country, 10 of which are in Bulwell Ward. Bulwell fares worst for Income and education, and performs poorly on health and employment. However Bulwell is well rated for access to housing and services and on environment;

(j)  Hempshill Vale is an exception, within the area and sits within the 60-80% affluence ranking band;

(k)  further information including detailed breakdowns from Nottingham and super output areas within area one, are available here:

Nottingham City Compendium and Area Committee reports (on Nottingham Insight)

http://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/f/63257/Library/Social-Issues/Indices-of-Deprivation/

National figures, reports and technical details are on the DCLG website

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015

Committee’s questions and comments were responded to as follows:

(l)  the rankings are all relative and however rich the country may be, there will always be a 10% most deprived banding;

(m)  the ranking of deprivation is useful in supporting the most deprived populations as they are identified by using wholly comparable standards across the whole of the country, which funding organisations and authorities accept as reliable and thorough;

(n)  air pollution is linked to the environmental indicator but when comparing cities the density of population should be considered as a higher concentration of people is likely to result in higher air pollution;

(o)  during 2011 there were boundary changes to SOA areas to reflect changes in population as new homes were established;

(p)  when applying for European Union funding, evidence of deprivation is required.  This method of tracking is considered comprehensive and consistent so is generally favoured;

(q)  due to the time it takes to collect and collate the information, in effect the figures will always be out of date but give a good comparative indication across the country;

(r)  it is acknowledged that there are overlap elements within education, employment, and poor health;

Comments from the Committee included:

(a)  the term Super Output Area is not easily understood compared to the former term of enumeration districts;

(b)  it’s not clear from the maps provided as to which neighbourhood SOAs cover;

RESOLVED to note the presentation and record the thanks of the Committee to Geoff Oxendale for his presentation.