2010 English Indices of
Multiple Deprivation
Small area level summary report
Summary
 The most deprived area in Blackburn with Darwen is located in the Wensley Fold ward.
 Between 2007 and 2010 the number of lower super output areas that fell into the most
deprived 1% increased from seven to eight. However, focusing on all areas in the most
deprived 10% or worse, there were 33 in 2007 but this had decreased to 31 in 2010, a
slight decrease in the number of areas in the most deprived decile overall.
Initial domain analysis for Blackburn with Darwen suggests that:
 Numbers of areas in the most 10% deprived or worse areas on the income domain fell
and the number in the least deprived areas increased.
 On the employment domain, there appears to have been a slight increase in the most
acutely deprived areas.
 On the health deprivation and disability domain there have been increases in the most
acutely deprived areas.
 Although the education skills and training domain has seen a slight increase in the
number of areas in the most 10% deprived or worse overall, the number in the most
acutely deprived (5% or more) has decreased from thirteen to eight.
 There are low levels of deprivation on the ‘barriers to housing and services’ domain.
 There has been an increase in the number of most deprived areas on the living
environment domain. In 2007 there were no areas in the most 1% deprived, but in 2010
two areas were classified as being in the most 1% deprived.
 There has been a relative decrease in deprivation on the crime domain.
 Of the ten most deprived areas in Lancashire, all fall in the boroughs of Blackpool or
Burnley.
 Within Pennine Lancashire, the four most deprived areas all fall in Burnley, the fifth is in
Blackburn with Darwen.
 Within the North West, the most deprived area is found in Blackpool.
 All the top ten deprived areas are found in the five areas of Blackpool, Burnley, Liverpool,
Rochdale and Manchester.
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. This has resulted in the IMD 2010
being ranked out of 326 local authorities and the previous 2007 and 2004 indices being
ranked out of 354 boroughs in England. For all three indices, the borough ranked 1st is the
most deprived.
This report focuses on the analysis of the LSOA level data. As with local authorities LSOAs have
been ranked with 1 being the most deprived area and 32,482 the least. Unlike local authorities
the LSOA geography has remained stable, allowing comparison between rank changes.
Domains
Whilst LSOA data is available for all seven domains and the supplementary indices this report
will focus on the overall IMD score. Domain analysis will be available in an additional report.
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.
Basic details on the indicators in each domain are in appendix one.
For further information on the indicators used to calculate the IMD 2010 please see:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010
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 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 - IMD
An area of Wensley Fold remains the most deprived area of Blackburn with Darwen, however,
since 2007 this area has become relatively less deprived.
The other four areas in our most deprived five lower super output areas are found in the wards
of Mill Hill, Shadsworth with Whitebirk and Queen’s Park. All these areas have seen relative
increases in deprivation compared to 2007.
Top five most deprived areas in Blackburn with Darwen
2010 IMD
2010
2007
Change in
Lsoa code
Ward name
score
Rank #
Rank #
rank *
E01012655 Wensley Fold
75.9
68
35
-33
E01012622 Mill Hill
73.29
123
220
97
Shadsworth
E01012639 with Whitebirk
72.75
141
184
43
Shadsworth
E01012637 with Whitebirk
72.32
158
285
127
E01012631 Queen's Park
70.79
208
218
10
# Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 32,482 the least deprived
* A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a
relative decrease in deprivation
Map One highlights the IMD for 2007 and 2010. Overall the pattern of deprivation remains the
same.
In 2007 there were seven lower super output areas that fell into the most deprived 1% in
England, in 2010 this number had increase to eight. However, focusing on areas in the most
deprived 10% in England, there were 33 in 2007 but this had decreased to 31 in 2010, a
slight decrease in the number of areas in the most deprived decile overall.
Blackburn with Darwen results - Domains
Appendix two presents maps of the seven domains and the Income Deprivation Affecting
Children and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People indices.
As highlighted in the local authority summary, the borough has seen an improvement on the
income domain (domain weight 22.5%). In 2007 there were eight areas in the most deprived
1%, this had fallen to five in 2010. Overall the number of areas in the most 10% deprived or
worse on this domain fell from 33 to 30 and the number outside the most deprived 25% (i.e.
least deprived) increased from 40 to 43.
The employment deprivation domain (weight 22.5%) shows more mixed picture. Whist the
number of areas in the least deprived has remained the same (38) the number in the most 1%
deprived has increased from four to eight. Overall the number of areas in the most 10%
deprived or worse has increased from 28 to 30.
With regards the health deprivation and disability domain (weight 13.5%), the number in the
most 10% deprived or worse has remained the same (39). But there has been an increase in
the number most acutely deprived, from seven to nine in the most 1% deprived and fifteen to
nineteen in he most 5% deprived.
On the education, skills and training domain (weight 13.5%), whilst there has been a decrease
in the most acutely deprived areas (those classified as being in the most 5% deprived or above)
from thirteen to eight, the total number in the most 10% deprived or worse has increase
slightly from 27 to 29.
The ‘barriers to housing and services’ domain (weight 9.3%) aims to highlight the deprivation
suffered by rural communities with poor access to services. There are low levels of deprivation
in the borough on this domain.
The living environment domain (weight 9.3%) has seen an increase in the more acutely
deprived areas. In 2007 there were no areas in the most 1% deprived, this has now increased
to two areas in 2010. Overall the number in the most 5% deprived or worse has increased from
seventeen to twenty one.
Whilst on the crime domain (weight 9.3%), there has been a decrease in relative deprivation.
There are now no areas in the most 1% deprived (one in 2007) and the number in the most 5%
deprived has decreased from six to three. Areas falling outside the most 25% deprived (i.e. the
least deprived) has increased from 50 to 65.
A more detailed analysis of the domain picture will be produced separately.
Map One – Comparing the Index of Multiple Deprivation for 2007 and 2010, Blackburn with Darwen
Lancashire results
Top ten most deprived areas in Lancashire
LSOA code
Ward name
E01012673
E01012721
E01024908
E01012678
E01024858
E01012681
E01012671
District
2010 IMD
score
83.33
82.68
81.76
81.64
80.09
79.96
79.62
2010 IMD
Rank #
3
5
7
8
21
23
27
2007 IMD
Rank#
10
4
48
44
13
120
119
Change
since 2007*
7
-1
41
36
-8
97
92
Bloomfield
Blackpool
Park
Blackpool
Trinity
Burnley
Brunswick
Blackpool
Bank Hall
Burnley
Claremont
Blackpool
Bloomfield
Blackpool
Rosehill with
E01024906
Burnley
79.02
32
278
246
Burnley wood
78.85
34
30
-4
E01012720 Claremont
Blackpool
78.64
35
307
272
E01012682 Park
Blackpool
# Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 32,482 the least deprived
* A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a
relative decrease in deprivation
Of the ten most deprived areas in Lancashire, all fall in the boroughs of Blackpool or Burnley.
Within Pennine Lancashire, the four most deprived areas all fall in Burnley, the fifth is in
Blackburn with Darwen (within Wensley Fold). Other areas in the top ten include Pendle (within
Southfield ward), Blackburn with Darwen (within Mill Hill ward), Hyndburn (within Central ward),
Blackburn (within Shadsworth with Whitebirk) and Burnley (Coal Clough with Deer Play).
Map two highlights that within the Pennine Lancashire area the pattern of deprivation remains
the same in 2007 compared to 2010. In Burnley, it is evident that an area to the east of the
centre has become relatively less deprived moving out of the most 1% deprived, whilst to the
west some lsoas have increased in relative deprivation, moving into the most 1% deprived.
North West results
Top ten most deprived areas in the North West
Lsoa code
District
2010 IMD
score
2010 IMD
Rank #
2007 IMD
Rank#
Change
since
2007*
7
3
-1
-5
41
36
2
-8
22
36
83.33
3
10
E01012673
Blackpool
83.09
4
7
E01006559
Liverpool
82.68
5
4
E01012721
Blackpool
82
6
1
E01006755
Liverpool
81.76
7
48
E01024908
Burnley
81.64
8
44
E01012678
Blackpool
81.59
9
11
E01005484
Rochdale
81.58
10
2
E01005204
Manchester
81.48
12
34
E01006560
Liverpool
81.42
13
49
E01006777
Liverpool
# Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 32,482 the least deprived
* A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a
relative decrease in deprivation
Within the North West, the most deprived area is found in Blackpool.
All the top ten deprived areas are found in the five areas of Blackpool, Burnley, Liverpool,
Rochdale and Manchester.
Map Two – Comparing the Index of Multiple Deprivation for 2007 and 2010, Pennine Lancashire
Further information and contact
IMD 2010 data and reports
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010
IMD 2010 report
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1871208.pdf
IMD 2010 technical report
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010technicalreport
IMD 2010 guidance for use
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010guidance
Corporate Research Joint Intelligence Team
Policy and Communications Department
3rd Floor Old Town Hall
01254 585183
kenneth.barnsley@blackburn.gov.uk
Copyright statement
Department for Communities and Local Government © Crown Copyright, 2011
Appendix One – Domain Indicators
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.
In addition to this domain index two supplementary indices concerning income deprivation are also
produced, an Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and an Income Deprivation Affecting Older
People Index. These two indices represent the proportion of children aged 0-15 living in income
deprived households and the proportion of older people aged 60 and over living in income deprived
households respectively.
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
• 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.
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.