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 Scale 2010 17 28 14 7 70 75 2007# 16 24 14 9 65 79 2007 17 27 15 9 60 73 2004 34 45 25 25 71 66 Ranked out of 326 authorities Ranked out of 326 authorities Ranked out of 354 authorities 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. 8 1 4 7 9 10 29 27 18 25 45 23 47 123 91 59 79 81 83 118 101 121 189 220 312 2 74 125 70 42 47 135 152 35 44 58 104 40 228 92 127 145 69 106 206 174 93 229 280 323 Rank of Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Local authority name Manchester 4 4 5 Blackpool 6 10 16 Burnley 11 21 19 Blackburn with Darwen 17 28 14 Salford 18 26 23 Rochdale 23 29 25 Pendle 33 41 32 Hyndburn 34 40 33 Bolton 36 48 31 Oldham 37 46 30 Tameside 42 34 44 Preston 45 59 34 Wigan 65 85 60 Rossendale 98 90 103 Bury 114 119 107 Lancaster 116 133 104 West Lancashire 136 153 117 Stockport 151 167 134 Warrington 153 182 116 Chorley 156 173 132 Wyre 163 185 135 Trafford 167 190 143 South Ribble 206 207 190 Fylde 236 235 218 Ribble Valley 290 285 294 Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived. Rank of Local Concentration Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Rank of Average Score AGMA and Lancashire District Index of Multiple Deprivation summary measures for 2010 3 63 115 75 28 39 138 137 25 48 43 97 12 199 77 113 136 57 86 166 162 81 186 253 305 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. 0 7 10 7 -1 11 -9 9 -2 0 3 7 4 -10 2 -6 -4 2 -1 7 -16 0 -7 -1 2 2 6 1 -5 20 -4 -11 0 -4 -2 0 -3 -7 0 -4 -2 2 0 6 0 7 -2 3 -5 4 -2 -5 -1 -1 -1 -15 -6 0 -3 -10 -7 -1 -1 -12 0 -3 3 1 -6 1 1 3 Rank of Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale -4 7 8 7 7 17 -9 1 -8 0 2 5 5 -15 3 -12 -4 9 8 8 -4 3 -9 -12 Rank of Extent -1 5 11 9 -1 16 -8 3 -7 0 2 8 -1 -14 1 -14 -4 6 -2 9 -3 0 -5 -2 Rank of Local Concentration Blackburn with Darwen Blackpool Bolton District Burnley District Bury District Chorley District Fylde District Hyndburn District Lancaster District Manchester District Oldham District Pendle District Preston District Ribble Valley District Rochdale District Rossendale District Salford District South Ribble District Stockport District Tameside District Trafford District Warrington West Lancashire District Wigan District Rank of Average Rank 00EX 00EY 00BL 30UD 00BM 30UE 30UF 30UG 30UH 00BN 00BP 30UJ 30UK 30UL 00BQ 30UM 00BR 30UN 00BS 00BT 00BU 00EU 30UP 00BW Rank of Average Score Difference in IMD summary ranks between comparable 2007 and 2010 4 3 5 3 4 0 -9 2 -4 0 5 0 -2 -4 4 -6 3 -4 7 4 1 -1 -6 -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 Rank of Rank of Average Average Rank of LA NAME Score Rank Extent Liverpool District 1 5 4 Manchester District 4 4 5 Knowsley District 5 12 7 Blackpool 6 10 16 Burnley District 11 21 19 Blackburn with Darwen 17 28 14 Salford District 18 26 23 Rochdale District 23 29 25 Halton 27 32 22 Barrow-in-Furness District 32 37 38 Pendle District 33 41 32 Hyndburn District 34 40 33 Bolton District 36 48 31 Oldham District 37 46 30 Tameside District 42 34 44 Preston District 45 59 34 St. Helens District 51 64 47 Wirral District 60 103 54 Wigan District 65 85 60 Copeland District 78 74 92 Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived. Rank of Local Concentration 2 8 3 1 4 7 9 10 24 12 29 27 18 25 45 23 41 14 47 72 Rank of Income Scale 3 2 51 74 125 70 42 47 102 188 135 152 35 44 58 104 73 22 40 224 Rank of Employment Scale 2 3 50 63 115 75 28 39 84 148 138 137 25 48 43 97 55 10 12 179 Twenty most deprived local authorities on the ‘rank of average score’ in the North West, comparable IMD 2007 Rank of Rank of Rank Average Average of Rank of Local LA NAME Score Rank Extent Concentration Liverpool District 1 5 4 1 Manchester District 4 4 5 4 Knowsley District 5 7 7 2 Blackpool 11 17 23 3 Salford District 14 22 19 7 Blackburn with Darwen 16 24 14 9 Burnley District 20 28 26 5 Rochdale District 24 32 27 10 Barrow-in-Furness District 28 29 35 17 Halton 29 36 24 27 Hyndburn District 37 41 42 16 Oldham District 39 48 33 23 Pendle District 41 46 39 29 St. Helens District 43 44 48 34 Preston District 44 64 38 20 Bolton District 47 56 41 24 Tameside District 51 42 51 51 Wirral District 55 87 54 14 Wigan District 63 73 59 50 Copeland District 73 72 82 75 Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived. Rank of Income Scale 3 2 53 78 42 65 120 46 177 99 137 41 125 77 97 33 59 23 43 207 Rank of Employment Scale 2 3 48 66 31 79 118 43 129 83 139 53 138 55 95 30 47 10 11 167 National results Focusing on the national results for the rank of ‘average score’ summary measure, none of the authorities in the North West were in the most improved or the authorities that had seen the biggest increases in deprivation. Authorities that have seen the biggest increases in deprivation between 2007 and 2010 Comparable 2007 Rank of average score 194 269 118 156 215 226 144 252 143 266 243 130 188 2010 Rank of average score 164 245 94 133 193 204 122 233 124 248 225 112 170 Change in Government Office Region Local authority rank * East Midlands Kettering District 30 South West Wiltshire 24 South West Weymouth and Portland District 24 East Midlands Wellingborough District 23 East of England Cambridge District 22 East of England Castle Point District 22 South East Oxford District 22 South East Cherwell District 19 West Midlands Wyre Forest District 19 East Midlands Daventry District 18 East Midlands East Northamptonshire District 18 East of England Fenland District 18 South East Crawley District 18 Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived. * A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a relative decrease in deprivation. Authorities that have seen the biggest decreases in deprivation between 2007 and 2010 Comparable 2007 Rank of average score 119 210 229 222 176 200 262 115 291 234 2010 Rank of average score 176 243 262 255 207 230 291 143 317 260 Change in Government Office Region Local authority rank * London Barnet -57 East of England Welwyn Hatfield District -33 London City of London -33 London Kingston upon Thames -33 East of England Broxbourne District -31 South West Christchurch District -30 East of England Three Rivers District -29 East of England Thurrock -28 East of England St. Albans District -26 South East Spelthorne District -26 Ranked where 1 is the most deprived and 326 is the least deprived. * A positive number highlights an increase in relative deprivation, a negative number highlights a relative decrease in deprivation. 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 IMD 2007 data to post 2009 local government boundaries http://warksobservatory.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/updated-indices-of-deprivation-2010/ 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