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