Conceptual Underpinnings
Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke
Revision, June 2012

THE PURPOSE OF COMPOSITE DEPRIVATION INDICES
1.
It is difficult to simultaneously comprehend the spatial distribution of multiple indicators at multiple points in time
2.
For practical purposes, there is a need for a single indicator which draws a variety of observations together
3.
Such indices can provide the basis for the effective targeting of the most disadvantaged areas
4.
Such indices can provide a means by which to assess changes over time, and facilitate monitoring and evaluation
5.
However, it is important that such indices enjoy broad support amongst all key stakeholders, including government departments, state agencies, community representatives and the broader public

THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVATION INDICES
Deprivation Index Small Area Data in General
To provide insights into the spatial distribution of poverty and deprivation
To identify the specific needs of localities
To provide a basis for consensus-building on targeting need in particular areas
To improve specific services or the integration of multiple services at local level
To facilitate inter-temporal comparison
As a proxy for socio-economic status (SES) when modelling health and other outcomes
To inform policies that address poverty and deprivation at local level n/a

COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENTS
Deprivation Index
Data ought to be concise (i.e. brief but comprehensive)
Small Area Data in General
Should be more comprehensive
Data needs to be consistent for all spatial units
Data needs to be consistent over time
Data ought to be timely
Greater emphasis on domains (to inform sectoral policies)
May include data which is not available for all areas
Does not necessarily have to be consistent over time
Ought to have precise statistical properties
(ideally normally distributed) n/a

COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT
Deprivation Index
Data has to be available at identical units of analysis
Near-normal distribution of input variables
May require transformations n/a
Requires dimensional analysis to avoid double counting
Requires methods and weights for combining into single index scores n/a n/a
Small Area Data in General
May comprise data at different levels of spatial aggregation
Overall less restrictive

A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF POVERTY
 Relative Poverty
“People are living in poverty if their income and resources
(material, cultural and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally.
”
(Government of Ireland, NAPS, 1997)
 Relative Deprivation
“The fundamental implication of the term deprivation is of an absence – of essential or desirable attributes, possessions and opportunities which are considered no more than the minimum by that society.
”
(Coombes et al., DoE
– UK, 1995)

TRADITIONAL APPROACH: EXPLORATORY FACTOR
ANALYSIS (EFA)
 Ordinary Factor Analysis (EFA) reduces variables to a smaller number of underlying
Dimensions or Factors
V1
F1
V2
V3
V4
V5
F2
V6
 EFA is essentially an exploratory technique; .i.e. data-driven
 all variables load on all factors
 the structure matrix is the (accidental) outcome of the variables available
 EFA does not account for measurement error (v1-v6 are assumed to be perfect indicators)
 EFA can not be used to compare outcomes over time

NEW APPROACH: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
(CFA)
 Confirmatory Factor Analysis also reduces observations to the underlying Factors, however
 variables are conceptualised as the (imperfect) manifestations of underlying or latent concepts d
1
V1
L1 d
2
V2 d
3 d
4
V3
V4 d
5
V5
L2 d
6
V6
 CFA requires a strong theoretical justification before the model is specified
 the researcher decides which of the observed variables are to be associated with which of the latent constructs
 variables are assumed to be imperfect manifestations (i.e. allowing for measurement error)
 CFA model allows the comparison of outcomes over time
 CFA facilitates the objective evaluation of the quality of the model through fit statistics

THE UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL
DISADVANTAGE
 Demographic Decline (predominantly rural)
 population loss and the social and demographic effects of emigration
(age dependency, low education of adult population)
 Social Class Deprivation (applying in rural and urban areas)
 social class composition, education, housing quality
 Labour Market Deprivation (predominantly urban)
 unemployment, lone parents, low skills base

THE BASIC MODEL OF AFFLUENCE AND DEPRIVATION d
7 d
8 d
5 d
6 d
9 d
10 d
3 d
4 d
1 d
2
Age Dependency Rate
Population Change
Primary Education only
Third Level Education
Professional Classes
Persons per Room
Lone Parents
Semi- and Unskilled Classes
Male Unemployment Rate
Female Unemployment Rate
Demographic
Growth
Social Class
Composition
Labour Market
Situation

DYNAMIC PATH DIAGRAM FOR
1991, 1996, 2002 AND 2006
Demographic
Growth 91
Initial Growth
0.80

4
R 2 = .80
Demographic
Growth 96
Rapid Growth
1.19

7
R 2 = .83
Demographic
Growth 02
Slow-Down
0.93

7
R 2 = .85
Demographic
Growth 06
0.20
0.15

5
0.08
-0.51

8
-0.16
-0.03

8
0.86
0.28
0.56
Social Class
Composition 91
0.04
0.66
-0.16
0.23
-0.02
R 2 = .95
Social Class
Composition 96

6
0.30
0.81
0.31
0.12
-0.33
R 2 = .90
-0.04
Social Class
Composition 02
0.83
0.01

9
0.27
-0.06
R 2 = .89
Social Class
Composition 06

9
Labour Market
Situation 91
0.97
Labour Market
Situation 96
R 2 = .94
1.11
Labour Market
Situation 02
R 2 = .92
1.02
Labour Market
Situation 06
R 2 = .94
There is only a small correlation between the urban and rural components of the index.
This confirms the theoretical underpinning of the model which stipulates that urban and rural disadvantage are conceptually different and that the unemployment rate, for example, is not a useful indicator of rural deprivation.

CHANGE IN ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES,
1991-2006
Number of EDs
1200
1000
800
1991
1996
2002
2006
600
400
200
0
- 42.5 - 37.5 - 32.5 - 27.5 - 22.5 - 17.5 - 12.5 - 7.5 - 2.5
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5
The figure shows the unprecedented growth in Ireland over the past 15 years, with greatest changes occurring in the 1996 to 2002 period.
 1991 – 1996: increase in mean scores of 2.4
 1996 – 2002: increase in mean scores of 5.8 (8.2 cumulatively)
 2002 – 2006: increase in mean scores of 0.7 (8.9 cumulatively)

CHANGE IN CENTRED DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2006
Number of EDs
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 ex t r emel y v er y di s adv ant aged di s adv ant aged di s adv ant aged mar gi nal l y bel ow av er age mar gi nal l y abov e av er age af f l uent v er y af f l uent ex t r emel y af f l uent
1991
1996
2002
2006
The figure shows the distribution of deprivation scores after ‘detrending’ the data; i.e. subtracting the average national growth in affluence. The main observation is the gradual narrowing of the distribution over time. This, however, has to be interpreted in the context of a substantial decline in deprivation. As the measurements for each indicator slide down the scale, during this period of rapid growth, the observations tend to cluster more narrowly around the mean.

CHANGE IN RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2006
Number of EDs
1000
800
600
400
200
0 ex t r emel y v er y di s adv ant aged di s adv ant aged di s adv ant aged mar gi nal l y bel ow av er age mar gi nal l y abov e av er age af f l uent v er y af f l uent ex t r emel y af f l uent
1991
1996
2002
2006
The figure shows the final distribution of Relative Deprivation Scores, after controlling for the underlying trend and standardising its spread. The scores thus look at deprivation at each point in time; i.e. as it might be perceived in relative terms.

OVERLAY OF PAIRED RELATIVE INDEX SCORES,
1991-2006

MAPPING DEPRIVATION most disadvantaged most affluent marginally below the average marginally above the average disadvantaged affluent very disadvantaged extremely disadvantaged very affluent extremely affluent

ABSOLUTE
AFFLUENCE
AND
DEPRIVATION
1991 - 2006
Absolute Index Scores, 1991-2006
Haase & Pratschke 2008
30 to 50
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
-10 to 0
-20 to -10
-30 to -20
-50 to -30
1991 1996
2002 2006

COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES,
1991-2006
 Shows how affluence has grown throughout the whole country.
 Greatest change occurred between 1996 and 2002.
 Shows how affluence has grown in concentric rings around the main urban centres, effectively demarcating the urban commuter belts.
 Shows that, with the exception of Dublin Inner City, cities in general have not improved in their affluence as much as the rest of the country.

RELATIVE
AFFLUENCE
AND
DEPRIVATION
1991 - 2006
Relative Index Scores, 1991-2006
Haase & Pratschke 2008 very affluent affluent marginally above average marginally below average disadvantaged very disadvantaged extremely disadvantaged
1991 1996
2002 2006

COMPARISON OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES,
1991-2006
 Apart from Dublin Inner City, where there is evidence of substantial gentrification, there are little differences in
Relative Deprivation Scores between 1991 and 2006, representing random noise only.

STRENGTHS OF CFA-BASED DEPRIVATION INDICES
 true multidimensionality, based on theoretical considerations
 provides for a balanced approach between urban and rural deprivation
 no double-counting
 rational choice to indicator selection
 uses variety of alternative fit indices to test model adequacy
 identical structure matrix across multiple waves
 identical measurement scale across multiple waves
 true distances to means are maintained (i.e. measurement, not ranking)
 distinguishes between measurement of absolute and relative deprivation
 allows for true inter-temporal comparisons

TOWARDS AN ALL-ISLAND DEPRIVATION INDEX FOR
THE ISLAND OF IRELAND (OVERVIEW)
 Brief History of Deprivation Indices North and South
 New Census Geographies
 The Need for consistent All-Island Data
 The 2011 Census
 A feasible Methodology

DEPRIVATION INDICES NORTH AND SOUTH
 Northern Ireland
 1981 – Urban Priority Areas (Department of the Environment-UK, 1983)
 1991 – Relative Deprivation in NI (Robson et al., 1994)
 2001 – NI Multiple Deprivation Measures (Noble, 2001)
 2005 – NIMDM update (NISRA, 2005)
 2010 – NIMDM update (NISRA, 2010)
 Republic of Ireland
 1991 – Index of Relative Affluence and Deprivation (Haase et al., 1996)
 1996 – Index of Relative Affluence and Deprivation (Pratschke & Haase, 2000)
 2002 – Index of Relative Affluence and Deprivation (Haase & Pratschke, 2005)
 2006 – New Measures of Deprivation (Haase & Pratschke, 2008)
 2006 – Pobal-Haase Deprivation Index (Haase & Pratschke, 2010)

NEW CENSUS GEOGRAPHIES
 Northern Ireland
 Census Output Areas (OA), as of 2001
 Super Output Areas (SOA), as of 2001
 Republic of Ireland
 Atomic Small Areas (SA), as of 2006
 need to derive SOA equivalents

THE NEED FOR CONSISTENT ALL-ISLAND DATA
 to facilitate Cross-Border Initiatives
 PEACE III
 INTERREG IV
 IFI
 administratively
 CSO / NISRA co-operation
 AIRO / ICLRD
 INIsPHO

THE 2011 CENSUS
 Close match of Data for Ireland, North and South
 2011 Census provides European-wide comparable data
 The need for new measures of regional disparity at European level

METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES (OVERVIEW)
 Comparability of Indicator Variables
 Temporal Synchronicity
 Common Dimensionality of Deprivation
 Common Statistical Model
 Standardisation of Index Scores across Multiple Jurisdictions

COMPARABILITY OF INDICATOR VARIABLES
 Comparable Indicator Variables

Population Change

Age Dependency
 Lone Parents Ratio
 Male Unemployment Rate
 Female Unemployment Rate

Average Number of Persons per Room
 Significantly Varying Indicator Variables
 Proportion of Adult Population with Primary Education Only

Proportion of Adult Population with Third Level Education
 Proportion of Population in Higher and Lower Professional Classes
 Proportion of Population in Semi- and Unskilled Manual Classes

TEMPORAL SYNCRONICITY
 NI data relates to 2001 Census
 RoI data relates to 2006 Census
 This is not a huge problem. As the inter-temporal analysis of deprivation across four census waves for the RoI has shown, relative deprivation does not significantly change over time.
 The present analysis is intended to be first and foremost a ‘proof of concept’. Its real significance lies in being applied with respect to the 2011
Census.

COMMON DIMENSIONALITY OF DEPRIVATION d
8 d
4 d
3 d
2 d
5 d
6 d
11 d
7 d
9 d
10 v3 Age Dependency Rate v2 Population Change v5 Primary Education Only v6 Third Level Education v11 Persons per Room v7 Professional Classes v8 Semi/Unskilled Classes v4 Lone Parents v9 Male Unemployment v10 Female Unemployment
Demographic
Decline
Social Class
Disadvantage
Labour Market
Deprivation

MAXIMUM COMMON STATISTICAL MODEL
Variable
POPCHG
AGEDEP
LONEPA
EDLOW_
EDLOW_
EDHIGH
EDHIGH
HLPROF
LSKILL
UNEMPM
UNEMPF
PEROOM
PEROOM
F2,F1
F3,F1
F3,F2
E7,E6
V2
Path
F1
V3
V4
V5
V5
F1
F3
F1
F2
V6
V6
V7
V8
V9 F3
V10 F3
V11 F1
V11 F2
F1
F2
F2
F2 unstandardised
Model RI Model NI
-0.621
1.000
-0.621
1.000
0.851
1.186
1.000
-1.713
0.851
3.465
1.000
-1.298
-1.425
-1.877
1.280
1.000
0.844
-0.587
0.711
-0.862
-1.526
1.600
1.000
0.844
-0.587
0.711
10.564
6.375
49.316
10.564
6.375
49.316
22.283 21.566 standardised
Model RI Model NI
-0.267
0.667
-0.252
0.372
0.494
0.515
0.602
-0.532
0.722
0.571
0.536
-0.288
-0.614
-0.927
0.908
0.708
0.539
-0.378
0.635
-0.621
-0.898
0.963
0.852
0.751
-0.176
0.695
0.265
0.156
0.872
0.634
0.371
0.883
0.558 0.693

STANDARDISATION OF INDEX SCORES ACROSS
MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS
 Joint standardisation of all factor scores
 Simple additive approach to combining factors scores
 Resulting in comparable deprivation scores North and South, based on an identical factor structure.

ALL-ISLAND
DEPRIVATION
INDEX FOR
2001 / 2006
All-Ireland Deprivation Index, 2001, 2006
Haase & Pratschke, 2011
30 to 50 (75)
20 to 30 (468)
10 to 20 (2291)
0 to 10 (7183)
-10 to 0 (6879)
-20 to -10 (2588)
-30 to -20 (465)
-60 to -30 (12)

ALL-ISLAND DEPRIVATION INDEX 2001 / 2006

ALL-ISLAND DEPRIVATION INDEX 2001 / 2006 + ROADS

HOW TO JUDGE A GOOD DEPRIVATION INDEX
 Back to the purpose of deprivation indices, i.e. their ability to
1.
facilitate the simultaneous comprehension of multiple indicators.
2.
to provide the basis for the effective targeting of the most disadvantaged areas.
3.
to provide a means by which to compare performance between regions, assess change over time, and facilitate monitoring and evaluation.
4.
enjoy broad support amongst all key stakeholders, including government departments, state agencies and community representatives.
 By way of cross-referencing deprivation scores with a multitude of key social, economic, health and other outcomes which are known to have an
SES gradient.