Communities and Local Government

• Communities and neighbourhoods
• Indices of deprivation 2000: background

Communities and neighbourhoods

Indices of deprivation 2000: background

Although this report was commissioned by the Office, the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Since the 1970s DETR/DoE have developed measures of multiple deprivation to help inform the targeting of its regeneration policies on the most deprived areas. These indices have typically been based on census data and have been produced for all local authorities, wards and, in 1991, numeration districts in England.

Early in 1998 the DETR updated its Index of Local Conditions (ILC) The main aim of this was to update the information taken and used in the 1991 ILC to a 1996 base and to realign it to the new local authority boundaries. The data at local authority level was, in the main updated to 1996 figures. The resulting Index was renamed the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation (ILD). This updating exercise highlighted a number of key areas where further work was required to improve the index, and it was recognised that this 1998 update had its limitations.

In December 1998, the DETR commissioned the University of Oxford to carry out a review of the previous 1998 Index of Local Deprivation. This review was commissioned to take account of the better small area data which had become available, and to counter criticisms of the methodology (chi-squared) which was used to combine the indicators in the 1998 ILD.

It is important to note that even since a few years ago there is generally a much better understanding of what constitutes deprivation, who suffers from it and where they live. Much of this understanding has been developed as a result of greater data availability and better analytical capacity. The availability of data for small areas from non-census sources is likely to increase, and it is therefore necessary to view the Indices of Deprivation as relatively dynamic in nature. It will need to continually evolve to take account of better data availability and processing capabilities if it is to effectively identify the most deprived areas at any point in time. It should therefore be borne in mind that, whilst it is desirable to be able to carry out simple updating to the index on a fairly regular basis, it may also be necessary to make further major revisions within a few years' time. In the longer term a more fundamental review will be necessary, not least to consider the implications of data availability from the 2001 Census.