New JSNA: This is the test site for the new Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

Deprivation by Ward and Lower Super Output Area

Introduction

The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) are used by local authorities and other bodies to understand patterns of deprivation as they occur throughout a larger area.

Whilst Reading benefits from high employment and high earnings, there are some areas in the borough that are experiencing high and rising levels of deprivation. Between the 2001 census and the most recent census in 2011, two areas in South Reading (the far south of Whitley ward and to the south of Northumberland Avenue in Church ward) fell into the 10% most deprived areas in England. The most recent IMD data was produced in late 2015.

Lower Super Output Areas are a geography for the collection and publication of small area statistics (LSOAs). They have an average of 1,500 residents each, who experience similar social and economic conditions (DCLG, 2015). IMD scores by ward and (LSOA) in the Reading borough suggest a number of small areas of high deprivation where household incomes, employment and qualifications are low. In other deprived areas, mainly around the town centre, high deprivation is linked with a high rate of crime and a poor living environment.

What do we know?

The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) combines scores across seven domains to produce an overall relative measure of deprivation, which ranks small areas in England from 1st most deprived area to 32,844th least deprived area. Lower Super Output Areas are a geography for the collection and publication of small area statistics (LSOAs). They have an average of 1,500 residents each, who experience similar social and economic conditions (DCLG, 2015). The domains are combined using the following weighting:

  • Income deprivation (measures the proportion of the population experiencing deprivation linked to low income) - 22.5%
  • Employment deprivation (measures the proportion of working age population who are involuntarily excluded from work) - 22.5%
  • Education, Skills and Training deprivation (measures the lack of attainment and skills in the local population in two subdomains: a) adults and b) young people) - 13.5%
  • Health deprivation and Disability (measure the risk of premature death and impairment of quality of life through poor physical or mental health) - 13.5%
  • Crime (measures the risk of personal and material victimisation) - 9.3%
  • Barriers to housing and services (measures the physical and financial accessibility of housing and local services in two subdomains: a) geographical barriers and b) wider barriers such as affordability and homelessness) - 9.3%
  • Living Environment deprivation (measures the quality of the local environment in two subdomains a) quality of housing and b) air quality and road traffic accidents.

Mapping IMD on to wards (see Figure 1) suggests a concentration of low deprivation in the north of the borough (Mapledurham, Thames and Peppard wards) and high deprivation in central and southern areas (Norcot, Battle and Abbey wards in the centre and Whitley and Church wards in the south.

Figure 1: IMD 2015 by ward

image1

Source: Office of National Statistics, IMD 2015

The same broad pattern is observable when IMD are mapped on to LSOAs, but in this case it is possible to see the areas within wider ward areas that are most deprived.

In particular, high levels of deprivation are clustered around South Whitley and the Northumberland Avenue area in the south of the borough, throughout Abbey ward in the town centre, and in specific neighbourhoods in the otherwise affluent west and north areas of the borough (areas of Norcot, Southcote and Lower Caversham).

Figure 2: IMD 2015 by LSOA Map

image2

Source: Office of National Statistics, IMD 2015

The overall IMD score is composed of different elements; the areas identified above do not all experience deprivation in the same way. Figure 3 shows each ward's rank in Reading (where 1 is the most deprived in each domain and 16 is the least deprived). The identified pattern is complex; Whitley ward is ranked highest for income deprivation, but appears to be less affected by crime, poor housing, air quality and road accidents. Similarly, despite a reasonably high ranking for income and education, Abbey ward is ranked low for health, crime, barriers to housing and services and living environment.

Figure 3: IMD domain ranks for each Reading ward.

image3

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government. Part of Indices of Deprivation. 2015

Similarly, the ten overall most deprived LSOAs rank relatively highly against other areas in Reading for living environment (housing condition and central heating, air pollution, road accidents), barriers to housing and services (road distances to schools, GP services, supermarkets, housing affordability, homelessness and overcrowding) and crime (rates of recorded crime) (See Table 1 below).

Table 1: Rank of overall most deprived LSOAs in each IMD domain (1 is most deprived, 98 is least deprived)

LSOA Area

Income

Employment

Overall

Education

Health

Barriers

Crime

Living Environment

South Whitley Wood

6

1

1

2

1

30

18

69

Northumberland Ave/Staverton Road

1

2

2

3

7

14

12

64

Northumberland Ave/Dawlish Road/Merton Road

4

5

3

1

12

23

13

71

Northumberland Ave/Blagdon Road

2

7

4

4

9

5

17

76

Dee Road/The Meadway

3

3

5

11

3

38

22

59

Dee Road/Norcot Roundabout

4

6

6

15

6

24

23

49

Coronation Square

9

4

7

8

2

53

26

52

Northumberland Ave/Hexham Road

7

11

8

17

4

41

7

46

Northumberland Ave/Blandford Road

8

13

9

6

21

34

14

57

Amersham Road

12

13

10

5

11

71

2

50

Average

5.6

6.5

5.5

7.2

7.6

33.3

15.4

59.3

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government. Part of Indices of Deprivation. 2015

Some areas around the town centre are also highlighted as areas of high deprivation. In contrast to the other areas of identified, these tend to score better for income, employment and education and skills deprivation, but worse for other domains, especially living environment and crime. Figure 4 below compares ranks in each of the different domains for the six most deprived wards in Reading, with those in the town centre coloured green and those elsewhere coloured blue.

Figure 4: IMD domain ranks for the most deprived wards in Reading.

image4

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government. Part of Indices of Deprivation. 2015

Scoring for health deprivation provides insight to the areas that may have higher health needs than the rest of the population, and can usually be expected to follow the same pattern as overall deprivation. Figure 5 compares the overall IMD score with health deprivation and, despite some apparent outliers, demonstrates a very close relationship. The coefficient of correlation in this instance is 0.897 (which is very close to the 'perfect' correlation score of 1).

Figure 5: Comparison of health deprivation with overall IMD

image5

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government. Part of Indices of Deprivation. 2015

National & Local Strategies (Current best practices)

The Marmot Review (2010) sets out the impact of inequalities on health and wellbeing and its findings and recommendations are recognised by local and national government. Local Authorities are required to consider wider factors that will impact on their communities' health and wellbeing (DH, 2013).

Reading Borough Council's Tackling Poverty in Reading strategy sets out priorities for the local authority to reduce inequality (RBC, 2013).

What is this telling us?

Key areas of high deprivation in Reading are found:

  • in the far south of Whitley ward and the Northumberland Avenue area in the south of the borough;
  • throughout Abbey ward and around the town centre;
  • around Dee Road in Norcot ward;
  • around Coronation Square in Southcote ward; and
  • around Amersham Road in Lower Caversham.

In areas outside of the town centre deprivation appears to be driven by low income, low employment and lack of education and skills, while in town centre areas deprivation appears to be more closely linked to high levels of crime and poor living environment.

Although there are some exceptions, most areas with high levels of overall deprivation also have a high level of health deprivation (high risk of premature death and impairment of quality of life through poor physical or mental health) and correlation of health and overall IMD rankings within the borough is very high.

What are the key inequalities?

Residents in key areas with high deprivation are at higher risk of poor health in future.

This section links to the following sections in the JSNA:

Residents in key areas with high deprivation are at higher risk of poor health in future.

The information contained within this report can be used across all JSNA areas to help target action towards those communities where health challenges are greatest.

References

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2015). English Indices of Deprivation 2015. London, DCLG.

Department of Health (DH) (2013). Statutory Guidance on Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies. Department of Health, London

Marmot, M. (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010. London, University College London. Available at: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review

Office of National Statistics (ONS) (2015). The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464431/English_Index_of_Multiple_Deprivation_2015_-_Infographic.pdf

Reading Borough Council (2013). Tackling Poverty in Reading - Summary. Available at: http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/2297/Tackling-Poverty-Strategy-Summary/pdf/Tackling_Poverty_Strategy_Summary.pdf [Accessed: 02/02/2016]. 

  

Switch To High Contrast Mode