Consultation outcome

Indices Futures: Updating the English Indices of Deprivation (IoD) consultation - government reponse

Updated 22 December 2022

Executive summary

The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (the IMD), produced as part of the broader Indices of Multiple Deprivation (the IoD or the Indices), is the official measure of relative deprivation at small-area level in England. The most recent iteration of the Indices was published in 2019 (IoD2019).

It is important that any future update of the Indices continues to meet the broadest range of user needs whilst also continuing to draw on the most up-to-date and relevant data available to measure multiple deprivation at a small-area level. An open consultation, Indices Futures: Updating the English Indices of Deprivation – consultation, was held between 15 July 2022 and 23 September 2022. No new proposals were introduced as part of this and timelines for any update are yet to be confirmed. The consultation invited users to engage and feedback on all aspects of the Indices release, to help build and shape work on any future iteration.

In total, 117 responses were received from users across local and central government or arms-length bodies, academic and educational institutions, the third sector, community organisations and other self-identified respondents.

Across all responses there was overwhelming support for an update to the Indices given its prominent use across sectors. There was also wide acknowledgement that an update was required given the importance of small-area measures in current policy making, the strategic developments in administrative data sources since the 2019 release, such as Universal Credit, the impact of the pandemic and the current cost-of-living pressures.

Respondents also suggested a broad range of new indicators, data sources, methodologies and statistical techniques to explore as part of any future release, to enhance the suite of measures and help any future Indices reflect current experiences and circumstances.

In response to users’ feedback through the consultation process, the Project Team commit to five lead actions to take forward as part of any future Indices release;

• Action 1 – the Project Team commit to reviewing the domains of deprivation to ensure each remains’ robust, incorporates the most accurate available data and aligns to current experiences and circumstances, as far as is practically possible
• Action 2 – the Project Team commit to reviewing the methodology and statistical techniques used to construct the Indices
• Action 3 – the Project Team will endeavour to publish as much underlying data as is practical and feasible, in line with the necessary permissions and data protection protocols
• Action 4 – the Project Team will build on the suite of resources and guidance, in line with user feedback
• Action 5 – the Project Team commit to continued work with the Devolved Nations to explore the potential for further harmonisation as part of any future release

Publication dates for any future Indices release are yet to be confirmed. Users can be kept informed on Indices developments by subscribing to our e-mail alerts. To register, please e-mail indices.deprivation@levellingup.gov.uk.

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

The English Index of Multiple Deprivation (the IMD), produced as part of the broader Indices of Multiple Deprivation (the IoD or the Indices), is the official measure of relative deprivation at small-area level in England. The IMD is designed to identify those small areas where there are the highest concentrations of several different types of deprivation. The Indices suite of resources are a designated National Statistic and are published by statisticians at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

The most recent releases, the IoD2019, were constructed by a joint research partnership between Deprivation.org and Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI).

An open consultation, Indices Futures: Updating the English Indices of Deprivation – consultation, formally inviting users’ views and feedback on the IoD, was held between 15 July 2022 and 23 September 2022 and was managed in accordance with the government’s consultation principles and the Code of Practice for Statistics.

No new proposals were introduced as part of this consultation, and timelines for any update are yet to be confirmed. Rather, the consultation aimed to allow users to feed back on their use of the IoD directly. This included feedback on the Indices methodology and data sources, and where and how the suite of outputs could be improved as part of any potential future release.

Users were invited to make general comments, raise concerns, and make suggestions on methods, domains, indicators, and outputs at the relevant sections via an online survey. A series of more detailed discussions with specific user groups were also held as part of this process.

It is key that future updates of the IoD continue to meet the broadest range of user needs and uses, whilst also continuing to draw on the most up-to-date and relevant data available to measure multiple deprivation at a small-area level. Consulting at this time will allow responses to be acted upon, where feasible, and considered as part of any future IoD updates.

This document provides a summary of the responses to the consultation and outlines some key specific actions the Project Team commit to taking forward should the Indices be updated in future. It does not repeat the full detail included in the original consultation document.

1.2 Respondents

In total, 117 respondents replied to the Indices Futures’ consultation. The Department wishes to thank everyone who took the time to engage with this process.

The table below shows the number of responses received by type of organisation. Almost two-thirds of responses were received from Local Government users. Respondents from Central Government / Arms-Length Bodies and other Self-identified Organisations were also relatively well represented. A smaller number of respondents identified as representing Academic / Educational Institutions and Third Sector / Charities. No respondents identified as representing community organisations.

Organisation Type	Total	Percent
Local Government	67	57%
Central Government or Arms-Length Body	20	17%
Academic / Educational Institution	8	7%
Third Sector / Charity	8	7%
Community Organisation	0	0%
Other Self-identified Organisation	14	12%
Total	117	100%

1.3  Summary of key uses

Users fed back that use of the Indices is wide ranging and continues to grow. Some key policy specific uses of the combined IMD measure, the individual domains and supplementary indices have been summarised below. These have been drawn from responses to Q.1 in each section. More detailed feedback from respondents on the range of broader uses can be found in subsequent domain specific sections.

• The overall IMD measure is used to help profile service users and develop local needs assessments, such Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) and Community Safety Partnerships (CSP). The IMD is often augmented with other data, such as locally collected surveys, to better explore specific challenges in local areas, segment. respondents in analysis and to analyse the impact of potential policy interventions.
• The Income Deprivation domain is used to help identify areas more likely to meet Green Homes Grant income eligibility criteria and underpins broader strategy and policy programmes, such as Public Health planning, NHS England Core20PLUS5 and area JSNAs.
• The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) is used in a variety of school and pupil level analysis including the National School Funding Formula, pre-16 school and 16-18 education funding and the School Health Needs Index. It has also been used to compare vaccine and positive Covid test rates in school pupils.
• The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) has been used to identify areas containing high proportions of vulnerable people during the pandemic, alongside assessing the risk of infection, hospitalisation and mortality in small areas. This has extended to analysing the impact of funding changes to adult social care.
• The Employment Deprivation domain has been used locally to inform the distribution of funding received, specifically from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and the Levelling Up Fund. It is also used to compare employment deprivation in coastal communities to other communities throughout England.
• The Education, Skills and Training Deprivation domain has been used to assess free school meal take up, as a proxy to measure family poverty, the need for adult education courses such as ESOL, and the impacts of the wider determinants of health.
• The Health Deprivation and Disability domain is specifically used to assess the effectiveness of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) formula in distributing public health funding and to identify areas where programmes may be required to improve health and wellbeing in local areas.
• The Crime domain is used to identify areas in need of intervention, additional support or where crime prevention activities may be required, alongside modelling national variations in crime, feeding into Community Safety Strategic Assessments and the sample design for the Crime Survey for England and Wales.
• The Barriers to Housing and Services domain is used to help estimate the level of homelessness in an area alongside understanding housing need and the risks of private renting. This domain provides one of the only recognised indexes of housing deprivation at a local level and, for some, is key to understanding deprivation in rural areas and the difficulty of delivering services to sparsely populated areas.
• The Living Environment Deprivation domain feeds into community safety reports, area strategies and policies relating to housing and transport planning. It also facilitates a better understanding of environmental factors and poor-quality housing at a local level for some users.

1.4 Common responses, feedback and actions

Throughout the consultation, respondents consistently provided feedback on, and raised important points across several, common issues. Forming the first part of a collated Department response, these points have been directly addressed here to avoid repetition throughout subsequent sections.

Common Response 1 – Users requested that more of the underlying data used to construct the Indices be made available as part of any future release

Department Response – As part of each Indices release, data for each underlying indicator is included in the suite of release outputs, where possible. For the IoD2019 this is included in File 8 online. The general principle behind the release of indicator data is that all indicators are published where permission has been granted from data suppliers. The main reasons for permission not being granted is because the data are sensitive and/or at risk of being disclosive. As part of any future release, the Project Team will endeavour to publish as much underlying data as is practical and feasible, in line with the necessary permissions and data protection protocols.

Common Response 2 – Users requested that a release calendar be made available to aid planning, and that more regular updates to the Indices be considered in the future

Department Response – The Indices are typically updated every 3 to 5 years, but the publication dates for future Indices have not yet been scheduled. As soon as any release date is confirmed it will be added to the GOV.UK release calendar and announced on the DLUHC website. Users can be kept informed on Indices developments by subscribing to our e-mail alerts. To register, please e-mail indices.deprivation@levellingup.gov.uk.

Common Response 3 – Users requested that any future Indices maintain a capacity for comparability over time

Department Response – When exploring changes in deprivation between iterations of the Indices, users should be aware that changes can only be described in relative terms, for example, the extent to which an area has changed rank or decile of deprivation – like comparing ‘snap shots’ over time. They cannot be used to identify real change in deprivation over time.

Other changes limit the ability to make comparisons over time, such as changes to the data used to construct the indicators, revisions to population denominator data, and changes to area definitions and administrative geographies. More information can be found in the Statistical Release, FAQ and Research Report online.

As part of any future release, the Project Team will continue to provide detailed guidance on how to accurately interpret change over time.

Common Response 4 – Users requested that data be published at Ward level as part of any future release

Department Response – The Department will not publish Ward level figures as an additional output as part of any future release. Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) are a more suitable small area geography than wards for measuring relative deprivation. Wards are much larger than LSOAs, vary greatly in size and are prone to regular boundary changes, making them unsuitable as a unit of analysis or for identifying pockets of deprivation. In contrast, LSOAs are smaller, of roughly even population size and, in the majority of instances, their boundaries are stable between Censuses. The Department’s view is that it would be unhelpful to have two small-area measures of deprivation released in parallel, as this would lead to confusion and could be potentially misleading.

However, as part of any future release, the Project Team will continue to publish guidance on how users can aggregate Indices data to different geographies.

Common Response 5 – Some users highlighted their need for specific resources, such as an API to access open data, guidance on bespoke aggregations, weighting, summary measures and mapping resources

Department Response – As part of the IoD2019, data was published in fully open format via our Open Data Communities platform, which is accessible via API. Similarly, guidance on bespoke aggregations, how users can create their own bespoke IMD, adjust weightings, and a suite of wider mapping resources were also released. Full information and links to all the resources available can be found in the Statistical Release and FAQ.

Additionally, further guidance on historic iterations of the Indices, and details on how the methodology has evolved and developed over time, is accessible via the Indices homepage.

As part of any future release, the Project Team will work to build on this suite of resources and guidance, in line with user feedback.

Common Response 6 – Users advised caution and highlighted the need to consider the impacts of the pandemic on the data sources drawn on as part of any future Indices update

Department Response – As noted in the consultation document, the Project Team are conscious that the pandemic will have had an impact on the datasets previously used to measure deprivation. The true scale of these impacts on future Indices production will be more fully considered and investigated by the Project Team as part of any future commission. Further stakeholder consultation and user engagement is likely to be undertaken as part of this and decisions will be documented as part of any future update.

Common Response 7 – Users advised caution and the need to consider the impacts of changes to the administration of the benefits system, specifically the rollout of Universal Credit, and how this may impact specific domains and an area’s overall level of deprivation

Department Response – The consultation document acknowledged that changes are likely to be required to both the Income Deprivation and Employment Deprivation domains, along with some indicators used as part of other domains, going forward due to the onset of Universal Credit. The Project Team are currently exploring the challenges and opportunities around this, and further stakeholder consultation and user engagement is likely to be undertaken as part of any future Indices release. Any changes will also be fully documented.

Further detail on how aspects of Universal Credit were incorporated in in the IoD2019 is available in the Technical Report.

Common Response 8 – Users highlighted the need to incorporate data from Census 2021

Department Response – The Department acknowledges the need to update any future Indices release based on new Census data. Census data is used in a minority of indicators where alternatives are not available. Any future update of the Indices will review the merits of including Census data against the availability of alternative data sources. Any new outputs will also be aggregated to new Census geographies.

Common Response 9 – Users requested the inclusion of ethnicity data as part of future Indices releases

Department Response – The Indices comprise a set of area-based measures of deprivation. An area is characterised as deprived relative to other areas on a particular dimension of deprivation, on the basis that a higher proportion of people in the area are experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area gives the area its deprivation characteristics. Data on ethnicity is not often available across the range of administrative sources used to construct the Indices and so an area-based, rather than an individual-based model of deprivation, is likely to be retained as part of any future release.

Further detail on how the Indices is constructed is available in the Technical Report. Other government departments have produced separate analysis using the IoD2019 focusing on people living in deprived neighbourhoods.

1.5 Collated department response and actions

Following on from more common points of feedback, as addressed above, many respondents also noted a number of specific and more detailed areas to consider as part of any future release. Forming the second part of a collated Department response, these points have been synthesised and directly addressed below to avoid repetition throughout subsequent sections.

Changes to methodology

A number of respondents provided specific feedback in relation to the methodologies and statistical techniques used within the Indices, as detailed in Figure 2.1 of the consultation. The prevailing sense across feedback suggested that any future release needs to strike a balance between continuity in method, weighting, concept and comparability while also accounting for the need to update indicators, new Census geographies, changes to administrative systems, and the impacts of the pandemic. Users have also indicated a preference for robust outputs to be prioritised over and above any other consideration (see summarised answers to Rank Q.1 below).

While the conceptual framework of the Indices is likely to remain consistent for continuity, the Project Team commits to reviewing the methodology and statistical techniques used to construct the Indices as part of any future iteration, building on the work carried out as part of previous releases. This work will be documented, and further stakeholder consultation and user engagement is likely to be undertaken as part of any future Indices release.

Changes to domains

User feedback regarding changes to domains predominantly notes a need to account for other aspects considered to be linked to deprivation, such as social capital and community infrastructure, which are not currently measured. Some users note the need to expand some domains, such as the Living Environment Deprivation domain, and to include new data indicators accounting for additional aspects of deprivation, such as access to green space, fuel poverty or broadband connectivity. Others noted the potential for new sub-domains, incorporating additional age specific populations, for instance. Conversely, other uses suggest that splitting out or removing aspects of other domains, such as the sub-domains incorporated in the Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation domain, would provide more accurate outputs.

In many cases too, users have suggested changes to domains, either methodologically or through the inclusion of new indicators, which are at odds with the definition of each domain and what each is trying to measure. For example, the Income Deprivation domain measures the proportion of the population in an area experiencing deprivation relating to low income. This includes both those people that are out-of-work, and those that are in work but who have low earnings. Suggestions on the inclusion of survey-based measures often fail to meet the data criteria required (noted below), and suggestions for the inclusion of indictors relating to aspects such as house prices, energy usage, debt or foodbank use, while perhaps related, fall outside of the type of deprivation the domain is attempting to measure.

While the conceptual framework of the Indices is likely to remain consistent for continuity, the Project Team commits to reviewing each domain to ensure they remain robust, are based on the most accurate available data and align to current experiences and circumstances as far as is possible and practical. This work will be documented, and further stakeholder consultation and user engagement is likely to be undertaken as part of any future Indices release.

The inclusion of new data indicators and data sources

For inclusion in the Indices, indicators and datasets must meet key criteria to be considered. Indicators should;

• be ‘domain specific’ and appropriate for the purpose. Meaning that, as far as possible, the indicator provides a direct measure of that form of deprivation,
• work to measure major features of that domain of deprivation, not only conditions just experienced by a small number of people or areas,
• be up-to-date and (as far as possible) updateable,
• statistically robust at the small area level and available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form.

Many new indicators and datasets have been suggested by respondents across questions. Whilst many are known and, in many cases, have been assessed as part of previous iterations, many fail to meet these criteria. However, as part of any future iteration, the Project Team remains committed to exploring new data indicators to improve and enhance the robustness of Indices measures. The Project Team also commit to investigating the specific datasets linked to sources which have been indicated in consultation responses, and which meet the data criteria for inclusion, as part of any future iteration. This work will be documented, and further stakeholder consultation and user engagement is likely to be undertaken as part of any future Indices release.

Closer policy alignment

Whilst a review of the data landscape forms part of initial scoping work for each iteration, since the release of the IoD2019, there have been significant changes across the use and development of small-area measures, directly impacting the Indices, which this consultation sought users’ feedback on.

One important shift has been the change in the overarching policy context around the Indices and small-area level data. The DLUHC’s Levelling Up white paper (LUWP) has brought with it a renewed focus on social justice and spatial disparities, not just within England, but across the UK more broadly. Its 12 key missions set out a road map for government to address geographic inequalities, which the Indices take a central role in quantifying. Related to this are a whole range of data and analytical focused government strategies, policies and initiatives, such as the National Data Strategy or the Government Statistical Group subnational data strategy, which will also help shape future releases.

Several respondents noted these changes, especially the prominence of the DLUHC’s LUWP metrics, citing the need for more alignment as part of any future Indices update. The Project Team commits to exploring how any future Indices can contribute, continue to meet, and develop further to meet more of, these emerging policy needs, in line with user feedback.

Harmonisation of outputs

Separate Indices are constructed for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Though not directly comparable, each suite of outputs is based on the same model and conceptual framework of deprivation. However, each nation interprets and measures deprivation differently, reflecting different national challenges, geographies, demographics and societies. See more on the similarities and differences between the Indices of Deprivation across the UK.

In response, some specific users emphasised a growing need for more harmonised outputs, to help align with policy objectives, as noted above, but to also help in specific areas of work, such as consistent sampling across nations and national comparisons. Indeed, the Office for Statistics Regulation recommended that improvements could be made in this area to meet a growing user and policy need in their recent review of the Indices, building on the consistent Income and Employment Deprivation data published across England and Wales. Conversely, responses to specific questions addressing greater harmonisation included in the consultation suggested that interest among all users was not felt (see responses to Method Q.3 below).

Still, production teams across each nation continue to work closely together and it is also recognised that there are efficiencies to be gained and burden reduced through closer harmonisation of process and outputs going forward. With this, the Project Team commit to continued work with all nations to explore the potential for further harmonisation as part of any future release.

2. Methodological overview and statistical techniques

In this section responses to the consultation regarding the methodology and statistical techniques used as part of the Indices construction have been analysed. Responses have been grouped by sector to give a broader picture of how the Indices are used across different user groups. In subsequent sections for each domain an overall summary of all responses is presented.

Overview Q.1 How do you make use of the Indices of Deprivation in your work?

From the 67 responses received from Local Government, many respondents fed back that they make extensive use of the Indices in multiple ways, specifically citing its prominence, relevance, comprehensiveness across geographies and socio-economic challenges.

General practical uses include mapping local deprivation, comparing areas over time, area profiling, and as a basis to explore local inequality. The Indices are also considered to be an important tool for benchmarking local areas within specific policy contexts.

The Indices also contribute to a wider evidence base within local government, in work to profile service users and develop local needs assessments, such as JSNA’s, CSPs and broader public health strategies. The Indices are also augmented with other data, such as locally collected surveys, to better explore specific challenges in local authorities and to segment respondents in analysis. Some areas referenced their use of the Indices in local lobbying activity. Outputs also help to contextualise operational and strategic performance and are regularly used in briefing council officers, elected members and community groups.

A key area cited by users is the role Indices outputs play in supporting decision making and local planning. These extend across funding bids, tailoring and targeting services, policy planning, prioritisation and delivery, resource, project and programme allocation, outcome monitoring, intervention impact evaluation, targeting of marketing activity, consultations, service offers, outreach programmes and community engagement.

From the 20 responses received from Central Government or Arms-Length Bodies, further specific uses fed back include; the Indices incorporation within a broad range of statistical production and publications, comparative analysis, both nationally and across different geographic scales, its use in funding allocations and distributions linked to specific policy areas. Other analytical examples include the Indices use in segmenting and stratifying outputs, predictive modelling, augmenting with other datastores and resources, incorporation within survey design and statistical comparisons. Outputs and documentation are also used in generating broader local insights, storytelling and aggregating to different geographies.

Overall, eight responses from Academic / Educational Institutions were received. Uses cited from this group included; examining differences in health, pupil location and relationships across other variables, comparison across the UK, spatial inequalities analysis, informing policy and as a teaching resource. The IMD measure is also used to monitor student admissions and evaluate outcomes. Specific users also noted their ‘non-use’ of the Indices, citing concern around comparisons across urban and rural areas.

Similarly, a total of eight responses also came from respondents representing Third Sector or Charity Organisations. Key uses of the Indices identified by respondents here included; to inform and advise donors and grant strategy, to help meet local needs for funding and support, in helping to better understand local areas, understanding funding expectations, in defining and understanding ‘left behind’ areas and assessing community need, in conjunction with other data sources, and helping community residents to plan and prioritise programme funding. Specific users also fed back their concern around appropriate use of the Indices in resource allocation.

A total of 14 responses were received from ‘Other’ organisations, self-specified as consultancies, think-tanks, areas of the NHS, non-profits, religious organisations, independent researchers, and members of the public. General uses of the Indices across this broader user groups include; in analysis of place-based issues and challenges, in area comparisons, whilst also making use of Scottish and Welsh equivalents, identifying areas and patterns of deprivation at a local level, health research, augmenting and comparing with other datasets and indicators.

More specific uses included; informing economic regeneration strategy, policies and business cases, targeting services, in strategic and local planning, to help determine and influence resource allocation and as part of monitoring and evaluating funding impacts. The Indices are also used in helping to define and understand concepts of wellbeing and civic strength in local areas, and within synthetic datasets and models to analyse the impact of potential policy interventions, both in conjunction with other data sources.

Specific users in this group also noted their ‘non-use’ of the Indices, citing concern around comparisons across urban and rural areas, as in other responses above.

Overview Q.2: Do you make use of individual domains, supplementary indices, the combined IMD measure or a combination thereof?

There were 106 individual respondents to this part of the question. Note that respondents were able to select more than one category in response, as reflected in the table and chart below.

Option	Total
All Measures	74
The Combined IMD Measure	66
The Individual Domains	54
The Supplementary Indices	47
Not Answered	11
Total	252

In total, 74 respondents indicated that they make most use of All Measures released as part of the IoD. The Combined IMD Measures was also widely used, ahead of the Individual Domains and Supplementary Indices. Overall, responses to this question made clear that the full suite of resources currently produced as part of the Indices are all widely used across sectors.

Overview Q.3: How would any change to the indices methodology, the indicators used, or the overall IMD measure potentially impact on your work?

There were 103 responses to this question. Many responses noted that the impact of any change to the Indices on their work would depend more specifically on what the change was. For example, there was broad support for updating domains and indicators to produce more up to date and accurate measures of deprivation, but less support for any radical departure from the Indices’ current methodology, given that its consistency overtime is considered a key strength.

The prevailing sense from feedback across user groups was that any future release needs to strike a balance between continuity in method, weighting, concept and comparability while also accounting for the need to update indicators, new Census geographies, changes to administrative systems, and the impacts of the pandemic.

More specific feedback from Central Government or Arms-Length Body users on the Indices’ methodology noted a need for more consistent and harmonised data across England and Wales, particularly in relation to crime for specific use in reviewing the Crime Survey for England and Wales. Users from the Local Government sector noted reservations around the use of the shrinkage technique, as it was felt to have a tendency to move deprivation scores towards a districts average. However, it was also accepted that other methods have been tested in the past which have not conclusively proved to be any more reliable. On geographies, another user from this sector highlighted that the concept of LSOA scores and ranks is deeply embedded in data processing across the sector, and any future release is urged to retain these.

A specific Academic user recognised that a degree of consistency over time is key to the usefulness of the Indices but that changes to weightings of domains be considered in future, as it was felt that the relative contribution of each domain may have changed. Consistency over time and the longer-term view the Indices provides was also highly valued by separate Local Government users.

More specific policy considerations noted by Local Government users highlighted a need to consider the impact of any change on schools funding, urging consultation with the Department for Education (DfE) on any future changes. Equally, any changes which could help measure deprivation in rural areas would also increase the Indices use by other respondents across sectors.

Regarding the indicators used and the overall IMD measure, there was strong support for improving, updating or widening the range of indicators used to measure each domain of deprivation, to improve the overall accuracy of the Indices and retain its detailed local insight. Indicators around digital connectivity were commonly cited as an area to consider. Changes to better align indicators to the DLUHC’s LUWP missions and metrics were also noted.

There was broad support across the feedback received for any pragmatic changes which improve the accuracy and timeliness of any future release, and detailed guidance to maintain transparency and help support appropriate use.

Other more general feedback noted that there is currently no alternative publication that provides deprivation data at a small area level, and that maintaining users confidence in the measures and statistical methods used is key to their continued use.

Specific Academic and Local Government respondents noted that any change in the methods or indicators used will likely impact the spatial patterns of deprivation observed. A broader set of Local Government users emphasised that their main priority would be to have the best measure to reflect current levels of deprivation, with comparability over time being of secondary importance. Conversely, others from the same sector emphasised their need for comparability first and accuracy second.

A specific user from Central Government/Arms-Length Body summarised neatly, noting that it is assumed that with each iteration of the Indices there will be changes to methodology and improvements made. This was felt to be an important principle as continuous improvement should always take place to enable the Indices to use the best available data. More specifically, changes to individual indicators or domains would be expected, providing they better reflect what each is trying to represent.

Method Q.1 do you have any general comments regarding the methodology used to construct the indices or the overall IMD measure?

In total there were 96 responses to this question. Feedback on the methodology used to construct the Indices, including the overall IMD measure, has been summarised below. Suggestions for additional indicators are more specifically addressed in subsequent sections.

Overall, feedback from users reflected the view that the current Indices’ methodology is reliable, transparent, logical and highly regarded. There was specific praise for the detailed level guidance. Several Local Government users noted the particular usefulness of scores for the two lead domains, Income Deprivation and Employment Deprivation, calling for them to be retained and replicated across other domains, if possible. One specific user also requested the development of more absolute measures of deprivation.

Feedback from many Local Government users noted a lack of support for substantial change to the overall methodology but that an update was necessary and required. Users also noted that consistency should be a secondary consideration and that improvements in the overall method should take precedence.

Some specific technical suggestions from Academic users included; reviewing the domain weights, exponential transformations, associated ranking steps and the shrinkage technique as part of any future release, to assess the impact of other comparable techniques. It was also felt that some domains overly rely on estimated data and that using factor scores may not be the most robust approach to combine indicators. A separate Self-identified user also noted that the use of factor analysis was felt to place too greater weight on measures of deprivation more common in urban areas, thus accounting for deprivation in rural areas less well.

Further feedback on deprivation in rural areas came from separate Academic users who noted that changes to the weighting and/or measures of the two lead domains may help to overcome a perceived urban bias in results. Specifically, it was felt that relying on a wider range of indicators, rather than predominately counts of benefit claimants, and incorporating other statistical techniques, could improve the consistency of these measures alongside the overall IMD. Similar feeling was shared by a Third Sector/Charity user, noting that more individual based, rather than area based, measures could also improve this. Specific Local Government users noted a need to account for aspects of deprivation thought to be more acute in rural areas as part of any future release.

Feedback from specific users across sectors suggested a range of additional domains be added to any future Indices production. A Third Sector user suggested the inclusion of a community infrastructure and social capital domain, to enhance the local insights gained from the Indices. A separate Self-identified user suggested the addition of a new domain measuring the strength of relationships and social capital at a local level. Lastly, a user from Central Government/Arms-length Body suggested the addition of a more developed environment domain, incorporating more human elements and factors such as access to green space. Similarly, a different Self-identified user suggested splitting out the Barriers to Housing and Services domain, referencing an inverse relationship between some of the indicators used.

Other data related and theoretical feedback received from Local Government users as part of this question related to exploring ways to also measure ‘hidden deprivation’. This extended to exploring how to provide more continuity in metrics and consistency in the indicator data timepoints used to construct domains. Similarly, a specific Academic user suggested the increased use and exploration of more modelled datasets to overcome any reliance on Census data. Other responses from Local Government noted the potential impact of the pandemic on 2021 Census population estimates, and the need to use revised mid-year estimates to help overcome them, alongside considering incorporating more information on vulnerable population groups.

There were also a group of responses focused on more guidance-related feedback. One respondent from Central Government or Arm’s Length Body noted that publishing any of the code used to produce the Indices would further increase its transparency as a resource. A separate response from a user in Local Government notes that any future guidance documentation could be more explicit on the history and evolution of the methods used to develop the Indices over iterations, specifically around domain weights and the overall number of domains. A Self-identified user also pointed to the production of summary measures of heterogeneity in a larger area, some of which have already been produced and are detailed in the Research Report.

Method Q.2 Do you have any general comments regarding the criteria used to select datasets for inclusion in the indices?

There were a total 82 responses to this section. Broadly, users across all sectors agreed that the criteria used to select datasets for inclusion in the Indices was sensible, robust, well understood and helpful. Some common aspects related to the criteria were highlighted as key to consider as part of any future Indices update, again from across sectors. These centred on the granularity of measures, the robustness of data indicators, the releases timeliness and the need for more recent data timepoints to be used across indictors.

Several users from the Local Government sector fed back on a range of more specific data criteria related aspects. These ranged from working to ensure that datasets included in the Indices have long-term availability, and are improved by those producing them over time, to the considered use of proxies where direct measures were unavailable. Other users from this group noted a need for ongoing development work across Government to produce more timely subnational statistics to help increase the range of datasets available for selection and reduce reliance on Census data.

Many respondents suggested new or additional indicators to explore relating to specific domains. These are unpacked in subsequent domain specific sections.

A range of comments were received concerning the consistency in data timepoints of the indicators used and their relevance. As a ‘snap-shot’, it was felt that some of the data used can quickly date after release. It was widely felt that working to include the most up-to-date data as part of any update would enhance the Indices outputs. One Local Government user recommend that no data timepoint be used which is more than two years older than the date of release. It was felt that this could offer a timelier reflection of deprivation in local areas. A similar suggestion was put forward by a Central Government/Arms-Length Body user, noting a one-year data time point limit instead. The same user went further, also suggesting that creating robust small area measures may require aggregation over several years, where greater weight could be given to the most recent data.

Separate Local Government users noted a lack of timeliness with some indicators used as part of the IoD2019, particularly Census data and data sourced from DWP, further detail on which is available in the Technical Report. It was suggested that more timely alternatives be sourced in future. However, conversely, a separate Local Government used suggested the inclusion of more Census based indicators, and another raised concerns around data availability and suitability due to the pandemic, which may also impact indicator timeliness.

Similar differences in feedback were noted from one Academic user who cited the potential to experiment with more survey based or modelled indicators using administrative data, which seems at odds with calls from other users around robustness and accuracy. A review of data sources was strongly advocated by one Local Government user while a separate user summarised by noting that indicators should be representative of the aspect of deprivation being measured, where possible, not just a specific point in time.

A range of users from different sectors suggested changes or refinements to the criteria used. Specific Academic and Local Government users suggested the ‘fine-tuning’ of domains to better reflect the deprivation in each LSOA, potentially using different measures for different areas. However, such a change would mean that ranks and scores across small areas would no longer be comparable. Several Local Government users noted a need for domains to be relevant and adjusted, accounting for current and emerging experiences of deprivation. It was also felt that indicators being ‘domain-specific’ limits the scope which may be used to measure them. A Third Sector user noted a need to include datasets that are more representative, specifically accounting for the challenges faced by people living in rural areas. Such a change would also impact the consistency and comparability of outputs.

Method Q.3: Would greater harmonisation across the UK nations individual indices releases be useful or of interest to you?

There were 101 responses to this question. Of those who responded, 57 respondents indicated that greater harmonisation across the UK nations would not be useful or of interest to them. This group overwhelmingly reflected the view of Local Government users, with 51 from the total of 57 respondents identifying themselves with this sector.

A total of 44 respondents noted that such outputs would be useful and of interest to them in future. Responses here were drawn more broadly from different sectors, with the highest total coming from Central Government or Arms-Length Body (14) and Local Government users (12). The remaining 16 respondents chose not to respond to this question.

Option	Yes	No	Not Answered
Academic / Educational Institution	7	1	0
Central Government or Arms-Length Body	14	1	5
Local Government	12	51	4
Third Sector / Charity	3	1	4
Other Self-identified Organisation	8	3	3
Total	44 (38%)	57 (49%)	16 (14%)

Rank Q.1: Please rank the following factors in priority order according to your needs (1 being highest priority and 6 being lowest of those listed)

In order of ranked priority, users indicated that the most important factor connected to their use and needs of the Indices was the robustness of outputs (65, column 1) followed by the timeliness of release (39, column 2). The remaining factors ranked as follows; the range of outputs (39, column 3), detailed documentation (32, column 4), interactive resources (49, column 5), and lastly something other than the options listed (24, column 6). Examples of other factors suggested included the reports and infographics summarising the Indices, the timeliness of the underlying data, and consistency between the English and Welsh Indices. Note that not all users assigned rankings to all options, so column and row totals may differ.

	1 - Most	2	3	4	5	6 - Least
Timeliness of release	25	39	19	11	6	2
Robustness of outputs	65	29	8	0	2	0
Range of outputs	4	22	39	31	7	0
Interactive resources	4	4	9	24	49	11
Detailed documentation	2	11	22	32	34	1
Something else	5	0	3	2	2	24

3. Domains and Indicators of Deprivation

3.1 Income Deprivation Domain

Income Q.1 How do you use this domain or the supplementary domains affecting children (IDACI) or older people (IDAOPI)?

Of the 73 responses to this question, 67 respondents indicated that they used this domain for a variety of different purposes. General uses range from its incorporation into funding bids, supporting policy and strategy development, service planning, in identifying areas which may need intervention or additional support, progress monitoring, area profiling and to add context and narrative around policy.

More specific responses have been split out below to illustrate uses of the Income Deprivation domain and the supplementary domains separately.

Specific uses of the Income Deprivation domain shared by respondents include:

• To compare areas across each income-related measure and identify small areas of deprivation within larger, less deprived areas
• To highlight “pockets” within Local Authorities which may need more service support to help people back in to work and to locate areas housing larger concentrations of benefit claimants
• To assess the efficacy of funding targeted at specific individuals or low-income groups
• Identifying areas more likely to meet Green Homes Grant income eligibility criteria
• In testing as a potential indicator for future life expectancy
• Helping to target messaging and services to those most affected by increases to the cost of living, those managing debt and the dangers of ‘loan sharks’, and those potentially eligible to claim benefits who perhaps are not
• Underpinning broader strategy, initiatives, and policy programmes, such as Public Health, Strategy and Performance planning, NHS England Core20PLUS5, JSNAs, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Increasing Equality Commission

Specific uses of the supplementary domains affecting children (IDACI) or older people (IDAOPI) shared by respondents include:

• Tailoring and targeting specific services to the needs of small areas, and particularly to the needs of children and older people
• The IDACI has been used to help identify areas of child poverty, fuel poverty, high free school meal take-up, broader disadvantage in education and links to wider ‘levelling up’ measures. It has also been used in assessing the impact of the 2-child limit on benefits
• As part of various workstreams related to the pandemic, such as comparing vaccine and positive test rates in school pupils, food parcel distribution, predicting risk of infection, hospitalisation and mortality
• Planning voluntary youth and children’s services across small areas and communities
• In assessment of an area’s vulnerability to serious youth violence
• For a variety of school and pupil level analysis. The National School Funding Formula uses the IDACI to help allocate funding. It is also incorporated in funding formulas used to distribute pre-16 school and 16-18 education funding. The IDACI forms part of the School Health Needs Index and is used to estimate the proportion of deprived children by school and has been used in analysis comparing pupil attainment in urban and rural areas. The IDACI is also aggregated to school catchment areas to provide more specific insight, and at Local Authority level to generate bespoke statistics at school level to identify levels of deprivation across cohorts and year groups
• Feeding into a broader evidence base or other research, such as the Trouble Families Programme, assessing the speech, language and communication needs across areas, provision of children’s social care and modelling primary medical care
• Underpinning wider strategy, initiatives and policy programmes, such as local anti-poverty strategies and Start for Life service provision
• The IDAOPI was used to help identify areas containing high proportions of vulnerable people at the start of the pandemic, alongside assessing the risk of infection, hospitalisation and mortality in small areas
• The IDAOPI has been used in analysis to help understand the impact of funding changes to adult social care, identifying areas of potential digital exclusion and areas of low benefit take up (particularly Pension Credit)

Others highlighted the benefits of both the IDACI and IDAOPI being published as proportions, making them more digestible for end users. It was also felt that this makes them more practical to use and better facilitates analysis of change over time. Some users also indicated their appreciation that these outputs were more age-specific, and that all data produced on Income Deprivation as part of the Indices release was publicly available.

Income Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

Overall, 56 respondents to this question suggested a range of additional measures and indicators which could be included or investigated as part of any future Indices update.

Examples of users suggestions include; measures on working family poverty, real income drawn from annual estimates of paid hours worked and earnings for UK employees produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), income after housing costs, people unable to claim benefits, income fragility in the rural economy, income after debt repayments, low income people claiming only housing benefit, fuel poverty, foodbank use, additional wealth and income focused measures, disposable income and median salary.

One respondent from the Local Government sector suggested the inclusion of a purchasing power parity adjustment relating to the cost of living in an area, a more methodologic adjustment.

Users from both Local Government and Central Government/Arms-Length Bodies noted their preference for the inclusion of additional supplementary Indices focused on working-age people, single income households and disabled people as part of any future update.

Other users, predominantly from Local Government, expressed a need for more up to date and relevant indicators, moving away from a solely benefits based measure, towards a ‘basket of measures’ in future. This extended to indicators geared more towards rural areas, such as a relative cost of living measure, or adjustments to account for those eligible but not claiming certain benefits, which could address a perceived shortfall in claimant counts - both suggestions from specific Academic and Third Sector users.

Specific users from Local Government suggested that the IDACI could be more aligned to similar datasets produced by other government departments and that more guidance on appropriate use of this measure compared to other similar datasets would be welcomed. It was also suggested by one Academic user that any update could explore the feasibility of creating a similar measure of Income Deprivation created as part of the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2017 (NIMDM2017).

Income Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

Of 59 responses to this question, 28 users felt that changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain, and subdomains, would not significantly impact their use of it.

Some caution was noted, predominantly from the Local Government sector, around the need for clear guidance on any changes, the importance of retaining rates as a summary measure, working to ensure comparability overtime and a need for historical data to help facilitate this.

From 59 responses, eight users cited that any change would impact their use of domain outputs – four users from the Local Government sector, three Academics and one other Self-identified respondent. In particular, users from this group indicated that they would make greater use of this domain if it included measures of real workplace earnings or a measure of housing costs.

A range of users recognised the need for change in line with the advent of Universal Credit, as noted in the consultation.

Other respondents who did not explicitly indicate that their use would be affected did note a need for the inclusion of a cost-of-living adjustment, consideration of the impacts of the pandemic or rural areas more broadly, as noted in Q2. This extended to a need for future measures reflecting in-work poverty and absolute poverty to be considered.

Responses drawn from this group also noted their need for consistency in definition and concept of deprivation being measured should changes be made in future, and more robust outputs, drawing in a wider breath of indicators.

Income Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

We received 59 responses to this question. From this, 35 responses suggested other indicators or data sources which could be explored as part of any future release.

Examples of suggestions and specific datasets which were not also noted in responses to Income Q.2 include; children in poverty or low income families, earnings by place of residence and other indicators drawn from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, in-work poverty or benefit claimants, poverty gaps, children in absolute/relative poverty, low paid employment such as those on the minimum wage, data on households below average income after housing costs produced by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), small area income estimates produced by ONS, proportion of children claiming free school meals, measures of a minimum income standard produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, estimates of poverty after housing costs produced by End Child Poverty, ONS earnings and employment data from their pay as you earn real time database, average house prices, house price/average earnings ratios, average rents, energy usage, child exploitation, children in youth justice service, salaries, a measure relating to the cost of items people need to buy, pension provision.

Some specific users from the Local Government sector suggested that additional supplementary indexes measuring income deprivation affecting young people (e.g. aged 16 to 24) and wealth deprivation, comprised of measures focused on home ownership, pension provision, savings and investments, insurance and/or bank account holdings, would be welcomed. Similarly, other responses from the same sector suggested that additional variants on deprivation effecting older people and children could be added, particularly where age specific indicators from other domains were available, from the health or education domain for instance, and where others could be newly sourced, such as immunisation rates, data on NEET’s (those not in education, employment or training) or social isolation.

Specific users across Local Government recognised the need for change in line with the advent of Universal Credit, as noted in the Consultation.

Income Q.5 Data measuring income and employment deprivation has been produced across England and Wales, using a consistent methodology. Is this something you have made use of? If so, how?

There were 68 responses to this part of the question. Overall, 18 users indicated that they had made use of the combined Income and Employment Deprivation domains produced across England and Wales. Users predominantly represented Local Government (14), with some Central Government (2) and other Self-identified sectoral users (2).

Response	Total
Yes	18
No	50
Not answered	49

Uses ranged from small area level and national comparisons across time to broader regional analysis, national benchmarking and understanding trends in work patterns.

Specific users cited these combined domains in work on Mental Health and Wellbeing JSNAs, alongside data being used to understand local priorities, inform strategies, delivery plans, funding bids, policy analysis and evaluation.

A separate, smaller number of users indicated that they were not previously aware of these combined datasets and indicated that they would be using them in the future.

Other specific respondents noted the need for caution in comparisons due to the inclusion of adults and children in Universal Credit households across conditionality groups and the uneven geographic rollout of Universal Credit.

3.2 Employment Deprivation Domain

Employment Q.1 How do you use this domain?

Of the 53 responses to this question, 42 indicated that they used the Employment Deprivation domain in some capacity for a variety of different purposes.

General uses of this domain included; to rank and assess employment deprivation in local areas, providing context and narrative around policy, identifying ‘pockets’ of deprivation in otherwise less derived areas which may need intervention or additional support, comparing across other domains and sub-domains, making national comparisons, area profiling, mapping, benchmarking, to inform resource allocation, service development and strategic priorities, helping to tailor and target services to the needs of specific neighbourhoods, including consultations, service offers, and outreach campaigns.

More specific uses of this domain noted in user responses included;

• To inform area strategies and policies intended to improve access to employment, such as those relating to economic development, transport provision, infrastructure, education, skills and training
• In comparing employment deprivation in coastal communities to communities throughout England
• Used as an indicator of employment variances across local areas
• To help target support for employment programmes and assess regional unemployment interventions
• Used locally to inform distribution of funding received, specifically the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and the Levelling Up Fund, and identify areas in need of regeneration
• Used to correlate unemployment rates and deprivation across areas during the pandemic
• In analysis of economic strategies, including the London Industrial Strategy
• To support the development of anti-poverty strategies
• As part of primary medical care modelling and to help illustrate the impact of the wider determinants on health

Specific users noted that the Employment Deprivation domain is used within their wider research, including its incorporation into the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), and as part of local economic development analysis and other academic and voluntary organisation projects.

Other feedback from users highlighted the domain’s robustness at the time of release, but that other comparable data is available at more timely intervals from other sources. This is felt to distinguish the Employment Deprivation domain from the other six domains in that no comparable alternative for them is available, whereas it is for this domain.

Reference was also made to the complexity around defining and measuring employment deprivation and that additions to guidance may help overcome this. Individual users noted that having this domain presented as a rate makes it more practical.

Employment Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

There were 43 responses to this question. Within these responses a range of additional measures and indicators which could be included or investigated as part of any future Indices update were suggested by users, such as; economic inactivity measures, those partially excluded from the workforce, such as those in part-time/temporary/casual work but who are also seeking more work, insecure employment, quality of employment, average wages, Standard Occupational Classification, in work poverty, youth unemployment, data on ethnic background, employment opportunities in rural areas, claimants of Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payments, labour market statistics drawn from the Annual Population Survey, and 2021 Census data.

Specific users from Academia and the Third Sector raised a need to move away from a solely benefit dependant measure of employment deprivation, citing an implicit bias towards urban areas in overall rankings. The potential to avoid overlapping counts of some claimants with indicators used as part of the Income Deprivation domain was cited as an important consideration for one user from Local Government.

Other users from Local Government noted that additional age-related supplementary domains would be welcomed, alongside equalising retirement ages for men and women and accounting for increases in retirement age in any update.

There was also a good sense that, overall, the domain is well formulated and constructed but that any developments to enhance the reliability of results drawn from it would be welcomed.

Employment Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

Of 43 responses to this question, 23 users felt that changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain would not significantly impact their use of it.

Some caution was noted from users in Local Government around the need for clear guidance on any changes, the importance of retaining rates as a summary measure and ensuring comparability overtime.

There was also recognition for the trade-offs which may need to be considered as part of any update, between methodology and indicators, given the transition to Universal Credit for instance, and the achievement of an updated measure of employment deprivation. A specific Local Government users cited their need to potentially make use of this in analysing worklessness and ill health in relation to the long-term impacts of the pandemic.

Of the 43 responses, four users cited that any change to the methodology or data indicators would make a difference in their use of the domain – two Academic and two Local Government. Issues such as a reliance on benefit claimants to measure employment deprivation leading to a perceived urban bias in rankings and a need for greater distinguishing from the Income Deprivation domain were fed back, as in Employment Q.2.

Other respondents who did not explicitly indicate that their use would be affected did note the need to fully assess the impacts of any change ahead of incorporating into their work. Similarly, others noted that a broader set of more timely indicators would be welcomed and may lead to a greater policy use in future.

Employment Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

Within the 40 responses received to this question, respondents suggested other indicators or data sources which could be explored as part of any future iterations of this domain.

Examples of suggestions and specific datasets which were not also noted in responses to Employment Q.2 include; measures or people employed on zero hours contracts, percentage of people employed in jobs paying below living or minimum wage, other anonymised data from DWP, measures of short-term, temporary or contract-based employment, claimants of Employment and Support Allowance, rate of economic inactivity, data on part-time work, underemployment levels, temporary work, and night shift work drawn from the ONS Labour Force Survey.

A specific Self-identified user suggested the potential for a new sub-domain measuring the quality of employment within a place. Others noted that they didn’t feel other indicators or data sources were available which met all the necessary inclusion criteria or that aligned with the specific definition of employment deprivation used within the Indices.

Employment Q.5 data measuring income and employment deprivation has been produced across England and Wales, using a consistent methodology. Is this something you have made use of? If so, how?

There were 51 responses to this part of the question. Overall, nine users indicated that they had made use of the combined Income and Employment Deprivation domains produced across England and Wales using a consistent methodology in this section. Uses ranged from making comparisons at a small area level between nations to broader regional analysis and national benchmarking.

Response	Total
Yes	9
No	42
Not answered	66

Specific users in Central Government cited the use of these combined domains in health comparison analysis across nations of the UK and its links to other research such as the European Health Interview Survey and other poverty related analysis.

A smaller number of users indicated that they were not previously aware of these combined datasets and indicated that they would be using them in the future.

Other specific respondents noted the need for caution in comparisons due to the inclusion of adults and children in Universal Credit households across conditionality groups and the uneven geographic rollout of Universal Credit.

3.3 Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain

Education Q.1 How do you use this domain?

There were 47 responses to this question. Overall, 30 users provided specific feedback through this question and indicated a wide range of uses for this domain. Many respondents use this data to understand and map patterns of deprivation in education, skills, and training, and identify inequalities within and between areas. Some examined education deprivation in isolation, some in relation to the broader IMD measure while others sought to assess trends in the general level of education in an area over time.

Often, this measure was used in policy documents, and to inform service planning. This included targeting consultations, interventions, and funding to areas worst affected.

More specific uses included: as a proxy for free school meal uptake, for information around school transport, to assess the need for adult education courses such as ESOL, and to assess impacts of the wider determinants of health.

Education Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

Of 35 overall responses to this question, 20 respondents noted a variety of suggestions for changes to this domain.

Responses from users across Local Government/Arms-length Bodies and other sectors suggested adding indicators, such a child readiness, to capture deprivation and disparities in early years education, citing their predictive capacity for outcomes in later life. Respondents also suggested expanding the indicators capturing deprivation at primary age for similar reasons.

The replacement of the ‘continuation of post-16 education’ indicator to reflect changes in legislation was generally supported, particularly by users in Local Government, but some users raised concerns about the comparability of different iterations over time. The inclusion of apprenticeships in this measure was also mentioned in multiple responses.

Users in Local Government called for equalisation of the retirement age for men and women and taking into consideration the increases in retirement age generally, while others called for more age groupings and related supplementary domains.

Other suggestions included adding measures of digital skills for both children and adults, to help reflect deprivation in rural areas. The potential inclusion of data from students outside of the state sector, of work-related training, and metrics of educational quality, to complement existing performance-based measures, where also noted.

Education Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

There were 35 responses to this question. From these, 20 stated that changes to this domain would not significantly impact their use of it, so long as those changes were clearly communicated. However, the usefulness of comparing different iterations of the domain and wider Indices over time was widely expressed.

Of those who stated that changes would negatively affect their use of this domain, most acknowledged such changes were necessary to reflect developments in legislation, to ensure the data is relevant and up to date. Multiple users expressed their intention to conduct an impact assessment to review how any changes may impact its utility.

Several users stated that changes, such as those described above, would make them more likely to use this domain, displaying a preference for a methodology which better captures educational deprivation, over and above consistency. For instance, a specific user from Central Government/Arms-Length Body suggested that an updated education domain, used in conjunction with the IDACI, would aid the inspection and regulatory work conducted by Ofsted, providing greater context to inspectors during preparations. It was felt that such a change may also help users to better identify and understand attainment gaps and support internal analysis to inform the development of regulation and policy.

Education Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

There were 33 responses to this question. Following on from changes suggested in Education Q.2, 17 users suggested different potential indicators for inclusion.

One key theme in the responses from users in Local Government/Arms-length Bodies was the inclusion of indicators which better capture deprivation in early years. Ideas for specific indicators included the percentage of 3 to 4-year-olds taking up free education, or in funded early education (Good or Outstanding providers), and statistics on phonics decoding and reading age.

Similarly, there were suggestions from those same sectors relating to the expansion of indicators measuring educational outcomes in the primary sector. Multiple respondents suggested that data on absences, especially persistent, both authorised and unauthorised, should be included, in addition to school exclusions. Others suggested data on those meeting the expected KS1 standards in reading, writing and maths, Progress 8 scores, and the ‘Key to success’ dataset from the DfE, capturing KS1 performance.

For older age groups, users in Local Government and other sectors suggested including data capturing all Level 3 qualifications at KS5 (including AS levels), apprenticeships (starts and achievements), 16-17-year-old NEETs, and those not completing their higher education. One response from the Local Government sector suggested the inclusion of data on young people and children in an ‘Education, Health and Care plan’, as a proxy for disability or lack of ability to attain higher qualifications to compete in the job market.

Other specific suggestions included: data showing educational attainment gaps by Free School Meal eligibility, and the number of students with special needs as a proportion of the total by area.

3.4 Health Deprivation and Disability Domain

Health Q.1 How do you use this domain?

There were 52 responses to this question. Of these, 37 indicated several uses of this domain, such as to identify instances and spatial patterns of health inequality at a hyperlocal level. Often this is used to inform public health strategies or as an evidence base for service planning. This included targeting outreach campaigns, consultations, policy programmes and funding to those areas with worst outcomes. More specific feedback from Local and Central Government users included the use of this domain as an indicator of future life expectancy, and potential social care needs.

Multiple users noted that they use this domain to understand inequalities as part of, or in relation to, the broader Indices outputs, comparing health outcomes with the IMD or supplementary Indices, to understand relationships across dimensions of deprivation.

Some users noted that the Indices acts as a useful summary measure to complement more detailed metrics. Some reportedly pass on the data to researchers, and users of related tools, such as the CPRD.

Health Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

There were 35 responses to this question. Although users stressed the utility of comparability over time, 19 respondents made suggestions about changes that could be made to this domain.

Many respondents suggested considering new indicators for inclusion in this domain. These included additional or separate measures capturing child health outcomes, such as obesity at reception age, epidemiological indicators, health behaviours, drug and substance misuse, and limiting long-term illness data.

Several users, predominantly from Local Government, suggested giving greater weighting to the ‘mood and anxiety disorders’ portion of the domain and incorporating new data to better capture the trend of declining emotional wellbeing, such as data on self-harm.

Conversely, multiple other users expressed concerns about the ‘acute morbidity’ measure, with some advocating a lower weighting. While users acknowledged support for it in principle, concerns were raised about the impact of the pandemic on emergency admissions to hospitals, and consequently the problem of conflating health deprivation with reduced institutional capacity. A specific user noted the potential impact of the pandemic on the ‘potential years of life lost’ indicator, suggesting it should also account for deaths beyond the age of 75 and that increments should be one year rather than five-year bands to help reduce this.

Respondents across sectors stressed the need to assess the impact of the pandemic on health outcomes more broadly and communicate to users how this will be incorporated into any future update.

More specific methodological points were also made. These included calls for more frequent publications and/or updates to underlying indicators and greater consistency in the time points for each indicator. One Self-identified user called for subdomains within the health domain to have a larger weighting, while another from Central Government/Arms-Length Body requested the option to exclude this domain from the IMD for a particular use. Methods to achieve both were published as part of the IoD2019 guidance material (FAQ). A suggestion was also made for greater harmonisation with the NHS20+5 methodology.

Multiple users working in Local Government stressed the need for consideration of how changes to the benefits regime, and the rollout of Universal Credit, have impacted this domain, and in particular the comparative illness and disability ratio.

Health Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

There were 36 responses to this question. Of these, 19 stated that changes to the methodology or the indicators used to construct this domain would not affect their use of it, provided these changes are clearly communicated. Some users suggested that changes to the methodology of this domain, such as those suggested in response to the previous question, would increase their use of it.

One specific user in Local Government suggested the necessity to carry out an impact assessment to determine the effect of any changes to the domain on their work.

Feedback on changes to the methodology focussed on the importance of comparing measures over time. Some users urged consideration of this point, while others stated that any changes would likely impact their use of this domain.

Health Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

There were 39 responses to this question. Of these, 27 users had specific suggestions for potential indicators to include in any future iteration of this domain.

Several users in Local Government made suggestions for additional indicators to be included as part of this domain to help capture the broader population experience of poor mental health. These included antidepressant prescribing volumes as a proxy for mild/moderate anxiety and depression, referrals for assessment or counselling for mental health issues for those not on medication, hospital admissions relating to drug and alcohol misuse, eating disorders, and self-harm. Multiple users from across sectors suggested including indicators relating to the mental health of children and young people.

One Central Government user suggested incorporating different data sources in place of Hospital Admissions Statistics (HES) for mental health conditions. Here, the user felt that this data source may be subject to variation in local recording practices and potentially underestimate overall mental health care activity. Specific alternative datasets were suggested, including Improving Access to Psychological Therapies data, care-based mental health data from the General Practice Extraction Service or Quality and Outcomes Frameworks or data on mental health and depression registers.

Other indicators suggested by users across sectors included data relating to smoking and obesity, chronic illnesses, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, those relating to the health impacts of climate change, and behavioural data such as physical inactivity. Further suggestions included measures of healthy or disability-free life expectancy, population vaccination cover (chiefly MMR, Flu and Coronavirus), NHS wait times, the need for social care support at home, subjective wellbeing from the 2021 Census, data illustrating disparate outcomes among ethnic groups, and Annual Population Survey disability data.

Some users in Local and Central Government urged for consideration of differential health outcomes in a rural context, such as access to services, and among refugees. Specific feedback cited a need to further align to the metrics in DLUHC’s LUWP and the indicators underlying the Health and Wellbeing missions.

3.5 Crime Domain

Crime Q.1 How do you use this domain?

There were 50 responses to this question. Overall, 27 respondents indicated that they used this domain for a variety of different purposes. These included; to identify areas of deprivation in less-deprived areas, area profiling, benchmarking and comparison, tracking change over time, modelling national variations in crime and as part of wider research.

More specific policy related uses included; identify areas in need of intervention, additional support or where crime prevention activities may be required, informing area strategies, policies and projects specifically relating to regeneration schemes and other initiatives to improve area wellbeing and social cohesion. This domain also feeds into related funding bids and Community Safety Strategic Assessments, to inform decisions into targeted consultations, service offers, and outreach campaigns and forms part of primary medical care modelling for adult mental health services, illustrating relationships between certain health and wellbeing outcomes and crime.

Analytically, this domain also feeds into the sample design for the Crime Survey for England and Wales, facilitating sub-national crime estimates of high crime areas.

Responses from nine users across Local Government highlighted the use of alternative data measures for crime deprivation or specific concerns relating to the quality of data used within the domain. Alternative sources noted include; Local Authority surveys, Police Recorded Crime Data or data accessed through Community Safety Partnerships.

Specific concerns were raised about the nature and variation around crime reporting at source, both within forces and across the country more generally, and its impact on the data incorporated in the Indices and elsewhere. A specific Local Government user raised a challenge around a perceived skew within the Crime domain towards crimes committed in urban areas, or areas with a more active night-time economy, rendering comparisons to other smaller conurbations or more rural areas more difficult.

Crime Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

Of 31 responses to this question, 19 respondents provided a range of feedback on potential changes to the Crime domain which could be considered as part of any future Indices update.

Many alighted to additional indicators of crime. These included measures of police trust/confidence, anti-social behaviour, hate crime, cybercrime and fraud (specifically drawn from the 2021 Census), youth violence, and violence against women and girls.

A specific Local Government respondent highlighted the potential to include measures of homicide, serious violence, neighbourhood crime and specific cases of hospital admissions for under-25s, which may align more closely with the metrics set out in DLUHC’s LUWP. Other respondents from the same sector indicated that removing measures of theft and focusing on more serious crime measures may increase the quality of the domain as serious crimes are more likely to be reported.

Other Local Government users raised concerns around inconsistent crime recording practices across the country and that this leads to inaccurate data, as with response to Crime Q.1. Likewise, a few users raised similar concerns about inflated rates of urban crime due to night-time economy, again similar to Crime Q.1. Suggestions to alleviate these in future included incorporating an indicator measuring night-time visitors or using a non-resident workplace populations as the denominator for summary measures.

There were calls from a small number of Local Government users to increase the weighting of this domain, as crime is considered to have a significant bearing on where people want to live. More specifically, other users suggested the weighting be further developed to reflect the spectrum between more serious and low-level violent crime.

A specific group of users from Central Government/Arms-Length Bodies noted that a greater degree of data harmonisation in outputs of the Crime domain, particularly between England and Wales, would be welcomed. Respondents noted that outputs addressing this need would provide more consistent estimates of high crime in small areas across both countries, rather than users relying on different data sources.

Crime Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

There were 33 responses to this question, 13 of which noted that any future changes would not likely have an impact their use of it. This group of respondents spanned sectors, including both Local and Central Government and other Self-identified users.

Several users from Local Government noted their continued need to track changes over time and compare with previous Indices releases. If changes were to be made, some users highlighted their need for more regular updates to facilitate this. Others noted that including more years of data as part of domain construction may increase its robustness and would likely lead to its broader use.

Some specific concerns were raised by users from Local and Central Government/Arms-Length Bodies around the prospect for any substantial methodological changes to be made to this domain, and their potential to impact the definition of crime deprivation being measured. Significant departures from the use of current indicators and methodologies may pose challenges to some user’s use of the Crime domain and the overall IMD measure to plan interventions, as the current conception and definitions used within the Indices are well established.

Several users raised the need to assess the impact of any changes to understand their impact on local area rankings, and how this may compare with other data sources and local knowledge.

More specific suggestions and concerns were also raised by one Local Government user around the denominators used for this domain across questions. Using only a residential population was suggested as a more appropriate denominator to more accurately capture rates of certain types of crime. Other users called for the inclusion of more timely indicators that capture non-resident workplace populations, or night-time economy statistics on visitor numbers, as alternatives to be used in domain construction.

Separately, some users welcomed the use of ‘at risk populations’, as incorporated in the Crime domain, but expressed concern over the data’s timeliness, given changes in footfall, specifically during the pandemic, and the rates of area development.

Users from the Local Government sector noted that the Crime domain and the IMD underpins much understanding on inequalities and forms a key part of the evidence base in wider analysis across city region’s and nationally. Similarly, users stated that a significant part of the Indices value, and the Crime domain as part of it, is that it is a commonly recognised standard for measuring deprivation and inequality.

Crime Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

In total there were 38 responses to this question. Of these, 23 respondents suggested other indicators or data sources which could be explored as part of any future iterations. Examples of suggestions and specific datasets which were not also noted in responses to Crime Q.2 include; data on domestic abuse, aggregated crime measures by protected characteristics, sexual and/or hate crimes, first time entrants into the justice and/or youth justice system, child sexual exploitation, trafficking, feelings of community safety, a standalone vehicle crime measure, fear of crime, racist and xenophobic crimes, fly tipping and specific driving related offenses.

Other collated responses, predominantly drawn from Local Government respondents, suggested supplementary data sources which could be used in the absence of datasets which did not meet the criteria for inclusion. These included;

• The use of data on police incidents alongside crimes, as incident data is considered to be less affected by crime recording practices
• Adjusting crime rates using data on compliance with crime recording best practice, potentially sourced from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services or from published police force audits
• Exploring and modelling inputs sourced from the Crime Survey for England and Wales
• Modelled rates of theft and criminal damage based on data from insurance claims
• Data sourced from Police Data UK

One specific Self-identified user elaborated on the suggested inclusion of two new indicators; one measuring drug related crime, citing links to measures of community strength, and one measuring aspects of fraud, citing an increase during the pandemic.

3.6 Barriers to Housing and Services Domain

Barriers Q.1 How do you use this domain?

There were 56 responses to this question, 37 of which indicated that the Barriers to Housing and Services domain is used in a range of ways. A general use of this domain fed back by respondents is to identify instances and patterns of spatial deprivation within and between areas at local level. For many users, this information is key to the provision of housing, services, and infrastructure planning projects, contributing to a research and evidence base to target outreach initiatives, consultations, policy programmes, strategies, funding bids, and to monitor the effectiveness of interventions. Responses suggested that it is used extensively in isolation and alongside the combined IMD measure.

One user in Central Government noted that this domain provides one of the only recognised indexes of housing deprivation at LSOA level. The housing affordability and homelessness indicators were repeatedly cited as key measures of deprivation, particularly by Academic and Local Government users. The journey times to key services indictor was also cited as important for public transport planning, both during the pandemic and more generally.

Several users across the Third Sector, Local Government and others expressed that this domain was key to understanding deprivation in rural areas, while others used this data to identify links between this domain and population health, and to explore links between wellbeing and access to green space more broadly.

More specific uses included informing the Institute for Community Studies on their work on 15-minute neighbourhoods, the UK2070 Commission ‘GO BIG. GO LOCAL’ project and other organisations’ understanding of deprivation in specific communities.

Barriers Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

There were 44 responses to this question, of which 28 users made specific suggestions for changes to this domain.

Multiple respondents suggested including indicators which track energy costs and Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) data. Several users in the Third Sector and others made suggestions for changes to help capture deprivation in rural areas. For instance, one user noted that this domain accounts for local services (post office, primary school, general store/ supermarket and GP surgery’s), which are often found in rural settlements. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on higher-tier services such as hospitals, secondary schools and retail centres, which are often more centralised.

Separately, other users in Local Government noted that this domain was inversely correlated with ‘actual’ need in some areas. For instance, households in wealthy suburban areas often lack ‘access’ to services if this is measured solely by distance, as the services accounted for tend to be further away. Wealthier areas may also have less accessible housing markets. There was concern that these factors may not accurately reflect deprivation when abstracted from the prevalence of car ownership, as well as measures of income and employment.

The addition of indicators around digital connectivity was another common theme, both in relation to rural deprivation and more generally. Responses from users, predominantly in the Third and Local Government sectors, noted that this should extend beyond broadband speed and mobile signal, reflecting also digital skills, literacy and numeracy, the cost of home broadband, and the access to public Wi-Fi locations, for example.

Multiple respondents from Local Government cited the need for timely and available data on overcrowding, particularly in London. It was suggested that a measure of occupancy rating based on rooms using Valuation Office Agency data might be preferable to data released as part of the 2021 Census.

Several concerns were raised around measures of access to services and transport.

Multiple responses suggested that distance to services should be considered in conjunction with the quality and frequency of public transport, and car ownership.

Distance from GP services, GP waiting times, and the number of GPs per capita were also suggested to evaluate accessibility. Others from the Local Government sector suggested that some services are increasingly outdated: post offices no longer play the same role and supermarket delivery services make distance to shops less relevant.

Users also expressed a need for this domain to reflect legislative changes around homelessness. For instance, the current indicator is a “flow” measure, of those becoming homeless, which is not felt to be consistent with other indicators which are considered to be measures of “stock”. The number of households in temporary accommodation was suggested as an alternative to explore.

A point was raised by a Local Government respondent around the Housing Market Area geography, used as part of this domain, and its appropriateness to the situation in London. Similarly, it was fed back that those renting in London fall across all age groups, not just those with a head of household under 40, as the current measure accounts for.

Other specific suggestions around potential indicators include combining all data on housing within this domain rather than spreading across others (currently some incorporated in the Living Environment domain), data on second home ownership, access to pharmacies, vacancy rates or occupancy measure based on number of bedrooms, access to affordable childcare (both availability and affordability), and indicators to assess the impact of high-density living, both in terms of access to services and impact on family life (e.g. play spaces).

Barriers Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

There were 39 responses to this question. Of these, 21 suggested that changes to this domain would not significantly impact their use of it, provided those changes were clearly communicated. Most respondents noted the importance to them of comparability over time, while acknowledging that updates to this domain were necessary. Multiple users stated their intention to conduct an assessment of the impact of any changes on utility.

Several respondents suggested that changes to this domain, in line with the feedback described above, would likely increase their use of it if they resulted in a more robust, timely outputs at the local level.

Barriers Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

There were 41 responses to this question which conveyed a broad range of suggestions for potential indicators which could be explored as part of any future update. Some key themes and suggestions have been identified below.

Several suggestions were made by users across Local and Central Government and Academia regarding the quality of housing measures. These included: the local stock of social housing and length of waiting lists, aligning affordability to the ONS House Price Statistics for Small Areas affordability methodology, incorporating loan-to-value mortgage data and the ratio of house prices (rental and purchase) to average earnings, augmenting bedroom standard data with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System measure for ‘crowding’, second home ownership from council tax records, security of rental tenure, and measurers to distinguish ‘genuinely’ poor rural areas from more affluent ones.

Other measures suggested by users working in Local Government included: fuel poverty (lighting and heating), availability of appropriate housing, access to green space, and access to public transport. A specific respondent from this group suggested the incorporation of a measure of Universal Credit claimants where Local Housing Allowance is not sufficient to cover housing costs as an alternative affordability measure.

Additions and amendments to the transport indicators were also highlighted, such as the use of the Department for Transport’s Journey Time Statistics, including public transport and walking, to also capture the availability. A measure of ‘willingness to travel’ was also suggested, as was the availability of electric vehicle charging points.

Other suggestions included travel times to place of employment by public or private transport, access to financial services such as cashpoints, in-person banking services, and other forms of financial advice. Similarly, one respondent from Local Government suggested considering access to services and shops which use cash to combat digital discrimination. Others suggested exploring road distance to key community hubs and services including sporting facilities and green and blue spaces. On this point, closer alignment to DLUHC’s LUWP was also raised.

A further dimension of digital inclusion suggested was the use of, or access to, online services such as shopping, GP services, banking, city council services and communication services, such as email or social media.

3.7 Living Environment Deprivation Domain

Living Q.1 How do you use this domain?

There were 49 responses to this question. From this total, 30 respondents indicated that they used the Living Environment Deprivation domain in a number of ways. General uses fed back include helping to inform decisions on targeted consultations, service offers, and outreach campaigns, to provide intelligence on the spatial pattern of living environment deprivation, to gain a better understanding of local issues and need, area profiling, benchmarking, supporting funding bids and reviewing changes over time and between iterations, relative to England overall.

More specific uses fed back in responses to this question include;

• Used to gain a better understanding of environmental factors and poor-quality housing at a local level
• Individual indicators are used to illustrate relationships between poor housing, air quality and wider health outcomes
• The housing and air quality outputs are considered to be useful indicators in understanding wider determinants of health and risk factors for various conditions
• Used to assess residential dwellings in poor condition in areas of high private renting
• To inform climate change and health strategies
• Used to examine local area levels of pollution and traffic accidents
• Feeding into community safety reports, area strategies and policies relating to housing and transport planning

Users also noted how data from this domain is often augmented with other datasets or research, along with other Indices outputs, to enhance local insights and forms part of the evidence base informing service development and strategic priorities.

Living Q.2 Are there any changes that could be made to this domain?

Of the 44 responses to this question, 34 respondents suggested that reviewing and expanding the measures used to construct this domain would be beneficial as part of any future update. Respondents suggested a range of indicators to explore, such as measures of distance to parks/green spaces and an assessment of its quality, tree coverage, fuel poverty, broadband speed and internet connectivity, aspects of community cohesion and access to community facilities, EPC ratings, affordable and sustainable transport/travel options, road, rail and aircraft noise pollution.

Some users noted that they would be open to the inclusion of relevant proxies to strengthen this domain if sourcing appropriate data proved challenging.

The inclusion and relevance of the Census based homes without central heating indicator was questioned by a small number of users. Being Census based, the measures is considered by some to go quickly out of date. There were also concerns expressed about the indicator’s relevance given changes in usage patterns over time.

Challenges were also raised about this domains ability to accurately measure deprivation in more rural areas. Incorporating indicators which measure aspects such as homes which are not connect to mains gas or electricity, or which have limited access to public transport, were suggested as potential ways to help overcome this in future.

Living Q.3 Would changes to the methodology or data indicators used to construct this domain affect your use of it?

Of the 37 users who responded to this question, 14 respondents indicated that changes to this domain would not impact their use of it, providing adequate documentation on any change was also made available.

Some users expressed concern around the ability to compare over time/between iterations if significant changes were made. However, as part of sharing this concern, a smaller number of users stated that they would support changes if the indictor was strengthened. Others cited that the timing of any potential change was good given the expected changes to small area geographies following 2021 Census.

Changes would also elicit greater use of this domain for nine users, whose responses indicated that changes to the underlying indicators making them more relevant to current challenges, would be welcomed and would likely increase their use of this domain.

Specific users note that past changes to this domain have led to unexpected results, citing their caution around the impact of any future changes.

Living Q.4 Are there other indicators or data sources you think could be explored to measure this domain of deprivation?

In total there were 37 responses to this question. Respondents suggested a range of other indicators or data sources which could be explored as part of any future iterations.

Examples of suggestions and specific datasets which were not also noted in responses to Living Q.2 include; data on types of home heating source collected as part of the 2021 Census, water poverty, ONS measures of access to gardens and public space, an areas susceptibility to environmental disaster, homes without a garden, age of the housing stock and ability to sufficiently insulate, persons per bedroom collected as part of the 2021 Census, more climate change related indicators, population density, recycling measures, levels of water pollution, access to safe and environmentally good quality transport routes (such as cycleways) and modes (such as bicycles or car share schemes), access to community spaces, antisocial behaviour, per capita investment in infrastructure, flood risk.

A specific user suggesting that the indoors sub-domain may be better used if incorporated within Barriers to Housing and Services domain, with the outdoors sub-domain being fully discarded in future.

4. Outputs and dissemination

This section summarises the feedback received from users on data outputs, resources and interactive tools made available as part of the IoD2019 release.

Outputs Q.1: Which tools and outputs do you make most use of?

In total, 97 respondents answered this part of the question on tools and outputs used. Users were also able to select multiple options to help give a fuller view, as illustrated in the graph below

Response	Total
Data tables in Excel	86
IoD2019 Postcode Explorer	32
Standardised IoD2019 Local Authority Maps	26
IoD2019 Local Authority Dashboard	23
Not answered	20
Iod2019 Geopackage	17
Other	10
DLUHC’s Open Data Communities Platform	9
All	7
None	1

Overall, the vast majority of users indicated that published Excel data tables were the output they made most use of. The postcode explorer tool, standardised Local Authority maps, and Local Authority dashboard were also used by a good number of users. A smaller number of users indicated their use of the geopackage, made available as part of the 2019 release, and DLUHC’s Open Data Communities platform. A similar number of users indicated ‘other’ in response to this question, noting their use of the guidance material produced as part of the IoD2019 and tools created either within their own organisation or by other agencies. Very few respondents indicated that they use all the resources produced, with one response indicating that none of the resources were used.

Outputs Q.2: Which geographic scale of data best meets you needs?

There were 100 respondents who replied to this part of the question on geographic scale. Users were able to select multiple options to help give a fuller view of the outputs used, as illustrated in the graph below.

Response	Total
Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA)	90
Local Authority	65
Local Authority (upper tier)	27
Other	26
Not answered	17
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG)	11
Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP)	10
All	5
None	0

In the main, the majority of users indicated that they make use of LSOA level data with Local Authority level data the second most used scale. A smaller number of users indicated their use of upper-tier Local Authority aggregations and ‘other’ geographies, such as Wards, Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA’s), Parishes, Police Force Areas and Combined Authorities. Fewer users indicated their use of Clinical Commissioning Group or Local Enterprise Partnership level data made available as part of the IoD2019. A total of five users indicated their use of all levels output and zero indicated that they used none of these resources.

Outputs Q.2.1: Which summary measures of aggregated indices data do you make use of in your analysis?

A total of 93 respondents answered this question related to aggregated summary measures. Users were able to select multiple options to help give a fuller view, as illustrated in the graph below.

More detail on each summary measure, comparisons and examples of their use, can be found in the 2019 Research Report.

Response	Total
LSOA 10% Proportion Measure	77
Average rank	71
Average score	59
Extent	46
Local concentration	36
Scale	36
Not answered	24
None	5

Three broad groups emerge from responses to this question. In the main, users indicated that they make most use of the ‘LSOA 10% proportion’ and the ‘average rank’ summary measures. The second group shows that users make some use of the ‘average score’ and ‘extent’ summary measures by comparison. Thirdly, both the ‘local concentration’ and ‘scale’ measures are used relatively less so but still by a significant number of users. Overall, only five users noted that they do not make use of any summary measures while 24 respondents did not answer this question.

Outputs Q.3: How easy or difficult do you find indices statistics to use?

A total of 94 respondents indicated their view on the Indices ease of use through answering this question. Here, respondents could only indicate one option, with a return of 1 indicating ‘very difficult’ and 5 indicating ‘very easy’.

Option	Total	Percent
1 – very difficult	4	3%
2 – difficult	4	3%
3 – neither easy nor difficult	19	16%
4 – easy	46	39%
5 – very easy	21	18%
Not Answered	23	20%
Total	117	100%

Overall, more than half of respondents to the consultation (57%) indicated that it was either ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to use Indices statistics. A much smaller proportion of all consultation respondents (6%) indicated that Indices statistics were either ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to use. A sizable proportion of all respondents (20%) did not answer this question while a slightly smaller proportion (16%) remained impartial.

Outputs Q.3.1 Does the current suite of outputs and guidance material meet your needs? If not, what additions would you like to see?

A total of 82 users responded to this question with the overwhelming majority indicating that the Indices suite of outputs and guidance material mostly meets their needs.

A variety of users fed back that producing more summaries by different geographies, such as MSOAs, Wards or constituencies would be helpful. However, many also acknowledged that guidance was available for users to create these themselves.

A small number of users suggested that more guidance on the use and differences between higher level summary measures would be welcomed, alongside clearer and more prominent links to full technical guidance documentation.

Specific feedback from one Local Government user highlighted compatibility and loading issues experienced with some of the tools and mapping resources when accessed through certain web browsers. Other users indicated that additional tools, such as API access, interactive LA breakdowns and a neighbourhood look up, be made available. These tools are already available and can be accessed from our mapping resources page.

Outputs Q.4 Is there anything you try to do with indices of deprivation data that could be made easier?

There were 60 responses to this question. From these, several areas of improvement were suggested.

A small number of users across Local and Central Government/Arms-length Bodies noted that more entry level guidance and explanations of the Indices would be a welcome addition to any future release, focusing on uses, interpretation and summary measures. Others from the Local Government sector noted that even more detailed description of the indicators used to construct each domain would also be helpful.

A range of users noted that more proportion-based measures, similar to the Income and Employment Deprivation domains, would be welcomed in future, for example. A wide range of more advanced mapping tools and developments were also suggested, facilitating comparisons of several postcodes at once, bespoke aggregations, the creation of heat maps and illustrating the relationship between geographies.

A variety of users from across sectors requested that data aggregated to different geographies be released as part of any future suite of resources, as noted in the previous question. Additionally, one Local Government user requested that data be released for more lower-level geographies. This wouldn’t be possible as the Indices is built up from LSOA data, and data at this scale is already published.

Specific users across Local and Central Government or Arms-Length Bodies requested the development of a tool that allows users to construct their own bespoke aggregations, to ensure accuracy and quality. A user from Central Government/Arms-Length Body requested guidance on the ability construct bespoke indices by excluding certain domains. This guidance is already available the FAQ online.

5. Next steps and closing

As noted previously, timelines for any update to the Indices are yet to be confirmed. As soon as any release date is confirmed it will be added to the GOV.UK release calendar and announced on the DLUHC website.

Users can be kept informed on Indices developments by subscribing to our e-mail alerts. To register, please e-mail: indices.deprivation@levellingup.gov.uk.

Should an update be commission in the future, the Project Team will look to engage with specific users who expressed an interested in further specific discussion via the consultation. Responses to question Future Q.1 summarises user interest across Indices domains below.

Future Q.1: If you would like to be involved in any future exploration of any deprivation domains or methods, as part of a steering group or more detailed discussion for example, please let us know.

Respondents to this question, and related questions in earlier sections of the consultation, noted a high level of interest in further discussion and engagement across Indices domains, methods and outputs, as illustrated below.

DLUHC will look to contact and engage with these groups in future as part of any future iteration.

Response	Total
Income Deprivation Domain	32
Employment Deprivation Domain	23
Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain	8
Health Deprivation and Disability Domain	13
Crime Domain	9
Barriers to Housing and Services Domain	14
Living Environment Deprivation Domain	11
All Domains	27
Methods	32
Outputs	34

Many thanks again for your time and consideration while responding to this consultation. Your feedback and comments are hugely valuable in helping DLUHC shape any future Indices release.