www.scotland.gov.uk/simd scottish index of multiple deprivation (simd) 2009 dumfries & galloway...

www.scotland.gov.uk/simd

Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2009

Dumfries & Galloway

Andrew WhiteOffice of the Chief Statistician

05th February 2010


SIMD 2009

• Background to SIMD• Points to watch• Results

• Overall• Dumfries & Galloway

• Interactive mapping• Where to go for more information


What is the SIMD?• The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

identifies small area concentrations of multiple deprivation across all of Scotland

• Relative measure ranking the 6,505 datazones in Scotland from 1 being most deprived to 6,505 being the least deprived


What are datazones?

• Statistical geography

• Criteria

– Population size

– Existing boundaries

– Compactness of shape

• 6,505 datazones in Scotland; 193 in Dumfries & Galloway

• Average population of 750 people


What is the SIMD?• The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

identifies small area concentrations of multiple deprivation across all of Scotland

• Relative measure ranking the 6,505 datazones in Scotland from 1 being most deprived to 6,505 being the least deprived

• Uses include– Allocation of Fairer Scotland Fund– Targeting of resources by Local Authorities


History of SIMD

• Scottish Indices of Deprivation (SID) 2003– produced by Oxford University – used electoral ward geography

• SIMD 2004 – Produced by Scottish Executive– 31 indicators across 6 ‘domains’– used datazone geography

• SIMD 2006– Update to SIMD 2004– 37 indicators across 7 domains


SIMD 2009• Update to SIMD 2006

• Minimise change since SIMD 2006 to ensure comparability

• 38 indicators across 7 aspects of deprivation (domains)

• Same domains as in SIMD 2006

• Some changes to indicators

• Mostly 2007 / 2008 data


What is in the SIMD 2009? (1)• Domains based on counts of people

– Income domain• % of population income deprived• Now includes tax credit data

– Employment domain • % of population employment deprived• No change from 2004 or 2006

– Crime domain• SIMD crimes – not all crimes

– Housing domain• Still using 2001 census data


• Domains constructed using ‘factor analysis’– Education domain– Health domain – Access domain

• Drive time sub-domain – GP, petrol station, post office, shopping facilities, primary school, secondary school

• Public transport sub-domain – GP, post office, shopping facilities

What is in the SIMD 2009? (2)


How is the SIMD constructed?• Combine the rankings in each domain

using the weightings:– Income 28%– Employment 28%– Health 14%– Education 14%– Access 9%– Crime 5%– Housing 2%


Points to watch• The Index is relative i.e. shows an area is more

or less deprived than another one but not how much more or less deprived.

• There will always be 976 datazones in the 15% most deprived – if a datazone moves out another will move in.

• The least deprived area is not the most affluent, it just lacks deprivation e.g. in the income domain there is a lack of benefit claimants.

• Not everyone living in a deprived area is deprived, and not all deprived people live in the most deprived areas.


More points to watch• Data from 2007 and 2008 means the recent economic

downturn not picked up but it is unlikely to have a large effect on the relative differences across Scotland.

• Changes to methodology so care is needed when comparing over time e.g. crime domain, tax credit data.

• No datazones in the 15% most deprived does not mean no deprivation, just no concentrations of multiple deprivation

• Index identifies deprived datazones in both urban and rural areas - just fewer concentrations of multiple deprivation and more mixed populations.


Headline findings• Improvements in Glasgow


Change in Glasgow


Headline findings• Improvements in Glasgow• Concentrations of multiple deprivation becoming

more spread out geographically• Concentrations of deprivation in most deprived

datazones reduced slightly• 101 datazones moved into 15% MD and 101

moved out - Movement between 10-15% and 15-20% bands.

• 4 in 5 datazones that moved out between 04 and 06 stayed out.

• 4 in 5 datazones in 15% in SIMD 09 have been in on both SIMD 04 and SIMD 06


Most deprived datazone

• S01003279

• East end of Glasgow.

• Ranked 62 in SIMD 2006

• DZ ranked 1 in SIMD 2006 now ranked 2


Most deprived datazone in Dumfries & Galloway

• S01000930• Stranraer• Ranked 156• Also most deprived in

SIMD 2006 - ranked 90 • 66% income deprived –

26th most deprived in Scotland

• 23% employment deprived


SIMD 2009 – National Share (part 1)

*The national share is the number/percentage of datazones in the (e.g.)15% most deprived in Scotland that fall in each Local Authority

no. of data zones

national share (%)

no. of data zones

national share (%)

no. of data

zonesnational

share (%)

no. of data

zonesnational

share (%)Glasgow City 374 38.3 330 33.8 299 30.6 344 26.4North Lanarkshire 103 10.6 84 8.6 90 9.2 130 10.0Edinburgh, City of 61 6.3 63 6.5 58 5.9 73 5.6Dundee City 51 5.2 53 5.4 55 5.6 70 5.4Fife 34 3.5 47 4.8 55 5.6 83 6.4South Lanarkshire 66 6.8 56 5.7 52 5.3 77 5.9North Ayrshire 33 3.4 33 3.4 45 4.6 59 4.5Inverclyde 36 3.7 42 4.3 43 4.4 50 3.8Renfrewshire 41 4.2 36 3.7 41 4.2 56 4.3West Dunbartonshire 32 3.3 33 3.4 31 3.2 41 3.2East Ayrshire 28 2.9 28 2.9 30 3.1 48 3.7Aberdeen City 18 1.8 27 2.8 27 2.8 36 2.8

20% Most deprived SIMD 2009

Local Authority

15% Most deprived data zonesSIMD 2004 SIMD 2006 SIMD 2009


SIMD 2009 – National Share (part 2)

*The national share is the number/percentage of datazones in the (e.g.) 15% most deprived in Scotland that fall in each Local Authority

no. of data zones

national share (%)

no. of data zones

national share (%)

no. of data

zonesnational

share (%)

no. of data

zonesnational

share (%)Falkirk 14 1.4 19 1.9 20 2.0 28 2.2South Ayrshire 13 1.3 13 1.3 19 1.9 24 1.8West Lothian 9 0.9 14 1.4 17 1.7 39 3.0Highland 9 0.9 17 1.7 16 1.6 28 2.2Clackmannanshire 10 1.0 15 1.5 13 1.3 17 1.3Argyll & Bute 9 0.9 10 1.0 10 1.0 11 0.8Dumfries & Galloway 9 0.9 11 1.1 9 0.9 20 1.5Perth & Kinross 3 0.3 9 0.9 7 0.7 10 0.8Stirling 6 0.6 7 0.7 7 0.7 10 0.8Angus 3 0.3 8 0.8 6 0.6 8 0.6East Renfrewshire 5 0.5 3 0.3 5 0.5 8 0.6Scottish Borders 2 0.2 3 0.3 5 0.5 6 0.5


Local Authority



SIMD 2009 – Local Share (part 1)

*The local share is the percentage of datazones within a Local Authority that fall within the (e.g.) 15% most deprived in Scotland

no. of data zones

local share (%)

no. of data zones

local share (%)

no. of data

zoneslocal

share (%)

no. of data

zoneslocal

share (%)Glasgow City 374 53.9 330 47.6 299 43.1 344 49.6Inverclyde 36 32.7 42 38.2 43 39.1 50 45.5Dundee City 51 28.5 53 29.6 55 30.7 70 39.1West Dunbartonshire 32 27.1 33 28.0 31 26.3 41 34.7North Ayrshire 33 18.4 33 18.4 45 25.1 59 33.0North Lanarkshire 103 24.6 84 20.1 90 21.5 130 31.1Clackmannanshire 10 15.6 15 23.4 13 20.3 17 26.6East Ayrshire 28 18.2 28 18.2 30 19.5 48 31.2Renfrewshire 41 19.2 36 16.8 41 19.2 56 26.2South Lanarkshire 66 16.6 56 14.1 52 13.1 77 19.3South Ayrshire 13 8.8 13 8.8 19 12.9 24 16.3Fife 34 7.5 47 10.4 55 12.1 83 18.3


Local Authority



SIMD 2009 – Local Share (part 2)

*The local share is the percentage of datazones within a Local Authority that fall within the (e.g.) 15% most deprived in Scotland

no. of data zones

local share (%)

no. of data zones

local share (%)

no. of data

zoneslocal

share (%)

no. of data

zoneslocal

share (%)Edinburgh, City of 61 11.1 63 11.5 58 10.6 73 13.3Falkirk 14 7.1 19 9.6 20 10.2 28 14.2Aberdeen City 18 6.7 27 10.1 27 10.1 36 13.5Argyll & Bute 9 7.4 10 8.2 10 8.2 11 9.0West Lothian 9 4.3 14 6.6 17 8.1 39 18.5Stirling 6 5.5 7 6.4 7 6.4 10 9.1Highland 9 3.1 17 5.8 16 5.5 28 9.6Dumfries & Galloway 9 4.7 11 5.7 9 4.7 20 10.4Angus 3 2.1 8 5.6 6 4.2 8 5.6East Renfrewshire 5 4.2 3 2.5 5 4.2 8 6.7Perth & Kinross 3 1.7 9 5.1 7 4.0 10 5.7Scottish Borders 2 1.5 3 2.3 5 3.8 6 4.6


Local Authority



Distribution of employment deprived* people

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Employment Domain Vigintile

% W

ork

ing

Ag

e P

op

ula

tio

n E

mp

loym

ent

Dep

rive

d

2004 2006 2009

Most Deprived Least Deprived

*Claiming Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance or on unemployment claimant count orNew Deal participants. Not ‘worklessness’ and not ‘unemployed’


Results for Dumfries & Galloway


Key Points• 9 Dumfries & Galloway datazones in the 15% most

deprived, 20 in the 20% most deprived.


Datazones in the 15% most deprived in each domain

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SIMD Income Employment Education Health Access Crime Housing

Na

tio

na

l s

ha

re o

f d

ata

zon

es

in

15

% m

os

t d

ep

riv

ed


5 most deprived datazones

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

S01000930 Stranraer West S01001034 Lincluden andLochside

S01000929 Stranraer West S01001019 Nithside andNunholme

S01000965 Annan North

Ra

nk

(1

= m

os

t d

ep

riv

ed

)

Income Employment Health Education Geographic Access Crime Housing


5 most deprived datazones : CRIME domain

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

S01001014 Nithside andNunholm

S01000933 StranraerCentral

S01001022 Nithside andNunholm

S01000905 Kirkcudbright S01000934 StranraerCentral

Ra

nk

(1

= m

os

t d

ep

riv

ed

)

Income Employment Health Education Geographic Access Crime Housing


Crime


Comparing domains

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Ove

rall

Inco

me

Em

plo

yme

nt

He

alth

Ed

uca

tion

Ho

usi

ng

Acc

ess

Cri

me

SIM

D R

an

k


Key Points• 9 Dumfries & Galloway datazones in the 15%

most deprived, 20 in the 20% most deprived.• Between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009

– No new datazones moved in to the 15% most deprived and 2 datazones moved out between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009 – they didn’t move far, they stayed in the 20% most deprived.


Moving out - Whithorn


Employment domain improvements


Moving out – Central Stranraer


Key Points• 9 Dumfries & Galloway datazones in the 15%

most deprived, 20 in the 20% most deprived.• Between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009

– No new datazones moved in to the 15% most deprived and 2 datazones moved out – they didn’t move far, they stayed in the 20% most deprived.

– 4 datazones moved in to the 20% most deprived and none moved out; mainly due to worsening in income and employment domains

• 11% of population of Dumfries & Galloway employment deprived – same as for Scotland as a whole.


Employment deprivation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S0

10

01

03

4 L

incl

ud

en

an

dL

och

sid

e

S0

10

01

01

9 N

ithsi

de

an

dN

un

ho

lm

S0

10

00

92

9 S

tra

nra

er

We

st

S0

10

01

01

4 N

ithsi

de

an

dN

un

ho

lm

S0

10

01

08

7 U

pp

er

Nith

sda

le

S0

10

01

03

2 L

incl

ud

en

an

dL

och

sid

e

S0

10

00

93

7 S

tra

nra

er

We

st

S0

10

00

93

0 S

tra

nra

er

We

st

S0

10

00

96

5 A

nn

an

No

rth

S0

10

00

93

4 S

tra

nra

er

Ce

ntr

al

S0

10

01

04

3 L

och

arb

rig

gs

S0

10

00

91

4 D

alb

ea

ttie

S0

10

00

99

5 G

eo

rge

tow

n

S0

10

00

98

9 L

ow

er

An

na

nd

ale

/ S

E D

um

frie

s

S0

10

01

03

8 L

och

arb

rig

gs

S0

10

01

00

6 D

um

frie

sS

ou

th

S0

10

00

98

8 N

ew

Ab

be

y

S0

10

01

04

2 L

och

arb

rig

gs

S0

10

00

94

9 D

alb

ea

ttie

S0

10

00

99

9 D

um

frie

sS

ou

th

% i

nc

om

e d

ep

riv

ed

Most employment deprived datazones Least employment deprived datazones


Key Points• 9 Dumfries & Galloway datazones in the 15% most

deprived, 20 in the 20% most deprived.• Between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009

– No new datazones moved in to the 15% most deprived and 2 datazones moved out between SIMD 2006 and SIMD 2009 – they didn’t move far, they stayed in the 20% most deprived.

– 4 datazones moved in to the 20% most deprived and none moved out; mainly due to worsening in income and employment domains

• 11% of population of Dumfries & Galloway employment deprived – same as for Scotland as a whole.

• 16% of population of Dumfries & Galloway income deprived compared to 17% for Scotland


Income deprivation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S0

10

00

93

0 S

tra

nra

er

We

st

S0

10

00

92

9 S

tra

nra

er

We

st

S0

10

01

03

4 L

incl

ud

en

an

d L

och

sid

e

S0

10

01

01

9 N

ithsi

de

an

dN

un

ho

lm

S0

10

00

96

5 A

nn

an

No

rth

S0

10

01

02

9 S

um

me

rvill

e

S0

10

01

03

3 L

incl

ud

en

an

d L

och

sid

e

S0

10

01

05

9 L

ock

erb

iea

nd

Mid

An

na

nd

ale

S0

10

01

01

4 N

ithsi

de

an

dN

un

ho

lm

S0

10

00

97

1 A

nn

an

No

rth

S0

10

01

00

6 D

um

frie

sS

ou

th

S0

10

00

94

3 S

tra

nra

er

We

st

S0

10

00

95

3 A

nn

an

So

uth

S0

10

01

04

5C

ath

eri

ne

field

S0

10

00

99

9 D

um

frie

sS

ou

th

S0

10

01

03

8 L

och

arb

rig

gs

S0

10

01

04

8C

ath

eri

ne

field

S0

10

01

04

2 L

och

arb

rig

gs

S0

10

01

03

0 N

ithsi

de

an

dN

un

ho

lm

S0

10

01

00

4 R

otc

he

ll a

nd

Ro

sefie

ld

% i

nc

om

e d

ep

riv

ed

Most income deprived datazones Least income deprived datazones


Income deprivation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S01

0009

30 S

tran

raer

Wes

t

S01

0009

29 S

tran

raer

Wes

t

S01

0010

34 L

incl

uden

and

Loch

side

S01

0010

19 N

ithsi

dean

d N

unho

lm

S01

0009

65 A

nnan

Nor

th

S01

0010

29 S

umm

ervi

lle

S01

0010

33 L

incl

uden

and

Loch

side

S01

0010

59 L

ocke

rbie

and

Mid

Ann

anda

le

S01

0010

14 N

ithsi

dean

d N

unho

lm

S01

0009

71 A

nnan

Nor

th

S01

0010

06 D

umfr

ies

Sou

th

S01

0009

43 S

tran

raer

Wes

t

S01

0009

53 A

nnan

Sou

th

S01

0010

45C

athe

rinef

ield

S01

0009

99 D

umfr

ies

Sou

th

S01

0010

38Lo

char

brig

gs

S01

0010

48C

athe

rinef

ield

S01

0010

42Lo

char

brig

gs

S01

0010

30 N

ithsi

dean

d N

unho

lm

S01

0010

04 R

otch

ell

and

Ros

efie

ld

% in

com

e d

epri

ved

SIMD 2009 SIMD 2006

Most income deprived datazones Least income deprived datazones


Interactive mapping website


Interactive mapping


Where to find more..• General report with initial analysis • Technical report• Guidance leaflet• Interactive mapping website• Statistical Compendium

– tables, charts & maps • Background data for SIMD 2006• www.scotland.gov.uk/simd• More to come…


ANY QUESTIONS?

Contacts:

Andrew White

Tel: 0131 244 7714

[email protected]

Neighbourhood Statistics (SNS & SIMD)

Tel: 0131 244 0442

[email protected]


Part 2 – Rural indicators


SIMD and rural areas• Index identifies deprived datazones in both

urban and rural areas.• Identifies small area concentrations of multiple

deprivation.• The indicators which make up the SIMD are

chosen because they are measures of deprivation regardless of where a person lives.

• However deprivation more spatially dispersed in rural areas.

• Other factors, such as population decline, may also pose particular challenges for rural areas.


Rural indicators• SG looked into creating new ‘population’ domain

and combining it with existing income, employment and access domains

• Possible population indicators included:– Population density– Population change– Change in population aged 0-15– Change in population of pension age– Change in ratio of population aged 0-15 to working

age population– Change in ratio of population of pension age to

working age population


Population domain• Investigation suggested that these indicators weren’t

sufficiently correlated with each other to allow creation of a population domain


Lack of correlation between indicators

Density v population change

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

SIMD09

0-15

ch

ang

e

Pop'n change v change in ratio of population aged 0-15 to working age population

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

Pop'n change

chan

ge

in 0

-15:

wa

0-15 change v pension change

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0-15 change

Pen

sio

n c

han

ge

Change in ratio of pensioners to working age population v change in ratio of children to working age population

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

change in 0-15:wa

ch

an

ge in

pen

s:w

a


Population domain• Investigation suggested that these indicators

weren’t sufficiently correlated with each other to allow creation of a population domain

• Also showed that, in general, population decline not worse in more rural areas

• Likely that there are particular rural areas experiencing problems but that these problems are not necessarily an issue for all rural areas.

• Also possible that population decline in a rural area poses a more significant problem than a similar level of population decline in an urban area.


Population change by 8-fold Urban-Rural Classification

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Population Child (0-15) population Working age (16-59/64)population

Pension age (60/65+)population

Per

cen

tag

e ch

ang

e (2

005-

08)

Large Urban Areas Other Urban Areas Accessible Small Tow ns Remote Small Tow ns

Very Remote Small Tow ns Accessible Rural Remote Rural Very Remote Rural


Rural dataset?• Since it appears a population domain is not feasible we

may produce a dataset containing the indicators mentioned earlier (or variations of them) along with the following:– Income domain rank,– % of population who are income deprived,– Employment domain rank,– % of population who are employment deprived,– Access domain rank,

• Drive time sub-domain rank,• Public transport sub-domain rank.

• This will then allow identification of areas where there may be population decline etc. whilst also providing other relevant data about these areas.


Additional slides


• Employment domain

• Income domain

• Health domain

• Education domain

• Access to services

• Crime domain

• Housing domain

SIMD 2009 domains


Employment Deprivation Domain

• Based on benefits data (2008)– Unemployment Claimant Count

• 12 month average– Incapacity Benefit recipients

• Working age– Severe Disablement Allowance

• Working age– Compulsory New Deal Participants

• No change to 2004 indicators for 2006 or 2009• Datazone SAPE

– Working age population


Income Deprivation Domain

• Not measuring income• Based on benefits data (2008 and 2007)

– Income support• adults and children

– Guarantee Pension Credit• adults

– Job Seekers Allowance• adults and children

• 2004 used WFTC and DTC data• 2009 – WTC and CTC (2006 data)• Datazone SAPE

– Total population


Health Deprivation Domain

• Indicators used:– Standardised Mortality Ratio– Hospital Episodes related to alcohol use– Hospital Episodes related to drug use– Comparative Illness Factor– Emergency Admissions to Hospital– Proportion of population being prescribed drugs for anxiety,

depression or psychosis– Proportion of live singleton births of low birth weight

• Methodological changes since 2004• Minor changes for 2009• Combined using factor analysis


Education Deprivation Domain

• Indicators– School pupil absences– Pupil Performance on SQA at Stage 4– Working age people with no qualifications– 17-21 year olds enrolling into HE– People ages 16-18 not in full time education,

employment or training• NEET indicator change for 2009• Populations relevant to indicator• Combined using factor analysis


Access to Services Domain• Drive Times

– GP– Shopping facilities (Supermarket in 2004)– Petrol Station– Primary and Secondary Schools (Primary only in 2004)– Post Office

• Public Transport (Not included in SIMD 2004)– GP– Shopping Facilities– Post Office

• Population weighted based on COAs• Factor analysis within sub-domains• Methodology and modelling changes• Change to sub-domain weights.


Crime Domain• Relevant to Neighbourhood Deprivation• ‘SIMD crime’ not ‘Total Crime’

– Crimes of violence– Drug Offences– Domestic Housebreaking– Minor Assault– Vandalism

• Does not include crimes in/near police station• First included in 2006• Total populations – rate per 10,000• Move to financial year for SIMD 2009


Housing Deprivation Domain• Census data

– No change since SIMD 2004– Persons in households which are

overcrowded– Persons in households without central heating

• Census populations– Total population

• No new indicators identified


Domains and Weightings2004 2006 2009

Domains weight

% of overall weight Domains weight

% of overall weight weight

% of overall weight

Current Income 6 29 Current Income 12 28 12 28

Employment 6 29 Employment 12 28 12 28

Health 3 14 Health 6 14 6 14

Education, Skills and training 3 14

Education, Skills and training 6 14 6 14

Geographic Access and Telecommunications 2

10 Geographic Access:

4 9 4 9

~ Drive times 0.75 0.66

~ Public transport times

0.25 0.33

Housing 1 5 Housing 1 2 1 2

- - - Crime 2 5 2 5

www.scotland.gov.uk/simd scottish index of multiple deprivation (simd) 2009 dumfries & galloway...

Documents