Model-based estimates of the proportion of households with mean weekly income lower than 60% of the national median weekly income, by middle layer super output area, England and Wales.

The English Indices of Deprivation 2010 provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2010 Indices are for the year 2008. The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation. In addition, two supplementary indices measure income deprivation amongst children - the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) - and older people - the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI).This data was then combined with the LSOA boundaries in ArcGIS. The first data column is the Index of Multiple Deprivation Score. The second data column is the Rank of the Index of Multiple Deprivation Score. The LSOA with a rank of 1 is the most deprived, and 32482 the least deprived, on this overall measure. The IMD 2010 was constructed by combining the seven transformed domain scores, using the following weights: * Income (22.5%) * Employment (22.5%) * Health and Disability (13.5%) * Education, Skills and Training (13.5%) * Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%) * Crime (9.3%) * Living Environment (9.3%) The the seven domain indices are each presented in separate tables available from the DCLG website. Data sourced from Data.gov.uk: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/index-of-multiple-deprivation and LSOA data from ONS Geoportal: https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page (the dataset date in this case refers to the date the data was uploaded). GIS vector data. This dataset was first accessioned in the EDINA ShareGeo Open repository on 2013-12-06 and migrated to Edinburgh DataShare on 2017-02-22.

In 2022/23, 25 percent of children in the United Kingdom were defined as living in absolute poverty, compared with 17.1 percent of working-age adults, and 12.1 percent of pensioners.

Summary measures at ward level of the Indices of Deprivation (ID) 2007.

NOTE: The ward summary for ID2010 can be found on the ID2010 page.

The Government's Indices of Deprivation are produced for small areas across England. Summary measures of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) are published for local authorities. This dataset gives GLA calculations giving, as far as possible, comparable summary measures for wards in London. It also includes GLA calculations giving the two supplementary indices at ward level.

The purpose is to replicate, as far as possible, the local authority level measures published by CLG and gives alternative and additional measures, including a ward level version of the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). The scores and ranks within London are given, with a rank of 1 denoting the most deprived out of a total of 628 wards in London, with the City of London grouped into four areas, only the first ward of which is named.

The ward level summary measures replicating those at LA level produced here are:
-Average of SOA Scores
-Average of SOA Ranks
-Extent
-The Income Scale
-The Employment Scale

The LA level Concentration measure cannot be sensibly reproduced at ward level, since it is based on ten per cent of the area’s population, which is in most cases less than a single SOA. Instead, a summary measure Highest ranked SOA in ward has been included.

Additionally, this Briefing includes the total number of SOAs in each ward and gives a count of how many SOAs are included among the more deprived areas in England. Four such counts are given – the five per cent most deprived, ten per cent, 20 per cent and 50 per cent, or above average.

Life expectancy (LE), healthy life expectancy (HLE), disability-free life expectancy (DFLE), Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and range by national deprivation deciles using the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015 for data periods from 2011 to 2013 to 2015 to 2017, and the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 for data periods from 2016 to 2018 to 2018 to 2020: England, 2011 to 2013 to 2018 to 2020.

This dataset is published as Open DataScottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, Small Area Population Estimates, and Child Poverty The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2020 is the Scottish Government’s official tool for identifying those places in Scotland suffering from deprivation. It incorporates several different aspects of deprivation (employment, income, health, education, skills and training, geographic access, crime and housing), combining them into a single index.The 2020 Index provides a relative ranking for small areas in Scotland, defined by the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (SNS) Data Zone 2011 geography, from 1 (most deprived) to 6,976 (least deprived). By identifying small areas where there are concentrations of multiple deprivation, the SIMD can be used to target policies and resources at the places with greatest need. The SIMD also provides a rank for each data zone within each of the seven domains, and therefore it is possible to look at individual aspects of deprivation for each area, as well as the overall level of deprivation.National Records of Scotland Small Area Population Estimates (2021)Child Poverty by Datazone (2022/23)

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Great Britain Historical Database has been assembled as part of the ongoing Great Britain Historical GIS Project. The project aims to trace the emergence of the north-south divide in Britain and to provide a synoptic view of the human geography of Britain at sub-county scales. Further information about the project is available on A Vision of Britain webpages, where users can browse the database's documentation system online.

These data were originally published by the Poor Law Board, later renamed the Local Government Board, and cover England and Wales. They were computerised over many years by the Great Britain Historical GIS Project. They form part of the Great Britain Historical Database, which contains a wide range of geographically-located statistics, selected to trace the emergence of the north-south divide in Britain and to provide a synoptic view of the human geography of Britain, generally at sub-county scales.

The county-level data appeared in the Board's Annual Reports, while the union-level data appeared in their Returns to Parliament, within British Parliamentary Papers. The tabulations are always for the 1st of January and 1st of July. The original tables contain many columns, so two kinds of transcriptions have been made. Those labelled "full" include all columns but only for selected dates, while the other transcriptions cover all available dates but are generally limited just to total numbers of paupers and numbers of able-bodied male paupers, as the closest approximation to unemployment.

Please note: this study does not include information on named individuals and would therefore not be useful for personal family history research.

- Total and able-bodied pauperage in all Poor Law Counties in England and Wales, July 1859 to January 1919.

- Total and able-bodied pauperage in all Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, July 1859 to January 1912 (Returns to Parliament discontinued in WW1).

- All available categories of pauper (indoor/outdoor, able-bodied/not able-bodied/lunatics, men/women/children) in all Poor Law Counties in England and Wales, for January and July in 1860, 1863, 1866, 1868 and 1879 only.

- All available categories of pauper (indoor/outdoor, able-bodied/not able-bodied/lunatics, men/women/children) in selected Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, for January and July in 1860 to 1871. The selected unions always include all unions in Lancashire and sometimes cover a transect linking Lancashire with Norfolk.

- All available categories of pauper in selected Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, for July only from 1907 to 1911. The selected unions include all unions in London ('The Metropolis'), Lancashire and Durham plus selected major urban unions.

- Poor law statistics for all poor law unions from 1920 to 1930, then for Administrative Counties and County Boroughs from 1931 to 1939 (Data for 1920 and 1921 have a different format, which is fully included in a separate file).

This dataset contains a range of measures which form the Indices of Deprivation 2015 at LSOA level. The boundaries used have been generalised by 50 metres (point remove) for web display. This dataset has been curated mainly for education/teaching purposes. The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks every small area in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area). It is common to describe how relatively deprived a small area is by saying whether it falls among the most deprived 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent of small areas in England (although there is no definitive cut-off at which an area is described as ‘deprived’). To help with this, deprivation ‘deciles’ are published alongside ranks. This dataset has been published to show the show the IMD Ranks and Deciles for each LSOA for Education purposes. The Indices of Deprivation 2015 provide a set of relative measures of deprivation for small areas (Lower-layer Super Output Areas*) across England, based on seven domains of deprivation. The domains were combined using the following weights to produce the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD):Income Deprivation (22.5%) Employment Deprivation (22.5%) Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%) Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%) Crime (9.3%) Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%) Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%). Please refer to this web page from Department for Communities and Local Government for more information on the dataset.

The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has released the English Indices of Deprivation 2015 (ID2015), which updates the 2010 indices of the same name. The indices are combined together to form the composite Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).

The IMD measures relative deprivation across small areas of England called Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). Datasets come from 2015, 2010 and 2007. Whilst historical datasets can be compared, there are caveats:

• LSOA definitions have changed between the 2015 and 2010 releases. As such, some locations will not be comparable at all.

• The variables used to define each indices of deprivation have been updated with each publication. As such, changes in apparent deprivation may reflect these changes in methodology rather than actual changes in local circumstance.

Compared to 2010, four out of the five Cambridgeshire districts now rank as more deprived nationally; Cambridge City ranks as less deprived.

Cambridgeshire now (in IMD 2015) has 16 LSOAs in the 20% most deprived nationally – this is compared to 9 in 2010. Two are in Cambridge City, two are in Huntingdonshire and 12 are in Fenland. Four Fenland LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived nationally.

As with 2007 and 2010, Fenland has the highest levels of deprivation in Cambridgeshire, followed by Cambridge City, East Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire then South Cambridgeshire.

Linked below are:

• IMD2015 data for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

• Map of IMD2015 national rankings for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

• IMD2010 and 2007 data for Cambridgeshire.

The Children in low-income families' local area statistics (CiLIF), provides information on the number and proportion of children living in Absolute low income by local area across the United Kingdom.The summary Statistical Release and tables which also show the proportions of children living in low income families are available here: Children in low income families: local area statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)Statistics on the number of children in low income families by financial year are published on Stat-Xplore. Figures are calibrated to the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) survey regional estimates of children in low income but provide more granular local area information not available from the HBAI, for example by Local Authority, Westminster Parliamentary Constituency and Ward.Absolute low-income is defined as a family in low income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year in comparison with incomes in 2010/11. A family must have claimed Child Benefit and at least one other household benefit (Universal Credit, tax credits, or Housing Benefit) at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics. Gross income measure is Before Housing Costs (BHC) and includes contributions from earnings, state support and pensions.

Statistical disclosure control has been applied with Stat-Xplore, which guards against the identification of an individual claimant.

Part 1 out of 4 For more information, see: http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/poverty-in-your-area-2016/ Estimated rates of child poverty from 2016 and 2018 on the level of child poverty in each constituency, local authority and ward in the UK before and after housing costs. Data is split across 26 xlsx files. For more information, visit http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/poverty-in-your-area-2016/ and https://mss.carto.com/viz/064da52a-2edc-4b7b-a709-f3697a5928b0/public_map Visualisations on % children living in poverty can be found here: https://mss.carto.com/viz/064da52a-2edc-4b7b-a709-f3697a5928b0/public_map Estimated rates of child poverty from 2016 and 2018 on the level of child poverty in each constituency, local authority and ward in the UK before and after housing costs. Data is split across 26 xlsx files. For more information, visit http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/poverty-in-your-area-2016/ and https://mss.carto.com/viz/064da52a-2edc-4b7b-a709-f3697a5928b0/public_map

FOCUSON**LONDON**2011:**POVERTY**:THE**HIDDEN**CITY

One of the defining features of London is that it is a city of contrasts. Although it is considered one of the richest cities in the world, over a million Londoners are living in relative poverty, even before the additional costs of living in the capital are considered.

This edition of Focus on London, authored by Rachel Leeser, presents a detailed analysis of poverty in London that reveals the scale and distribution of poverty in the capital.

REPORT:

Read the full report as a PDF.

https://londondatastore-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/fol/fol11-poverty-cover-thumb.jpg" alt="">

PRESENTATION:

What do we mean by living in poverty, and how does the model affect different types of families? This interactive presentation provides some clarity on a complex concept.

CHARTS:

The motion chart shows the relationship between child poverty and worklessness at borough level, and shows how these two measures have changed since 2006. It reveals a significant reduction in workless households in Hackney (down 12 per cent), and to a lesser extent in Brent (down 7 per cent).

The bar chart shows child poverty rates and the change in child poverty since 2006. It reveals that while Tower Hamlets has the highest rate of child poverty, it also has one of the fastest falling rates (down 12 per cent), though Haringey had the biggest fall (15 per cent).

Charts

DATA:

All the data contained within the Poverty: The Hidden City report as well as the data used to create the charts and maps can be accessed in this spreadsheet.

FACTS:

Some interesting facts from the data…

● Highest proportion of children in workless households, by borough, 2010

1. Westminster – 35.6%
2. Barking and Dagenham – 33.6%
3. Lewisham – 33.1%
4. Newham – 31.4%
5. Islington – 30.6%

-31. Barnet – 9.1%

-32. Richmond upon Thames – 7.0%

● Changes in proportions of workless households, 2006-09, by borough

1. Hackney – down 12.3%
2. Brent – down 7.3%
3. Tower Hamlets – down 4.8%
4. Lambeth – down 4.2%
5. Hillingdon – down 4.1%

-31. Enfield – up 5.8%

-32. Bexley – up 7.3%

● Highest reduction in rates of child poverty 2006-09, by borough:

1. Haringey – down 15.0%
2. Newham – down 12.9%
3. Hackney – down 12.8%
4. Tower Hamlets – down 12.1%
5. Southwark – down 11.5%

-31. Bexley – up 6.0%

-32. Havering – up 10.3%

For a case study of England, global principal component analysis (PCA) is applied to a suite of neighborhood-scale energy vulnerability indicators.

PCA reduces a large multivariate set of vulnerability factors into a reduced number of principal components, retaining key statistical information and spatial patterns. The components have loading values associated with each of the vulnerability indicators in the input data set. Loadings tell us about the type (negative or positive) and strength of the relationship between an indicator and a principal component, providing information about the patterns of vulnerability within the data set that each component is likely to represent. These global component loadings can be mapped to provide an understanding of the spatial distribution of the vulnerability represented by each principal component and the locales in which vulnerability is likely to be enhanced as a result.

This dataset contains three principal components which account for 62.4 percent of the variance in the 21 energy vulnerability indicators identified. The first component has strong positive association with precarious and transient families but a strong inverse relationship with retirement and older age groups. The second component has a strong positive relationship with disability, illness, and the provision of care. The third component has a positive relationship with the energy efficiency and availability of networked and domestic energy infrastructures. The principal components are mapped at the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) scale, an administrative area unit with a mean population of 1,500 persons.

Pan London financial capability data to support Local Authorities Child Poverty Needs Assessments, updated in April 2011 with 2010 data.

This data is designed to help local authorities improve their understanding of the areas within their borough where low financial capability is most likely to exist. This could be useful to child poverty needs assessments, and subsequent work to develop and target support services for residents within their borough.

Supporting Documents

Technical information about the datasets is available in the readme.txt file.

A support note prepared by MAS and CPU is available to advise local authorities on using the data in Child Poverty Needs Assessments.

Profiles of the data categories are available in the Pen Portraits report and details of the underlying model used by Experian are available in Technical Model report.

Further Information

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/londondatastore-upload/mas_web_graphic.jpg" alt="money advice service logo" />

For more information on the Money Advice Service (formerly the Consumer Financial Education Body): http://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk

For more information on Child Poverty Unit: http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/
families/childpoverty

For details of the Experian model:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/thoresen_review_index.htm

This deposit contains three do files which were constructed as part of the project “Intergenerational income mobility: Gender, Partnerships and Poverty in the UK”, UKRI grant number ES/P007899/1. The aim of the do files is to convert partnership, fertility, and labour market activity information provided with the age 55 wave of the National Child Development Study into monthly panel format. There are separate do files to do this for each of the three aspects.

This important new work looks to fill an 'evidence deficit' within the literature on intergenerational economic mobility by investigating intergenerational income mobility for two groups who are often overlooked in existing research: women and the poorest in society. To do this, the research will make two methodological advancements to previous work: First, moving to focus on the family unit in the second generation and total family resources rather than individual labour market earnings and second, looking across adulthood to observe partnership, fertility and poverty dynamics rather than a point-in-time static view of these important factors. Specifically it will ask four research questions: 1) What is the relationship between family incomes of parents in childhood and family incomes of daughters throughout adulthood? The majority of previous studies of intergenerational income mobility have focused on the relationship between parents' income in childhood and sons' prime-age labour market earnings. Women have therefore been consistently disregarded due to difficulties observing prime-age labour market earnings for women. This is because women often exit the labour market for fertility reasons, and the timing of this exit and the duration of the spell out of the labour market are related to both parental childhood income and current labour market earnings. This means that previous studies that have focused on employed women only are not representative of the entire population of women. By combining our two advancements, considering total family income and looking across adulthood for women, we can minimise these issues. The life course approach enables us to observe average resources across a long window of time, dealing with issues of temporary labour market withdrawal, while the use of total family income gives the most complete picture of resources available to the family unit including partner's earnings and income from other sources, including benefits. 2) What role do partnerships and assortative mating play in this process across the life course? The shift to focusing on the whole family unit emphasises the importance of partnerships including when they occur and breakdown and who people partner with in terms of education and current labour market earnings. Previous research on intergenerational income mobility in the UK has suggested an important role for who people partner with but has been limited to only focusing on those in partnerships. This work will advance our understanding of partnership dynamics by looking across adulthood at both those in partnerships and at the importance of family breakdown and lone parenthood in this relationship. 3) What is the extent of intergenerational poverty in the UK, and does this persist through adulthood? The previous focus on individuals' labour market earnings has often neglected to consider intergenerational income mobility for the poorest in society: those without labour market earnings for lengthy periods of time who rely on other income from transfers and benefits. The shift in focus to total family resources and the life course approach will allow us to assess whether those who grew up in poor households are more likely to experience persistent poverty themselves in adulthood. 4) What is the role of early skills, education and labour market experiences, including job tenure and progression, in driving these newly estimated relationships? Finally our proposed work will consider the potential mechanisms for these new estimates of intergenerational income mobility for women and the poorest in society for the first time and expand our understanding of potential mechanisms for men. While our previous work showed the importance of early skills and education in transmitting inequality across generations for males, this new work will also consider the role of labour market experiences including job tenure and promotions as part of the process.

This shows fuel poor households as a proportion of all households in the geographical area (modelled) using the Low Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) measure. Since 2021 (2019 data) the LILEE indicator considers a household to be fuel poor if: it is living in a property with an energy efficiency rating of band D, E, F or G as determined by the most up-to-date Fuel Poverty Energy Efficiency Rating (FPEER) methodologyits disposable income (income after housing costs (AHC) and energy needs) would be below the poverty line. The Government is interested in the amount of energy people need to consume to have a warm, well-lit home, with hot water for everyday use, and the running of appliances. Therefore, fuel poverty is measured based on required energy bills rather than actual spending. This ensures that those households who have low energy bills simply because they actively limit their use of energy at home, Fuel poverty statistics are based on data from the English Housing Survey (EHS). Estimates of fuel poverty at the regional level are taken from the main fuel poverty statistics. Estimates at the sub-regional level should only be used to look at general trends and identify areas of particularly high or low fuel poverty. They should not be used to identify trends over time.Data is Powered by LG Inform Plus and automatically checked for new data on the 3rd of each month.

This dataset contains the main ranking for the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2007. This dataset puts the 32,482 LSOAs into a rank order based on their 2007 IMD score. A rank of 1 is the most deprived.

The English Indices of Deprivation provide a relative measure of deprivation at small area level across England. Areas are ranked from least deprived to most deprived on seven different dimensions of deprivation and an overall composite measure of multiple deprivation. Most of the data underlying the 2007 indices are for the year 2005.

The indices have been constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government. All figures can only be reproduced if the source (Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2007) is fully acknowledged.

The domains used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007 are: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education deprivation; crime deprivation; barriers to housing and services deprivation; and living environment deprivation. Each of these domains has its own scores and ranks, allowing users to focus on specific aspects of deprivation.

Because the indices give a relative measure, they can tell you if one area is more deprived than another but not by how much. For example, if an area has a rank of 40 it is not half as deprived as a place with a rank of 20.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation was constructed by combining scores from the seven domains. When comparing areas, a higher deprivation score indicates a higher proportion of people living there who are classed as deprived. But as for ranks, deprivation scores can only tell you if one area is more deprived than another, but not by how much.

This dataset was created from a spreadsheet provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which can be downloaded here.

The method for calculating the IMD score and underlying indicators is detailed in the Guidance document.

The data is represented here as Linked Data, using the Data Cube ontology.