In 2022, the gross domestic product per capita in London was 57,338 British pounds, compared with 33,593 pounds per capita for the United Kingdom as a whole. Apart from London, the only other region of the UK that had a greater GDP per capita than the UK average was South East England, at 36,425 pounds per capita. By contrast, North East England had the lowest GDP per capita among UK regions, at 24,172 pounds. Regional imbalance in the UK economy? London's overall GDP in 2022 was over 508 billion British pounds, which accounted for almost a quarter of the overall GDP of the United Kingdom. South East England had the second-largest regional economy in the country, with a GDP of almost 341.7 billion British pounds. Furthermore, these two regions were the only ones that had higher levels of productivity (as measured by output per hour worked) than the UK average. While recent governments have recognized regional inequality as a major challenge facing the country, it may take several years for any initiatives to bear fruit. The creation of regional metro mayors across England is one of the earliest attempts at giving regions and cities in particular more power over spending in their regions than they currently have. UK economy growth slow in late 2024 After ending 2023 with two quarters of negative growth, the UK economy grew at the reasonable rate of 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent in the first and second quarters of the year. This was, however, followed by zero growth in the third quarter, and by just 0.1 percent in the last quarter of the year. Other economic indicators, such as the inflation rate, fell within the expected range in 2024, but have started to rise again, with a rate of three percent recorded in January 2025. While unemployment has witnessed a slight uptick since 2022, it is still at quite low levels compared with previous years.

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.

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.

This dataset provides Census 2021 estimates that classify usual residents in England and Wales by long-term health problems or disabilities, sex, age and level of deprivation. The estimates are as at Census Day, 21 March 2021. Age-standardisation allows for comparisons between populations that may contain proportions of different ages.

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)

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.

Main Topics: The Great Britain Historical Database is a large database of British nineteenth and twentieth-century statistics. Where practical the referencing of spatial units has been integrated, data for different dates have been assembled into single tables. The Great Britain Historical Database currently contains :Statistics from the 1861 Census and the Registrar General's reports, 1851-1861 Employment statistics from the census, 1841-1931 Demographic statistics from the census, 1841-1931 Mortality statistics from the Registrar General's reports, 1861-1920 Marriage statistics from the Registrar General's reports, 1841-1870 Trade union statistics for the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE), 1851-1918 Trade union statistics for the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners (ASCJ), 1863-1912 Official poor law statistics, 1859-1915 and 1919-1939 Wage statistics, 1845-1906 Hours of work statistics, 1900-1913 Small debt statistics from county courts, 1847-1913 and 1938 There are eight tables in this part of the Great Britain Historical Database : Plaw_c holds county-level data for England and Wales on numbers of paupers taken from the Annual Reports of the Poor Law Board and later the Local Government Board for 1st January and 1st July from January 1859 to January 1915, plus January 1919. Plaw_c_f holds a full transcript of county-level pauperage statistics for England and Wales taken from the Annual Reports of the Poor Law Board and later the Local Government Board for 1st January and 1st July 1860, 1863, 1866, 1868 and 1879. Plaw_u holds data taken from the Returns to Parliament made by the Poor Law Board, and later the Local Government Board listing number of paupers in each poor law union on the 1st January and 1st July. Coverage is as follows: all poor law unions in Lancashire for 1st January and 1st July from 1860 to 1871; all poor law unions in England and Wales for 1st January only from 1900 to 1912; all unions in London, Lancashire, Durham and selected major urban unions for 1st January and 1st July in 1875, 1879 and 1880. Plaw_u_f contains a full transcript of poor law union-level pauperage statistics for selected unions taken from the Returns to Parliament. Coverage is as follows: all poor law unions in Lancashire for 1st January and 1st July from 1860 to 1871; all unions in Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Cheshire and the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire for 1st January and 1st July in 1860, 1863, 1866, 1868 and 1869. Plaw_iw holds inter-war poor law statistics taken from the Returns to Parliament for 1st January only for all poor law unions in England and Wales from 1922 to 1930, and for all counties and county-boroughs in England and Wales from 1931 to 1939. Plaw_20 holds poor law statistics for England and Wales for 1920 and 1921 for selected poor law union for 1st January only. Plu_gaz converts names of poor law unions as they appear in plaw_u, plaw_u_f, plaw_iw and plaw_20 into the form used in the GIS. Plu_gis holds names and counties of poor law unions as they appear in the GIS; used for checking names and constructing plu_gaz. Please note: this study does not include information on named individuals and would therefore not be useful for personal family history research.

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Indices of Deprivation 2010 Barriers to housing and services domain at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. 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 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it.

For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived.

The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls.

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Indices of Deprivation 2010 Income domain at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. 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 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it.

For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived.

The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls.

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. 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 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it.

For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived.

The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls.

This dataset provides detailed information on the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for Birmingham, UK. The data is available at the postcode level and includes the Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) information.Data is provided at the LSOA 2011 Census geography.The decile score ranges from 1-10 with decile 1 representing the most deprived 10% of areas while decile 10 representing the least deprived 10% of areas.The IMD rank and decile score is allocated to the LSOA and all postcodes within it at the time of creation (2019).Note that some postcodes cross over LSOA boundaries. The Office for National Statistics sets boundaries for LSOAs and allocates every postcode to one LSOA only: this is the one which contains the majority of residents in that postcode area (as at 2011 Census).

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a measure used in the UK to assess the relative deprivation of small areas, known as Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs). It combines information from seven different domains to provide an overall deprivation score for each area. These domains are:

Income Deprivation Employment Deprivation Education, Skills, and Training Deprivation Health Deprivation and Disability Crime Barriers to Housing and Services Living Environment Deprivation

Each domain is weighted and combined to create a single deprivation score, which is then used to rank all LSOAs in England from the most deprived to the least deprived.

The IMD is widely used by government and organizations to allocate resources, target interventions, and develop policies aimed at reducing deprivation and improving quality of life in the most deprived areas.

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Indices of Deprivation 2010 Education, skills and training domain at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. 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 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it.

For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived.

The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls.

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.

About the indices of deprivationThe English indices of deprivation measure relative deprivation in small areas in England. The index of multiple deprivation is the most widely used of these indices.The updated index of multiple deprivation (IMD) was published by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) on 30 September 2015.The IMD brings together data covering seven different aspects or ‘domains’ of deprivation into a weighted overall index for each Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) in England. The scores are then used to rank the LSOAs nationally and to calculate an IMD score for each local authority area. Local authorities are then ranked by their IMD score. The IMD presents a ranking of relative deprivation between and within local authorities in England. It is not a measure of affluence in an area, nor an absolute measure of how much more or less deprived an area is compared to another.The domains used in calculating the index are: Income; Employment; Education, Skills and Training; Health Deprivation and Disability; Crime; Barriers to Housing and Services; Living Environment. There are also two supplementary domains - Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People (IDAOPI).LSOAs are a geographical unit which has an average of 1,500 residents and 650 households. They were developed following the 2001 census, through the aggregation of smaller census output areas, to create areas with a reasonably compact shape and which were socially similar (assessed through housing type). Around one percent of LSOAs were changed following the 2011 Census in order to maintain the characteristics described above. There are now 32,844 LSOAs in England. Leicester now has 192 LSOAs.Leicester IMDLeicester is ranked 21st most deprived in IMD 2015 out of 326 local authorities, compared with 25th in the 2010 Index.Leicester is ranked within the 10% most deprived local authorities in EnglandCompared to England, Leicester has almost double the population living in the two fifths (40%) most deprived LSOA’s in the country. 76% of Leicester’s population, compared with only 40% of England’s, live in the 40% most deprived LSOAs in the country.A full report on deprivation in Leicester can be found on the Leicester City Council website here: https://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council/policies-plans-and-strategies/health-and-social-care/data-reports-information/

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Indices of Deprivation 2010 Crime domain at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. 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 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it.

For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived.

The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls.

This dataset contains a summary measure of the Indices of Deprivation 2010 Health and disability domain at local authority district level. It puts the 326 Local Authority Districts into a rank order based the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. 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 2010 indices are for the year 2008.

The Indices are designed for small areas, but one way of summarising relative deprivation at local authority level is by calculating the average rank of the LSOAs within it.

For the IMD and each domain, the summary measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each local authority district. For the purpose of calculation, LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a local authority district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. (For simplicity in summarising the domains, the same total population size is used for all domains.) Finally the LADs are ranked according to the average rank of the LSOAs, from 1 to 326 where 1 is the most deprived.

The ‘Rank of average rank’ summary measure of for local authorities is also published for the IMD at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1871689.xls.

These data contain lifetables derived from the ONS Longitudinal study dataset, and according to age, sex and individual socio-economic status measured with education, occupation or wage in England and Wales in 2011. Life table according to age, sex and individual’s education, or occupation or wage for the England & Wales population in 2011 The data contained in these files are aggregated data from the ONS Longitudinal Study (ONS LS). The ONS LS is a long-term census-based multi-cohort study. It uses four annual birthdates as random selection criteria, giving a 1% sample of the England and Wales population (10.1093/ije/dyy243). The initial sample was drawn from the 1971 Census, and study members’ census records have been linked every 10 years up to the 2011 Census. New members enter the study through birth or immigration, and existing members leave through death or emigration. Vital life events information (births, deaths and cancer registrations) are also linked to sample members’ records. File lifetab_2011_educ.csv Life table according to age, sex and education level for the England & Wales population in 2011 age x: attained age (years) from 20 to 100 sex: 2 categories: male (m) and female (f) educ: 6 categories of highest educational attainment: A: no qualifications; B: 1-4 GCSEs/O levels; C: 5+ GCSEs/O levels, D: Apprenticeships/Vocational qualifications, E: A/AS levels, F: Degree/Higher Degree mx: mortality rate for 1 person-year qx: annual probability of death ( = 1 - exp(-mx) ) ex: life-expectancy (years) File lifetab_2011_inc.csv Life table from age 20 onwards and according to age, sex and income level for the England & Wales population in 2011 age x: attained age (years) from 20 to 100 sex: 2 categories: male (m); female (f) inc: 5 categories of income: Least deprived; 4; 3; 2; Most deprived mx: mortality rate for 1 person-year qx: annual probability of death ( = 1 - exp(-mx) ) ex: life-expectancy (years) File lifetab_2011_occ.csv Life table from age 20 onwards and according to age, sex and occupation for the England & Wales population in 2011 age x: attained age (years) from 20 to 100 sex: 2 categories: male (m); female (f) occ: 3 categories of occupation: C: Technical/Routine; B: Intermediate; A: Managerial/Administrative/Professional mx: mortality rate for 1 person-year qx: annual probability of death ( = 1 - exp(-mx) ) ex: life-expectancy (years) File lifetab_2011_overall.csv Life table from age 20 onwards and according to age and sex for the England & Wales population in 2011 age x: attained age (years) from 20 to 100 sex: 2 categories: male (m); female (f) mx: mortality rate for 1 person-year qx: annual probability of death ( = 1 - exp(-mx) ) ex: life-expectancy (years) More details can be found in the following paper: Ingleby F, Woods L, Atherton I, Baker M, Elliss-Brookes L, Belot A. (2021). Describing socio-economic variation in life expectancy according to an individual's education, occupation and wage in England and Wales: An analysis of the ONS Longitudinal Study. SSM - Population Health, doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100815

In the UK, people who reside within more income-deprived areas live a shorter period of time after a diagnosis of cancer compared to people living in less income-deprived areas. At least part of these inequalities in cancer survival are due to inequalities in cancer care, even considering differential patient and tumour factors such as stage at diagnosis. The specific mechanisms by which area-based deprivation levels lead to poorer individual health outcomes within the context of a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use, are not well understood. These analyses will enable, for the first time, the examination of how an individual patient's socio-economic status is associated with poorer cancer survival in England, and will demonstrate how these associations might be modified by the level of deprivation in the small area within which the patient resides. Our aim is to perform an in-depth study of the association between the individual patient's deprivation and cancer survival, considering in particular how this is influenced by their socio-economic context, whether it varies over time since diagnosis and whether it has changed over calendar time. We will focus on three indicators of deprivation: income, education and occupation. We will first examine the correlation between individual and area deprivation, by each of these indicators, and then secondly describe the association between individual deprivation and survival. Third, we will assess whether the association between individual deprivation and patients' survival is modified by area deprivation; that is, whether equally deprived individuals in different areas fare better, or worse, according to the socio-economic context of the area within which they live. Finally we will gain the insights of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals on these data, and communicate these to cancer policy...