Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Summary v.2

Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent

1 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011

Table of Contents

Introduction – What is multiple deprivation?................................................................................ 2

Multiple Deprivation - The Regional Picture ................................................................................ 3

Multiple Deprivation - Unitary and Metropolitan Authorities ........................................................ 3

Multiple Deprivation - Local Authority Comparison ..................................................................... 4

Comparing IMD2000, ID2004, ID2007 and ID2010 - Persistent Deprivation.............................. 5

Multiple Deprivation - The Local Picture...................................................................................... 7

Map: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 Stoke-on-Trent (ID 2007 inset) ............................ 8

Differing Domains / Dimensions of Deprivation........................................................................... 9

Figure 1 – Deprivation Domains : Comparing Different Aspects of Deprivation ................... 10

Ward Level Deprivation ............................................................................................................. 11

Pre-2011 Boundaries............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2 – Deprivation Deciles : Pre-2011 Ward Boundaries ............................................... 13 Map: 2011 Ward Boundaries and Indices and Deprivation 2010.......................................... 14 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks 2010 ................................................... 15 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (1) ............... 16 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (2) ............... 17 2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (3) ............... 18

The English Indices of Deprivation 2010 Stoke-on-Trent - Summary



Introduction – What is multiple deprivation?

The 2010 edition of the English Indices of Deprivation were released by the Communities and

Local Government agency on Thursday 24th March 2011. Full details of the release can be

found at:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/research/indicesdeprivation/deprivation10/

The Indices of Deprivation 2010 (ID2010) are measures of deprivation for every Super Output

Area1 and local authority area in England. The indices combine a total of 38 indicators across

seven domains (Income, Employment, Health and Disability, Education, Skills and Training,

Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment, and Crime) into a single deprivation

score and rank for each area.

ID2010 is based on the same approach, structure and methodology used in 2007 and 2004.

These differ from the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 (IMD2000) in two key ways: first, more

up-to-date data has been used; and second, new measures have been incorporated as new

and improved sources have become available.

The model that underpins ID2010 is based on the idea of distinct domains; or dimensions; of

deprivation, that can be recognised and measured separately; these dimensions are

experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted in one or more of the

domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall ID

is conceptualised as a weighted aggregation of these specific dimensions of deprivation.

Each Domain contains a number of indicators. Each indicator is subject to a number of criteria:

• It should be ‘domain specific’;

• Appropriate for the purpose (as direct as possible measures of that form of deprivation);

Measure major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a very small

number of people or areas);

• Up-to-date and capable of being updated on a regular basis;

• Statistically robust; and

• Available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form.

The following sets out the weightings that were used to combine the Domains into an Index of

Multiple Deprivation.

Income deprivation 22.5% Employment deprivation 22.5%

Health deprivation and disability 13.5% Education, skills and training deprivation 13.5%

Barriers to housing and services 9.3% Crime 9.3%

Living Environment deprivation 9.3%

1 Super Output Areas are an aggregation of Census Output Areas, which are modelled upon postcodes. While Census Output Areas equate to approximately 125 households, or 275 persons, Super Output Areas contain c.1,500 persons. There are 825 Census Output Areas for the City of Stoke-on-Trent dating from the 2001 Census, these have subsequently been aggregated into 160 level 1 SOAs.



Multiple Deprivation - The Regional Picture

The following table shows a distinct regional pattern in terms of multiple deprivation:

There is a pronounced North-South divide, with a concentration of ‘most deprived’ districts in

London, with a transitional Midlands region containing an element of both ‘most’ and ‘least’

deprived districts.

Region

Number of

Districts in

Region

Districts in the 50

Most Deprived in

England

Districts in the 50

Least Deprived in

England Least

London 33 12 1

East of England 47 0 10

South East 67 1 29

South West 37 0 1

West Midlands 30 5 2

East Midlands 40 4 5

North West 39 17 1

North East 12 6 0

Yorkshire & Humberside 21 5 1

The following table demonstrates this regional variation in terms of population percentages.

% of the Population living in areas classified in the:-

Region 10% most

deprived

20% most

deprived

50% least

deprived

London 8.3% 26.0% 33.1%

East of England 2.8% 7.5% 65.7%

South East 2.3% 7.0% 68.7%

South West 3.8% 9.0% 58.6%

West Midlands 16.1% 28.1% 42.5%

East Midlands 7.2% 16.6% 54.3%

North West 20.0% 31.9% 41.1%

North East 16.5% 31.9% 35.9%

Yorkshire & Humberside 16.9% 27.5% 44.6%

Multiple Deprivation - Unitary and Metropolitan Authorities

Further analysis shows that 30 of the 92 Unitary and Metropolitan districts in England are

placed in the 50 most deprived areas on this measure – 17 in the North West region, 6 in the

North East, and 5 each in the West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humberside.

A total of 5 of the 92 are ranked in the 50 least deprived areas (Including 4 in the South East

region – Wokingham, Windsor & Maidenhead, West Berkshire and Bracknell).



Multiple Deprivation - Local Authority Comparison

The following table shows the relative position of the city against local, regional and national

comparators.

Rank ID 2010 % of the Population living in areas

classified in the:-

ID 2010

/ 326

ID2007

/ 354

10% most

deprived

20% most

deprived

50% least

deprived

Stoke-on-Trent 16th 16

th 31.2% 51.0% 16.7%

Local Comparators

Newcastle-under-Lyme 150th 152

nd 3.1% 14.1% 54.2%

Staffordshire Moorlands 190th 192

nd 0% 4.6% 66.8%

Stafford Borough 232nd

253rd

0% 5.5% 79.5%

Regional Comparators

Birmingham 9th 11

th 39.7% 55.6% 14.5%

Sandwell 12th 14

th 29.6% 58.5% 11.0%

Wolverhampton 21st 28

th 26.8% 52.3% 17.8%

Walsall 30th 45

th 24.1% 44.5% 26.5%

Unitary & Metropolitan Comparators

Kingston-upon-Hull 10th 11

th 42.1% 51.5% 17.2%

Nottingham 20th 13

th 24.6% 51.4% 16.1%

Salford 18th 15

th 32.2% 46.2% 20.5%

Leicester 25th 20

th 24.9% 40.8% 13.8%

Further analysis on this measure shows that of the 326 (*) English Local Authority Districts:-

• 142 have no part of their population classified in the 10% most deprived in England,

• 78 have no part of their population classified in the 20% most deprived in England,

• Only one authority has no part of its population classified in the 50% most deprived in

England (Hart – South East region),

• Only two authorities have no part of their population classified in the 50% least

deprived in England (London Boroughs of Hackney and Newham).

Stoke-on-Trent is the 3rd

most deprived local authority in the West Midlands (out of 30) and

the 9th most deprived Unitary / Metropolitan authority area in England (out of 92).

(*) - Following Local Government reorganisation in 2008 and 2009 - Previously 354.



Comparing IMD2000, ID2004, ID2007 and ID2010 - Persistent Deprivation

From the table below it can be seen that despite changes in the construction of the indices –

especially between 2000 and 2004 - in terms of both weightings and indicators used and the

change in geographical level adopted - that similar areas have emerged as the most deprived.

Given that the domains and methodology used in ID2010 is the same as in 2004 & 2007, and

as far as possible the indicators are equivalent to their ID2007 counterparts – most change

between the indices is likely to reflect real relative change between the two time periods.

17 of the 20 most deprived areas identified in ID2010 were in the top 20 on ID2007, and 13 in

the top 20 on IMD2000 as shown in below.

Local Authority Area Rank ID2010 Rank ID2007 Rank ID2004

Rank IMD 2000

Liverpool 1 1 1 3

Hackney 2 2 5 4

Newham 3 6 11 5

Manchester 4 4 2 6

Knowsley 5 5 3 2

Blackpool 6 12 24 31

Tower Hamlets 7 3 4 1

Middlesbrough 8 9 10 9

Birmingham 9 10 15 23

Kingston upon Hull, City of 10 11 9 13

Burnley 11 46 37 21

Sandwell 12 14 16 17

Haringey 13 20 13 18

Islington 14 8 6 11

Waltham Forest 15 62 47 27

City of Stoke-on-Trent 16 16 18 34

Blackburn with Darwen 17 17 34 10

Salford 18 15 12 21

Hastings 19 35 38 31

City of Nottingham 20 13 7 12

Further investigation has shown:

40 of the 50 most deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the top 50 in ID2010.

85 of the 100 most deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the top 100 in ID2010.

22 of the 50 least deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the least deprived 50 in

ID2010.

67 of the 100 least deprived areas identified in ID2000 are still in the least deprived 100 in

ID2010.



Areas with more deprived status

The following table shows the Unitary and metropolitan districts where the overall deprivation

rank has ‘declined’ over the three incarnations of the deprivation index

District ID2010 ID2007 ID2004 IMD2000

Reading 129 151 153 188

Leeds 68 85 68 114

Portsmouth 76 93 88 119

West Berkshire 288 330 329 329

Stoke-on-Trent’s apparent decline of 18 places, from 34th to 16

th most deprived, over the 2000-

10 period is only the 145th ‘worst’ decline observed.

Looking purely at change between 2007 and 2010 - West Berkshire experienced the largest

relative decline – moving from 330th to 288

th most deprived. South Gloucestershire also

‘declined’ significantly from 308th to 272

nd most deprived.

Areas with less deprived status

The following table shows those unitary and metropolitan districts where the overall deprivation

rank has ‘got better’ over the three incarnations of the deprivation index

District ID2010 ID2007 ID2004 IMD2000

North Tyneside 113 102 80 69

Thurrock 143 124 122 101

Isle of Wight 126 134 126 87

South Tyneside 52 38 27 15

Looking purely at change between 2007 and 2010 - Thurrock and Derby City experienced the

largest relative ‘improvement’ – moving from 124th

to 143rd

, and 69th to 88

th most deprived

respectively. Other notable ‘improvers’ were Bristol improving from 64th to 79

th, and South

Tyneside improving from 38th to 52

nd.



Multiple Deprivation - The Local Picture

The following table compares the level of multiple deprivation in Stoke-on-Trent between

ID2004, ID2007 and ID2010:

Percentage Most deprived in England

5% most

deprived

10% most

deprived

20% most

deprived

25% most

deprived

Total SOAs

out of 160 in

category

26 48 81 96

ID2004 Population

number / % in

category

38,329

15.9%

69,930

29.1%

119,814

49.8%

142,595

59.3%

Total SOAs

out of 160 in

category

27 53 85 98

ID2007 Population

number / % in

category

40,976

17.1%

77,226

32.2%

127,833

53.3%

146,831

61.2%

Total SOAs

out of 160 in

categor

26 50 81 97

ID2007 Population

number / % in

category

38,717

16.2%

74,424

31.2%

121,940

51.0%

145,112

60.7%

With almost one-third of the population residing in areas classified in the 10% most deprived in

England, and one-in-six of the population living in areas in the worst 5% in terms of levels of

deprivation, ID2010 reinforces the City’s position as one of the most deprived local authority

districts in England.

The map on the following page (Map 1) demonstrates how deprivation on this measure is

distributed across Stoke-on-Trent. This map uses 10% intervals (deciles) and adopts the same

scale currently used by DCLG, and previously by ODPM, on both the 2004 and 2007 indices.



Map: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 Stoke-on-Trent (ID 2007 inset)



Differing Domains / Dimensions of Deprivation

The following table explores the City’s relative position in terms of all of the differing themes

contained within the Indices of Deprivation.

Rank (where 1 = most

deprived)

ID 2010 % of the Population living in

areas classified in the:-

ID 2004

/ 354

ID 2007

/ 354

ID 2010

/ 326

10% most

deprived

20% most

deprived

50% least

deprived

Income Deprivation 36th 35

th 32

nd 24.5% 42.9% 27.1%

Employment Deprivation 21st 10

th 6

th 35.9% 57.3% 10.8%

Health Deprivation and

Disability 12

th 10

th 19

th 35.4% 59.8% 5.8%

Education Skills and

Training 7

th 7

th 4

th 33.9% 55.7% 12.3%

Children & Young People

Sub-Domain n/a 24

th 12

th 23.8% 42.0% 24.5%

Skills Sub-Domain n/a 5th 4

th 42.5% 64.0% 13.0%

Barriers to Housing and

Services (*) 343

rd 319

th 300

th 0% 0% 90.9%

Wider Barriers Sub-

Domain n/a 191

st 201

st 0% 0% 94.4%

Geographical Barriers Sub-

Domain n/a 296

th 272

nd 0.6% 6.0% 62.4%

Crime Deprivation 36th 31

st 34

th 26.8% 47.7% 22.7%

Living Environment 68th 70

th 73

rd 18.4% 26.4% 48.2%

Indoors Sub-Domain n/a 94th 84

th 17.8% 29.0% 45.8%

Outdoors Sub-Domain n/a 54th 85

th 6.0% 17.7% 41.1%

Affecting Children 31st 29

th 31

st 18.6% 39.1% 26.6%

Affecting Older People 51st 59

th 52

nd 9.8% 30.7% 30.0%

(*) - Clearly there is some difficulty in interpreting this domain in isolation, since more urban

areas will generally perform better than their rural counterparts with regard to distance to

services. Only those districts where there is greatest pressure on housing will feature in the

Wider Barriers sub-domain.

A table detailing the prevalence of each of these themes at ward level appears on pages 16

onwards of this report.




Percentage of the Population by decile

Most Deprived Least Deprived

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Living Enivronment

Deprivation

Crime & Disorder

Deprivation

Barriers to Housing &

Services

Education & Skills

Deprivation

Health Deprivation

Employment Deprivation

Income Deprivation

Multiple Deprivation

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Figure 1 – Deprivation Domains : Comparing Different Aspects of Deprivation



Ward Level Deprivation

Pre-2011 Boundaries

Until the reconfiguration of the City’s ward boundaries over the 2009-2001 period – the 20 electoral

wards each contained between 7 and 9 Super Output Areas (SOA) and as such ID2010 allowed us

to identify the considerable variation in social and economic conditions both between, and within,

wards. (*)

The table on following page and bar chart on page 13 attempt to clarify the picture at ward level.

Aggregating SOA scores to ward level indicates that Bentilee and Townsend, Burslem South, and

Hanley West and Shelton occupy the slots as the three most deprived wards in the city. (Column

two on the following table)

However, closer inspection shows that the Bentilee and Townsend ward has the highest proportion

of its population living in areas classified in the 20% most deprived in England (77.1%) followed by

the Fenton ward with 76.1% and Burslem South with 74.8%. (Aggregating columns seven and

eight on the following table). On this measure Hanley West and Shelton would only rank 10th

most

deprived.

Four wards contain no SOA’s outside of the 40% most deprived in England – Fenton, Burslem

North, Stoke and Trent Vale, Hanley West & Shelton (The rightmost column on the following table).

Seven wards contain SOA’s covering more than 66% of the range of deprivation (columns five and

six on the following table) – Meir Park and Sandon, East Valley, Northwood and Birches Head,

Chell and Packmoor, Abbey Green, Trentham and Hanford and Longton South. –

Meir Park and Sandon ward contains the 4th most deprived SOA’s in the City but also the 5

th least

deprived. Chell and Packmoor ward contains the 3rd

most deprived SOA’s in the City but also the

7th least deprived.

This level of polarity was typical of City wards that were, in terms of population size, more than

twice the national average in size – making assessment at ward level open to interpretation.

(*) - While it is not possible to assign existing Super Output Areas to the new ward boundaries with

100% accuracy – the map and table on pages 14 and 15 attempt to show the relative positions of

the 37 new wards in relation to the 2010 Index.



Pre-2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks 2004-2010

ID2010 ID2007 ID2004 ID2010 ID2010 Percentage of

the resident population in the

Ward ID2010 Average

SOA Score Ward rank for comparison

Most Deprived

SOA in ward

Least Deprived

SOA in ward 0-10% most

deprived 10-20% most

deprived 20-40% most

deprived

less than 40% most deprived

Abbey Green 37.90 8 8 8 73.9% 3.5% 62.1% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9%

Bentilee and Townsend 53.01 1 1 1 47.7% 0.7% 77.1% 0.0% 10.8% 12.1%

Berryhill and Hanley East 36.21 11 11 11 50.0% 5.4% 13.4% 58.4% 15.0% 13.2%

Blurton 38.67 7 5 3 43.8% 5.3% 36.1% 29.3% 23.8% 10.9% Burslem North 40.57 5 7 7 38.1% 1.5% 38.0% 36.2% 25.8% 0.0%

Burslem South 50.46 2 2 2 41.1% 2.1% 74.8% 0.0% 13.1% 12.1% Chell and Packmoor 36.65 10 10 6 82.6% 0.8% 47.5% 0.0% 23.5% 29.1%

East Valley 27.03 18 18 18 82.9% 3.8% 12.2% 23.3% 11.5% 53.0%

Fenton 40.33 6 6 9 34.1% 2.4% 23.5% 52.6% 23.9% 0.0% Hanley West and Shelton 43.59 3 3 5 31.1% 0.4% 24.8% 29.9% 45.3% 0.0%

Hartshill and Penkhull 24.79 19 19 19 60.4% 13.0% 0.0% 12.5% 36.1% 51.4% Longton North 28.98 15 16 15 58.9% 7.1% 33.7% 0.0% 10.4% 56.0%

Longton South 33.96 14 12 12 77.2% 8.7% 21.0% 39.8% 10.5% 28.7%

Meir Park and Sandon 28.80 16 17 16 83.4% 0.9% 23.8% 11.5% 10.6% 54.1%

Northwood and Birches Head 28.55 17 15 17 83.7% 2.2% 14.0% 12.1% 36.9% 37.0%

Norton and Bradeley 33.99 13 14 13 53.2% 1.7% 27.2% 16.2% 13.6% 43.0% Stoke and Trent Vale 35.36 12 13 14 39.1% 7.2% 12.5% 38.0% 49.5% 0.0%

Trentham and Hanford 11.06 20 20 20 94.3% 28.4% 0.0% 0.0% 13.6% 86.4% Tunstall 41.87 4 4 4 43.6% 2.8% 35.9% 38.7% 10.9% 14.5%

Weston and Meir North 36.80 9 9 10 48.9% 1.9% 40.3% 0.0% 35.8% 23.9%

City Average 35.29 31.2% 19.9% 20.7% 28.2%




Percentage of the Population by decile

Most Deprived Least Deprived

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Weston and Meir North

Tunstall

Trentham and Hanford

Stoke and Trent Vale

Norton and Bradeley

Northwood and Birches Head

Meir Park and Sandon

Longton South

Longton North

Hartshill and Penkhull

Hanley West and Shelton

Fenton

East Valley

Chell and Packmoor

Burslem South

Burslem North

Blurton

Berryhill and Hanley East

Bentilee and Townsend

Abbey Green

Grand Total

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Figure 2 – Deprivation Deciles : Pre-2011 Ward Boundaries



Map: 2011 Ward Boundaries and Indices and Deprivation 2010



New Ward

Average % Most

Deprived in England

Rank 0-10% 0-20% 50-100%

DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 12.9% 8 78.3% 82.2% 0.0%

DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 43.4% 34 18.5% 28.9% 34.6%

DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 4.8% 1 74.3% 99.9% 0.0%

DW04 Birches Head and Central Forest Park

34.6% 31 17.9% 30.8% 25.9%

DW05 Blurton East 28.4% 25 13.3% 48.9% 0.0%

DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 10.5% 6 53.7% 100.0% 0.0%

DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 21.0% 17 15.8% 45.0% 0.0%

DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 22.1% 19 56.0% 56.0% 27.4%

DW09 Broadway and Longton East 23.2% 22 18.0% 18.0% 18.2%

DW10 Burslem Central 9.4% 4 65.2% 73.5% 0.0%

DW11 Burslem Park 22.4% 20 26.0% 52.9% 0.0%

DW12 Dresden and Florence 23.3% 23 29.6% 61.9% 7.5%

DW13 Eaton Park 31.1% 27 0.5% 41.8% 0.0%

DW14 Etruria and Hanley 6.7% 2 60.3% 100.0% 0.0%

DW15 Fenton East 16.0% 12 28.3% 78.7% 0.0%

DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 15.1% 10 18.2% 73.0% 0.0%

DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 19.5% 14 25.4% 77.8% 8.2%

DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 22.8% 21 39.2% 40.4% 0.0%

DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 34.5% 30 26.8% 37.9% 34.4%

DW20 Hanford and Trentham 71.7% 37 0.0% 0.0% 86.4%

DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 23.6% 24 5.9% 18.7% 0.0%

DW22 Hartshill and Basford 39.5% 32 0.0% 12.7% 40.9%

DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 21.1% 18 41.2% 45.2% 0.0%

DW24 Joiner's Square 11.9% 7 49.0% 68.1% 0.0%

DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 41.3% 33 0.5% 54.5% 45.5%

DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 16.0% 11 23.7% 77.5% 0.0%

DW27 Meir Hay 48.0% 35 9.6% 9.6% 45.8%

DW28 Meir North 10.5% 5 79.0% 79.0% 0.0%

DW29 Meir Park 69.7% 36 0.0% 0.0% 86.2%

DW30 Meir South 16.4% 13 55.2% 76.4% 8.1%

DW31 Moorcroft 14.5% 9 71.0% 71.0% 0.0%

DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 31.1% 28 11.6% 25.4% 5.5%

DW33 Sandford Hill 20.9% 16 54.4% 54.4% 22.8%

DW34 Sneyd Green 31.0% 26 30.8% 30.8% 20.9%

DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 20.4% 15 0.0% 48.5% 0.0%

DW36 Tunstall 9.0% 3 43.2% 100.0% 0.0%

DW37 Weston Coyney 32.1% 29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

31.2% 51.0% 16.7%

2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks 2010

From the above table we can see that:

While the Bentilee and Ubberley ward is ranked as the most deprived in terms of its average

deprivation score – Meir North (ranked 5th on average score) and Abbey Hulton and Townsend

(ranked 8th) have higher proportions of their populations living in areas classified amongst the 10%

most deprived in England.

The Hanford and Trentham ward remains the least deprived in the City- consistent with previous

indices.



Average % Most Deprived in England / Rank

New Ward Income Deprivation

Employment Deprivaton

Health Deprivation & Disability

DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 17.9% 8 8.5% 4 10.3% 8

DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 47.5% 34 34.5% 31 30.3% 34

DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 6.4% 1 3.2% 1 3.6% 1

DW04 Birches Head and Central Forest Park

42.9% 31

27.6% 28

25.6% 31

DW05 Blurton East 36.4% 23 14.5% 16 22.4% 28

DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 13.1% 3 3.9% 2 10.4% 9

DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 30.4% 20 22.0% 25 16.6% 20

DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 24.4% 14 17.2% 19 17.6% 22

DW09 Broadway and Longton East 36.6% 24 16.0% 18 15.8% 16

DW10 Burslem Central 14.9% 5 9.8% 5 7.4% 4

DW11 Burslem Park 30.9% 21 20.5% 24 18.2% 25

DW12 Dresden and Florence 25.8% 16 19.9% 23 15.8% 17

DW13 Eaton Park 41.0% 29 19.1% 21 22.0% 27

DW14 Etruria and Hanley 9.5% 2 10.4% 6 7.1% 3

DW15 Fenton East 28.4% 18 14.1% 15 17.3% 21

DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 24.4% 15 13.8% 14 16.1% 18

DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 23.5% 13 19.4% 22 13.7% 12

DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 28.0% 17 23.8% 26 17.6% 23

DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 41.7% 30 26.8% 27 26.3% 32

DW20 Hanford and Trentham 75.8% 36 52.6% 37 39.8% 36

DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 38.0% 26 48.4% 35 13.0% 11

DW22 Hartshill and Basford 46.0% 33 35.6% 33 23.4% 30

DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 28.8% 19 11.2% 9 16.2% 19

DW24 Joiner's Square 19.2% 9 11.6% 10 7.0% 2

DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 43.1% 32 35.1% 32 32.4% 35

DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 19.5% 10 12.8% 12 14.3% 13

DW27 Meir Hay 65.0% 35 38.3% 34 30.0% 33

DW28 Meir North 14.2% 4 6.2% 3 8.7% 6

DW29 Meir Park 85.7% 37 51.6% 36 47.1% 37

DW30 Meir South 19.5% 11 10.7% 8 11.0% 10

DW31 Moorcroft 16.8% 7 11.9% 11 10.2% 7

DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 39.0% 27 27.6% 29 18.0% 24

DW33 Sandford Hill 31.6% 22 13.1% 13 14.4% 14

DW34 Sneyd Green 36.7% 25 29.2% 30 22.5% 29

DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 23.4% 12 15.9% 17 14.6% 15

DW36 Tunstall 16.3% 6 10.5% 7 8.5% 5

DW37 Weston Coyney 39.0% 28 18.6% 20 21.5% 26

2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (1)




New Ward Education, Skills & Training

Barriers to Housing & Services

Crime & Disorder




DW04 Birches Head and Central Forest Park 28.2% 30 88.8% 34 29.8% 22

DW05 Blurton East 23.3% 25 87.9% 33 34.9% 26






DW11 Burslem Park 22.2% 23 78.7% 19 20.2% 16


DW13 Eaton Park 24.2% 26 83.4% 25 40.1% 32


DW15 Fenton East 11.4% 7 58.3% 3 15.1% 6












DW27 Meir Hay 26.4% 28 68.2% 6 53.4% 35

DW28 Meir North 9.9% 4 85.3% 29 15.6% 8

DW29 Meir Park 63.4% 36 39.4% 1 66.6% 36

DW30 Meir South 20.0% 22 72.1% 14 28.3% 20

DW31 Moorcroft 15.6% 14 75.1% 16 18.6% 13


DW33 Sandford Hill 12.0% 9 82.5% 23 34.3% 25

DW34 Sneyd Green 29.3% 31 69.0% 7 15.3% 7


DW36 Tunstall 6.6% 2 86.6% 31 6.4% 2

DW37 Weston Coyney 24.2% 27 85.8% 30 46.9% 34





New Ward Living Environment

Income Deprivation Affecting Children

Income Deprivation Affecting Older

People




DW04 Birches Head and Central Forest Park 34.5% 15 45.5% 31 41.0% 25

DW05 Blurton East 61.1% 30 42.8% 29 44.4% 28






DW11 Burslem Park 19.4% 8 29.2% 19 39.1% 24


DW13 Eaton Park 41.6% 19 44.7% 30 47.2% 32


DW15 Fenton East 22.6% 11 29.9% 20 34.6% 19












DW27 Meir Hay 72.7% 35 62.4% 35 58.6% 35

DW28 Meir North 50.6% 22 13.7% 3 26.8% 12

DW29 Meir Park 88.6% 37 82.5% 37 82.8% 37

DW30 Meir South 58.2% 28 20.7% 10 29.7% 15

DW31 Moorcroft 31.6% 13 20.4% 9 18.7% 5


DW33 Sandford Hill 51.6% 23 33.2% 23 33.0% 18

DW34 Sneyd Green 55.7% 26 40.1% 26 42.0% 27


DW36 Tunstall 15.9% 7 21.7% 11 26.2% 10

DW37 Weston Coyney 67.3% 33 30.4% 21 57.7% 34


Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Summary v.2

Documents

Transcript of Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Summary v.2