This website would like to use cookies to store information on your computer to enable this website to function correctly. One of the cookies we use is vital to the operation of the site and this is already in use. You may delete and block all cookies from this site but if you do so then parts of the site may not work for you. To find out more about the cookies on this site please see our cookie policy.




JSNA Chapter : Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010

Section: Deprivation
Next Review Date: 30/06/2015
Date Published: 29/06/2012

Return to JSNA contents


Contents

  1. Key Facts 
  2. Introduction  
  3. Overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 
  4. Income deprivation domain 
  5. Income deprivation affecting children sub domain 
  6. Child Well-being Index (CWI)  
  7. Older people living in poverty sub domain 
  8. Employment deprivation domain 
  9. Health deprivation and disability domain 
  10. Education, skills and training deprivation domain  
  11. Barriers to housing and services domain 
  12. Crime domain 
  13. The living environment and deprivation domain 
  14. Key contacts
  15. Chapter References
  16. Signed off by


Key Facts

  • The index of deprivation (2010) is a measure of deprivation at the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA). The overall index is a weighted average of seven domain indices, using 38 indicators
  • Surrey is the fifth least deprived county in England ranking 144th out of 149, with 60.9% of the population falling into the least deprived quintile
  • However there are pockets of deprivation, Maybury and Sheerwater (Woking) and Merstham (Redhill & Reigate) have Lower Super Output Areas(LSOA) in the most deprived quintile
  • The Local Authority (LA) with the highest number of LSOA in the most deprived areas is Spelthorne, with 10.3% of its population living in the top two most deprived quintiles, followed by Reigate & Banstead (7.7%), Runnymede (7.4%) and Guildford (7.3%)
  • Maybury and Sheerwater is the most deprived LSOA ranked 4,197th out of 32,482 (1= most deprived) and Farnham Bourne is the least deprived LSOA ranked at 32,480
  • Guildford and Reigate & Banstead have the highest proportion of LSOAs found in the most deprived half of England, Guildford (11.4% of its population) followed by Reigate & Banstead (11.2% of its population).
  • All Surrey LAs with the exception of Spelthorne are ranked as more deprived in 2010 than 2007 see table 1. (This may due to improvements in other LA areas as the methodology for calculating deprivation remains largely the same as 2007)
  • Analysis of the individual IMD 2010 domains shows that Surrey is relatively least deprived in terms of income, employment, health and education, but less so in some of the other domains
  • Surrey has comparable levels of deprivation in terms of Barriers to Housing 10.7%, of the population (117,300) fall into the least deprived quintile. Guildford and Tandridge have the largest proportion of LSOAs that fall into the most deprived quintile, followed by Mole Valley
  • 13.5% (28,000) of children in Surrey live in low income households with the largest proportion of those in Spelthorne (17.1%, 4,900) and Guildford (14.2%, 4,065)
  • 5.9% (14,600) of people over 60 in Surrey live in low income households with the largest proportion of those in Guildford (16.4%, 2,340) and Woking (14.5%, 2,100)
  •  Life expectancy in Surrey is 80.5 years for men and 84.1 years for women compared to that for England which is 78.3 and 82.3 respectively.

 

Introduction

The Department of Social Policy and Social Work at Oxford University commissioned the Department of Communities and Local Government (1) to produce the new Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 (IMD 2010). This measures deprivation at the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), of which there are 32,482 in England and 709 areas in Surrey. Super Output Areas (SOAs) are designed to improve the collection and publication of small area statistics. These areas were designed to be consistent in terms of population size and boundaries. There are three layers:

Lower Layer: These have an average population of 1,500 and a minimum of 1,000. They are constrained to the Census 2001 Standard Table (ST) wards.

Middle Layer: These have an average population of 7,200 and a minimum of 5,000. They are compiled from the Lower Super Output Areas and constrained within 2003 local authority boundaries.

Upper Layer: Minimum population size is around 25,000 and compiled from middle layers. 


Further details are available from the Neighbourhood Statistics website(2) http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=SOAIntro.htm


Domains and sub domains


The overall index of multiple deprivation is a weighted average of seven domains (these are summarized in Table 1) which are composed of a number of sub domains, using a total of thirty eight indicators, for each small area in England. Each LSOA has its own score and rank for each domain (for more detailed information click here).There are also two supplementary indices on income: income deprivation affecting children and income deprivation affecting older people. These are discussed further in JSNA Chapter Children Living in Poverty and JSNA Chapter Older People respectively.  

Table 1: Indices of deprivation : domains and sub-domains (IMD 2010)

Domain_Weights_22062012.jpg
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, IMD 2010

Surrey has a slightly lower median rank in 2010 compared with 2007 indicating that Surrey is relatively more deprived in 2010 (Table 2, Figure 1). This is more striking in the relatively more deprived local authority areas such as Reigate & Banstead and Woking (which in the IMD 2010 have Super Output Areas in the most deprived quintile) and Spelthorne has larger distribution of LSOA in the most deprived quintiles (10.0%), followed by Reigate & Banstead. Table 2: gives the percentage distribution of LSOA in terms of England quintiles for local authorities within Surrey. IMD 2010 shows that more areas in Surrey are relatively more deprived than IMD 2007. 

Table 2: Indices of deprivation 2004, 2007 and 2010 by England quintiles for local authorities by LSOA within Surrey 

Quintiles_2004_2010.jpg
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2004, 2007 and 2010


Figure 1: Comparison of 2010, 2007 and 2004 Index of deprivation rank in terms of England quintiles in Surrey LSOA

5P5_Quintiles_2004_2010_chart.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2004, 2007 and 2010


IMD 2007 and IMD 2010 

IMD 2010 is based on the same methodology as 2007 and we can therefore compare the ranking pattern of deprivation. However the ranking is relative and can only identify how deprived one area is with another, for example a LSOA ranked 20th is not necessarily twice as deprived as a LSOA ranked 40th.

Overall 62% (438) LSOA in Surrey remain in the same decile as that in IMD 2007, 35% (248) LSOAs are ranked more deprived and less than 3% (20) LSOAs have moved to a least deprived decile. Most of the movement occurred in the extreme ends with 11% (77) LSOA moving from the least deprived decile and an increase of 50% (10) more LSOA moving into the top 3 deprived deciles (see Table 3, Figure 2).
 
Reigate and Banstead Local Authority saw the biggest movement in the least deprived decile with 14 (16.3%) LSOAs, followed by Woking with 11 (18.0%) LSOAs. Bletchingley and Nutfield Super Output Area (SOA) saw the biggest ranking movement (-6,568), ranking, 25,241 (9th Decile) in 2007 to 18,673 (6th Decile) in 2010. Changes in ranking may not be a result of areas becoming more deprived but because of improvements in other LSOA in England. Click here for IMD LSOAs and rankings
 
Table 3: Shows the distribution of LSOA in Surrey, by England Deciles

LSOA_Deciles_IMD2010.jpg
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2007. IMD 2010


Figure 2: Shows the distribution of LSOA in Surrey, by England Deciles

England Deciles 5P5_2010207_Chart.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2007. IMD 2010


Map 1: IMD 2010 England ranking in deciles, all domains

IMD2010_24012012.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010


Map 2: IMD 2007 England ranking in deciles, all domains

IMD2007_24012012.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2007

For more information on the English Indices of Deprivation (2010), reference should be made to the summary and full reports from the Department of Communities and Local Government:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010  

Overall Index of Multiple Deprivation

The higher the IMD score, the more deprived an area. All the scores for each Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) have been ranked both in England and in Surrey. Ranking works in an opposite direction to the score, as the lower the rank, the more deprived an area. The lowest IMD score in England is 0.53 (ranking 32,482, least deprived) and the maximum score is 87.80 (ranking first and most deprived). The scores in Surrey range from 0.61 (rank 32,480 out of 32,482) to 41.22 (rank 4,197, most deprived). Surrey Primary Care Trust(PCT) is the least deprived trust in England and the county is the fifth least deprived. However, there are relative pockets of deprivation in Surrey.

Table 4 shows the average IMD scores for each of the Surrey local authorities with respective minimum and maximum scores and ranks for LSOA in their boundaries. Map 3 maps the relative levels of deprivation across Surrey. This shows the LSOA ranked in Surrey according to the overall IMD score and grouped in deciles (decile 10 is the least deprived 10 percent and decile 1 the most deprived 10 percent). Map 4 presents the Surrey data in terms of the national IMD deciles which illustrates how less deprived Surrey is compared with England.

Table 4: Indices of Deprivation 2010 for Local Authorities in Surrey

Rank Averages_2010_LA.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD Average rank IMD 2010


Table 5 presents the twenty most deprived super output areas in Surrey and their change in ranking since 2004. The deprivation scores cannot be compared between 2010, 2007 and 2004 as the deprivation scores are affected by the scores of other areas in England, making it impossible to determine whether a change in the score is a change in deprivation levels or is due to other areas changing.

Table 5: Surrey's 20 most deprived super output areas. IMD 2004, 2007 and 2010 scores and rank

Top20_Deprived_200420072010_3.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2004,2007 and 2010 


Map 3: Map of Surrey IMD 2010 rankings at Lower Super Output Areas by deciles

5P5_Deciles_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, Surrey Rank IMD 2010 


Map 4: Map of Surrey IMD 2010 rankings at Lower Super Output Areas by national deciles

Engalnd_Ranking_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010


Figure 3 presents the distribution of IMD scores in terms of the percentage of the population falling within England deciles for Surrey and its local authorities. The following can be concluded from this data: 

  • Over 60% of Surrey’s population fall within the least deprived quintile
  • Surrey has no areas within the most deprived decile
  • Surrey Heath is on average the least deprived local authority in Surrey
  • The local authority with the highest proportion of LSOAs found in the most deprived half of England is Guildford (14.4% of its population) followed by Reigate & Banstead (13.1% of its population).
  • The following wards contain super output areas which contain the most deprived within Surrey: Maybury & Sheerwater, Stanwell North, and Merstham
  • One LSOA in Maybury & Sheerwater (Woking) is in the ‘Most Deprived Quintile’ (MDQ)
  • This information is important because a person’s health is influenced by the conditions by which they live. Social and economic conditions including low income, social exclusion, unemployment and poor housing have repeatedly shown to influence health and length of life. Thus people in more deprived circumstances are more likely to die sooner and be unwell more often than the more affluent parts of the population .
  • Partnership work needs to continue to focus on reducing inequalities in general and health inequalities in particular, reducing infant mortality rates and increasing life expectancy particularly in the pockets of relative deprivation identified above. For more information see chapters on Priority Places and Health Inequalities.


Figure 3: Distribution of overall IMD scores in terms of England deciles in Surrey and its Local Authorities


Proportion Total population deciles_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010


Figure 4 : Indices of deprivation 2010 by England quintiles for local authorities by LSOA within Surrey

LA_Quintiles_2010_chart.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010 


Figures 3 and 5 reveal that with the exception of pockets of relative deprivation, Surrey is much less deprived than the England average in terms of the overall IMD. However a review of the other domains (see Figure 5 which compares the percentage of the population in Surrey falling in the England deciles for the overall IMD and the seven component domains) indicates a more variable picture.

  • Although Surrey is relatively less deprived based on the overall IMD and in terms of income, employment, health deprivation and education, it is less so in some of the other domains.
  • Despite being less deprived Surrey has comparable levels of deprivation with England in regard to the ‘Barriers to housing and services’ although only 10.7% of its population fall within the most deprived quintile (MDQ) for this IMD domain.
  • Surrey has 4.4% of its population in the most deprived quintile for the education domain
  • Compared to the other indicators, an examination of the living environment domain reveals 44% of SOAs in Surrey are in the more deprived three quintiles.

Figure 5 : Distribution of the Surrey population within the England deciles for the overall IMD and its seven domains

5P5_all domains population distribution_deciles_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010

 

Income Deprivation Domain

The purpose of this domain is to capture the proportion of the population experiencing income deprivation in an area. Scores are derived from counts of people in families in receipt of means tested benefits (3). Scores for local authorities are counts of individuals experiencing income deprivation, i.e. they give an indication of the absolute rather than the relative level of income deprivation.

Figure 6 reveals that: 
  • 16.2% of Surrey county population are in the 50% England income most deprived areas compared with 15.9% in IMD 2007.
  • Spelthorne is the borough with largest proportion of income deprived population with 24.9% (24.8%, IMD 2007) of the population in the 50% England income most deprived areas. It is followed by Woking with 23.4% (19.9%, IMD 2007) of the population in the 50% England income most deprived areas.

 

 Figure 6: Income component of IMD 2010 score. Surrey scores distributed against England deciles

Income_Distribution_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008 

Map 5: England ranking deciles, Income domain, IMD 2010

ER_Income_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008


In addition, an income deprivation affecting children index and an income deprivation affecting older people index were created. These two indices represent the proportion of children aged 0-15 living in income deprived households and the proportion of older people aged 60 and over living in income deprived households respectively. See section on Children living in poverty and Older people living in poverty, respectively. 

Income Deprivation Affecting Children

The English Indices of Deprivation 2010, which includes an Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI).

The index IDACI ‘score’ representing the proportion of children aged 0–15 years living in such households as a proportion of all children aged 0–15. Therefore, using the mid 2008 population estimates (on which the index is based), it is possible to estimate the number of children in income deprived families in each SOA, ward or district.

As with all the deprivation indices, it is important to note that not all deprived people live in deprived areas and conversely, not everyone living in a deprived area is deprived. Also, the indices are designed to show deprivation and a lack of deprivation does not necessarily equate to affluence.

The table below shows the IDACI ‘score’ for each district in Surrey (the higher the score the higher the level of deprivation) together with an estimate of the number of children aged 0-15 years living in income deprived families.

Table 6: IDACI – Surrey districts ranked by score

IDACI_deprived families_2008_LA.JPG
Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010, ONS Mid-2008 Population Estimates. (calculated from SOA level data)


This data provides a broad overview, but further insight can be obtained by examining the most deprived electoral wards.


Table 7 IDACI – 20 most deprived electoral wards in Surrey

Top20_wards_IDACI_deprived families_2008_LA_3.JPG
Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010, ONS Mid-2008 Population Estimates. (calculated from SOA level data)


Figure 7 shows the distribution of Surrey scores of the children income component of the IMD score across the England deciles. They show 21.2% of the SOAs in Surrey are in the most deprived half of the England deciles for this sub domain of the IMD. There are wide variations across the 11 districts and boroughs in the county. For example Waverley has the least number of SOAs (11%) in the most deprived half of England deciles for this domain compared to Spelthorne which has 40%.

Figure 7: Children Income component of IMD 2010 score. Surrey scores distributed against the England population (SOA populations Mid-Year Estimates 2008) deciles

IDACI_Deciles_2010.JPG
Source: Department of Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010, ONS Mid-2008 Population Estimates. (calculated from SOA level data)


Figure 8 shows that when expressed as a percentage of the total children living in income deprived households, 10.03% (10.3% IMD 2007) of children in Surrey live in low income households compared with 18.79% (22.4% IMD 2007) in England. This is important as it identifies that Surrey has over 21,200 (18,000 IMD 2007) children living in low income households. The local authority with the largest proportion of children living in low income households is Spelthorne at 15.4% (14.5% IMD 2007) followed by Woking at 12.18% (12.1% IMD 2007).


Figure 8: Percentage of children living in income deprived households

deprived_children in families.JPG
Source: Communities and Local Government - 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation, derived from IDACI


Child Well-being Index

In response to calls to consider producing separate Indices for different groups of the population. Communities and Local Government commissioned the creation of an Index of Child Well-being (CWI) using the methodology and approach applied to the Indices of Deprivation.

Child well-being is generally represented by how children are doing in a number of different domains of their life.

The first CWI, published in January 2009, included seven domains: material well-being, health, education, crime, housing, environment and children in need, with the results taking the form of a ‘score’ for each SOA. Population weighted averages were then used to produce a score for each local authority district and also at county council levels.

The results for each of the seven domains were also amalgamated into an overall CWI average score, extracts of which are shown below.

Surrey children are well off when compared to other authorities, being ranked 5th overall (out of 149) and 3rd within the group of statistical neighbours (Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maldenhead, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire). With CWI, a low ‘score’ is good as the data gathered to create the domains include the proportion of children living in low income households, emergency hospital admissions, school absence rates, and road accidents involving children.

Figure 9: CWI average score, Surrey and its statistical neighbours

CWI_average score.JPG
Source: Local index of child well-being 2009
 
Children in some of the Surrey districts also rank highly across the county, Waverley is ranked 6th out of 354 local authority districts, Surrey Heath 9th and Elmbridge 12th. Spelthorne is the highest ranked Surrey district (124/354) with an average score that is twice that of Waverley. This supports the need for the partners to focus on activities for children differentially across the county.

Figure 10: CWI average score, districts and boroughs

CWI_Boroughs_2009.JPG
Source: Local index of child well-being 2009

Free school Meals

Eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) can be used as an indicator of social deprivation.

  • Surrey has a considerably lower percentage of pupils eligible for FSM than the national average.
  • The school performance of pupils eligible for FSM is considerably lower than that of pupils who are not FSM eligible. (Link to education section)

Pupils whose parents receive these benefits are eligible for free school meals (FSM):

  • Income Support
  • income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
  • income-related Employment and Support Allowance
  • support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  • the Guarantee element of State Pension Credit
  • Child Tax Credit, provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual income (as assessed by HM Revenue & Customs) that does not exceed £16,190
  • Working Tax Credit 'run-on' - the payment someone may receive for a further four weeks after they stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit

Children who receive any of the qualifying benefits listed above in their own right are also eligible to receive free school meals. All pupils who do not qualify for free school lunches must be charged the same amount for the same quantity of the same item.


Table 8: Percentage of  Primary school FSM eligibility, 2007 - 2012

Primary_Eligible_FSM_20072012.JPG
Source: Surrey County Council, 2007-2012


Table 8 shows that in 2012, primary schools in Spelthorne and Runnymede have the highest percentages of pupils eligible for FSM (11%). Elmbridge,  Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Surrey Heath and Waverley have the lowest, less than  (8%). Spelthorne  and Tandrigde have seen the highest increase in eligibility of FSM from 2007 to 2012, 3.1% and 3.3% respectively. Elmbridge has the lowest increase of elibile FSM, 0.6%.


Figure 11: Trend showing percentage of Primary school FSM eligibility between 2007 - 2012


FSM_Primary_Chart_20072012.jpg
Source: Surrey County Council. 2007-2012


Table 9: Percentage of Secondary school FSM eligibility, 2007 - 2012


Secondary_Eligible_FSM_20072012.JPG
Source: Surrey County Council, 2007-2012

Table 9 shows that in 2012, Secondary schools in Spelthorne have the highest percentage of pupils eligible for FSM (8.7%). Epsom &  Ewell and Mole Valley have the lowest (4%). Spelthorne and Tandridge have seen the highest increase in eligibility of FSM from 2007 to 2012, 3.1% and 3.3% respectively. Elmbridge has the lowest increase of elibile FSM, 0.6%.


Figure 12: Trend showing percentage of Secondary school  FSM eligibility between 2007 - 2012 

Secondary_Eligible_FSM_20072012_chart.JPG
Source: Surrey County Council, 2007-2012


Table 10: Percentage of Special schools FSM eligibility, 2007 - 2012 

Special_Eligible_FSM_20072012.JPG
Source: Surrey County Council, 2007-2012

Table 10 shows that in 2012, Special schools in Runnymede have the highest percentage of pupils eligible for FSM (33.9%). Epsom & Ewell has the lowest (10.6%). Runnymede  has seen the highest increase in eligibility of FSM since 2008, with over 30%. Woking  has seen a decrease in eligible pupils from 2007 (24.5%) to 2012 (21.2%).


Figure 13: Percentage of Special schools FSM eligibility, 2007 - 2012 

Special_Eligible_FSM_20072012_chart.JPG
Source: Surrey County Council, 2007-2012

Older People Living in Poverty

The income deprivation affecting older people sub domain, derived from the Income deprivation domain of the index of multiple deprivation represents the proportion of older people aged 60 and over living in income deprived households.

Figure 14 shows the distribution of Surrey scores of the older people income component of the IMD score across the England deciles. This figure reveals that in Surrey 14.5% (17.79% IMD 2007) of the SOAs are in the most deprived half of the England deciles for this sub domain of the IMD. This picture does however mask wide variations across the eleven districts and boroughs in the county. For example 23.1% of SOAs in Runnymede are in the most deprived half of the England deciles for this domain.


Figure 14: Older people living in income deprivation IMD 2010 score. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles.

IDOPI_Chart_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, IMD 2010, ONS Population estimates 2008


Figure 14 shows that 9.7% of people over 60 in Surrey live in low income households compared with 18.4% in England. This is important as it identifies that Surrey has approximately 21,150 people over 60 living in low income households. The local authority with the largest proportion of people over 60 living in low income households is Woking at 11.2% followed by Runnymede at 10.9 %.

Employment Deprivation Domain

This domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working age population from the labour market. 

  • Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (both contribution-based and incomebased), women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64
  • Claimants of Incapacity Benefit aged 18-59/64
  • Claimants of Severe Disablement Allowance aged 18-59/64
  • Claimants of Employment and Support Allowance aged 18-59/64 (those with a contribution-based element)*
  • Participants in New Deal for 18-24s who are not claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance
  • Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance
  • Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (after initial interview).

*Employment and Support Allowance replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support paid because of an illness or disability for new claimants from 27 October 2008.

Figure 15 reveals:

  • Runnymede has the largest proportion (89.0%) of its population in the least deprived two quintiles followed by Waverley at 87.6%
  • Only 0.5% of Surrey’s population are in the most deprived quintile.
  • Reigate & Banstead, Waverley and Woking have the highest percentage in the most deprived quintile though all have 75.0% or more in the two least deprived quintiles.
  • The high rates of employment may mean that Surrey will experience fewer health problems associated with unemployment, in particular mental health problems.

 Figure 15: Employment component of the IMD score. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles

Employment_population_distribution_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008
 

Map 6: England ranking deciles, employment domain, IMD 2010

ER_Employment_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010

 

Health Deprivation and Disability Domain

This domain measures rates of poor health, early mortality and disability in an area and covers the entire age range.

According to figure 16: 

Surrey is a healthy population with 14.7% (9.3%) of the Surrey population found in five most deprived deciles.

  • 4.1% (2.5%, IMD 2007) of the Surrey population are in the top three most deprived deciles. 
  • Guildford, Reigate & Banstead and Woking have the largest proportion of their population (range from 10.5% to 12.4%) in the more deprived deciles 1 to 5.

Figure 16: Health deprivation component of IMD 2007. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles

Health Domain.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008

In the 2001 Census:

  • The directly age standardised proportion of the Surrey population who said their health was ‘not good’ was 4.8% (95% CI 4.8%-4.9%), significantly lower than England at 7.8%. The local authority with the highest percentage (6.6%) of the population who reported their health as ‘not good’ was Spelthorne
  • 74.5%of people in Surrey reported their health as ‘good’. The local authority with the highest percentage of people reporting their health as ‘good’ was Surrey Heath with 76.7%
  • Surrey’s 13.5% of population perceived themselves as suffering from limiting long-term illness (this covers any long-term illness, health problem or disability which limits daily activity or work) lower than England at 17.9%.


Map 7: England ranking deciles, health deprivation and disability domain, IMD 2010 

ER_Health_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010 
 

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain

This domain captures the extent of deprivation in terms of education, skills and training in a local area. The index includes two sub domains. One relating to education deprivation for children and young people in the area and one relating to lack of skills and qualifications among a sub-set of the working age adult population.

  • Surrey has only 20.1% of its population in the top five most deprived deciles for England. Surrey therefore has a population that are educated to levels above the national average. This will influence their health and longevity.
  • The local authority with the largest proportion of LSOAs in the top five most deprived deciles is Spelthorne at 41.3% (57% in IMD 2007) followed by Woking at 29.2% (54%, IMD 2007) and Runnymede 25%.
  • This domain is interesting as it gives an indication of possible future areas of inequalities. Those with fewer qualifications will have less earning potential and less good health outcomes in general.

Figure 17: Education component of the IMD. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles 

Education Domain_2010_chart.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008


Map 8: England ranking deciles, education, skills and training domain, IMD 2010

ER_Education_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010

 

Barriers to Housing and Services Domain

This domain measures barriers to housing and key local services. The index is structured from two sub-domains: ‘geographical barriers’, and ‘wider barriers’ which includes issues relating to access to housing, such as affordability. Figure 18 shows:

  • Despite Surrey being more affluent than the England average for most of the IMD 2010 domains, this is not seen for access to housing and services which shows a similar picture to England.
  • Around 38.8% (40% IMD 2007) of SOAs in Surrey are in England deciles one to five (above median) for this domain.
  • Tandridge has 59.2% of its population above the England median and 25% in the most deprived quintile. It has generally worse housing access in general. 
  • Guildford has 46.7% above the England median and 14.7% in the most deprived quintile.
  • Mole Valley has 24.5% in the most deprived quintile and 15.1% in the most deprived decile.
  • Spelthorne is the least deprived local authority with only 19.8% above the England median. Woking also has a low level of deprivation in this domain with only 22.9% in upper 50%.
  • The top twenty wards which have the highest scores for this domain are in predominantly rural areas, some of which are relatively wealthy.


The 2001 census found that:

  • Surrey‘s 78% of households were owner-occupied, with little change since 1991. About one in three households owned their homes outright, compared to approximately one in four households in 1991. About 44% of households were buying their home with a mortgage or loan, a decrease of about 7% since 1991. Approximately 7% of Surrey households rented their homes from a local authority. In 1991 the percentage was 12%. Accommodation rentals from housing associations and other social landlords increased from 1.6% in 1991 to 4.5% in 2001.
  • The highest proportion of social rentals was in Waverley (13% of all households) while the lowest proportion was in Epsom & Ewell (7.9% of households).

 

Figure 18: Housing and services component of the IMD score. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles

Housing_population_distribution_chart_2010.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008



Map 9: England ranking deciles, barrier to housing and service domain, IMD 2010

ER_Housing_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010 


Crime Domain

This domain measures the rate of recorded crime for four categories: burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence. The aim is to represent personal and material victimisation at a small area level.

Figure 19: Compares Surrey with the national average, for buglary, criminal damage and violence, for 2009, 2010 and 2011 

National crime indicators_2009-2011.JPG
Source: ONS, 2009, 2010, 2011


Figure 20 shows the distribution of this domain’s scores in terms of the England deciles.


  • Surrey’s 21.8% of population exceed the England median.
  • The Local Authority with the highest percentage of its population in the worst half of those more likely to experience crime is Spelthorne 55.% (58.2%, IMD 2007) followed by Tandridge 35.8% Woking (16.2%) and Guildford (13.1%).
  • Home office data show Surrey to be the safest county in England and Wales for violence against the person and one of the safest nationally for robbery rates.


Figure 20 : Crime component IMD score. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles

Crime_Population distribution.jpg
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008


Map 11: England ranking deciles, crime domain, IMD 2010

ER_Crime_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010


The Living Environment and Deprivation Domain

This domain considers deprivation by the characteristics of the living environment. It comprises of two sub-domains: the ‘indoors’ living environment which measures the quality of housing, and the ‘outdoors’ living environment which contains two measures about air quality and road traffic accidents.

  • According to the IMD living environment domain, 21.8% (23.6% IMD 2007) of Surrey’s population are in deciles one to five (Figure 21)
  • The Surrey local authority with the largest proportion of its population in deciles one to five is Runnymede at 43.0% (39.9% IMD 2007) followed by Epsom & Ewell at 42.1% (33.5% IMD 2007) and Spelthorne at 37.4% (54.4% IMD 2007).
  • Waverley's 91.6% of population have a score below the England median (i.e. less deprived).

Figure 21: Living environment component of IMD Surrey score. Surrey scores distributed against England population (SOA populations mid-year estimates 2008) deciles 
 
Living_Environment_Chart_2010._2JPG.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010, ONS population 2008


Map 12: England ranking deciles, living environment domain, IMD 2010

ER_Living_environment_2010_map.JPG
Source: Department for Communities and Local Government, England Rank IMD 2010

Return to chapter contents

Key Contacts

Lynne Sawyer, Public Health Information Analyst, NHS Surrey - lynne.sawyer@surreycc.gov.uk 
Return to chapter contents


 

Chapter References

 1) Department of Communities and Local Government, http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010
 2) Office of National Statistics, http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=SOAIntro.htm
 3) Means tested benefits website 

 

Signed off by

If you have any feedback/comments please send it to jsnafeedback@surreycc.gov.uk

Return to chapter contents
    


Updated: 14 July 2014 | Owner: Lynne Sawyer
Comments ()   (Log-in to post a comment)