Download - 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
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
2 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
3 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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).
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
4 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
5 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
6 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
7 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
8 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
Map: Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010 Stoke-on-Trent (ID 2007 inset)
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
9 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
10 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
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
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
11 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
12 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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%
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
13 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
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
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
14 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
Map: 2011 Ward Boundaries and Indices and Deprivation 2010
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
15 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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.
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
16 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
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)
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
17 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
Average % Most Deprived in England / Rank
New Ward Education, Skills & Training
Barriers to Housing & Services
Crime & Disorder
DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 9.3% 3 85.1% 28 20.2% 15
DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 29.9% 32 87.4% 32 41.2% 33
DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 2.6% 1 83.3% 24 18.5% 12
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
DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 10.2% 5 92.3% 37 31.7% 24
DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 27.5% 29 55.5% 2 16.4% 11
DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 13.2% 10 71.5% 12 29.4% 21
DW09 Broadway and Longton East 15.1% 11 84.2% 27 23.3% 17
DW10 Burslem Central 10.3% 6 71.5% 13 9.9% 5
DW11 Burslem Park 22.2% 23 78.7% 19 20.2% 16
DW12 Dresden and Florence 18.7% 21 91.8% 36 27.3% 19
DW13 Eaton Park 24.2% 26 83.4% 25 40.1% 32
DW14 Etruria and Hanley 12.0% 8 70.8% 11 5.5% 1
DW15 Fenton East 11.4% 7 58.3% 3 15.1% 6
DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 15.3% 13 78.8% 20 9.9% 3
DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 16.9% 17 91.4% 35 9.9% 4
DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 16.1% 16 70.8% 10 24.2% 18
DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 23.1% 24 61.6% 5 35.1% 27
DW20 Hanford and Trentham 66.6% 37 74.8% 15 86.7% 37
DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 17.7% 18 70.2% 9 19.9% 14
DW22 Hartshill and Basford 51.3% 35 83.7% 26 37.1% 30
DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 15.1% 12 75.5% 17 36.3% 29
DW24 Joiner's Square 18.4% 20 77.7% 18 15.7% 9
DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 34.4% 33 80.5% 21 35.9% 28
DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 18.3% 19 60.9% 4 16.2% 10
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
DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 44.6% 34 69.6% 8 31.0% 23
DW33 Sandford Hill 12.0% 9 82.5% 23 34.3% 25
DW34 Sneyd Green 29.3% 31 69.0% 7 15.3% 7
DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 15.8% 15 82.2% 22 39.1% 31
DW36 Tunstall 6.6% 2 86.6% 31 6.4% 2
DW37 Weston Coyney 24.2% 27 85.8% 30 46.9% 34
2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (2)
Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Stoke-on-Trent
18 Performance & Improvement Team – March 2011
Average % Most Deprived in England / Rank
New Ward Living Environment
Income Deprivation Affecting Children
Income Deprivation Affecting Older
People
DW01 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 55.1% 25 18.4% 7 26.4% 11
DW02 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 67.1% 32 47.8% 33 50.8% 33
DW03 Bentilee and Ubberley 60.2% 29 7.5% 1 15.1% 2
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
DW06 Blurton West and Newstead 58.2% 27 17.8% 4 19.8% 6
DW07 Boothen and Oakhill 11.4% 5 27.2% 16 36.5% 22
DW08 Bradeley and Chell Heath 72.3% 34 28.5% 17 29.6% 14
DW09 Broadway and Longton East 47.6% 20 39.3% 25 41.1% 26
DW10 Burslem Central 15.2% 6 18.3% 6 21.7% 7
DW11 Burslem Park 19.4% 8 29.2% 19 39.1% 24
DW12 Dresden and Florence 31.8% 14 23.2% 13 36.4% 21
DW13 Eaton Park 41.6% 19 44.7% 30 47.2% 32
DW14 Etruria and Hanley 10.8% 4 13.5% 2 11.8% 1
DW15 Fenton East 22.6% 11 29.9% 20 34.6% 19
DW16 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 10.3% 2 26.8% 15 30.1% 16
DW17 Ford Green and Smallthorne 37.3% 18 28.9% 18 24.5% 8
DW18 Goldenhill and Sandyford 35.2% 16 32.4% 22 26.1% 9
DW19 Great Chell and Packmoor 65.9% 31 41.9% 27 44.5% 29
DW20 Hanford and Trentham 82.3% 36 76.2% 36 73.8% 36
DW21 Hanley Park and Shelton 8.8% 1 18.2% 5 18.6% 4
DW22 Hartshill and Basford 19.5% 9 46.5% 32 46.1% 30
DW23 Hollybush and Longton West 52.4% 24 37.7% 24 36.4% 20
DW24 Joiner's Square 10.4% 3 20.2% 8 16.7% 3
DW25 Lightwood North and Normacot 48.2% 21 50.1% 34 46.7% 31
DW26 Little Chell and Stanfield 36.3% 17 22.7% 12 30.5% 17
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
DW32 Penkhull and Stoke 22.3% 10 42.3% 28 37.7% 23
DW33 Sandford Hill 51.6% 23 33.2% 23 33.0% 18
DW34 Sneyd Green 55.7% 26 40.1% 26 42.0% 27
DW35 Springfields and Trent Vale 29.7% 12 23.3% 14 27.4% 13
DW36 Tunstall 15.9% 7 21.7% 11 26.2% 10
DW37 Weston Coyney 67.3% 33 30.4% 21 57.7% 34
2011 Wards – Relative deprivation levels and ranks – by deprivation domain (3)